Or/G/Nal: Zachary Barker Coughlin, Appellant, vs. Case No. Dept

,,
]
\
.
No.-- _
O
+-
..
l
l(
I :
I
' '
'
i
.
!
I
'
[I
l
i'l
'i
1
i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code 1180
O
R\G
\N
AL
I THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE ot NEVADA
7
I AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
8
9
l!
l
I
ZACHARY BARR COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RNO,
Respondent.
l Case No.
~
I
I
'
Dept.
: |
i I
APPEAL PROCEEDINGS FROM MUNICIPAL'S COURT
| '
I ,
i :
l
l
,
|
i
' '
l
,I
I'
!
|'
_
''
.
i
I
:1
l

5
10
15
2
0
25
_____________ I
14
2
7

1 Document Code 1375
Reno Municipal Court
2 P,O, Box 1900
Reno,Nevada 89505
3 775 334-2290
4
l
.
ORIGINAL
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
6
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
7
APPEALLANT,
8
v, RMC Case No. IICR22176
9
CITY OF RENO, Dept. No.4
RESPONDENT.
11
CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET
12
September 14, 2011: Criminal Complaint fled charging Defendant with Petit
13
16
Larceny,
September 14,2011: Arrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause
October 10,2011: Notice of Setting Bench Trial date of November 14, 2011.
17
October 18,2011: Notice of Availability of Discovery and Request for Reciprocal
18
Discovery,
19
October26, 2011: Application and Affidavit for Appointment of Legal Defender.
October26, 2011: Motion to Continue November 14, 2011, tial date.
21
October27, 2011: Order Denying Appointment of Legal Defender.
22
October27,2011: Order Denying Motion to Continue November 14, 2011, trial date.
23
November 3, 2011: Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Vacate or Set Aside
24
(under Rule 59 and or 60) Order Denying Right to Counsel and Motion to Dismiss,
November 15,2011: Notice of Setting Bench Trial date of November 30, 2011.
26
November29, 2011: Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Defendant Coughlin,
8ENO
MUN1LFALUU81
F.O Bx 19110
Rnu,NV895|I5
(775)JJ42J99
28
November 30, 2011: Notice of Appearance, Motion for Continuance, Etc,
November 30, 2011: Trial was held in this matter. Present on behalf of the City was
,,
1
,,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Sixty ($360.00)
^1
MUNLlFALLUU81
?M Bz(00
Rtuu.NVIYSlIS
(71) J3-211)
Pam Roberts and Defendant appeared pro per. The Court found the defendat guilty of Petit
Larceny, a violation of RMC 08.10.040. The Defendant was sentenced as follows:
Three Hundred and fine.
November 30, 2011: Judgment of Conviction and Court Order
November 30,2011: Order For Summary Punishent of Contempt Committed in the
Immediate View and Presence of the Court.
December 13, 2011: Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate ad or Set Aside, JCRCP
59, JCRCP 60, Motion for Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal.
December 13, 2011: Record Request by Defendant Coughlin.
December 13, 2011: Record Request by Defendant Coughlin.
December 14, 2011: Financial Inquiry Application and Motion to Proceed Informa
Pauperis.
December 15, 2011: Order denying Defendant's Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, Motion for Publication of Transcript at Public Expense, Motion to Vacate andlor Set
Aside, Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Recusal.
December 15, 2011: Notice of Denial of Service filed by Reno City Attorey.
December 16, 2011: Defendant Coughlin's Supplemental to Notice of Appeal,
Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion for Reconsideration;
Motion for Recusal; Motion to Strike.
December 16, 2011: Defendant Coughlin's Notice of Denial of Service; Opposition
City of Reno's Notice of Denial of Service; Request for Clarification Regarding Deadline for
Filing Motion for new Trial, Other tolling Motions, etc., Application for Deferral or Waiver of
court Fees and Cost.
December 16, 2011: Court Order ordering Defendant Coughlin fom communicating
via e-mail with Judge Howard and court staf.
December 16, 2011: Defendant Coughlin'S Notice of Denial of Service; Opposition
-
,
2 -..
5
10
15
20
25
(
24
27

1
Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc; APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL
2
OR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS.
3
December 16, 2011:
4
Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion for Reconsideration;
Motion for Recusal; Motion to Strike.
6
December 19,2011: Defendant Coughlin's Notice of Denial of Service; Opposition
7
8
Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc; APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL
9
OR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COST.
December21,2011: Reno City Attorey's Opposition to Motion for New Trial.
Defendant Coughlin's Supplemental To Notice of Appeal,
11
Dated this 22n
d
day of December, 20 II.
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
Kenneth R. Howard, Judge
26
8hO
MUhlLUALLOU8T
PO Bu, IIII)
8cnr NV895t|5
(775)JJ4I290
28
--=[
3
]=--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ThisJ1
'f
I
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMITTAL OF COMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL
I, CASSANDRA JACKSON, Interim Court Administrator of the Reno Municipal
Court, do hereby certit that the attached documents include fll, tue and correct copies of all
papers relating to Case Number llCR22176, including a Certified Copy of Docket. Further,
said documents have been transmitted to and filed with the clerk of the Washoe County
District Court. d
Dated this>d
Jl
day of December, 2011.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME
day of Dee er, 2011.
B
UNICFAL1UU8T
FU.x I||0
8tao.hV89M^
(5)JJ427|
[ 4]
4

-M2
25
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certif that I d an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
3
Reno, Nevada, and that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document, CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET on the party(ies) set forth below:
5
.
Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed for collecting and mailing
6
in the United States mail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary
7 business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
8
Reno/Carson Messenger Service.
9
Federal Express or other overight delivery.
10
. Inner
-
office mail following ordinary business practices.
11
Personal Delivery.
12
13
City Attorey's Office Mr. Zachary Barker Coughlin
P.O. Box 1900 817 N. Virginia Street, #2
14
Reno, Nevada 89509 Reno, Nevada 89501
15
Dated this day of December, 2011.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
8 U
27
MUNlClFAL1OURT
F.O. 8x I9tO
Rrne,NVS95
f775IJJ42I9|
28
5
--=' !=--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
WU
27
%URLWA1OU&T
PUWtW
WM
28
7M3J

