that there's something wrong with that.

Here.

Now, to explain, the prosecution's side of this case is marked a Giacomo Clark, County chief deputy district attorney.

Welcome to Nevada Week.

Thank you.

I want to start off with where we left off with Geragos, and he is claiming that the Clark County district Attorney's Office retrying this case is a conflict of interest because the Clark County District attorney himself, Mr.. Steve Wolfson, once represented Ricky Slaughter when he was in private practice.

Do you think this is a conflict of interest?

No.

And even if it is a conflict of interest, there are procedures in place, that are called ethical shields.

Mr.

Wolfson was a, defense attorney here for many years before he got appointed in 2012.

We put in place for his client's procedures for ethical shields so that he doesn't handle or be involved in decisions in cases in which he has a conflict.

Mr.

Wolfson before Monday, Mr.

Jarvis, this allegation had absolutely no idea that another lawyer that happened to be in his firm for a brief period of time had represented Mr.

Slaughter.

He had no knowledge of that.

He had no specialized information from Mr.

McDonnell's representation of him.

Mr.

McDonnell was a contract lawyer.

So when the public defender has a conflict, he would take the case appointed from the county.

Patrick McDonnell would and he would handle the case.

Steve Wolfson would handle his clients.

And while his firm name is on some of the paperwork that they've shown us from 2009, this is the first time in 20 some odd years now of this case that, Mr.

Slaughter has ever asserted that there's some sort of conflict with Mr.

Wolfson.

He certainly didn't when he came to us for his commutation in 2024.

Okay.

And so, just because Steve Wilson's name is on the paperwork, that also does not mean that what was written in it by the other attorney matches what he personally thinks, because that attorney that was working for him said the same thing essentially as the federal judge, that this was potentially exculpatory evidence.

That second line up.

I don't think it's evidence at all, whether exculpatory or not exculpatory.

And I think that's where the confusion comes in.

What happens is the first photo lineups occur with all the victims, and I think five out of 7 or 8, pick them out.

Then two weeks later, the detectives go back to witnesses who've already made IDs with Ricky Slaughter.

Ricky's been arrested.

They know who Ricky is at this point.

And he shows a photo lineup of the second suspect.

And what he says to them is, do you see the second suspect in these photographs?

And they all say no.

He never tells us that we get a report.

I showed photo lamps of Jaquan Richards.

Jaquan Richards was not identified.

And that was the second suspect.

That's the second suspect.

Later on, during a pretrial with Ivan and Jennifer, the victims in this case, they tell me that they've seen two photo lineups, and I'm like, right.

You saw one, Ivan, and you saw one.

Jennifer.

Ivan uid Jennifer.

You didn't.

They're like, no, Mark.

Two weeks later, Detective Prieto came back and there was a photo lineup with Ricky Slaughter in it.

And so I reached out to Detective Prado and said, hey, can I get that photo lineup?

And it was sent to me and Ricky Slaughter's booking photo from the day they arrested them, after the lineups were done by the other victims.

Is in one what we call the district positions.

I talked to Jack Prieto.

He had no idea that Ricky Slaughter was in there.

The claim a mistake.

He made 100% to gather that lineup.

Yeah, it's a it's a mistake.

Look, police officers are humans.

They make mistakes.

But at the end of the day, the defense's claim is that the victims didn't recognize Ricky in the second photo lineup.

Right?

Well, at least two of them did, because they're the ones who told me about the existence of the second lineup and that Mister Slaughter was in it.

Okay, so the federal judge, which is what we're now basing everything off of, because that's why this retrial is happening, said in that order.

Notably, in addition to these fragments of evidence at Slaughter's guilt, the weakened witness identifications, the ambiguous surveillance video from 711, the mere possibility that slaughter had been driving the same make and model car as the getaway vehicle, the undeveloped connection between the weapons and ammunition in Slaughter's car, and the weapons and ammunition used at the crime scene, and the questionable fabrication of an alibi.

The prosecution presented no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, or fingerprints from the scene that linked back to slaughter.

No incriminating evidence from the search of Slaughter's apartment and no confession.

Thus, the prosecution's evidence of guilt would have been markedly weaker had the second lineup not been suppressed.

What is your response to her estimation of the evidence?

So my first response is I wasn't a party to that federal proceeding.

There is a problematic way that we handle post-conviction in Nevada when it goes to federal court.

It's the defendant suing the warden, and thus they're represented by an agency that's not me.

And so I wasn't in court to understand how Judge Trom Cooper reached what she reached.

There was no evidence ever suppressed.

They had the lineup.

They had the ability to ask the witnesses about that lineup.

They had the ability to call Detective Prieto and ask him.

I can tell you, when I asked him, he had no knowledge that Ricky Slaughter was in that second photo lineup.

He didn't know anything about it.

So they were free to do all of that.

There was nothing suppressed.

I recognize what she wrote there.

The Nevada Supreme Court on numerous occasions has disagreed with her assessment in this particular case.

And unfortunately, because I wasn't a party, I didn't have the right to appeal that decision.

And the attorney general chose not to appeal that decision for reasons that I probably have nothing to do with the underlying decision itself.

This man has served 22 years for a crime that resulted in no one being killed.

Sure.

Why do you want him to continue serving time?

How much more time do you think he deserves?

You know, I don't make the decision on sentencing.

Doug Herndon heard all the evidence, and he sentenced Mr.

Slaughter to 52 to life.

Mr.

slaughter, in the meantime, six years ago or so, was a prisoner in Arizona on a prison transfer.

He got convicted of having a shank in his prison cell in Arizona and has a consecutive four years that he owes the state of Arizona after this.

He is still a dangerous human being.

It's not about how much time he served.

It's about protecting the community from a dangerous, predatory criminal.

And, you know, that's on the parole board when he becomes eligible for parole.

My judge in the state court has ruled this is a conditional writ.

He federal court has decided there were some errors in the first trial.

He can have his second trial.

And when that second trial happens, the judgment of conviction never goes away.

It just gets reinstated.

And he goes back on his 52 to life, to prison.

I have tried over the years to work out this case with Mr.

Slaughter.

He would have been eligible for parole long time ago, but he has decided to maintain this position, that he's innocent.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Mark, Giacomo, thank you so much for joining Nevada Week.

You're welcome.