A defense attorney is accusing the Clark County district attorney’s office of unethically dismissing a criminal case, asserting prosecutors denied his client justice by engaging in behind-the-scenes dealing.
“Contrary to (District Attorney Steve) Wolfson’s public position of being a ‘victim first’ prosecutor, his private actions indicate the polar opposite — a prosecutor who conducts business behind closed doors, and to the benefit of a privileged few with access to him,” wrote attorney Michael Sanft, who has represented prominent clients such as Michele Fiore, in a filing May 19. “This has been demonstrated before (Sanft’s client’s) case, in other sweetheart deals given to people with wealth and means.”
Wolfson pushed back on Sanft’s claims in an interview.
“I dispute the allegation that I give sweetheart deals,” he said. “We decide in this office to resolve cases by what’s right and wrong and what achieves justice, based upon our ability to do so.”
He called claims of improper behind-the-scenes dealing in the case “absolutely untrue.” Sanft himself repeatedly met with prosecutors, advocating for his client, said the district attorney, whose office also communicated with the attorney for the man that Sanft has accused of attacking his client.
“I meet with lawyers all the time,” said Wolfson. “That’s my style.”
He and Assistant District Attorney Alex Chen said Sanft also made his allegations without specifying what exactly prosecutors did that was unethical.
“What rule did we violate?” asked Wolfson.
Tangled case
Sanft’s affidavit, filed in a civil lawsuit another man named Junren Wang filed against his client Lei Pei, is only the latest step in a long-running, tangled case in which the two sides have traded claims of wrongdoing. Attorneys for Wang and Pei describe their clients as successful businessmen.
Both sides agree that on Nov. 5, 2022, Wang and Pei were at a karaoke bar called Space BBQ on Spring Mountain Road.
Their accounts diverge from there.
Wang’s attorneys have alleged that Pei attacked Wang and that Wang defended himself. Pei’s lawyer Sanft has alleged that Wang attacked Pei, slashing Pei with a beer bottle that he broke on Pei’s head. Sanft said in an interview that his client suffered severe injuries to his face, causing nerve damage and deep scarring, including on the back of his head, near an artery.
According to Wang’s attorneys, both men were transported by ambulance after the altercation. Tony Sgro, Wang’s lawyer who disputes Sanft’s characterization of his dealings with prosecutors, said his client suffered black eyes as well as damage to his face and rib cage.
After what Sanft described as an extended back-and-forth with police and prosecutors, Wang was charged in October with battery with a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm.
Court records filed by Sanft show that a Metropolitan Police Department detective in 2023 recommended that Wang be prosecuted on battery, mayhem and attempted murder charges. A detective wrote that Pei was believed to have acted in self-defense when he committed a battery against Wang.
Sanft said another detective later recommended the same charges.
Chen said the initial detective indicated both parties might have been the initial aggressor. Prosecutors felt the battery charge was the strongest, he said.
Community leaders celebrated the charging decision at a press conference attended by U.S. Representative Dina Titus (D-Nevada), according to Wang’s attorneys. Dick Cooper, a spokesperson for Titus, said she was asked to attend by organizers and was supporting the community.
Contested dismissal
Wang’s Las Vegas Justice Court case was dismissed in February on the day a preliminary hearing was scheduled to occur. The dismissal was at the request of prosecutors, court records show.
Sanft alleged in his affidavit that Wang’s attorney, Sgro, pleaded his case directly to Wolfson and Chen.
Sanft said he and Pei did not receive notice that prosecutors were dismissing the case. He said Pei was on a court Zoom call, waiting for the hearing, when the case was called earlier than scheduled and dropped.
“The surreptitious manner in which Wolfson and Chen dismissed the case smacks of under-the-table dealings between the Clark County District Attorney’s Office and Sgro,” Sanft wrote.
The attorney added: “I believe that Sgro was doing his job in zealously advocating for his client, even though I may not like how it was done.”
