In the last two portions of this series, we discussed the case against Arnold “Franky” Flores-Estrada who was initially arrested for felony strangulation against then-girlfriend Lindsey:
Lindsey believes that during and after her case proceedings, her rights as a victim were violated after the Carson City Courts failed to protect her during a court hearing, the District Attorney’s Office’s failed to properly notice her of her abuser’s sentence extension, and the fact that requests for information relating to her case were denied or repeatedly postponed.
During Carson Now’s investigation (which began over seven months ago) we also discovered the case was plagued by multiple administrative errors, incomplete records requests, incorrect information provided to both the victim and Carson Now, and communication issues between the city’s justice departments themselves among other issues.
Marsy’s Law: The Nevada Bill of Victims’ Rights
State laws mandates specific rights for crime victims. In 2018, Marsy’s Law for Nevada passed overwhelming support and codified 17 victims’ rights within the Nevada Constitution.
These rights were enacted in response to long-standing complaints of victim mistreatment, and originate from the 1983 murder case of Marsy Nichols, whose parents were confronted by her murderer a week after her death, unaware of his release.
In sum, these statutes were designed to provide victims of crime with four basic rights: safety from further harm, information about what is going on in the case, involvement in the criminal prosecution process, including the right to speak at the sentencing hearing, and the right to be made whole through restitution.
In this video, Carson City Sheriff Ken Furlong and then-District Attorney (now Judge) Jason Woodbury go over Marsy’s Law:
“Marcy’s Law guarantees that victims of criminal acts in Nevada must be treated with fairness and respect for the privacy and dignity,” Furlong said. “It ensures that victims will not be subjected to intimidation, harassment, or abuse in the criminal justice or juvenile justice proceedings.”
Despite Carson City’s advocacy of Marsy’s Law, Lindsey believes they do not adhere to it in practice.
Right to Protection
Under Marsy’s Law, the first two rights are as follows:
(a) To be treated with fairness and respect for his or her privacy and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process.
(b) To be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant.
As part of his release conditions after posting bail, Flores-Estrada was ordered to stay away from Lindsey, not possess weapons, adhere to search and seizure without a warrant, and comply with Lindsey’s restraining order.
While these conditions may have been imposed, according to Lindsey and by Flores-Estrada’s own admission, they were not followed.
Lindsey reported several incidents of alleged violations to her protective order, three of which were submitted to the Sheriff’s Office and investigated. Flores-Estrada ultimately pled guilty to one protective order violation, which would have violated bail conditions if prosecuted at the time Lindsey reported it.
One reported incident occurred at the Carson City Courthouse during the first case hearing – an incident that, according to Lindsey, would not have occurred if Marsy’s Law had been adhered to.
According to protective order court documents and the investigation report, Flores-Estrada allegedly harassed Lindsey at the first court appearance despite her request for an escort to avoid this.
The following is sourced directly from those documents:
Lindsey arrived at the Carson City courthouse and asked for an escort, citing her fear of Flores-Estrada. The security officers at the front desk could not provide one, so she and a friend went to wait outside the courtroom.
Flores-Estrada arrived and walked past Lindsey and the friend and said “bitch” “simp” and “pussy” before sitting ten feet away while facing Lindsey. She reported he appeared to be mouthing more offensive things, but Lindsey did not engage.
The courtroom opened, and despite standing by the doors, Flores-Estrada refused to go inside, even as his mother attempted to coax him in.
“Franky wouldn’t budge, he wanted [the friend] and I to have no other option but to walk past him,” Lindsey stated in the report.
As they entered the courtroom, Franky again made contact with Lindsey and the friend: “He said “bitch” while curling his lip and glaring at me. He then said “simp” and then “pussy” which was directed towards [the friend].”
In the courtroom, Flores-Estrada sat in the same row as Lindsey and faced her again. Flores-Estrada’s mother saw this, and moved to stand beside him to block his view of Lindsey.
Lindsey believes the Court failed to adhere to Marsy’s Law by not providing her with a secure area away from Flores-Estrada, allowing him to harass and intimidate her prior to the court hearing.
Nevada state law provides support for her claim:
NRS 178.5696 states: A criminal court must provide victims and witnesses a secure waiting area which is not used by the members of the jury or the defendant and his family and friends.
But this was only one of multiple ways Lindsey said Flores-Estrada, and even one prosecutor, used the court system as a means of intimidation.
Right to Freedom from
Harassment and Intimidation
As a victim of domestic violence, navigating the criminal justice system can be daunting, which is why Advocates to End Domestic Violence maintains an office within the courthouse to support victims.
Throughout the court process, Advocates will help victims file for protective orders, accompany them to court hearings, and guide them through the process.
In the beginning, Lindsey said Advocates helped her immensely in filing her first protective order, and prepared her for what proceedings would entail.