Case No. 09CR362 !9
r
I
L
l

Dept. 4
/
Dtc
?
.
M .
y

N1MNLALLH1 L 1M L1Y
LLN1YLAhML,h1A1 LNYAA
WWWWW
ZALMAHYAHbH LLLMN,
Appellant,
vs. AALN HH
'
CI OF RENO,
Respondent.
/
, I

,
,
, '
Pursuant to ^b177.105, I77.115,178.488, ad 178.498, this Court orders at Bail or Bond
i
,
on Appeal is:
i
(X) LHAN1 and set in the amount of $ 360.00 , with the condition that
!
! i
e Defendant:
i '
(
) comply with the No Contact Order
(
) comply wit all Counseling requirements
(
) comply with the Parenting Class requirement
(
) other
: _________________
(
) Nfor the following reason
(
s):
( ) violent nature/seriousness of the instant ofense
(
) prior criminal history
( ) prior failures to appear andlor comply with Court orders
(
) lack of connection to the communit
(
) lack of jurisdiction on appeal
(
) oter:
-
______________ -
DATED this , 2011
KNTHR.
Departent Four
I
I
, I
i
.
I
,
, ,
I'
1:
i
l
I
!
''
II
l
i'
,
{',
I
!
i
'
''
i
|
I,
,
I,
I,
' ,
,:
I'
i
,1
j
,i
!J
,
I
IN THE AiIPAL COURT OF THE CITj RENO
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
ONL5OL1H5LHHA51HLLT,HLNO,NV 89505
MaiIg: Y.O.Box1900
,
Hcno,NV 89505 YHONL(775)334-2290 AX
(775)334-3824
LIY LDL,AD1
V5.
U1PUAP1: Ll1LHLIP, ZALHAHY UAHKH
Cour Case#: 11 LH22176 21 OB. @
BIaI0. OLN
Agency#: RSICPIICII0627
AccidcnI#: BoUIH9' 15953
Ianuagc. tNt1bH
Ofense !` 09/09120 JJ
Arrest Dt: 09/0912011
Plea: 1011012011 - HOT UU1LTY
Additional Fees
SupctvisrooFceSubtota| SupvFee(s)Duc.
D(I(NDANT'ULUHLN ZACHARY A ' R (" R
DcfendunI1ntiaIs:
40.00
$40.00
Jail 8}5`
0
Suspended Days: V
40.00
$40.00 $0
Acucy#:l'11B67OUBT CA5( #: 1J 'R 22176 21
Print Datc: 10110/2011 DutuDut: 10/1012011
?uc1o1J
8l8H00.
L0mQlcI00
PLLKLL!LNl\7 W\H LLHL!JLHbL P\ PbLLbLKLL HbLKLLKW\\ KbU\I\1bbUPHLLL P
P1L\KL JL!LNL7 WPKKPHLK )NNLPPKKb PHL HLPKLLKPLHLK LLHJLNL LL\KPHL/LKPlL
KLVLLPLH. LKUKUKHLKNPLH, LLHPL1HLbLHLHLLLLNLAH(L WHLLWLLLPLLLHHLKb
LLLKLKLHLN!HL!P! LLUK, LHLbL!H bLKKPb,KLHL,uv(:s;+-77V.
HLLLLHLPHbHALL PLAK PbLKLLKLLLK x.tKLVLbLbHPLL LLLLKPL ULL7 W1HJH
P!Lb/NPKbHPLb PHL PLL LL\KJ bP
'"' <i '

^

| o
HL LLHLPH1 bHPLLP1LHL P!L KV!LWb, LLUKPl
KALLb PHL LL LKLLL KLKPN

PH

.QLLOL! PHL LKU Kg _\ _ N -_ ^_
'
l = _-|,
/ ',.
HLLLLHLPHJbHALLtHLWHb/HKLL!KJLPPHQNP)HP)H LLHJPLJ WH Hb/HK PJLKHL7
KLK LLHPHHHb/HLKPLLKLbbLK HLHLHUNLK,HLLLLHLPHbHA)LHLl7 1HLLLUK1LbULH
LHPH.
LL7.t.xws
7
vacaoxoaxatc wttttxw
xaexca
. /
c

s
sr
__
.
t
e
.
t
..
Vou are ordered by the Court to arrive drug/alcohol fee and on time for all Court hearings and Court related progams. Failure to
appear in Court will result in the issuance of 8warrant for your arrest. Any violation of this instant order may result in contempt
proceedings and the filing of additional criminal charges. In accordance with NRb22,010, it is a misdemeanor for any person to fail,
refse or neglect to comply with the terms of any order issued by the Municipal CouJudge, This orill remain in effect until the
Court issues another order superseding it.
:uxecasvxxexxeraowtscvooacvvatsoaeca.ocrcxexxv
M
||
oxvc
vtwc.
@
t,vacswoaxtxvracvcaaxvcrutrvtxvcaracvcevatsoaeca)vuc
ecrcxexxv.
exvc.vrwc.
M

accctvceavecruvv.
M
______exvc
vtwc.
@
tsstceavwxasuxt.
exvc.l'|.//1 vtwc.
ecrcxexxv.cou
uttx,zxcuxav axaxca
e-t--.-:i-i:..|..
x,--.,-.tcrrt:
r-.-:e.:-. atat:a
cotavcxsc-.ca:::i
e.:.e.:-. ttti:t
r.,-:-t :
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