Sgro has said in court papers filed jointly by him and other attorneys that Pei’s side lied to the district attorney’s office and put pressure on prosecutors to charge Wang because, as a crime victim, Pei would receive an immigration benefit from the prosecution.
Sanft said there was no evidence for those claims.
“It’s not uncommon for interested parties to reach out to me,” Wolfson said. “I could give you many examples over the years. I take phone calls, I take meetings, there are victims, and there are family members of victims, but I would never call it pressure. I would call it interest shown by people that care about their relative or their friends, but that happens on a regular basis.”
Chen said he and Wolfson communicated directly with Sanft about the case, and prosecutors told him they were concerned about his client’s availability as a witness. Sanft made misrepresentations in his affidavit, Chen said. But the prosecutor confirmed that Sanft was not notified in advance that the case would be dismissed, saying Sanft had become nonresponsive.
Sanft said Pei, who lives in London and is not an American citizen, was seeking approval to return to the United States so he could testify. Chen said Sanft did not provide proof of those efforts.
Sanft also said that he set up a meeting between Pei and the prosecutor handling the case two days before the preliminary hearing, but did not participate in the meeting himself.
“From the get-go, we had certain concerns about this case,” Wolfson said.
The detective who investigated it was not sure who the initial aggressor was, the camera in the karaoke bar was disabled, and prosecutors were worried about the availability of Pei as the key witness based on information from federal authorities, he said.
“If we don’t have a victim, we don’t have a case,” he said.
The district attorney said experienced prosecutors reviewed the case, and Sanft assured his office that Pei would be able to come to the trial, which Pei would have been required to do. Prosecutors decided to dismiss the case when they “didn’t have a comfort level that Mr. Pei would be available,” according to Wolfson.
Chen said a shooting also followed the altercation between Wang and Pei. He indicated that raised credibility concerns about Pei.
Sanft, who denies lying or misrepresenting anything to prosecutors, said it is not clear who committed the shooting and said there is no evidence Pei coordinated it.
“Lei Pei has been denied justice because the Clark County District Attorney’s Office has purposefully buried the case,” wrote Sanft.
‘Nothing improper,’ says Sgro
Like Wolfson and Chen, Sgro pushed back on Sanft’s filing, calling it “flatly untrue.”
“There was absolutely nothing improper about how this case came to be and subsequently how this case came to be dismissed,” he said.
Sgro said he and Sanft both met repeatedly with prosecutors. He was under the impression there would be no charges and was stunned to learn that his client was charged, he said, asserting that the charges resulted from misrepresentations made to prosecutors.
Sanft only complained when the case did not go his way, Sgro said.
“I feel bad for Mr. Sanft that he had to revert to something as desperate as this to advance, or believe he’s advancing, his client’s interests,” he added.
Wang is a “very successful entrepreneur,” who owns businesses like rental car agencies and construction companies, according to Sgro.
Other private defense attorneys said in interviews that they had met directly with Wolfson about cases.
“One of the good things about Steve’s administration is there’s an open door, and I have met with him on multiple occasions and resolved multiple cases,” Robert Draskovich said.
Sanft: ‘Breach of the public trust’
Sanft argued that Pei was victimized by the attack and by “unethical” prosecutors, who, he said, “violated their oaths.”
“I reluctantly submit this affidavit, as I used to consider people like Chen trusted friends and colleagues throughout my career,” he wrote. “I further understand that what I am alleging has serious consequences, especially when there is a breach of the public trust by District Attorney Steve Wolfson.”
Chen said Sanft’s behavior in the case was unusual.
“He basically said, ‘I just need you to file the case, I need you to file it, and it doesn’t matter what happens; you can dismiss it the very next day,’” Chen said.
He added: “He basically told me that there was a financial motivation. He was going to get paid if he could get charges filed.”
Sanft said he told Chen that he only had control over demonstrating, on behalf of his client, that the case should be charged.
“I would get paid if I did my job,” he said. He added that Pei paid him for his work throughout the case.
Contact Noble Brigham at nbrigham@reviewjournal.com.
