CARSON CITY -- Nevada Supreme Court justices Thursday raised several concerns about the prosecution's case against Sandy Murphy and Rick Tabish in the 1998 slaying of Ted Binion.
The justices, during an 80-minute hearing televised back to Las Vegas, barraged prosecutors David Roger and David Wall with numerous questions as they pondered whether to overturn the murder convictions of Murphy and Tabish.
High among the high court's concerns were the prosecution's dual theories of how the 55-year-old Binion was killed, whether Murphy should have gotten a separate trial, and whether prosecutors should have charged Binion's heroin dealer in his death. The court also had questions about alleged examples of jury misconduct. Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, representing Murphy, told the Sun afterwards that he believed he got a fair shake from the seven-member Supreme Court, which he said was as well-prepared as any high court he has ever seen.
But Dershowitz, who at one point in his argument called the prosecution theory of death "amateurish," refused to predict how the justices will rule in the case.
"I've been doing this for 40 years," Dershowitz said. "I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from the nature of the questioning. I came away feeling that I was given a very fair and full chance to present arguments on behalf of Sandy Murphy. I could not have asked for a fairer hearing than what I got."
Las Vegas attorney William Terry, who represented Tabish, said he thought the hearing went well for the defense, and he predicted a ruling within two months.
"I'm overly optimistic," he said. "I think that the court certainly asked more tough questions of the prosecutors, which is always a good sign. They picked up on all of the issues we felt were critical to the defense theory of this case."
Roger and Wall, who were put on the defensive throughout most of their presentations, said afterwards they were surprised by the amount of questions aimed their way, but they remained confident the convictions would be upheld.
"We felt that we had a good case going into this argument," Roger said. "The Supreme Court was obviously very prepared in this case. They asked many thoughtful questions and we're looking forward to their decision."
Roger said the reason for the many questions was because the murder case, the most publicized in Las Vegas history, was voluminous and complicated.
"They understand that this is an important case to the community," he said. "They want to be well-informed before they issue their decision."
The 30-year-old Murphy, who is serving a minimum of 22 years in prison, and Tabish, 37, who is spending at least 25 years behind bars, were not in the courtroom. But many of their friends and family members, including their parents, were among the standing room only crowd. Also attending was Murphy's benefactor, William Fuller, a wealthy Southern Nevada mining executive who has been bank-rolling her defense, including the legal fees for Dershowitz.
Television cameras from Las Vegas ONE, the all-news cable channel jointly owned by Cox Communications, the Las Vegas Sun and KLAS Channel 8, covered the hearing live.
Two years ago prosecutors persuaded a jury to convict Murphy and Tabish largely on a massive amount of circumstantial evidence they collected in the months after the Horseshoe executive's Sept. 17, 1998, death. They accused the two defendants of having a romantic affair and killing Binion for his wealth. At the time of his death, Murphy was Binion's live-in girlfriend.
During the 2000 trial, which was televised in Las Vegas and around the nation, District Judge Joseph Bonaventure said the jurors could convict Murphy and Tabish if they believed the defendants either pumped Binion with a fatal dose of heroin and Xanax or suffocated him at his posh Las Vegas home. Prosecutors were unable to pin down exactly how Binion was killed.
Dershowitz, an appeals specialist who has handled several high-profile cases in the country, provided some drama at the close of Thursday's hearing when he suggested that Wall made a "tragic mistake" while under fire from the justices.
The Harvard professor said Wall acknowledged for the first time that the prosecution's theory all along was that Binion did not die of a forced drug overdose, but rather was suffocated as well-known forensics expert D. Michael Baden had testified.
"They can't come to the court now and say, 'whoops, we've changed our minds,'" Dershowitz told the justices. "If it is true that he did not die of a drug overdose, then this case is wasting this court's time."
Wall said afterwards that Dershowitz exaggerated and took his comments out of context.
"I think that was petty dramatic and theatrical, and I think he misconstrued some of the things that were argued." Wall said. "The only tragedy here was the death of Ted Binion."
Wall said he made the admission only in the context of a response to a question from Justice Myron Leavitt about why prosecutors never charged Peter Sheridan, a drug dealer who had supplied Binion with 12 balloons of black tar heroin the evening before his death. Wall said Sheridan, recently indicted by a county grand jury on drug possession charges not related to the Binion case, wasn't charged with Murphy and Tabish because prosecutors didn't believe he was part of the conspiracy to kill the gambling figure.
"These two (Murphy and Tabish) had gotten to Ted Binion long after Pete Sheridan did and either used the drugs to kill him or suffocated him as Dr. Baden testified," Wall said.
During the hearing, Dershowitz pointed out the inconsistencies in the prosecution's theory of death and said the jury should have been instructed to reach a unanimous verdict on the circumstances leading to his demise.
He said the prosecution's two chief medical experts, Baden, and Chief Clark County Medical Lary Simms, each "closed the door" on the other's theory. Baden advanced the suffocation theory, and Simms testified that Binion was fed a fatal amount of heroin and Xanax.
"The state can't be allowed to let the jury pick and choose how he died," Dershowitz said.
Several of the justices picked up on that argument and questioned Wall about it during his argument. Roger, meanwhile, was forced to defend the conduct of the jury before the justices. Defense lawyers contended the jury used information not submitted as evidence in the trial to convict the defendants.
"While the defense condemns the jury, Mr. Wall and I applaud them," Roger said.
He called the defense allegations of jury misconduct "silly" and said the defense should not be allowed to get into the jury's thought process.
The justices also pressed Roger on whether Murphy's defense was harmed by being tried with Tabish, who faced additional extortion charges unrelated to Binion's death.
Roger said Bonaventure went out of his way to warn the jury not to consider the extortion evidence against Murphy.
"Rick Tabish and Sandy Murphy may not have had a perfect trial, but they certainly had a fair trial with the meaning of the constitution," Roger told the justices. I could not have asked for a fairer hearing than what I got."
archive