|
l|
L
CASE NO. ICII0627
h
h0
"|
hl'
''
'
lU
UT
DEPT. NO.4
CITY OF RENO,
vs.
201/
OCT
/8
AM
/0:
5-
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO -, !.
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
c1
O
i
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF
DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY
Zachary Coughlin,
Trial Date: 11I14I211
Defendant.
___ I
Please call the Criminal Division at 334-2050 to arrange for preparation of discovery in
this case. Afer your call requesting preparation of discovery, it will be available for pickup at
the Reno City Attorey's Ofce, Monday - Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. All potential
witnesses for the City's case in chief are named in the discovery (which includes a copy of the
police report), and pursuant to NRS 174.234-235 no other "witness list" need be or will be
provided.
The City hereby requests that the Defendant provide discovery and notice of defense
witnesses pursuant to NRS 174.234 and 174.235.
DATED this l?f day of October, 2011.
Deputy City Attorey
25 A copy of this Notice has been sent to Zachary Coughlin at 121 River Rock Street, Reno,
26 Nevada 89501 on October 011.
27
28
Rcno City Attorncy
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, N 89505
-1-
RENO MUNICIPAL COURT
APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL DEFENDER
|LL
HLh0 "l'r `U'F' CORTE MUNICIPAL DE RENO
SOUCITUD Y DECLARACION JURADA PARA ASIGNACION DE DEFENSOR LEGAL
\ \ I \
'I
|I!UU!b h | Jb
k
J
J
I declare that I am an indigent person without financial means to employ an attorney and that all 01 the facts, figures, answers and
statement contained in this application are true and correct.
Yo declaro ser una persona indigente y crezeo de recursos econ6mieos pera contratar los servieios de un abcgado y dc/aro que;a
informacion, cifras, resuestas y declaraciones contenidas en esta solicitud son verdaders y coects.
}
. .
0o
1. Do you receive any form of public assistance such as fo stamps or public housing? Yes [1 Nc[ ]
Recibe ustad alguna forma de ayuda fnanciera del gobiemo tal como cupones per comida, 0 vivienda ptib/? Si [J No [ J

1 __
_
2.
3.
4.
If yes, please specify
/ I '= '
S la respuesta es afrmatva, especique

What proof of this assistance d you have?
Que preba puade usted presentar de esla ayuda?
I '
.
V
Are you currently serving a sentence in a jail crprison?
Actualmente esta usted cump/endo una sentencia en una carcel 0 prision?
Vest | Nof.
Sir ] No[ ]
If yes, list charges, case numbers and time to serve.
Si la respuesta es afirmativa, indique los cargos, el ntimero del caso y cuanto tiempo Ie queda por cumplir.
How many people are in your household (live with you)?
Cuantas personas viven en su residencia (viven con usted)?
What is the total wekly fami income for everyone living in your household?
Cuant6 es el ingreso lotal semanal familiar de lodos lo que viven en su residencia?
What is the total monthly family income for everyone living in your household?
Cuanlo es el ingreso tolal mensual famiiar de todos los que viven en su residencia?
_,1_'(1.: Ii `)
>
f
f
5,
Are there other reasons why you feel you would suffer substantial hardship if you were required to seek and retain private counsel?
If so, what are they?
Hay olras razones que usted cree que Ie pondr(an en difcultdes econOmias si se I obligara a cotratar un abogado prvado? Si
la respuesta es afrmaliva, cuales son? i :
r
_.
'
" _ .
'
, ,. ,
c v' I .'I i C L ' `|
J Case No.llCR22176
Z
O
C
O
1
O
J
JJ
lZ
1.
J
JC
l
1
JC
l
Z
ZJ
ZZ
Z.
Z
ZC
Z
Z
ZC
Dept.
_t
'. q
e
l
l
t
c
/
9
r
\
I THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO
CITY OF RENO,
Plaintif,
vs.
Zachary Barker Coughlin,
Defendant.
'
ORDER DENYING LEGAL DEFENDER
COURT DATE: November 14,2011 @ 1:00 p.m.
Departent Four - Courtroom B
Application for appointment of a Legal Defender having been filed with this Court,
and having been reviewed by this Court, therefore;
This Court does hereby DENY said appointment for the reason that if convicted of this
charge, the stadard ScB\0D00 08\cS D0jal time.
It is so ORDERED.
DATED this 27'
h
day of October, 2011
/
/

If
F
: L

KENNETH R. HOWARD, JUDGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

Pursuant to NRCP 5 (b) ,
I certify that I am an employee of the
Reno Municipal Court, Reno, Nevada, and that on this date I served
a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, ORER DENYING
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE A APPOINTMNT OF LG DEFENDER on
the party (ies) set forth below:
x
X
Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed for
collecting and mailing in the United States mail, at
Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary
business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
Federal Express or other overnight delivery.
Inner-office mail following ordinary business practices.
Personal Delivery.
City Attorneys Office
PO BOX 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Zachary Barker Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
DATED ths J day of October 2011
m
c
C
5
7
8
, , ==
17

OF APPEARANCE: MOTION CONTINUANCE
APPEARCE: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

19

1
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1
1!N. Virginia st. FZ
3
Reno, NV VJU1
Tele: !!J-JJ-J1
Fax: V+V-!-!+UZ
Attorey for Defendant Coughlin
6
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO
STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
10
11
12
CITY OF RENO;
Plaintiff.
13
v
.
14
IS
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHIN
Defendant.
16
18
NOTICE FOR
It is important to state again here that the Bailiffwsa threatening and retaliatory
w
when the undersigned appeared before Judge Gardner on October 10, 20 II, including
21 making intimidating statements to the undersigned seemingly in a retaliatory fashion
and designed to prevent the undersigned fom seeking court appointed representation.
22
The Bailiffs name might have been "Monte" or something similar, however, the
2
records of that interaction are being held under an impermissible rent distraint by an
opposing attorey. Obviously, such actions, when combined with the lack of a PD at
2
the arraignment, an arraignment video being shown by the court which contains
threatening statements and overly ominous tones when advising litigants against
l
appearing pro se, the City of RenolReno Municpal Court's alleged practice of only
hiring "former prosecutors" to be court appointed counsel, in conjunction with the
2
failure to allow the defendant access to the PC sheet and discovery for over I month,
27
much less 48 hours from the arrest, combine to make a fair trial impossible in this
2
NOTICE OF
Page I

