Advice to the attorney general: Let go of Krolicki case

While I'm holding firm that Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto didn't indict Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki because she's a Democrat and he's a Republican, she must accept blame for a case that's gone out the door because a judge said the indictment was poorly written.

A byproduct of this is the dismissal gives Krolicki a political bump. He looks like a martyr, and he should easily win re-election to the lieutenant governor's job next year.

Masto will discuss the case today at an 11 a.m. news conference at the Sawyer Building and I'm guessing she won't pursue it further.

It's time. Losing a case because the necessary elements weren't in the indictment is humiliating to Masto and her office. When did prosecutors forget how to write indictments?

District Judge Valerie Adair's opinion agreed with Krolicki's attorney Richard Wright. The indictment was so deficient, Krolicki and his chief of staff, Kathryn Besser, wouldn't understand what crimes they were supposed to have committed over 51/2 years and, therefore, couldn't defend themselves.

At one hearing, Adair's questioning of Chief Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen showed the judge was confused. What money was misappropriated? Was it from this pot or that pot? When was it misappropriated?

The state's case needed to be clear in the indictment itself. (I only put the allegations together after reading the indictment, the grand jury testimony and a legislative audit.)

From the testimony, it's clear the state believed Krolicki violated the State Budget Act by using $6 million from the trust fund fees to market the College Savings Program. Except that's not mentioned in the indictment or alleged as a crime, the judge wrote when she dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning it could be filed again.

The indictment states he misappropriated more than $250 between 2001 and 2006 from the Nevada College Savings Fund.

The ads for the college savings program that featured Krolicki and benefited him politically weren't mentioned in the indictment. (Krolicki got a Nevada Ethics Commission opinion after the fact saying it was OK for him to appear in the ads, other treasurers do it. Yeah, that makes it right.)

As for Besser, the indictment said she aided and abetted, but didn't say how.

If Masto makes me a liar and goes forward with the case, she has 30 days to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. Or she could convene another grand jury.

Here's some unsolicited advice: Forget about it.

Definitely leave Besser alone. Janice Wright, the person who oversaw the college savings program told the grand jury Besser said repeatedly the treasurer had the right to use the trust fund for marketing. It's obvious Besser was not engaged in some backroom deal.

This was a new program, the legislation was unclear, and there was conflict between legislators and Krolicki about how it was supposed to operate. The Legislative Counsel Bureau's 2007 audit found plenty of problems with it, but normally the solution is for the agency being audited to fix the problems.

Because no money was embezzled, and the only apparent benefit to Krolicki was television face time, it's time to let go of this puppy.

Masto was in a tough position. She had an experienced prosecutor come to her with allegations of political corruption and, if she had rejected the case, she would have looked spineless.

Attorneys in the defense bar and former prosecutors tell me her flaw is she didn't properly oversee an overzealous prosecutor and this was a flawed case that never deserved an indictment. But she made the ultimate decision to prosecute.

Only she knows if that's true or not. Today, we'll see whether she takes any responsibility.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.