Nevada Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson

Nevada Senator Pete Goicoechea

Nevada Senator James Settelmeyer
Nevada Assemblyman Jim Wheeler
Nevada Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner

A pardon is an extraordinary remedy and a last line of defense in protecting our

citizens. It is up to our leaders to exercise caution and good judgment to decide
when there is someone deemed an exemplary individual deserving of one, and
when they must deny an applicant in the name of public safety.

Attorney General Adam Laxalt sits on the Pardons Board, where he has more
times than not, voted against pardon applicants. He has been steadfast in
ensuring that individuals convicted of crimes like domestic violence and drug
trafficking do not gain the ability to lawfully purchase firearms, which if allowed
would make Nevada less safe.

But since he has declared his candidacy for governor, he has been attacked for
not being lenient enough in voting against pardons. Yes, you read that correctly.
Attorney General Laxalts opponents think he shouldnt be governor because he
is tough on crime and exercises caution in voting to pardon convicted criminals.

In one high-profile case an unconditional pardon was granted over the

objection of prosecutors in the Clark County District Attorneys Office who knew
the case best for a defendant who twice pleaded guilty to murder. Think of what
this means the defendant who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder was
granted an unconditional pardon that could reinstate his civil rights, including his
right to bear arms. Attorney General Laxalt sided with Clark County District
Attorney Steve Wolfson and voted no.

The facts of the murder are bone chilling. On June 18, 1992, Mr. Steese waived
his Miranda rights and confessed to stabbing his victim to death, describing the
murder in detail. According to DA Wolfsons letter to the Pardons Board, The 56-
year-old male victim was completely nude and lying on the floor halfway out of
the bathroom. An enormous amount of blood was around Mr. Soules [victim]
head. Mr. Soules throat had been slashed from one side to the other and there
was a large knife wound to the mouth and numerous stab wounds to his head,
face, chest, stomach and arms. The bathroom appeared to be the scene of a
violent struggle. Two televisions and Mr. Soules 1986 Ford truck had been
taken. Horrific.

On March 1, 1995, a jury of his peers found Mr. Steese guilty on all counts,
including first-degree murder. In exchange for taking the death penalty off the
table, Mr. Steese entered into a plea agreement whereby he stipulated to two
consecutive life sentences.
After exhausting direct appeals, Mr. Steese claimed he had new evidence that he
was actually innocent. When that habeas petition was rejected, the Nevada
Supreme Court held that Mr. Steese was entitled to an evidentiary hearing where
the district court would evaluate the credibility of his claims. Following the
hearing, the Clark County District Court Judge, the Honorable Elissa F. Cadish,
made a finding of actual innocence for the purposes of overcoming procedural
default. In other words, Mr. Steese could proceed with the litigation process. The
Clark County DAs Office stood ready to fight Mr. Steeses petition on the merits
and proceed to trial if necessary, but accepted a plea to a second-degree murder
charge instead.

By pleading guilty, Mr. Steese admitted that prosecutors could prove the murder
allegations against him. Mr. Steese admitted on the record that his confession
was freely and voluntarily entered into and made without coercion. He was
assisted by competent counsel and understood the consequences. Judge Cadish
the same judge who previously made a finding of actual innocence
accepted the guilty plea in 2013. Mr. Steese was then extradited to Florida to
serve another prison term for a prior offense.

Up until that time, Mr. Steese compiled an extensive criminal record, including
seven felony convictions from Utah, California, Florida, and Nevada for thefts,
burglaries, grand larceny, and armed robbery. His record also included a dozen
findings of misconduct in prison, including inciting a riot, theft, and possession of
contraband in the very place he was sent to be reformed. After his release, he
was convicted of drug use in 2014 and admits to having used methamphetamine
in 2015.

For these reasons, the Clark County District Attorneys Office submitted a letter
to each of the Board members objecting to the pardon, calling the request an
absurdity. Attorney General Laxalt showed prudent judgment by trusting the
integrity of career prosecutors who are closest to the facts. If the case for Mr.
Steese being actually innocent is as open-and-shut as Adams political
opponents would like us to believe, then why would his own attorneys and the
Court let him plead guilty in 2013? Why would his prosecutors object?

Attorney General Laxalt has consistently opposed pardoning offenders of

domestic violence and drug trafficking. Here, he trusted Mr. Steeses free and
voluntary guilty pleas and voted against a pardon based on the recommendation
of local law enforcement and prosecutors.

Do we want a governor who is willing to be attacked for standing on principle and

standing up for public safety, or someone who will kowtow to a pro-felon, weak-
on-crime agenda? The answer to that question should be obvious.