RE: Coughlin: Petit Larceny case -- Hand-Off

Transmittal
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 11/01/12 3:14 AM
To: Leslie, Jim (jleslie@washoecounty.us); davidc@nvbar.org
(davidc@nvbar.org); patrickk@nvbar.org (patrickk@nvbar.org);
fflaherty@dlpfd.com (fflaherty@dlpfd.com); complaints@nvbar.org
(complaints@nvbar.org)
1 attachment
filed 10 18 12 MOtion and Memorandum in RCR2011-063341.pdf
(1500.4 KB)
Jim,
I will give you an opportunity to retract or fully explain your statement in
your last correspondence to me, wherein you wrote:
"Given your past statements to me, I believe I should also warn you of the possibility of applicability of
Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3. In that regard, please recall that during a meeting between you
and I in one of the interview rooms at Reno Justice Court during trial on 9/5/12, you suggested to me that
I alter the video recording of your interaction with the police officers in the petit larceny case. I told you I
cannot do that. You became irate and argumentative and asked why I could not do it, and I told you it
would be unethical. I raise this issue in this email transmittal to reiterate what I have had to tell you
more than once in this case, that is, I cannot and will not assist you in alteration of evidence or other
commission or attempted commission of fraud upon the court. Should I observe you attempting to do so
during the resumed trial, currently set for November 19, 2012, as noted above, I believe I would be
required under Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 to advise the Court."
I don't know what is funnier, Jim, the accusation that I would somehow view you as tech savvy enough to
whip up some video editing on the spot with "the county laptop" which "takes a little while to boot up",
or the suggestion that I would be stupid and reckless enough to attempt to encourage you to commit
some vague misconduct, you whom I cannot stand and whom clearly wants nothing but the worst for me.
Sure, Jim, sure. I get it Jim, you have had a chance to read the Memorandum I submitted, which
painstakingly dissects your misconduct, and you are panicking, doing damage control, reverting to your
tried and true threatening of your indigent criminal client's routine....next, you will attempt to have a
bailiff lean on your client with some intimidation tactics, probably have him threaten to "put my foot up
your ass" as you did with Bailiff Reyes on October 8th, 2011 at the RJC.
I consider your above writing to be an inappropriate threat, and beyond inaccurate. Jim, if there was a
transcript of these conversations you refer to, and one compared them to your above statements, would
your conduct be ethical or even legal? By "alter", what exactly do you mean, Jim? Are you referring to
the "10 minute break" where you need to "boot up the county laptop" 10 minutes before lunch, which
Judge Sferrazza granted you so you could "do some trial prep" (mid-way through the trial, whereupon
you were going to view, for the first time, apparently, the video of the arrest, especially given your early
foul ups on the record wherein you failed to recognize the difference between the extortionate threats
made by Officer Rosa from those made by Officer Duralde...then, during that "10 minute break" you
proceed to do something other than what you told Judge Sferrazza the break was for...instead of
reviewing the exculpatory video, you talked to the State Bar of Nevada on the phone and received
confidential information related to Keith Loomis's representation or lack thereof of myself...I asked you
whether you had any authority for your position that the videos of the arrest, and other investigatory
videos I capture had to be submitted or presented to the court in their entirety (some of the videos are
quite long...you wouldn't know Jim, because you have not viewed them....). You, of course, because you
never have any citation for anything, instead proceeded to attempt to make some lame threat accusing
me of some gibberish, in that classic Jim Leslie, CYA, faux sincere, hyperpretentious delivery of yours
that is so very grating....
Don't have time to go into all the misrepresentations you make in your email below. Jim, why don't you
just email me the dispatch tapes, you know, as that is a very material issue in this matter. This is
especially true where the RPD and DDA Young have seemingly come up with this "dispatch reported to
the officers a possible fight" despite the fact that the dispatch logs mention only a "disturbance" at first,
then
Further, Duralde's Supplemental Declaration (the one he filed the day after the arrest, not the Narrative
he filed 3 months later when the RPD found out the arrest had been captured on tape by Coughlin...its a
great video, Jim, you should watch it sometime....):
"report of a larceny of a cell phone at that location. Dispatch relayed information that the victim had set
his phone down and that he was now calling the phone and It was lighting up In the suspecfs pocket. The
suspect was described as a white male adult, 35 years of age, 6'02",210 Iba, wearing a red Chicago hat and
a white or yellow shirt and plaid shorts. Dispatch also relayed that the suspect was still on scene."