matter,
Please note that the !ndersigned here" files this Noti%e of Appearan%e as
%o!nsel of re%ord in this matter,
Reno M!ni%ipal Co!rt r!les
.Co!rt R!les and Pro%ed!res R!le &= Appli%a"ilit of R!les A, These r!les ma
"e referred to as the Reno M!ni%ipal Co!rt r!les and ma "e a""re+iated as
R,M,C,R, These r!les are intended to s!per%ede the r!les prom!lgated and made
effe%ti+e on #an!ar &( &;4' " the Reno M!ni%ipal Co!rt, B, Fhene+er it appears
that a parti%!lar sit!ation does not fall within the p!r+iew of a r!le( or that a literal
appli%ation of a r!le wo!ld %a!se a hardship or in2!sti%e in a %ase( the %o!rt ma
ma*e s!%h order as the interests of 2!sti%e re6!ire, R!le )= OrganiGation of the Co!rt
A, The M!ni%ipal Co!rt %onsists of a n!m"er of departments designated " Cit
Co!n%il resol!tion( ea%h presided o+er " a 2!dge d!l ele%ted or appointed to that
position, #!dges pro tem ma sit in ea%h department from time to time as a!thoriGed
" law, A 2!dge pro tem d!l appointed and a!thoriGed " the presiding 2!dge of a
parti%!lar department to sit in that department shall ha+e the same 2!risdi%tion as the
presiding 2!dge( e@%ept that the 2!dge pro tem has 2!risdi%tion onl o+er matters to "e
heard on his or her assigned do%*et, #!dges pro tem are not permitted to a%t on an
motion filed in an %ase( e@%ept those re6!iring resol!tion "efore a %ase %an pro%eed
on the do%*et to whi%h the pro tem 2!dge is assigned, B, All %ases set for trial or other
post>arraignment pro%eeding( e@%ept a senten%ing set " the arraigning 2!dge( shall "e
randoml or se6!entiall assigned to one of the departments, Insofar as is pra%ti%al(
all %ases pertaining to a defendant shall "e assigned to the same 2!dge, In the e+ent a
2!dge m!st re%!se himself or herself( the matter shall "e sent to the administrati+e
2!dge for reassignment to another department, C, The ele%ted or appointed 2!dges of
ea%h department ma a%t for one another " m!t!al agreement as %ir%!mstan%es
di%tate, 0, Ea%h ear( the ele%ted or appointed 2!dges shall sele%t one of their n!m"er
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE -
Page ) -

to a%t as administrati+e 2!dge for the !p%oming fis%al ear, The administrati+e 2!dge
shall handle all %o!rt administrati+e matters and shall "e a!thoriGed to spea* p!"li%l
for the %o!rt on matters of %o!rt poli%, R!le ?= A!thoriGation to Represent A,
Attornes representing defendants shall promptl ser+e written noti%e of their
appearan%e with the Cit Attorne and file the same with the Co!rt, B, An attorne
desiring to withdraw from a %ase shall file a motion with the %o!rt and ser+e the Cit
Attorne with the same, The %o!rt ma r!le on the motion or set a hearing, R!le 3=
Motions A, E@%ept for good %a!se shown( all motions shall "e a%%ompanied "
affida+it( and( when appropriate( " points and a!thorities, All motions m!st "e
ser+ed on the opposing part and m!st "e file stamped along with a%%ompaning
proof of ser+i%e, B, The opposing part ma file and ser+e answering points and
a!thorities on the mo+ing part within &' das after ser+i%e of a motion, C, The
mo+ing part ma file and ser+e repl points and a!thorities within < das thereafter,
0, Upon the e@piration of an time period set for response " this r!le( either part
ma file and ser+e a written re6!est for s!"mittal of the motion( or the %o!rt ma
%onsider the motion s!"mitted, E, An opposition to a motion m!st state the reasonHsI
for o"2e%tion, F, Motions shall "e de%ided witho!t oral arg!ment !nless oral
arg!ment is ordered " the %o!rt, R!le <= Motions " Fa%simile A, All r!les and
pro%ed!res that appl to motions filed in person at the %o!rt shall also appl to
motions filed " fa%simile( e@%ept as otherwise spe%ified in this r!le, B, All persons
are eligi"le to !se motion>">fa%simile pro%ed!res, C, All motions filed " fa%simile
m!st "e a%%ompanied " a %o+er sheet whi%h m!st in%l!de the personJs name(
address( fa@ n!m"er and telephone n!m"er, 0, All fa%simile motions filed " an
attorne m!st in%l!de the attorne-s name( the firmJs name( address( fa@ n!m"er and
telephone n!m"er, In addition( the attorneJs state "ar n!m"er m!st "e %onspi%!o!sl
displaed on the %o+er sheet, E, All motions filed " fa%simile m!st "e a%%ompanied
" proof of ser+i%e, 9er+i%e ma "e a%%omplished " fa%simile when the re%ei+ing
Page ? -

