Many lawyers and judges in the Nevada legal community regarded it as a case of selective prosecution. Swanson said that had Conforte not been brought in to testify against Claiborne and give him a bad name, the IRS would have resolved the judge's tax problems through routine civil proceedings. Claiborne long maintained he was too busy on the bench to pay close attention to his tax return, noting he never even looked at the document until his accountant brought it to him. "I asked how much I owed, and I wrote a check." Supporter Nevada State District Judge Michael Cherry further alleged in 2004, "He was very, very fair to criminal defendants to his detriment. I think that is why the government was so interested in prosecuting him and knocking him off the bench." That the money was owed, but not paid, was generally conceded.