Behind bars for more than 20 years.

Why?

A Nevada inmate is getting a new trial.

You'll hear from the high profile defense attorney representing him pro bono and the chief deputy district attorney retrying the case.

Plus honoring nine, 11, 25 years later.

It's wonderful that the kids, they're keeping the the ceremony going, because these kids really need to remember what happened.

How a local school that lost one of its own is making sure a new generation never forgets that.

This week on Nevada Week.

Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hearn, STAT and other supporters.

Welcome to Nevada Week.

I'm Amber Renee Dixon.

After more than 20 years in prison, 41 year old Ricky Slaughter is preparing for a retrial.

The local man was 19 when prosecutors say he and another man entered a North Las Vegas home tied up the family inside and robbed them at gunpoint.

They say slaughter shot one victim in the face and that victim lost an eye.

No one died, and police never caught the other suspect.

Slaughter pleaded guilty in 2005, but the Nevada Supreme Court later found that plea was involuntary and the case went to trial.

A jury convicted slaughter in 2012, but in March of this year, federal judge and ROM ordered a retrial because, she said, prosecutors withheld evidence that could have changed the jury's verdict.

We'll hear from the lead prosecutor ahead, but first, the high profile defense attorney now representing slaughter at no charge.

Mark Geragos, his clients have included Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, and Eric and Lyle Menendez.

And in this exclusive interview recorded after a court appearance Monday, Geragos explains why he's fighting for Slaughter's freedom.

Why did you choose to get involved?

You know, there's a, there's been a through line in my kind of the cases I've taken in the last 20 years.

And for the first 20 years of my practice, it was almost exclusively criminal defense.

Then for the last 20 years, it's been, basically police and prosecutorial misconduct.

And I go fortunate enough to go all over the country and take cases that piqued my interest.

And I got a call from a good friend who's affiliated with the Innocence Project.

And, he talked to me about this case once the judge had vacated the conviction.

And it intrigued me.

And once I met and talked to Ricky, it was no turning back Do you believe Ricky Slaughter is innocent?

I do, I do, and I believe even more fundamentally that the process was inherently flawed, that there were all kinds of problems with the case.

And the judge here in this district who ruled on it, I thought, did a incredibly thoughtful, reasoned opinion, vacating the conviction.

How rare is that to get that kind of ruling It's unfortunately part of the problem with the system.

The criminal justice system is a lot of times you keep knocking on the door and it takes a long time to get somebody to answer.

I can think of, in various kind of iterations, other cases that I've handled.

And, I was just telling you before we were running the Menendez brothers is a great example of that.

I mean, they're last appeal they had run through up and down the, the criminal justice appellate process, the habeas process, 2005.

They basically had no more hope.

And they could have made a choice, or they did have to make a choice at that point.

Do I become kind of a inveterate degenerate?

And I say that with, without denigration, but, you go towards a one particular constituency, or do I do good in the cases the Menendez brothers, they did fantastic work with 20 years.

So you knew that it was not because they were trying to game the system.

I think Ricky, in a lot of ways has very kind of resonated with me.

The programs that he's been involved in, the the reform that he has been a catalyst for, all were very attracted to me.

And obviously, if you do any work in the criminal justice system, you've got to believe in redemption.

When Geragos references the Menendez brothers, he's talking about what they've done in prison after murdering their parents more than 35 years ago.

In that time, the brothers helped develop peer support and rehabilitation programs for inmates.

And that work helped convince a judge to reduce their sentences, making them eligible for parole.

Geragos says Slaughter's work behind bars also drew him to the case.

Last year, Nevada Week reported about Assembly Bill 91, known as the second look, at which slaughter helped draft.

It would have allowed Nevada's parole board to review certain cases for possible early release, but did not pass.

Slaughter also wrote a children's book about the legislative process.

When Judge Trump ordered his retrial, she pointed to evidence that prosecutors had suppressed, including the results of a second photo lineup.

Four of the seven witnesses identified slaughter in the first line up in the second.

None of the seven told the detective they recognized him.

The jury never heard that, which Judge Trump said was of paramount importance.

Geragos, however, said he was shocked by a court filing.

He says he saw for the first time Monday, and it has him questioning the district attorney's role in the retrial.

What stands out to you about his case in regards to the evidence that was not presented?

Well, ironically, today, and I said this on the record, so I'm not speaking out of school.

But if you had a video of the record in the courtroom today, I was handed a document from 18 years ago, from 17 years ago, and it was a motion that is then lawyer filed saying that the photographic lineups were unconstitutional and tainted.

And guess who his lawyer was?

16, 17 years ago, you were elected D.A.

today, Mr.

