Witness in 2003 slaying case is a conflict for public defender’s office, judge rules
A district judge upheld the decision of a lower court that the Clark County public defender’s office has a conflict of interest in the case of a man accused of a 2003 killing.
Clark County District Judge Mary Kay Holthus denied an emergency petition filed by the public defender’s office in a bid to stay on the case at a hearing Wednesday morning.
The public defender’s office’s next step will be to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, according to Anna Clark, an attorney for the office.
Clark represents Ricky Lee Trader, who is accused of killing 28-year-old Theresa Romano.
Romano’s body was discovered in 2003 at a Henderson residence on the 200 block of Gold Street.
Trader is now facing a charge of open murder after new DNA testing linked him to the crime scene, according to the Henderson Police Department.
Trader was taken into custody on July 16 in Reno and extradited to the Henderson Detention Center on July 22, according to a Henderson Police Department news release.
Days after Romano’s body was discovered, a woman named Sherry Wright told detectives that Trader had shown up on her porch saying concerning things, such as that “there was blood all over the place, and she wouldn’t shut up,” referencing an unidentified woman, according to Trader’s arrest report.
Key witness
Wright is a key witness in the state’s case against Trader, court records show. She was, however, previously represented by the public defender’s office on two occasions, once in 2011 and once in 2019.
“This is an individual who the defense represented, the public defender’s office represented, who gets the confession. This is not speculation,” said Giancarlo Pesci, an attorney representing the state of Nevada in Wednesday’s hearing.
The public defender’s office maintains that no conflict of interest exists and is fighting to stay on the case. The office filed a petition on the matter after Justice of the Peace David Gibson agreed on Aug. 6 with the state of Nevada’s argument that the office’s previous representation of Wright creates a conflict.
“Our position is that it was an abuse of discretion, because the lower court didn’t actually do much analysis,” Clark said in court, arguing that Gibson did not apply relevant rules under the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.
Holthus, a former prosecutor, said in court she felt Gibson, a former public defender, had “certainly addressed” the matter.
“I say this, not that it’s precedent, that your office had always taken the same position,” Holthus said, arguing that it’s unusual for the public defender’s office to try and stay on a case rather than admit a conflict exists.
“If this was flipped, and your office was coming in trying to get out on a conflict, the state would let them out, or certainly the Justice Court would let you out,” she said. “It’s a little bit unusual because you’re trying to stay in.”
‘Unusual’
Holthus said she felt Gibson did “the appropriate analysis,” but that “whether I would have done different or not, I don’t know.”
“My knee-jerk reaction was, if there’s a potential for a conflict, the better route for both current defendant and prior defendant is appoint conflict counsel,” Holthus said before denying the petition.
This type of counsel is provided to a defendant when a public defender is not qualified to represent them due to a conflict of interest existing.
In its motion opposing the petition, the state advised that “should the Public Defender’s Office remain on this case, the Clark County District Attorney’s Office will oppose all future motions to withdraw due to conflicts” filed by the public defender’s office under “similar circumstances.”
Clark declined to comment on Holthus’ multiple comments that the public defender’s decision to try and stay on Trader’s case is “unusual.”
Contact Estelle Atkinson at eatkinson@reviewjournal.com. Follow @estellelilym on X and @estelleatkinsonreports on Instagram.