A judge has declined to throw out a murder case against a former congressional candidate, despite arguments that the Metropolitan Police Department improperly intercepted communication between the defendant and his attorney.
“The State concedes that the specific attorney-client communications identified by Defendant are privileged and will not be offered at trial, so the Court does not need to address any evidentiary issues regarding those communications,” wrote Chief District Judge Tierra Jones in her Wednesday ruling.
Defense attorney David Chesnoff plans to ask the judge to reconsider her decision, which allows the case against Daniel Rodimer to continue.
“One, it does not address the marital privilege issues and two, there’s no effective record on the improper police procedures that were employed that allowed them to listen to an attorney’s conversation with his client,” he said.
Defense attorneys had also accused authorities of violating Rodimer’s “marital communications privileges.”
Chesnoff said an appeal was possible if Jones did not change her mind. Prosecutors declined to comment on the ruling.
Authorities say Rodimer attacked Christopher Tapp, 47, at an October 2023 party in a Resorts World suite and beat him. Rodimer was angry that Tapp had offered his stepdaughter cocaine, according to police.
Rodimer, a former pro wrestler, was endorsed by Donald Trump when he ran for Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District in 2020.
Authorities “repeatedly seized confidential communications between Mr. Rodimer and Mr. Chesnoff,” Chesnoff and attorney Richard Schonfeld said in court papers. They indicated that those included a conversation in which Rodimer “divulges information regarding Tapp’s demise” — that a witness remembered Tapp slipping and falling — after Chesnoff told him their communications were protected.
Prosecutors have agreed not to use those attorney-client communications at trial but have cast the issue as “the incidental interception of privileged material during otherwise lawful, judicially authorized surveillance.”
“The identified attorney-client calls were captured during execution of a court-authorized wiretap supported by probable cause,” wrote Chief Deputy District Attorney Binu Palal in a filing. “They were not used by the prosecution team, generated no derivative evidence, and played no role in charging decisions or trial preparation.”
He also said prosecutors learned about the issue from the defense.
“We have not listened to anything,” Palal told Jones at a prior hearing.
Rodimer’s attorneys have said it was the prosecution that turned over the privileged communication to them.
During a Thursday hearing, Chesnoff said he wants police to testify at an evidentiary hearing or provide a declaration “as to how it is that they were listening to attorney-client communications.”
He indicated that he would want to cross-examine the police involved at trial.
“This case, when we do try it, will involve us attacking the way this investigation was done,” he said. “Violating the Constitution and listening to attorneys is an example of poor police work.”
Contact Noble Brigham at nbrigham@reviewjournal.com.