Wolfson.

And to me, that's I'm incredulous over that.

And that'll be the subject of the next motion that we filed.

How familiar are you with all the evidence?

And I'm fairly familiar.

We've been doing a deep dive.

But to your point, there's 16, 17 years worth of litigation, that has been spawned and a very thoughtful, reasoned opinion that you have to go through that is well documented, well cited.

And so, no, I'm not as familiar as I will be, but, but what I've seen so far attracted me to wanting to get him justice.

And are you talking about the second photo lineup?

Correct.

I'm talking about there was actually a series of photo lineups, and we'll deal with all of that, in the filing mood.

I hope to get it on file within the next week or so.

Okay.

And that second photo lineup he was put in was not supposed to be a part of that was for a second suspect.

How do you characterize that kind of police work?

Well, there isn't any literature that I'm aware of that says that that's appropriate.

And not only is does the literature say it's not appropriate, it says that is almost the fatal flaw.

And so that's part of the problem that we will be addressing.

But I think as important is the fact that there is how does he get a fair shake now?

He's got an order from a federal judge in this jurisdiction telling the D.A.

to file to try him, retry him within a set amount of time.

How does he get a fair shake with the D.A., who was once his lawyer?

And who's the elected D.A.

and with a lying deputy who went out in public and made all kinds of statements that apparently are due, at best in the wild mistakes or widely mistaken.

Are you talking about the prosecutor?

Correct.

Okay.

Who recently told a local news station that this particular case is maybe the most vicious and heinous non-homicide that I've dealt with in 27 years?

Correct.

And that's we'll deal with the inappropriate nature of that as well.

And that characterization and, all nine homicides have a character to them that you can always say is not vicious, but one of the problems is that you can separate the crime from whether he did it.

And that wasn't that.

What do you think about the strength of the evidence against Ricky Slaughter?

I think clearly the evidence is tainted and that's the problem.

Well, for example, he initially accepted a plea deal and in doing so pled guilty.

I say all the time, you have to be in the criminal justice system to understand how the system grinds you down.

I have clients, I've actually had this happen where I will go into the lockup and somebody has been in there for two days in custody, and they will tell me, I will plead to anything to get out of here.

I will plead to a felony, I will go, I will plead to I will admit anything to get me out of custody.

And I say, you've got to complete the offense.

It wasn't you.

I've got an alibi.

I've got somebody, like, just the same type.

Let me try this case in 60 or 90 days.

No, they won't do it.

And until you, you or a loved one has been in that position, it's very hard to comprehend the pressure and the incentive to get out.

What about the phone calls from jail in which he spoke with his girlfriend at the time and said, no, I was there at this time to get you.

Don't tell them that you I got there at this time.

I was there at this time.

Oh, the you know, I think about, a case that was tried in my backyard.

Now just last week with little Dirk and who was just acquitted.

Yeah.

You know, the federal trial, there were all kinds of phone calls that, when presented out of context, seemed damning.

Once you got there and presented them in context, you understood what the issue was.

So no, I'm not worried about that in the least.

And then the prosecutor, Mark DeGarmo, with the Clark County District Attorney's office.

He also said that in 2024, slaughter had a very honest conversation about redemption and remorse, and acknowledged that he was one of the two suspects in the room where this crime occurred.

Right.

I'm told I'm not the most familiar.

I'm told that not only violates, the rules and regulations, but the law, if also taints the jury pool and that he didn't say that.

And so, that's part of the reason I met Mr.

Giacomo today.

And, and it was a rather, unique first meeting because, I don't think Mr.

Dijak was long for this case.

What do you mean?

You think he broke some sort of rule?

I'll leave it to the.

We'll speak in the courtroom, and I'll file the appropriate paperwork in the courtroom.

Well, and it also sounds like this could be something bigger involving the district attorney as well.

Well, clearly, the district attorney's name is on the motion.

That was filed in 2009.

He represented Ricky Slaughter, the elected D.A.

of Clark County.

His name is on the motion that has the lineups saying the lineups were confirmed.

Steve Wolfson apparently represented Ricky Slaughter filed the motion back in 2009, saying, the very thing that the the Federal Court judge has now ruled, you tell me, how is that D.A.

and how is that DA's office possibly able to now prosecute his client if Ricky Slaughter is found innocent, what do you think he's entitled to?

If anything, he's entitled to be out of custody.

I mean, one of the of the enormously frustrating things about this is he needs to be released immediately, at least on bail.

He has not been convicted.

You've got some quirks here in Nevada, which we will address in the courtroom, but there is no reason why somebody whose conviction has been vacated should be held without bail on a, homicide.

