Experience, personality, effectiveness to distinguish DA candidates

They all want to have the DA involved in officer-involved shooting cases from the start, an about-face from the current policy. They all want to improve morale in the office and the public image of the office. They all said they would stop the practice of piling on charges as a negotiating tool for plea bargaining. They all want the DA to be involved in the specialty courts for drugs, alcohol, mental health and veterans. They all want to be more selective about death penalty cases and save money by seeking life without parole, saving the death penalty for “the worst of the worst.”

All promised better communication with the public and the commissioners who control the DA’s budget. All said they would eliminate the five-trials-a-year rule imposed by now-retired District Attorney David Roger that brought some cases to trial when they could have been settled without a trial.

All favor more diversity in the office. All want to give the changes to the coroner’s inquest (changes approved by the Clark County Commission) a chance to work.

As far as policy goes, they were in lockstep, which makes the commissioners’ decision more challenging.

Because all agree on needed changes, differing sometimes in how to accomplish the changes, the decision comes down to experience, personality and effectiveness, and who has the skills to achieve what he promises.

The three men culled from a field of seven are nothing alike; each carries strengths and weaknesses.

Drew Christensen, who heads the office that appoints counsel in county indigent cases, knows the system inside out because he has been a deputy district attorney and a deputy public defender and now holds a county management job as director of the Office of Appointed Counsel. The rapid-fire talker knows exactly how one decision affects another in the justice system and looks like the insider, dark-horse candidate with well-rounded experience.

But he may have a conflict.

He has 34 pending capital cases where he has appointed defense attorneys and the DA is prosecuting. Acting District Attorney Mary-Anne Miller said conflicts would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but if a special prosecutor has to be appointed in some cases, that could cost the cash-strapped county. Also, when he was a young public defender, he represented Robert Hays, who was freed in 2007 after 14 years in prison when it was determined he didn’t commit the crime. Christensen, in one of his first trials, made multiple mistakes.

Steve Wolfson has the most experience with criminal cases, as a state and federal prosecutor and a longtime criminal defense attorney. However, the city councilman would be leaving before his term is up, so someone would have to be appointed to fill his seat, yet another example of the decision not being made by voters, but by other elected officials.

He is the most polished speaker of the three but has a reputation of being arrogant. He made it clear that he will be cleaning house at the DA’s office. “Some people will stay, some won’t.”

While he is familiar with the criminal and juvenile divisions, he is not knowledgeable about other divisions. For instance, he doesn’t know what he would do to improve the child support system.

The third contender is John Hunt, the former chairman of the Clark County Democratic Party, who is backed by unions and minorities who believe he won’t discriminate based on race or gender. One detractor called him the “Hug A Thug” candidate. Others say he’s progressive.

Hunt has never handled a felony trial as either a prosecutor or defense attorney. His work has been mainly commercial, civil, administrative and domestic law. That’s why he said the office needs a manager. He touted his accounting experience about as much as his legal experience.

Without any criminal experience, except as a pro tem muni judge, attorneys wondered how he made the final cut. But he did, and has a folksy style that many find endearing. (Although if he quoted his dad’s platitudes once more, I was going to shoot my TV, just like Elvis.)

The four commissioners I interviewed after the meeting ­– Susan Brager, Chris Giunchigliani, Steve Sisolak and Tom Collins — all said they were undecided. Collins had been quoted saying he liked Hunt, but now says he’s undecided between Hunt and Wolfson.

It became obvious nobody was ready to say they would commit to a candidate, so I didn’t reach out to Lawrence Weekly, Larry Brown or Mary Beth Scow.

This could play out any number of ways.

Philosophically, Collins, Giunchigliani and Weekly should align with Hunt, who they know through the Democratic Party. Weekly may have trouble going against Hunt, who was endorsed by the NAACP and the Clark County Democratic Black Caucus.

Sisolak and Brown have worked with Wolfson on the Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee and might lean in his favor.

I can’t tell how Brager or Scow might lean.

Christensen, who has never been in the political arena, impressed commissioners and can’t be discounted. He might be the compromise candidate if Hunt or Wolfson can’t win the four votes needed to win the appointment.

My speculation about next Tuesday’s vote is guesswork. (Remember, I foretold scores of attorneys would apply for this job, instead of the paltry seven. Another prediction off the mark.)

Know this, because of the public questioning, when the chosen one runs for district attorney in 2014, challengers and the news media will be examining whether he accomplished what he promised or whether his televised answers were empty promises.

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