Then, on page two of DDA Young Opposition to the Motion to Suppress (the one where you guys failed to
preserve arguments related to the impermissiblity of a search incident to arrest based upon what
remained of the facts should your suppression motion be granted as it related to the pat-down alone),
DDA Young seems to come out of nowhere with this "report of a possible fight" stuff, which,
conveniently, really helps in the whole "need for articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion/pat
down or probable cause/search incident to arrest analysis...On page 5 of his Opposition, DDA Young
drives the point home: "In the instant case, the pat-down search of the Defendant was proper under the
totality of the circumstances. 3 Prior to arriving, Officer Duralde learned that the scene involved a loud
disturbance with possible fight, thereby immediately raising the concern of weapons and the safety of all
those present . This is just one factor for this Court to consider. Upon contacting the Defendant, he
became uncooperative and challenged Officer Duralde that there was not enough information for a
detention. This is just one factor for this Court to consider. Upon contacting the Defendant, he became
uncooperative and challenged Officer Duralde that there was not enough information for a detention .
Thereafter , in response to Officer Duralde's inquiry whether the Defendant had Mr. Goble's phone, the
Defendant asked if he had the right not to answer the question. While the Defendant arguably can
choose not to answer such a question, this response, along with his general attitude, demeanor, and
reaction, certainly can be considered by this Court when addressing the reasonableness of Officer
Duralde 1s concern for his and others l safety . It is important to note that there were multiple people on
2 scene, any of which could be subjected to injury or death if the 3 Defendant had a weapon . Upon
arrival , the Defendant and a group of 4 people (including Mr. Goble) were on scene, and with the
allegation that the Defendant had stolen a phone belonging to a person of said 6 group, emotions were
high and a physical fight could have erupted. Again, such factors should be considered by this Court
when 8 determining the reasonableness of the pat-down search."
But where is the support for this "a possible fight" suggestion? Its not in the discovery produced to me.
So, how about those dispatch tapes, huh, Jim. Kelly Odom? Please email them to me, I don't want you
trying to jam me up so close to trial with some non-sense about how some blank or scratched cd you gave
me was the "only copy" your office had. I know you well, Jim. So, seeing as how you finally served a
subpoena duces tecum on Kelly Odom/Ecomm/ 911 dispatchers, so we can finally hear the dispatch
tapes, and see if any "possible fight" was mentioned, why don't you go ahead and email me those audio
files (and audio files are mercifully small compared to video files, Jim, yet I have managed to send you
reams of video files via email...). Also, I need the audio of the aborted Trial in this matter that was held
on May 7th, 2012 (despite the fact that Judge Elliot did not sign the Order finding Coughlin Competent,
and therefore ending the period in which "all proceedings must be stayed" required by NRS 178.405, until
two days later, on May 9th, 2012. So you guys were going to jam me into a Trial while there was a
pending Order for Competency Evaluation, just days after my getting out of jail, where my medication
was wrongfully withheld from me (and some medications should not be ceased or started to abruptly),
where I spent 8 days due to the lies of the Lakes Crossing evaluators and the misconduct and malpratice
of your protege, Biray Dogan, whom proceeded to read my confidential medical information into the
open, public record, in front of 40 or so members of the public....a transgression which Mr. Bosler saw no
need to attempt to have stricken or corrected.
BUT TO ME CLEAR, JIM...I know Goodnight orderd a copy of the May 7th, 2012 aborted Trial, that occurred
during the pendency of an Order for Competency Evaluation. I do not have a copy of that JAVS audio, nor
do I have a copy of my arraignment in rcr2011-063341. You guys don't even get billed for these and yet
you have denied them to me, until you got wind of the fact that I went and got my own, then you come
up with you faux offers to provide me copies....Very clever.
Jim, the RJC severely limits my access to the files, so you are not entitled to make any assumptions that
alleviate your duty to provide me copies of filings, access to my file, etc.
Further, I see that Linda Gray filed a request for the audio of the October 22nd, 2012 Hearing, and I want a
copy of it, so please email it to me, and also provide a hard copy. Its not rocket science copying a CD, Jim,
and it doesn't take ages, either. You remember the October 22nd, 2012 Hearing, right, Jim...the one
where you can be heard on the record telling me "you are going to fail" and "your're disintegrating" and
making more of your threats about how I attempt to advocate on my own behalf the Judge will put me in