Until Flores-Estrada began filing protective order requests against her in return.
Case documents show Lindsey believed these filings were made specifically to harass and intimidate her in retaliation for reporting the attack, and to deprive her of her only sources of protection.
If the protective orders had been approved (none were), they could have barred Lindsey from owning weapons. After their break up, she purchased her first firearm and obtained a concealed carry permit.
Court documents submitted by Lindsey state the deputy handling her strangulation case instructed her to carry the firearm at all times for her protection.
Lindsey told the Court the TPO filings were a tactic to exert control and leave her vulnerable.
“I believe that he is attempting to use the courts to intimidate, harass and abuse me because he knows I have no other choice but to continuously appear to plead my case since I have stated that I do not want to be left without a way to protect myself from the man that has threatened to shoot and kill me,” she wrote in court documents.
In total, Flores-Estrada filed two applications for protection orders against Lindsey and a petition to cancel her protection order.
In his cancellation request, Flores-Estrada requested the order be dissolved because he would no longer have contact with Lindsey and would “respect the fact that our relationship has ended.” He added if the order remained in place, it would appear on his record, affecting his ability to pursue a career aligned with his degree.
Lindsey had to appear in court for each application, which she said Flores-Estrada used to further “punish” her for reporting him.
In these filings, Flores-Estrada claimed Lindsey had committed acts of domestic violence and/or stalking and harassment against him, requiring him to seek a protection order. He alleged she would drive past his home, record him when he drove by in public, and was using protection filings as a means of harassment.
While the Court rejected these applications, his filings had an unforeseen effect: Advocates to End Domestic Violence said they could no longer assist her because she was named as an adverse party. Each subsequent time he would submit a TPO application or cancellation request, Lindsey had to navigate the process alone.
“Multiple times, Flores-Estrada was able to file for a TPO against me, using the help of the Advocates to End Domestic Violence, even though I had utilized their assistance first,” Lindsey wrote in a letter to the Court. “This resulted in me no longer being able to utilize AEDV and instead him being able to, even though he was the known abuser.”
Lindsey said she consistently felt harassed and intimidated by Flores-Estrada throughout the case — but hadn’t expected another source of intimidation to come from the system itself: his prosecutor.
On Nov. 12, 2024, one week before the trial, Lindsey was called into the DA’s office where Leslie Butori stated Flores-Estrada would be offered a plea deal. Lindsey was upset, arguing against the deal, even if it meant taking her chances at trial.
Lindsey claims during this meeting, Butori said Lindsey could be charged with false imprisonment for telling Flores-Estrada, after the attack, that if he left to go retrieve his guns, she would have to call the police. Lindsey said Butori told her to retain an attorney.
To this day, Lindsey remains terrified of facing a false imprisonment charge.
Under Victims’ Rights law, advocates from the Nevada Attorney General’s Office acknowledge the justice process can be difficult and stressful for victims, and “when this occurs, when victims feel they have been treated callously, victims often become angry and resentful toward criminal justice professionals.“
The AG’s Office also said progress has been made in helping victims navigate the justice system through the designation of Victims Advocates (a separate entity from Advocates to End Domestic Violence):
Many police agencies and prosecutor’s offices have victim advocates, professionals who are there solely for victims — to guide them through the maze of legal twists and turns that spring up during court cases. Victims can turn to these helpful and dedicated, and well-informed, professionals for help and assistance.
However, Lindsey claims that when she repeatedly requested adherence to her Victims’ Rights, her Victims Advocate told her: “It’s called a Criminal Justice System, not a Victims’ Justice System.”
Crime victim advocates understand that, without victims of crime, there is no criminal justice system.
Right to be Notified
By law, victims are entitled to be informed of their rights and key case such as hearings, plea negotiations, sentencing, and release. It also allows victims to participate in the process to some extent – though they are not a party in the case itself by law.
After pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic battery and a protective order violation, Flores-Estrada was sentenced to 30 days of a suspended sentence, 15 of which could be served on weekends.
If time served is not completed by the due date, a defendant must serve their full sentence — in his case, six months.
Lindsey received alerts each time Flores-Estrada entered or left the jail, but noticed the second weekend he was meant to be in custody passed without notification.
The week after the due date, she was notified he was back in jail, leading her to believe he’d forfeited his suspended sentence, only to receive another notification a few hours later confirming his release.
Lindsey said she had investigated on her own what was going on, and eventually made contact with someone from the Department of Alternative Sentencing.
She was told Flores-Estrada had missed a weekend, then applied for and received an extension to his due date on Dec. 19, 2024.
Under Marsy’s Law, the DA’s office must update victims on their case. When asked why Lindsey was never notified about the extension, Butori said the extension request was never sent to their office, so no notification could be provided.
Butori said extensions are granted fairly frequently, solely up to Court discretion, and the DA’s office “has no say in that.”
