Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto hosted Zacatecas Attorney General Arturo Nahle Garcia in Las Vegas. General Nahle Garcia and his top staff observed proceedings of the Criminal Calendar at the Eighth Judicial District Court, followed by one-on-one meetings several judges.

They also visited the Clark County Crime Lab, where they were able to consult with lab technicians and administrators regarding the construction of their own new crime lab. During a meeting with General Masto and the Nevada Gaming Control Board, discussions touched on the regulation of casinos and other issues of the regulation, investigation and prosecution of money laundering crimes.

Completing the packed agenda, the delegation met with the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, to discussed law school curriculum, third party legal organizations and the integration of continuing legal education for the Zacatecas Attorney General's Office.

From state to state, rules of criminal procedure are often quite different in the same area of law. This is true in both the United States and Mexico. Different areas of law may require different sets of rules (criminal vs. civil procedure being a good example). But there is another reason for the proliferation of rules: Decentralized rulemaking.

Today in Mexico, there is a push to unify the rules of criminal procedure. A uniform criminal procedure code has been proposed by a Senate committee and is being sent to the Chamber of Deputies for consideration. The ultimate goal is to have one set of procedural rules for all the Mexican jurisdictions to follow.

This push for uniformity is far from unprecedented. For example, the vast majority of states in the U.S. have adopted the federal rules of evidence, effectively creating uniform rules across the states. And in Mexico, General Laws address issues from money laundering to human trafficking.

Uniformity of criminal procedure has distinct advantages. Arguably, the drafters will have the resources to create a well-researched, workable set of rules. Plus, scrutiny will be nation-wide as opposed to localized. At least in theory, the end product will be better.

A great advantage is that attorneys can more easily practice in different jurisdictions, because they already know the rules. This helps clients, as they can draw from a wider pool of defense attorneys. This benefits defense attorneys as well, because their pool of potential clients is correspondingly enlarged. In general, it will increase the competency of all attorneys, because by learning one set of rules, they know the rules in all the states.

Perhaps a greater benefit is equal justice. Differing rules can affect outcomes. Is it fair when a defendant in one state is set free and another defendant in a different state is incarcerated, merely because the rules were different?  Uniformity of rules across the states in Mexico can help ensure that all defendants (and victims) are treated the same.

But alas, there are drawbacks. We do not live in a uniform world. People, and their priorities, vary from region to region. An issue in one state may be a serious problem, but in another it may only be a minor nuisance. Uniformity of laws and rules, by definition, does not take this into account. Thus a centralized code imposes its standards, no matter how incompatible, on a multitude of cultures and circumstances across Mexico.

If a procedure of the uniform rules is flawed, that flaw will be inflicted on all jurisdictions across Mexico and may be difficult for a single state to remedy. However, when the remedy is enacted, its effect is immediate throughout the country. 

Uniformity stifles innovation. If necessity is the mother of invention, the particular needs of states may allow them to create more effective procedures. Once these innovative procedures are shown to improve the state's criminal justice system, other states may choose adopt them, thus improving their systems. If no opportunity for innovation exists, then certainly none will occur.