part is a go+ernmental agen%( an attorne( or with the %onsent of the re%ei+ing
part, If ser+i%e of the motion is a%%omplished " fa%simile the ?>da allowan%e for
mailing shall not "e %omp!ted into the time for response, F, A defense attorne filing
a motion in the first instan%e m!st also file a proper a!thoriGation to represent, $,
An motion re%ei+ed " the %o!rt after 3=?' p,m, or on a non>%o!rt da shall "e filed
on the following %o!rt da, R!le A= Contin!an%es No %ontin!an%e shall "e granted(
in%l!ding a stip!lated %ontin!an%e( e@%ept for good %a!se, A motion or stip!lation for
%ontin!an%e m!st state the reason therefore and whether or not an %ontin!an%e has
pre+io!sl "een so!ght or granted, R!le 7= Corporations E@%ept with the permission
of the %o!rt( a %orporation or other "!siness entit shall not appear in propria persona,
R!le 4= Co!rtroom Cond!%t and Attire Pro%eedings in %o!rt sho!ld "e %ond!%ted
with dignit and de%or!m, All persons appearing in the %o!rt m!st "e appropriatel
attired, All attornes m!st wear appropriate "!siness attire, R!le ;= Appeals to
0istri%t Co!rt E@%ept as otherwise pro+ided in NR9 &77,'&< a defendant in a
%riminal a%tion tried "efore a M!ni%ipal Co!rt #!dge ma appeal from the final
2!dgment therein to the 9e%ond #!di%ial 0istri%t Co!rt( at an time within &' das
from the date that 2!dgment is rendered, Effe%ti+e #an!ar &( )'''/
MOTION FOR 9ANCTION9 AN0 ATTORNEB-9 FEE9 POINT9 AN0
AUTCORITIE9 Co!ghlin10efendant( 5a%h Co!ghlin( Es6,( here" files MOTION
FOR 9ANCTION9 AN0 ATTORNEB-9 FEE9 "ased on the papers on file in this
a%tion( all %orresponden%e "etween Ro"erts( Co!ghlin( Reno Cit Attorne Ro"erts(
Clin( and others( and the points and a!thorities herein %ontained, Co!rt>appointed
attorne as s!"2e%t to lia"ilit !nder 3) U,9,C,A, K &;4?, ?A A,E,R, Fed, <;3
HOriginall p!"lished in &;74I, P!"li% defenders are not imm!ne from lia"ilit !nder
3) U,9,C,A, K &;4? for alleged %on> spira%( with state offi%ials( !nder %olor of state
law( to depri+e %lients of federal rights, Tower +, $lo+er( 3A7 U,9, ;&3( &'3 9, Ct,
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Page 3

)4)'( 4& E, Ed, )d 7<4 H&;43I, P!"li% defender ma "e held lia"le !nder K &;4? if he
or she engaged in a %onspira% with offi%ials a%ting !nder the %olor of state law to
depri+e a person of a right se%!red " the Con> stit!tion, 3) U,9,C,A, K &;4?, Farren
+, Fis%hl( ?? F, 9!pp, )d &7& HE,0,N,B, &;;;I, Co!nt p!"li% defender a%ted !nder
L%olor of state lawL in failing to re6!est indigen% hearing on "ehalf of motorist
%on+i%ted and fined for misdemeanor re%*less dri+ing( prior to motorist-s
in%ar%eration for fail!re to pa his fine( for p!rpose of K &;4? a%tion against %o!nt
p!"li% defender-s offi%e( alleging that it had a poli% or %!stom of failing to see* s!%h
indi> gen% hearings; the a%t of not re6!esting indigen% hearing was administrati+e(
as it was d!e to the offi%e-s alleged sstemi% ina%tion, 3) U,9,C,A, K &;4?, Powers +,
Camilton Co!nt P!"li% 0efender Com-n( <'& F,?d <;) HAth Cir, )''7I, Appointed
defense attorne was not imm!ne from a%tion !nder 3) U,9,C,A, K &;4? and K &;4<(
either in his own right or deri+ati+el from alleged %o>%onspirators- a"sol!te
imm!nit( for %onspira% with 2!dge and prose%!tor to impanel all>white 2!r for
defendants %riminal tri> al and ma "e regarded as ha+ing a%ted !nder %olor of state
law in +iew of %onspira% alleged with p!"li% offi%als, Fhite + Bloom H&;4'( CA4
MoI A)& F)d )7A, Attorne-s lia"ilit for malpra%ti%e in %onne%tion with defense of
%riminal %ase( <? A,E,R,?d 7?&, Negligen%e( inattention( or professional
in%ompeten%e in handling %lient-s affairs as gro!nd or dis%iplinar a%tion( ;A
A,E,R,)d 4)?, #oe Ro"erts has indi%ated to his %lient( Co!ghlin( that his s!periors at
the FCP0 ha+e made him feel !n%omforta"le doing m!%h in the wa of defending
Co!ghlin( and that doing so with m!%h Geal wo!ld ad+ersel affe%t his opport!nities
for ad+an%ement at the FCP0 and perhaps e+en his 2o" se%!rit, Ineffe%ti+e
Assistan%e of Co!nsel( < Am, #!r, Proof of Fa%ts )d )A7 9trategies for Enfor%ing the
Right to Effe%ti+e Representation( 3A Am, #!r, Trials <7& A+oiding Eegal
Malpra%ti%e Claims in Eitigation( 3A Am, #!r, Trials ?)< Prisoners- Rights litigation(
)) Am, #!r, Trials & A%tions Against Attornes for Professional Negligen%e( &3 Am,
Page < -

#!r, Trials )A< Ca!se of A%tion for Malpra%ti%e Against 0efense Attorne for
Ineffe%ti+e Representation 0!ring Pretrial Phase of Criminal Case( 3) Ca!ses of
A%tion )d 7'7, Bines( Remeding Ineffe%ti+e Representation in Criminal Cases=
0epart!res from Ca"eas Corp!s, <; 8a E Re+ ;)7 Mallen( The Co!rt>Appointed
Eawer and Eegal Malpra%ti%eMEia"ilit or Imm!nit, &3 Am Crim E Re+ <; Note(
Remeding Ineffe%ti+e Representation " P!"li% 0efendersMAn Administrati+e Al>
ternati+e to Traditional Ci+il A%tions, A' Minn E Re+ &)? Note( The Right of the
Indigent Client to 9!e Cis Co!rt>Appointed Attorne for Malpra%> ti%e, ?? Ea E Re+
73', In ea%h of the following %ases( a p!"li% defender was held not to "e imm!ne
from lia"ilit for professional malpra%ti%e, In 9pring + Constantino H&;7<I &A4 Conn
<A?( ?A) A)d 47&( an a%tion " a state %riminal defendant against a p!"li% defender
for malpra%ti%e( the %o!rt held that an attorne o%%!ping the position of p!"li%
defender and assigned to represent an indigent defendant did not en2o imm!nit
from lia"ilit for professional malpra%ti%e, 9tating that a p!"li% defender is li*e an
other attorne whose d!ties as an offi%er of the %o!rt and to an indi+id!al %lient and
whose prin%ipled and fearless %ond!%t of the defense are not deterred " the prospe%t
of lia"ilit( the %o!rt re2e%ted the %ontention of the p!"li% defender that the do%trine
of 2!di%ial imm!nit sho!ld "e e@tended to p!"li% defenders on the gro!nd that the
imm!nit r!le is designed to promote prin%ipled and fearless de%isionma*ing "
remo+ing the fear that !nsatisfied litigants might "ring harassing a%tions, The %o!rt
also re2e%ted the %ontention that the %ommon>law do%trine of so+ereign imm!nit
whi%h e@tends to p!"li% offi%ials applied to a malpra%ti%e a%> tion "ro!ght against a
p!"li% defender( saing that a p!"li% defender( in representing an indi> gent( is not a
p!"li% offi%ial( sin%e e+en tho!gh the state m!st ins!re that indigents are repres>
ented " %ompetent %o!nsel( it %o!ld not "e arg!ed that the a%t!al %ond!%t of the
defense of an indi+id!al is a go+ernmental a%t, The %o!rt also re2e%ted the third
s!ggested gro!nd of im> m!nit= the stat!tor imm!nit of p!"li% offi%ers and state
Page A -