However, Court Administrator Max Cortes initially said the extension request had been sent, because prosecutors have to be given the opportunity to request a hearing related to proposed sentencing changes.
“The procedure is for the clerk to forward a copy of the order to the Jail, District Attorney, and Defense Attorney,” Cortes wrote. “The District Attorney or Defense Attorney could request a hearing before the court if they are in opposition.”
After re-contacting the DA’s office on these inconsistencies, Carson City District Attorney Garrit Pruyt contacted the Justice Court directly and confirmed they had never sent the request to his office.
He explained that while extension requests aren’t forwarded, an Amended Judgment of Conviction — sent several days after the judge approves the request — normally is.
“Unfortunately, in this case the Amended Judgment was not routed to my office in the normal course,” he said. “However, the Justice Court and I are already working on a solution to prevent this from re-occurring.”
While omission of the sentencing amendment appeared to be a simple clerical error, it remains that no notice of changes was sent to Lindsey herself, which she believes is a violation of Marsy’s Law.
The final provision of Victims’ Rights stipulates that victims must be informed of their rights and that such information be publicly available.
While Victims’ Rights forms are available on Carson City’s website, Lindsey said she was never provided them, even after asking multiple times about them and, later, requesting those rights be adhered to.
“I asked about the form [to be notified] and was told I didn’t have to fill it out because I had said so much verbally, and it had been noted that I wanted to be notified of everything relating to the case,” Lindsey said. “I can’t even count how many times I stated that I wanted my rights and was instead told it was a criminal justice system, not a victim justice system.”
These were just the first of many instances where documentation was either denied, temporarily misplaced, or repeatedly postponed.
Departmental inconsistencies and communication issues
One of the documents eventually provided as part of a records request fraught with issues and delays was the Nevada Pretrial Risk Assessment (NPRA) form. Typically, the first portion is completed by a Sheriff’s Office employee, while the second is completed by the Court.
However, in the copy provided to Carson Now, the second portion was left blank. When asked why, Deputy District Attorney Tyson League and Butori said NPRA’s are only completed if someone is to be released on their own recognizance, and since Flores-Estrada posted bail, it didn’t need to be completed.
Except, not only do NPRAs have to be completed for all cases, but Flores-Estrada’s was completed by the Court.
Months later, after a separate, unrelated inquiry, the Carson City Court provided Carson Now Flores-Estrada’s completed NPRA form.
When District Attorney Garrit Pruyt was asked about the form not being provided in its entirety, and the incorrect statements made by the DA’s office, he responded:
As we noted the three-page Nevada Pretrial Risk Assessments (NPRA) are not drafted or completed by our office. We are not involved in the process, rather the initial NPRA is provided to us with a copy of the Probable Cause sheet after the arrest and generally prior to the bail hearing in court. The documents are utilized in determining NPRA release, bail release, and conditions. If the Court elects to release a person without a bail hearing utilizing the NPRA that is done without prior notification to the District Attorney’s Office. If a bail hearing is conducted our office utilizes the NPRA to assist us with our recommendations to the Court regarding bail and conditions. However, as stated, the NPRA documents are filled out by other agencies.
But the question stands that, if the DA’s Office doesn’t know what records do or do not exist, whether it’s an extension request or a completed Risk Assessment form, how can the requester be confident their records provided are complete?
At least in Lindsey’s case, the answer is: she can’t.
Failure to provide case documents
After submitting a records request for case documents Nov. 7, 2024, Lindsey was told no documents could be produced while the case is active.
However, this does not reflect standard procedure in records requests. In fact, Court Administrator Max Cortes said records are printed for walk-ins on a daily basis, regardless if cases are closed or not: “We get multiple requests every day. There is no reason why a victim, or anyone, would need to wait for records, whether the case is active or not.”
Supervising Deputy District Attorney Todd Reese gave Carson Now a different reason when asked about the delay: he said Lindsey’s request was denied because she’d requested “evidence” rather than “records,” which could jeopardize an active case if disseminated prior to trial.
However, Carson Now later obtained the original form Lindsey submitted, which made no mention of evidence, only records such as the PC and investigation reports, mugshots, and arrest footage, which are typically considered to be public record, with the exception of some types of footage:
Reese also made no mention of evidence in his denial to Lindsey:
Carson City has received your public records request for the case file in Carson City Sheriff’s Office Case No. 24-2588 concerning Arnold Franky Flores-Estrada. Please be advised that, at this time, Case No. 24-2588 is still an open investigation, which precludes Carson City from providing any documents through a public records request. See Dinler v. City of New York (In re City of New York), 607 F.3d 923, 940-42 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Las Vegas Review-Journal, Inc. v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 139 Nev. Adv. Rep. 8, 526 P.3d 724, 731-32 (2023); Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873, 880, 266 P.3d 623, 628 (2011)).