That's outrageous.

Frankly.

I alerted the court to these issues.

We said we will file a motion and trial was set for February, I believe, of next year.

But the I don't believe this will ever get to trial because I don't think this case should be prosecuted.

I don't I think it's inherently flawed.

I don't understand how a D.A.

or a lawyer who represented a client and raised the very issue that the client was now vindicated on, is now prosecuting that same client that there's something wrong with that.

Here.

Now, to explain, the prosecution's side of this case is marked a Giacomo Clark, County chief deputy district attorney.

Welcome to Nevada Week.

Thank you.

I want to start off with where we left off with Geragos, and he is claiming that the Clark County district Attorney's Office retrying this case is a conflict of interest because the Clark County District attorney himself, Mr.. Steve Wolfson, once represented Ricky Slaughter when he was in private practice.

Do you think this is a conflict of interest?

No.

And even if it is a conflict of interest, there are procedures in place, that are called ethical shields.

Mr.

Wolfson was a, defense attorney here for many years before he got appointed in 2012.

We put in place for his client's procedures for ethical shields so that he doesn't handle or be involved in decisions in cases in which he has a conflict.

Mr.

Wolfson before Monday, Mr.

Jarvis, this allegation had absolutely no idea that another lawyer that happened to be in his firm for a brief period of time had represented Mr.

Slaughter.

He had no knowledge of that.

He had no specialized information from Mr.

McDonnell's representation of him.

Mr.

McDonnell was a contract lawyer.

So when the public defender has a conflict, he would take the case appointed from the county.

Patrick McDonnell would and he would handle the case.

Steve Wolfson would handle his clients.

And while his firm name is on some of the paperwork that they've shown us from 2009, this is the first time in 20 some odd years now of this case that, Mr.

Slaughter has ever asserted that there's some sort of conflict with Mr.

Wolfson.

He certainly didn't when he came to us for his commutation in 2024.

Okay.

And so, just because Steve Wilson's name is on the paperwork, that also does not mean that what was written in it by the other attorney matches what he personally thinks, because that attorney that was working for him said the same thing essentially as the federal judge, that this was potentially exculpatory evidence.

That second line up.

I don't think it's evidence at all, whether exculpatory or not exculpatory.

And I think that's where the confusion comes in.

What happens is the first photo lineups occur with all the victims, and I think five out of 7 or 8, pick them out.

Then two weeks later, the detectives go back to witnesses who've already made IDs with Ricky Slaughter.

Ricky's been arrested.

They know who Ricky is at this point.

And he shows a photo lineup of the second suspect.

And what he says to them is, do you see the second suspect in these photographs?

And they all say no.

He never tells us that we get a report.

I showed photo lamps of Jaquan Richards.

Jaquan Richards was not identified.

And that was the second suspect.

That's the second suspect.

Later on, during a pretrial with Ivan and Jennifer, the victims in this case, they tell me that they've seen two photo lineups, and I'm like, right.

You saw one, Ivan, and you saw one.

Jennifer.

Ivan uid Jennifer.

You didn't.

They're like, no, Mark.

Two weeks later, Detective Prieto came back and there was a photo lineup with Ricky Slaughter in it.

And so I reached out to Detective Prado and said, hey, can I get that photo lineup?

And it was sent to me and Ricky Slaughter's booking photo from the day they arrested them, after the lineups were done by the other victims.

Is in one what we call the district positions.

I talked to Jack Prieto.

He had no idea that Ricky Slaughter was in there.

The claim a mistake.

He made 100% to gather that lineup.

Yeah, it's a it's a mistake.

Look, police officers are humans.

They make mistakes.

But at the end of the day, the defense's claim is that the victims didn't recognize Ricky in the second photo lineup.

Right?

Well, at least two of them did, because they're the ones who told me about the existence of the second lineup and that Mister Slaughter was in it.

Okay, so the federal judge, which is what we're now basing everything off of, because that's why this retrial is happening, said in that order.

Notably, in addition to these fragments of evidence at Slaughter's guilt, the weakened witness identifications, the ambiguous surveillance video from 711, the mere possibility that slaughter had been driving the same make and model car as the getaway vehicle, the undeveloped connection between the weapons and ammunition in Slaughter's car, and the weapons and ammunition used at the crime scene, and the questionable fabrication of an alibi.

The prosecution presented no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, or fingerprints from the scene that linked back to slaughter.

No incriminating evidence from the search of Slaughter's apartment and no confession.

Thus, the prosecution's evidence of guilt would have been markedly weaker had the second lineup not been suppressed.