emploees, The %o!rt said that while it was tr!e that a p!"li% defender %o!ld "e told
when he is to wor* and within what area( those elements of %ontrol were indi%ia of
the master>ser+ant relationship and in%idents of a p!"li% defender-s emploment
whi%h are not within the s%ope of the attorne>%lient relation> ship, 9tating that the
independen%e of the p!"li% defender was a *e %onstit!tional !nderpin> ning of the
p!"li% defender sstem( the %o!rt said that other than the so!r%e of the p!"li% de>
fender-s %ompensation( the relationship of p!"li% defender and %lient is the same as
that of pri+atel emploed %o!nsel and %lient, A p!"li% defender was held not to "e
imm!ne from lia"ilit for malpra%ti%e( in Reese + 0anforth H&;7;I 34A Pa 37;( 3'A
A)d 7?<( A AER3th 7<4( In holding that the p!"li% defender was not a p!"li% offi%ial
entitled to imm!nit( the %o!rt said that the o+erriding d!t of Geal> o!s
representation of a %lient-s interest atta%hes to the role of the p!"li% defender and th!s
the performan%e of that d!t " the defender was similar to the performan%e of
pri+atel retained %o!nsel, 9tating that the relationship "etween the %o!nt and the
p!"li% defender was similar to that "etween an independent %ontra%tor and the part
%ontra%ting his ser+i%es( the %o!rt said that while the a+aila"ilit of %o!rt>appointed
%o!nsel to represent indigents is ind!"ita"l the p!"li% "!siness( on%e the
appointment of a p!"li% defender in a gi+en %ase is made( his state or p!"li% f!n%tion
%eases and thereafter he f!n%tions p!rel as a pri+ate attorne %on%erned with
ser+i%ing his %lient( and his professional relationship with his %lient ta*es on all the
o"liga> tions and prote%tions attendant !pon a pri+ate attorne>%lient relationship
e@%ept that the p!"> li% pas the attorne-s fee, The %o!rt also re2e%ted the %ontentions
that not granting imm!nit to the p!"li% defender wo!ld hinder the re%o!pment of
a"le lawers to represent indigents( and wo!ld inhi"it the defender-s professional
dis%retion in de%lining to press the fri+olo!s( to assign priorities "etween indigent
litigants( and to ma*e strategi% de%isions with regard to a parti%!lar litigant as to how
his interest ma "est "e ad+an%ed, In the following %ase( a p!"li% defender was held
Page 7 -

not lia"le for the malpra%ti%e of one of his dep!ties, A p!"li% defender was held not
to "e lia"le solel " +irt!e of his offi%e( for the malpra%> ti%e of one of his dep!ties(
in 9an%heG + M!rph H&;73( 0C Ne+I ?4< F 9!pp &?A), 9tating that the professional
relationship "etween %o!rt>appointed %o!nsel and indigent %riminal de> fendants
!nder p!"li% defender sstems is no different than that "etween a %lient and pri+atel
retained %o!nsel( the %o!rt went on to sa that the relationship of the p!"li% defender
and his dep!ties among themsel+es was not a partnership relationship( sin%e the
e%onomi% 2!stifi%a> tion for holding one partner lia"le for the mis%ond!%t of another
partner was gro!nded on the fa%t that fees for ser+i%es are shared( whereas ea%h of the
p!"li% defender attornes was %om> pensated independentl " salar for his own
ser+i%es, 9tating that a dep!t p!"li% defender is an independent offi%er( the %o!rt
noted that there was s!"stantial a!thorit in s!pport of the r!le that in the a"sen%e of
stat!te imposing lia"ilit or of negligen%e on his part in appointing or s!per+ising his
assistants( a p!"li% offi%er is not lia"le for the defa!lt and misfeasan%e of assistants
appointed " him, Related Annotations are lo%ated !nder the Resear%h Referen%es
heading of this Annotation, CUMUEATI8E 9UPPEEMENT Cases= Plaintiff-s
malpra%ti%e a%tion against p!"li% defender was not pre%l!ded " 6!asi>2!di%ial
imm!nit, Fil%o@ +, Br!mmer( 7?; 9o, )d &)4) HFla, 0ist, Ct, App, ?d 0ist, &;;;I,
P!"li% defender attornes were not entitled to so+ereign imm!nit from legal
malpra%ti%e %laims "ro!ght " former %lient %on+i%ted in %riminal %ase and later
e@onerated; attornes- d!t to %lient arose independentl of their state emploment,
#ohnson +, Calloran( ?&) Ill, App, ?d A;<( )3< Ill, 0e%, 3'4( 7)4 N,E,)d 3;' H&st
0ist, )'''I( appeal allowed( &4; Ill, )d A44 H)'''I, The %o!rt in 0Gi!"a* + Mott
H&;;?( MinnI <'? NF)d 77& held that a p!"li% defender is imm!ne from lia"ilit for
malpra%ti%e= In %ontrast( the %o!rt in 8eneri + Pappano H&;;?( Pa 9!perI A)) A)d
;77 noted that a p!"> li% defender is not imm!ne from lia"ilit for malpra%ti%e,
Attorne-s lia"ilit for malpra%ti%e in %onne%tion with defense of %riminal %ase( <?
Page 4 -