jail, etc.,etc.? Yeah, I need a copy of the copy your office got of that hearing. With the bits where you
tell the Judge "he (Coughlin) doesn't get to dip into our money, no one cent" in your explaining your
refusal to subpoena material witnesses or send out subpoena duces tecums (odd, because the RPD
doesn't seem to charge you guys for those....yet you never sent one to ECOMM until well over midway
through the trial, why is that, Jim?).
See, Jim, it was professional misconduct for you to spend your entire cross-examination of Cory Goble
trying to establish a citizen's arrest was effectuated, and therefore help the police and the State
overcome the fact that Officer Duralde cleary overcharged the crime as a felony in an attempt to game
the system and get around the whole statutory dictate against officer's making custodial arrest (and
therefore being permitted to conduct searches incident thereto) for misdemeanors, allegedly committed
after 7 pm and outside the officer's presence (unless a citizen's arrest is immediately effected). Your
cross was pretty good work for a prosecutor, but you get paid to fulfill the Sixth Amendment Jim, not
throw retaliatory tizzy fits. Your failure to in any way utilize the 911 call tapes and videos Coughlin took
of the moments prior to arrest (where the youths admit they are trying to steal Coughlin's bike and his
dog, to teach him a lesson...not to "detain" him or effect a "citizens arrest" (it almost seemed like DDA
Young had you make the arguments he wanted to make, but knew would be unethical for him to make,
or would expose other glaring weaknesses in his case, and in that way, you two really make beautiful
music together, Jim). Then there is the fact that Coughlin himself called 911, and that Coughlin is heard
on the video's prior to the police arriving encouraging the hostile gang of late teens, early twenties
skateboarders to remain peaceful, and wait for the police to arrive, so the matter could be handled civily
(and not lead to anyone dying, as Coughlin referenced the tragic death of a 25 year old man intervening
in a purse snatching of that was in the news just months prior to the August 20th, 2011 arrest in this
matter RCR2011-063341...really, Jim, you should join us at the November 14th,2 011 bar hearing in NG12-
0204, as the SCR 105 Complaint saw fit to make this pending criminal charge a basis for a professional
misconduct hearing.
In the meantime, why don't you send me the digital transmissions that Judge Sferrazza ordered, and not
hide behind some "there's not enough time to make copies" non-sense. Right, Jim, you are really going
to give me your only copies of things. Uh-huh. You? Jim, you? Jim, you spend all day covering your ass,
so please. Besides, the Judge did not rule that I have to pick up some box of stuff, and sign some
document while being harassed by you, attesting to the contents of long pieces of digital media (which I
am sure you will object to me watching right there in your office). That is the beauty of the digital
transmission, Jim. Maybe the WCPD will need to get itself a Skydrive, they are free, who knows? All I
know is I have made far less money than you this year Jim, and done the lion's share of work on this case
(with lots of extra work added by your misconduct), and I have found your work on this matter to be
amongst the most distasteful I have ever seen by an attorney.
So, now that I know that your office did subpoena Kelly Odom (she showed up to Trial, yet you kept that
secret from me, in addition to the subpoena duces tecum you sent her, really late in the game, on
October 3, 2012. Also, you do realize that RPD Officer Duralde's wife was on duty that night working as a
dispatcher for ECOMM, right? Jessica Duralde, and what dispatch told the RPD that night has become a
material issue in this case. Yet, the WCPD was satisfied with was the RPD gave them and didn't send a
subpoena duces tecume out to ECOMM until after the Trial would have been over already, had it not
been for how tenacious that Coughlin is.
Finally, Jim, you might want to reconsider your analysis respecting your purported failure to subpoena
witnesses after reviewing the attached, as you wrote:
"I have not subpoenaed witnesses to the November 19, 2012, resumption of trial because (1)
contrary to your assertions, no witnesses appear to have credible and persuasive prospective
testimony to help your case, in fact most of the witnesses you have insisted on calling at trial
appear to have prospective testimony harmful, not helpful, to your defense, (2) the witnesses you
have demanded we subpoena and have testify appear to actually have prospective testimony contra
to a finding of not-guilty, and (3) I already obtained several points through cross examination of
Zurate, Duralde, and Goble that you requested and that are credible and potentially persuasive
points in favor of your defense (please recall your comments to me during the first day of trial, I
like where you are going with this . . . . )."
From: Jleslie@washoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Coughlin: Petit Larceny case -- Hand-Off Transmittal
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:56:26 +0000
Mr. Coughlin:

I understand from staff that you came in today demanding your documents. I also received your email
asking for them and saying your email was now working again.

Below is the original transmittal I tried to send Monday of this week.

You have asked for proof of the transmittals bouncing back. I will print those, PDF them, and send them
to you via email attachment tomorrow when I have time. In the meantime, now that you say your email
is again working, I wanted to get the below transmittal to you today without further delay.

Please note that, as noted in the below email, there are disks and photos as well. Please email me as to
your availability to come in and take receipt of those.

Thank you.


James B. Lesl i e, Esq.
Chi ef Deputy Publ i c Defender
Washoe County Publ i c Defenders Offi ce
350 South Center Street
Fi fth Fl oor
Reno, NV 89509
1-800-762-8031
Di rect Di al : 775-337-4828
Fax: 775-337-4856
Emai l : jl esl i e@washoecounty.us

The contents of this communication and all accompanying documents and attachments contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, are legally privileged,
and are intended for use and review only by the party sending same and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use or taking any action reliant on said contents are CONFIDENTIAL and strictly prohibited. If you
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at 775-337-4800 to arrange return of the original transmittal. Thank you.



From: Leslie, Jim
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:17 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Coughlin: Petit Larceny case -- Hand-Off Transmittal
Importance: High

Mr. Coughlin:

This transmittal is protected by Attorney-Client Confidentiality. However, dissemination of any kind of the
contents hereof or of any of the attachments hereto may effect a waiver of such Confidentiality, as you
have been previously advised in prior emails and as you know from your legal training.

Transmitted herewith as attachments are file materials which are transmitted as courtesy hand-off
transmittal from us as assigned counsel of record to you as court-permitted self-representing defendant,
for purpose of assisting you in your preparation for resumption of trial in the Petit Larceny case currently
scheduled for November 19, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., and as to which date you have been previously advised
via US Mail, email notice, verbal notice, and as you have previously acknowledged being advised of in
prior proceedings in open Court.

The attachments themselves shall serve as inventory of the materials transmitted herewith.
Additionally, as courtesy and as memorialization of various issues, please note the following:

Please note that there are also several computer discs/DVDs containing video and/or audio on them, as
well as a set of color-printed photographs which we had prepared in response to your September 20,
2012, email to us, that we will produce in tangible form separate and apart and in addition to this email
transmittal. You will need to pick those items up from our office and sign a receipt. A copy of that receipt
is attached hereto as a PDF attachment, titled Receipt of Documents. Please email me whether you are
available 10/29/12 or 10/30/12 for pick-up of the additional documents and I will arrange to be present
with an executable receipt for your signature. Said receipt is necessary in part because the materials
listed in the Receipt of Documents cannot be reproduced on short notice, in an effort to ensure you receive
them well before the resumption of trial, and to avoid dispute as to what materials were handed over to
you.

I note that you and the Court confirmed at the last hearing that you have already directly received copies
of the JAVS audio recordings of proceedings from the Court, so we are not producing those in duplicate.

Included in the attached PDF transmittals are copies of clean, unredacted discovery materials from the
State, copies of those materials with redactions, and our transmittal letter to you including redacted
copies of the discovery materials dated December 1, 2011. We have also provided you via email other
copies of those same discovery materials on prior occasions. Additionally, I recall personally trying to
provide you additional courtesy copy of those materials on at least one occasion when you came to the
office without an appointment and made loud verbal demands for another copy of your discovery
because you had lost your previously provided copies, however, you then left the office when we tried
to provide you that additional copy.

Although we are hereby producing various pleadings as PDF attachments to this email, as listed herein,
my understanding from you is that you already have copies of all filed pleadings, orders, etc., from your
direct contacts with the Reno Justice Court. Nevertheless, the pleadings listed herein are produced as
PDF attachments as a courtesy.

We are not producing you copies of the voluminous emails and email attachments you have previously
sent us, since by being the transmitting party of those emails and attachments you obviously have them
yourself.

Please also note that you are now operating as your own self-representing counsel, by way of the self-
representation granted you by the Court on 10/22/12, in the petit larceny case. If you represent to
anyone that you are operating in that case in conjunction with or as co-counsel with our office or any
attorney therein, other than in our capacity as Stand-By Counsel, we will have to consider reporting you
to the State Bar for fraudulent misrepresentation. Additionally, as you were warned by the Court on
10/22/12, you cannot use any of the materials we are transmitting or the information contained in those
materials to harass any person or otherwise put the materials or information therein to any other
improper use. These cautionary notes include but are not limited to information contained in the cell
phone records of Mr. Goble and the addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information of any
persons identified in the transmitted materials, including those attached to this email transmittal and
those contained in the Receipt of Documents.

Given your past statements to me, I believe I should also warn you of the possibility of applicability of
Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3. In that regard, please recall that during a meeting between you
and I in one of the interview rooms at Reno Justice Court during trial on 9/5/12, you suggested to me that
I alter the video recording of your interaction with the police officers in the petit larceny case. I told you I
cannot do that. You became irate and argumentative and asked why I could not do it, and I told you it
would be unethical. I raise this issue in this email transmittal to reiterate what I have had to tell you
more than once in this case, that is, I cannot and will not assist you in alteration of evidence or other
commission or attempted commission of fraud upon the court. Should I observe you attempting to do so
during the resumed trial, currently set for November 19, 2012, as noted above, I believe I would be
required under Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 to advise the Court.

I have not subpoenaed witnesses to the November 19, 2012, resumption of trial because (1) contrary to
your assertions, no witnesses appear to have credible and persuasive prospective testimony to help your
case, in fact most of the witnesses you have insisted on calling at trial appear to have prospective
testimony harmful, not helpful, to your defense, (2) the witnesses you have demanded we subpoena
and have testify appear to actually have prospective testimony contra to a finding of not-guilty, and (3) I
already obtained several points through cross examination of Zurate, Duralde, and Goble that you
requested and that are credible and potentially persuasive points in favor of your defense (please recall
your comments to me during the first day of trial, I like where you are going with this . . . . ).
Additionally, the Court advised you on 10/22/12 that if you believe you require subpoenas, you may
contact the Court directly and obtain subpoenas with waiver of fees.

As directly by the Court on 10/22/12, I will be present at the trial on November 19, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. as
Stand-By Counsel. If during the resumed trial you believe you are unable, after all, to adequately handle
the trial proceedings yourself, I will be available to take over representation, at which point I would do
my best to correct any errors or tactical mistakes you might have committed as well as otherwise try to
win the case for you.

Thank you,

James B. Lesl i e, Esq.
Chi ef Deputy Publ i c Defender
Washoe County Publ i c Defenders Offi ce
350 South Center Street
Fi fth Fl oor
Reno, NV 89509
1-800-762-8031
Di rect Di al : 775-337-4828
Fax: 775-337-4856
Emai l : jl esl i e@washoecounty.us

The contents of this communication and all accompanying documents and attachments contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, are legally privileged,
and are intended for use and review only by the party sending same and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use or taking any action reliant on said contents are CONFIDENTIAL and strictly prohibited. If you
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at 775-337-4800 to arrange return of the original transmittal. Thank you.