eCarrots: Prison Control and Profits from Correctional Tablets

In recent years, tablets have gained tremendous popularity behind bars for their ability to expand access to educational and rehabilitative services for people in prison. However, there are downsides to tablet implementation, including high costs at the expense of a captive population and shifting power dynamics resulting in possible volatility. This Article examines the use of correctional tablets in jails and prisons as mechanisms for administrative control and profit-making in an era of beleaguered correctional budgets. It also considers legal and policy implications related to the disproportionately negative impact of the introduction of tablets on people in poverty, increased dependency on third-party contractors through the elimination of existing service structures, and the dangers of screentime addiction for people in prison. Ultimately, tablet suppliers are likely to continue working their way into prison systems, and there are many benefits to the incarcerated population from this expansion. However, it must be done thoughtfully and under careful oversight of interested parties to ensure the worst impacts are mitigated

The Current Development of U.S. Copyright Law in Light of the Current Political Situation and of the Interests of Major Stakeholders

Professor Trimble delivered a presentation at the Law Faculty of Charles University in Prague, the Czech Republic

Walker v. Walker, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 9, 2025)

The Nevada Supreme Court concluded that more than one Option 2 beneficiary can be designated on a JRS when accounting for a former spouse divorce decree and a current spouse. The Nevada Supreme Court also held that when a former spouse has an interest in a member’s PERS retirement benefits, a member’s transfer to a JRS account does not extinguish those benefits

Nester v. Dist. Court (Gamble), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 (Jan. 30, 2025)

When determining whether to grant a motion to close a family court proceeding, a court must consider the factors in Falconi to properly weigh closing the proceeding against the public’s right to access the court. The Nevada Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding in Falconi that “while the public has a presumptive right to access legal proceedings . . . a hearing nevertheless may be closed when a party demonstrates that privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to court access.

Vaughn vs. State, 114 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Feb. 6, 2025)

A conviction under NRS 239.330(1) requires proof that the document at issue, if genuine, could have been filed, registered, or recorded in a public office under U.S. or Nevada law

Public Defender Workload and the Promise of Gideon

Gideon v. Wainwright, which was decided in 1963, held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel for poor people charged with crimes in state court.1 Over the six decades since Gideon was decided, states have grappled with how to provide public defense services

Protective Ins. Co. v. State, Comm’r of Ins., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Jan. 16, 2025)

NRS 696B.420(1) creates a priority schedule regarding the order that groups can recover funds from an insolvent insurance company. At issue before the Nevada Supreme Court is whether Protective Insurance company falls into the highest priority category in subsection (b) of the statute or the residuary category in subsection (g) to recover funds from Spirit Auto Risk Retention Group, an insurance company that became insolvent. The Court held that Protective falls into the residuary category in subsection (g), affirming the decision of the district court