This completes Carson City’s response to your public records request.
State law requires a response within five days to a records requests — either providing the record in question, or a date when it will be produced — but Lindsey received neither.
Meanwhile, Carson Now was similarly hitting roadblocks in our own attempts to retrieve basic information on the case.
The Timeline
In early September 2024, Lindsey contacted Carson Now asking why we hadn’t reported Flores-Estrada’s initial arrest. A search of our records revealed his Probable Cause (PC) report wasn’t included in that day’s arrest log, prompting our own records request to the Carson City Courts for case information.
A Justice Court staff member inexplicably responded with a record for an unrelated arrest, while a District Court employee said they’d “searched the court index [and were] unable to find any cases involving the individual listed.”
Lindsey later discovered an administrative error led to the case being filed incorrectly, preventing staff from locating it for our request.
But this was not the first time an administrative error was discovered in Lindsey’s case.
After her initial protective order was granted in March 2024, Lindsey reported multiple subsequent violations.
After calling deputies to report one of these incidents, she was told they couldn’t find a record of the protective order, even while she held the printed paper copy of it.
She said she ended up having to confer with Sheriff Ken Furlong’s office directly and learned through his assistant that, like the situation at the courts, someone had entered the case number incorrectly.
Although the errors were eventually corrected, Lindsey did not receive the documents in person during the November visit — even though the case had already closed by then.
After submitting her records request, Lindsey was given multiple dates when she’d receive a follow-up, most of which were then missed entirely:
- November 7: Submitted request.
- November 15: Reese responded it could not be fulfilled due to active case status
- November 19: Flores-Estrada sentenced and case closed.
- November 22: Recontacted regarding request following case closure and additionally requested sentencing video; no response.
- November 26: Followed up regarding request.
- November 26: Reese responded, said no access to court records so cannot provide sentencing video, and request could not be fulfilled due to staff leaving for holidays; would follow up on December 6.
- December 6: No contact made.
- December 9: Reese said request should be available “this week or next week at the latest,” would follow up on December 18 if request hadn’t been fulfilled.
- December 18: Reese said he was in the process of redacting documents and they would be ready on Friday (presumably, December 20).
- December 20: Reese said waiting on final approval to release information.
- December 22: Said documents are ready to pick up anytime after 9 a.m. on Monday, December 23.
- December 23: Provided documents reveal records request not complete — no mugshots or body cam footage.
- December 30: Went to the Sheriff’s Office directly to request mugshots and body cam footage; Later, Reese said the Sheriff’s Office received request, mug shots added but video footage under reviewed by the Sheriff’s Office and given the holidays could not provide a date when review would be finished; follow up by January 7.
- January 7: No contact made.
- January 8: Followed up regarding request; no response.
- January 9: Contacted by Sheriff’s Office, mugshot was ready but no video footage would be released citing privacy concerns. Was allowed to view the video at the Sheriff’s Office.
- March 17: Received video footage from sentencing hearing.
On the reasons behind the delays, Reese cited the issues with “evidence” versus “records,” and it being a matter of bad timing as the city had seen an increase in records requests, and Lindsey’s were made during the holiday season.
To date, Lindsey has still not received any footage of Flores-Estrada’s arrest due to privacy concerns:
“The image of the law enforcement officer is a bit confusing considering it’s their body worn camera and not a picture of them,” Lindsey said. “I’ve seen booking videos from inside the Carson City Jail on YouTube and Facebook several times before, so I’m really left scratching my head on this.”
After sentencing, Lindsey felt the plea deal was merely a “slap on the wrist,” and that trying to warn other women about Flores-Estrada was her only recourse.
Even with the advancement of victim-friendly laws, victims can still become overwhelmed by the criminal justice process, according to the Nevada Attorney General’s Office:
Within the criminal justice system, those who have become comfortable with its rules, sometimes forget how the system appears to newcomers, and how it treats them. When this occurs, when victims feel they have been treated callously, victims often become angry and resentful toward criminal justice professionals.
“This whole thing has just been so upsetting because from the beginning, I’ve felt that an abuser has more legal protections and rights than their victim,” Lindsey said.
What happens if a violation occurs?
Even if the issues Lindsey experienced as part of her case do constitute violations of Marsy’s Law or Victims’ Rights, the unfortunate truth is: nothing can actually be done about it.
That’s because while state law provides victims with rights to be protected, or notified, or provided restitution, it also contains a subsection stating if these rights are violated, action cannot be taken against the state or any public officer, and a violation does not allow a conviction to be set aside.
Knowing this, Lindsey only hopes that some good will come out of her ordeal, whether through changes in how domestic violence cases are handled, better treatment for victims, or by simply encouraging other women to stand up against the injustices they face within the system.
Looking for information on your rights as a victim in the state of Nevada? See the comprehensive brochure compiled by the state below:
