Robert E. Estes
Third Judicial District CourtRobert E. Estes Due Process/Rights Violated

Enclosed are copies of statements I gave to both Judge Estes and my counsel, Benjamin Gaumond. I am still in the process of researching the fact that my rights were violated, (i.E. Legal, due process).in court, it did not go as well as I would have liked. On numerous occasions I would whisper to Mr. Gaumond or write something on a piece of paper, he would nod his head in acknowledgment as if he understood, yet only twenty percent (20%) of the time did he ever ask a question pertaining to what I wrote down or whispered for him to ask. Then the court reporter messed up. We were all told, the defense, the prosecution and the court not to bring up any past DUI's, yet, while the court recorder was reading the instructions to the jury, she did in fact read that it was a third DUI with possible incarceration. Immediately the court room became very quiet and Judge Estes ordered the jury to leave the courtroom.

After the jury cleared the courtroom, Judge Estes acknowledged the wrongdoing, yet stated that it was not enough for a mis-trial. Of course the prosecution agreed, but to my surprise, and I am sure that my counsel could see that I was upset, he did not put up a big argument.

Sometime later, after the jury had heard all that they were going to hear from both sides, they were dismissed to the jury room to come up with their verdict. My wife and I heard that the jury was coming back to the courtroom. We went back into the courtroom and we saw what we believe to be the courtroom staff (some of them sitting on the defense/prosecution tables), Judge Estes, my counselor, Ben Gaumond and the two prosecutors. We said that the jury was returning, we then heard Judge Estes say while pointing at one of the staff You won that bet, you were real close. Now tell me, was that professional? It's my life that they were betting and joking with. Both my wife and myself heard it. We expressed to Mr. Gaumond our feelings regarding the situation, he didn't have a thing to say, he didn't even seem to feel bad. Is this a routine thing that they do in the courtroom, play with people's lives as if life were a betting game? I felt as if it was jeopardizing my sentence and he didn't do a thing. Or did he feel that if he did say something that it might jeopardize his career? This man was suppose to be MY counsel. This man who I depended on to defend me to the best of his abilities. He told me in the beginning that he would hire an investigator to help him out and investigate the way that I was pulled over (i.E. The distance that the officer said the radar gun read properly, a very long curve before he could have possibly seen me and say that I appeared to be speeding and the block and distance that he said was changed several times), the place where I was given the sobriety tests (i.E. Gravel, potholes, poor lighting, incline/decline). The fact that I felt the officer was profiling just because he saw my truck parked in front of the Rio, because I was definitely not speeding and I am very adamant about that.

When I questioned him about the private investigator, he said that he could not get one and that I should go and check it out myself and let him know, because he was not good with that kind of stuff and didn't know how to measure a grade. There are two fellow inmates here with me who also had Mr. Gaumond as counsel and he did get an investigator for their case, why couldn't he with mine? He couldn't answer that. My wife and I were totally upset about this. This is when we talked to the family and we all decided that this man was not even going to attempt to do his best so they were willing to retain a private attorney for me. When we gave Mr. Gaumond a letter expressing our feelings and concerns he appeared very upset, he left to talk to Judge Estes. We asked that he give a copy of our letter to the Judge (see attached). This was before the suppression hearing.in the letter we asked to retain our own private counsel. Our letter and the suppression were both denied.in our opinion we felt that he chose to deny the suppression and request for new counsel because I was his only case that day and it would have been a wasted trip for him. We asked Mr. Gaumond what his track record was regarding his case wins and he said he didn't have a good one. When I asked him what my chances were, he stated that it was not good and that it was an uphill battle. That is why my family and myself wanted to retain private counsel. When the judge heard that, he told me that I couldn't pick a lawyer just because he won his cases. I then said am I not entitled to have counsel of my choosing? He then stated no, that Mr. Gaumond was capable of defending me, and that you don't pick counsel based on the fact that they win their cases, my wife and I thought that odd, because we were under the impression that we had the right to pick who we wanted, and we wanted to get the best defense for me. The Judge, in my opinion, realized after Mr. Gaumond began to present his defense that he was wrong about Mr. Gaumond, I think he too felt that Mr. Gaumond was not totally capable because he made several comments in that direction.

After the sentencing hearing, Mr. Gaumond never said one word to me or my family, directly behind us. He watched as the deputy escorted me out, grabbed his paperwork and he appeared to be running down the stairs (his freedom). I felt that if he were a good and caring attorney, he could have at least said some kind of condolences to my family, but no he chose to leave as quickly as he could.

On April 06, I received a notice to appeal. April 08, I called Mr. Gaumond and he assured me that an appeal would be the most wise thing to do. I then informed him that I wrote some concerns down. He said to just fill out the forms and fax them back to him. I asked him if he would be there the rest of the afternoon and he stated yes that he would be. I told him that I would call him at 4:30 pm to make sure he received the signed forms. We discussed him coming the next day and he said that he would call the Sheriff's office about 12:30 and try to see me at 1:00. When I called at 4:30 to confirm he received the fax, I spoke to the secretary and she stated that he was gone. I informed her that he was expecting my call and I needed to verify with him regarding him coming the next day. She said that she would see him in the morning and ask him.

The next day April 09, I called at 12:30 and nothing happened, then at 1:00, still nothing happened. I then called my wife at 1:30pm and she said that she would call Mr. Gaumond or she would drop by his office. I called her back around 3pm, she said that the secretary stated that he wasn't in and that my file had been sent to Carson City that morning and that Mr. Gaumond was no longer my attorney and that my case had been closed here in Ely and to contact the Public Defenders office in Carson. My wife explained to the secretary that was just not right. Again, you tell me, was that the proper way to terminate a counselor/client relationship? Am I to expect the same legal defense on my appeal?

Also, nothing was ever said about my preliminary hearing, where Judge Niman charged me with felony DUI (one in seven) When asked to respond accordingly to White Pines County District Attorney You William Perez are being charged with Felony DUI, one in seven. I have the court DVD.

I am suppose to leave the White Pine County Jail on Wednesday, April 15, with destination unknown. My wife, Debra Perez, typed this letter for me and can answer any questions if need be.
She can be contacted at (775) 289-6854.

Thank you,
William J. Perez

Company: Robert E. Estes
Country: USA
State: Nevada
City: Yerington
Address: 31 South Main Street
Phone: 7754636503

  <     >