What is your response to her estimation of the evidence?

So my first response is I wasn't a party to that federal proceeding.

There is a problematic way that we handle post-conviction in Nevada when it goes to federal court.

It's the defendant suing the warden, and thus they're represented by an agency that's not me.

And so I wasn't in court to understand how Judge Trom Cooper reached what she reached.

There was no evidence ever suppressed.

They had the lineup.

They had the ability to ask the witnesses about that lineup.

They had the ability to call Detective Prieto and ask him.

I can tell you, when I asked him, he had no knowledge that Ricky Slaughter was in that second photo lineup.

He didn't know anything about it.

So they were free to do all of that.

There was nothing suppressed.

I recognize what she wrote there.

The Nevada Supreme Court on numerous occasions has disagreed with her assessment in this particular case.

And unfortunately, because I wasn't a party, I didn't have the right to appeal that decision.

And the attorney general chose not to appeal that decision for reasons that I probably have nothing to do with the underlying decision itself.

This man has served 22 years for a crime that resulted in no one being killed.

Sure.

Why do you want him to continue serving time?

How much more time do you think he deserves?

You know, I don't make the decision on sentencing.

Doug Herndon heard all the evidence, and he sentenced Mr.

Slaughter to 52 to life.

Mr.

slaughter, in the meantime, six years ago or so, was a prisoner in Arizona on a prison transfer.

He got convicted of having a shank in his prison cell in Arizona and has a consecutive four years that he owes the state of Arizona after this.

He is still a dangerous human being.

It's not about how much time he served.

It's about protecting the community from a dangerous, predatory criminal.

And, you know, that's on the parole board when he becomes eligible for parole.

My judge in the state court has ruled this is a conditional writ.

He federal court has decided there were some errors in the first trial.

He can have his second trial.

And when that second trial happens, the judgment of conviction never goes away.

It just gets reinstated.

And he goes back on his 52 to life, to prison.

I have tried over the years to work out this case with Mr.

Slaughter.

He would have been eligible for parole long time ago, but he has decided to maintain this position, that he's innocent.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Mark, Giacomo, thank you so much for joining Nevada Week.

You're welcome.

And we move now to the terrorist attacks of nine over 11.

25 years have now passed.

And Nevada weeks.

Maria Silva shows us how one local high school that lost a beloved teacher is making sure its students never forget.

We pay tribute to those who lost their lives that day.

Especially our own Arthur Edwards.

On September 11th, students, faculty and staff, community members and loved ones gathered at Palo Verde High School to pay tribute to Barbara Edwards.

Oh, say, can you see?

It's here at the school's soccer field, where you'll find a permanent memorial in her honor.

The foreign language teacher was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on that fateful day.

She lives among those attending the annual rededication ceremony.

Miss Gail Faye back then, it was.

I couldn't even talk.

I couldn't talk without crying.

Everybody was like that.

Are such.

So in such shock that it was so traumatic.

Miss Faye, who at the time served as Pallava Days Foreign Language Department chair, hired Miss Edwards to teach German and French.

The two quickly formed a special bond.

She could come in my room after a really bad day of school and make me laugh.

September 11th A bittersweet date as it also happens to be Miss Faye's birthday.

It's tough.

I told my son, I said, you know, I I'd rather skip today, you know, skip it.

And and as barbers day every year during this 911 ceremony in honor of Miss Edwards, a new flag is lowered, the retired flag presented to a loved one.

This year, that honor belonged to Miss Faye.

Flag means everything to me.

This is my country.

My.

Remember.

Remembrance of Barbara.

When asked what it means to see all of these high school students who were not even alive when the tragedy happened 25 years ago, honoring her beloved friend.

Miss Faye had this to say.

It's wonderful that the kids they're keeping the the ceremony going, because these kids really need to remember what happened that take hold, put.

So for me, it's important that we remember all of the victims on that day.

You know, it's important, though, that we never forget the biggest terror attack on our country.

Oh.

Oh, it feels.

Especially since I wasn't alive during 911.

It feels sort of distant.

Obviously, it was a great tragedy, but hearing about our teacher makes it more real.

And 25 years after this tragedy, Miss Faye says she finally feels at peace.

I think about her every day.

You know, it's still she's still alive in my in my book.

She's still here.

Thank you to Maria Silva for her reporting.

Miss Edwards is also honored at the National nine over 11 Pentagon Memorial in Arlington, Virginia.

Thank you for joining us for this edition of Nevada Week.

For any of the resources discussed, including the federal judge's order in the Ricky Slaughter case, go to Vegas.

PBS.org, and we'll see you next week on Nevada Week.