Background on the Gibbons / Mazzeo incident:

Following her first interview with police, Chrissy Mazzeo decided not to press charges of attempted sexual assault against then gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibbons. At no point did she recant her story, as was reported by some in the local media. Mazzeo later told reporters she decided not to press charges at that time because people "close" to political consultant Sig Rogich and Gibbons were trying to quiet her by alluding to harm that would come to her and her daughter. She said these people also offered money for her silence. When Mazzeo did not go forward with charges, the police closed the case and opened the incident files to the media - this is when the media first read Chrissy Mazzeo's name. There are laws in Nevada that protect the name of an assault victim, but those were ignored when the Sheriff Young pre-determined this was not an assault case, and then told the media it's just "the congressman's word against her word."

When the alleged sexual assault came to light in the local press, Nevada NOW, the local ACLU, and Kathleen Brooks, Associate Director of the Safe Nest domestic violence shelter, criticized the way the police handled the incident. Sheriff Young held a press conference where he said that he would re-open the investigation if Mazzeo would go to the police station and sign a report. Taunting Mazzeo, Young said "Bring it on! Come forward, sign the crime report, and I guarantee if you want an aggressive investigation... you ain't seen nothing yet. We will investigate this thing every... every nth of it. There will be no stone left unturned." Mazzeo's attorney, Richard Wright, told the press, "Whether it's public corruption, attempted sexual assault or battery, [police] don't need [victims] to come and sign a complaint to investigate. There are many cases that proceed forward where the witnesses and or the victims are reluctant out of fear, duress, whatever. The whole idea that, 'Gee, our hands are tied until somebody squeaks, "I don't know where that comes from."

The Police:

The way the LVMPD reacted to the incident between Jim Gibbons and Chrissy Mazzeo was perhaps the most disappointing. Sheriff Bill Young endorsed Jim Gibbons for governor, Young contributed to Gibbons' campaign, Young shared the same powerful political consultant as Gibbons - Sig Rogich who was with Gibbons just before the alleged assault took place (and was a potentially crucial witness as the only one whoclaimed to know the precise time, and direction, of Gibbons' departure from the restaurant.). Rather than recuse himself out of a potential conflict of interest, Young intervened in the investigation. On the morning of October 14, Young called Gibbons to alert him of the investigation - a highly irregular and possibly unethical move. A week after police conducted initial interviews with Gibbons, Young told Las Vegas Sun Reporter Jeff German, "[Gibbons] wanted to know where Metro went from here, and I told [Gibbons] nowhere... from here on out, it's going to be the congressman's word against her word." Young said, "I believe in Jim Gibbons. I am still voting for Jim Gibbons, and I urge every Southern Nevadan to consider the political ramifications of this case - and the timing."

The DA:

After Chrissy Mazzeo signed the crime report, District Attorney David Roger became involved in the case. But Roger, too, lacked the necessary impartiality to investigate a possible crime; he had publicly expressed support for Jim Gibbons, and Roger, too is a client of Sig Rogich. Roger attended the press conference where Sheriff Young proclaimed, "bring it on." Lee Rowland of the local ACLU told the Las Vegas Review Journal that, "Roger compromised his office's independence by appearing at the news conference. 'We believe the public and Ms. Mazzeo would be best served if the Attorney General's office or some other independent party were to look into Ms. Mazzeo's accusations," Rowlands said.

The Judge and the Tapes:

When the Las Vegas Review Journal broke the story, police told the media that the parking garage video cameras where the incident took place did not contain film. But miraculously, and just days before the election, video tapes appeared. The Gibbons campaign immediately went to court seeking to air these tapes in violation of standard police and prosecutorial procedure not to release evidence in an on-going investigation. District Judge Douglas Herndon obliged even though the authenticity of the tapes remained in question, because the chain of custody for the tapes had been broken multiple times. There was no surprise at Nevada NOW when we learned Judge Herndon, too, is a client of Sig Rogich, and a supporter of Jim Gibbons.

Since Metro and the DA decided to close the case at the end of 2006, additional questions have come to light. The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that there was reason to believe Mazzeo in her statement to the police that she incorrectly identified the parking garage where she alleged the attack took place, mistaking the larger and more heavily trafficked garage for the hotel garage directly adjacent, which is less evident to an observer but sits in a more direct line between the restaurant and the hotel. Yet, the police never discussed with her whether the attack might have taken place in the adjacent garage. Moreover, no satisfactory explanation has been given for the over forty minutes between the time Gibbons says he left the restaurant and the time his computerized card key was used to unlock his hotel room door. In his second police interview, Gibbons claimed he had dropped his key and spent thirty minutes looking for it in the bushes behind the hotel (which must have been very muddy on such a rainy night) before finding it and entering through the back door, but the hotel desk clerk reported seeing him enter the front door and that he spoke with her, and did not appear muddy before going to his room. This detail is significant, because it was during this time period that Mazzeo claimed he was assaulting her.

What should happen in the future:

After Chrissy Mazzeo's encounter with Jim Gibbons, and before her experiences with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Nevada media, and teams of lawyers, Mazzeo told the police, "I don't want to go up against that." It is a sad state of affairs when so many Nevadans believe that justice is not for ordinary people and that it favors those with power and political clout. For Nevada NOW, the lasting legacy of this sordid incident, about which so much is still unknown, is not to be found in the lurid "he said/ she said" details that continue to fascinate the local media but in the perpetuation of this palpable sense of unfairness among ordinary citizens, especially women.

It is precisely because of flaws that allow our criminal justice system to be subject to political pressures that we will likely never know the full story of what happened that evening. Nevada NOW therefore advocates the following measures as significant changes that would help rectify the situation by enhancing the perception and reality of fairness and esponsiveness in our criminal justice system - so that noone will conclude from their experience as Mazzeo did, that "the system sucks."

First, Nevada NOW believes Las Vegas and Incorporated Clark County need a police chief, not a sheriff. In Southern Nevada, the political and moneyed establishment has historically anointed an ally to be a candidate for sheriff. The anointment process includes funneling money and clout to the candidate. This situation essentially makes the Sheriff indebted to political insiders. Sheriff Bill Young exemplified this when he repaid his debts to power brokers like Sig Rogich and Jim Gibbons by his inappropriate intervention in the Chrissy Mazzeo/Jim Gibbons sexual assault investigation, and by publicly threatening Mazzeo at his press conference.

A Police Commissioner, on the other hand, is usually accountable to a Mayor, can be fired at any time, and may be required to meet a certain level of professional training. It is time that Las Vegas has a civilian leader for its police force.

Second, we need a law that stipulates the conditions under which the District Attorney has a direct conflict of interest in a case, and thus should recuse him or herself from the case in favor of the state Attorney General. Since we have an elected District Attorney in our state, conflict of interest must address prevent the office from being politicized.

Third, we need to reform the system by which we elect our judges. The Article 6 Commission is currently developing recommendations, which it will make it to the state Supreme Court and the state legislature later this year on how to improve our judiciary, including the election of judges and the selection of replacements to vacancies. The Commission is expected to propose guidelines for fundraising by judicial candidates to insulate them from making direct appeals to attorneys who might appear before them; we urge the Commission to go further and recommend guidelines for determining when a conflict of interest exists that should lead a judge to recuse him or herself from a case in which the judge has a political relationship with anyone directly involved with either party.

These recommendations are based upon clearly evident flaws in the functioning of our criminal justice system during the investigation of the charges against Gibbons - flaws evident in the Police Department, in the District Attorrney's office and in the judiciary. The following details are thus not merely to rehash the incident but to remind ourselves why we need to reform our law inforcement and judicial systems.