A,E,R,?d 7?&; The independen%e of the p!"li% defender is of !tmost importan%e to its
d!ties to indigent defendants, Crist +, Florida Ass-n of Criminal 0efense Eawers(
In%,( ;74 9o, )d &?3 HFla, )''4I, Trial %o!rt-s %omments on per%ei+ed defi%ien%ies of
p!"li%
defender sstem( made in its order dening defendant-s re6!est for ?<Nda
pretrial %ontin!an%e of %apital m!rder trial( did not %reate a %onfli%t of interest
"etween defendant and p!"li% defender whi%h re6!ired p!"li% defender to withdraw
from the representation, 9!p, Ct, R!les( R!le ?,&?'( R!les of Prof, Con> d!%t( R!le
&,&AHaI, F!rnish +, Com,( ;< 9,F,?d ?3 HD, )'')I( as modified( H0e%, &'( )'')I, At
the hearing on the Competen% E+al!ation( #!dge 9ferraGGa %o!ld "e heard( d!ring a
re%ess( ma*ing an e@%ited !tteran%e wherein he %ommented that the "ill for the
ridi%!lo!s( "aseless( and %learl moti+ated " a retaliator intent re6!est for a
Competen% E+al!ation made " P0 Clin wo!ld not "e a%%epted " the Reno
#!sti%e Co!rt( and that it wo!ld "e ret!rned to the P!"li% 0efender-s Offi%e and the
%o!ld pa the "ill for the Competen% E+al!ation if the wanted to waster mone so
"ad, Mr, Ro"erts( Please pro+ide( in writing an in+entor of e+erthing o! "elie+e
o! ha+e pro+ided me, F!rther( o!r flip disregard and non response in relation to m
FOIA re6!ests and other re6!ests( made in writing( as*ing o! to file a Motion to
0ismiss( and other motions is tr!l tro!"ling and refle%ts e@%eedingl poorl on o!r
le+el of professional responsi"ilit, In fa%t( I ha+e %ommen%ed an in6!ir into
whether o! ha+e E8ER filed a Motion to 0ismiss on "ehalf of ANB %lient and(
similarl( whether o!( in o!r long ten!re at the FCP0 ha+e e+er as*ed for
san%tions of an sort against the Reno Cit Attorne, In %o!rt( at a hearing feat!ring
Reno Cit Attorne Ro"erts( o! wal*ed o+er to Reno Cit Attorne Ro"erts-s file(
witho!t a hint of %onsternation from Reno Cit Attorne Ro"erts( and rifled thro!gh
his file loo*ing for something( et o! den me a%%ess to m file, That sort of
fraterniGation with the Reno Cit Attorne-s Offi%e Ho! still ha+e not answered
Page ;

whether Reno Cit Attorne Ro"erts was in o!r retin!e at the free trade %offee pla%e
that da I saw o! on the streetI is inappropriate an refle%ts poorl on the legal
profession and the FCP0-s Offi%e( parti%!larl in the %onte@t of o!r mriad ref!sals
to file e+en a single do%!ment in m defense( o! %ohorts for%ing me into a
"!rdensome and ins!lting Competen% E+al!ation( o!r non response to m FOIA
re6!est( the patentl retaliator falsehoods Mr, Clin attri"!tes to #essi%a( o!r
re%eptionist( Mr, Bosler-s hiring " Reno Cit Attorne $ammi%*( and all the other
&?th %himes of the %lo%* one hears in the tape from this %ase, #!st a few t!rns on the
EO( and this %ase %o!ld "e a smphon of transparen%, Co!ghlin f!rther mo+es for
san%tions against 0ep!t Cit Attorne Ro"erts p!rs!ant to NR9 7,'4<( for the
attornes- fees Co!ghlin has needlessl in%!rred d!e to Ro"erts-s %owardl( lethargi%(
largesse and re%*less !ses of this %o!rt-s pro%esses,
ANALYSIS
If a Reno Cit Attorne has in his or her possession e@%!lpator +ideo and a!dio
e+iden%e( in addition to a!dio and +ideo e+iden%e whi%h shows material witnesses
not onl %ompletel %ontradi%ting themsel+es( "!t also see*ing to diss!ade other
material witnesses from testifing( it wo!ld "e tro!"ling to see that Reno Cit
Attorne or someone filling in for him as some preliminar hearing to %ontin!e to
appear in %o!rt and stand "ehind the Criminal Complaint( all while %olle%ting a
pa%he%* that is more and more p!t into rather star* relief in %omparison to that
whi%h similarl e@perien%ed and ed!%ated in+id!als garner in the pri+ate se%tor,
F!rther( if other material witnesses %an "e seen in a!dio and +ideo e+iden%e
assa!lting and "attering an in+estigator as*ing 6!estions related to e@%!lpating the
a%%!sed in a matter( it wo!ld "e all the more tro!"ling to see a prose%!tor %ontin!e to
appear in %o!rt ad+o%ating orall and filing do%!ments in s!pport of the allegations
of the %riminal %omplaint, It is important to %larif statements made in %o!rt toda
with respe%t to whether NRCP R!le && san%tions ma "e le+ied against a prose%!tor,
Page &'

9!%h a proposition was met with general do!"t toda, Cowe+er( Ne+ada law is 6!ite
%lear in this regard, Clearl( the %an, Contrar to an indi%ation in %o!rt toda( the
Reno Cit Attorne does not pla with some sort of spe%ial safet net the rest of the
attornes in the state fail to ha+e= Office of Washoe County Dist Atty ! Secon"
#u"icia$ Dist Cou%t e& %e$ County of Washoe, ''( Ne! ()*, + P," +() -).../
The Reno City Atto%ney a0so$ute$y is su01ect to NRCP '', an" so is any 2ith the
Washoe County Pu0$ic Defen"e%3s Office o% the cou%t a44ointe" 5fou% fo%6e%
4%osecuto%s7 the Reno City Atto%ney an" Reno Munici4a$ Cou%t ca$$ cou%t
a44ointe" "efense atto%neys 8In a case 0%ou9ht 0y the "ist%ict atto%ney to
enfo%ce a Washin9ton chi$" su44o%t o%"e% in Ne!a"a, the "ist%ict cou%t i64ose"
NRCP '' sanctions a9ainst the "ist%ict atto%ney fo% fai$in9 to "iscontinue
enfo%ce6ent of the su44o%t o%"e% afte% the "ist%ict cou%t3s 4%e!ious %u$in9 that
Washin9ton ha" continuin9 e&c$usi!e 1u%is"iction to a"1u"icate the a%%ea%a9e
a6ount 0istri%t attorne-s offi%e( as a non>part in !nderling pro%eedings to
enfor%e o!t>of>state %hild s!pport order( did not ha+e right to appeal distri%t %o!rt-s
order imposing R!le && san%tions against the offi%e( and th!s writ of mandam!s was
an a+aila"le remed, Offi%e of Fashoe Co!nt 0ist, Att, +, 9e%ond #!di%ial 0ist,
Co!rt e@ rel, Co!nt of Fashoe( )'''( < P,?d <A)( &&A Ne+, A);, 0istri%t 2!dge
a"!sed his dis%retion in imposing P)(<'' san%tions against %it manager and %it
attorne for their alleged fail!re to parti%ipate in good faith in settlement %onferen%e
and( therefore( petition for writ of mandam!s to pre+ent distri%t %o!rt from enfor%ing
san%tions wo!ld "e granted; san%tions le+ied did not fit p!rported +iolations at iss!e,
Cit of 9par*s +, 9e%ond #!di%ial 0ist, Co!rt In and For Co!nt of Fashoe( &;;A(
;)' P,)d &'&3( &&) Ne+, ;<), In the United 9tates 9!preme Co!rt %ase of B!%*le +,
FitGsimmons( <'; U,9, )<;( &&? 9,Ct, )A'A( &)< E,Ed,)d )'; H&;;?I( the petitioner
alleged the prose%!tors and poli%e %onspired to lin* the "oot print at the m!rder s%ene
with his print " witness .shopping,/ .At the time of this witness shopping the
Page && -

assistant prose%!tors were wor*ing hand in hand with the sheriff-s dete%ti+es,,,,/ Id, at
)7)( &&? 9,Ct, )A'A, The Co!rt held the prose%!tors were not entitled to a"sol!te
imm!nit( stating= A prose%!tor-s administrati+e d!ties and those in+estigator
f!n%tions that do not relate to an ad+o%ate-s preparation for the initiation of a
prose%!tion or for 2!di%ial pro%eedings are not entitled to a"sol!te imm!nit, Id, at
)7?( &&? 9,Ct, )A'A, 9ee $entile +, Co!nt of 9!ffol*( ;)A F,)d &3) H)d Cir, &;;&I
Hholding that a %o!nt distri%t attorne-s long pra%ti%e of ignoring e+iden%e of poli%e
mis%ond!%t and san%tioning and %o+ering !p wrongdoing %o!ld ma*e the %o!nt
lia"leI; Cla!de C, +, Co!nt of Oneida( A)A N,B,9,)d ;?? HApp, 0i+, &;;<I Hholding
that distri%t attorne-s %ommand that plaintiff "e !nlawf!ll arrested %o!ld s!pport
a%tion against %o!nt for false imprisonmentI, Ne+ada R!les of Professional
Cond!%t( R!le ?,4, 9pe%ial Responsi"ilities of a Prose%!tor, L The prose%!tor in a
%riminal %ase shall= HaI Refrain from prose%!ting a %harge that the prose%!tor *nows
is not s!pported " pro"a"le %a!se; H"I Ma*e reasona"le efforts to ass!re that the
a%%!sed has "een ad+ised of the right to( and the pro%ed!re for o"taining( %o!nsel and
has "een gi+en reasona"le opport!nit to o"tain %o!nsel; H%I Not see* to o"tain from
an !nrepresented a%%!sed a wai+er of important pretrial rights( s!%h as the right to a
preliminar hearing; HdI Ma*e timel dis%los!re to the defense of all e+iden%e or
information *nown to the prose%!tor that tends to negate the g!ilt of the a%%!sed or
mitigates the offense( and( in %onne%tion with senten%ing( dis%lose to the defense and
to the tri"!nal all !npri+ileged mitigating information *nown to the prose%!tor(
e@%ept when the prose%!tor is relie+ed of this responsi"ilit " a prote%ti+e order of
the tri"!nal; HeI Not s!"poena a lawer in a grand 2!r or other %riminal pro%eeding
to present e+iden%e a"o!t a past or present %lient !nless the prose%!tor reasona"l
"elie+es= H&I The information so!ght is not prote%ted from dis%los!re " an
appli%a"le pri+ilege; H)I The e+iden%e so!ght is essential to the s!%%essf!l
%ompletion of an ongoing in+estigation or prose%!tion; and H?I There is no other
Page &) -

feasi"le alternati+e to o"tain the information; HfI E@%ept for statements that are
ne%essar to inform the p!"li% of the nat!re and e@tent of the prose%!torJs a%tion and
that ser+e a legitimate law enfor%ement p!rpose( refrain from ma*ing e@tra2!di%ial
%omments that ha+e a s!"stantial li*elihood of heightening p!"li% %ondemnation of
the a%%!sed and e@er%ise reasona"le %are to pre+ent in+estigators( law enfor%ement
personnel( emploees or other persons assisting or asso%iated with the prose%!tor in a
%riminal %ase from ma*ing an e@tra2!di%ial statement that the prose%!tor wo!ld "e
prohi"ited from ma*ing !nder R!le ?,A or this R!le,L Under Brad +, Marland( ?7?
U,9, 4?( 47 H&;A?I( .the s!ppression " the prose%!tion of e+iden%e fa+ora"le to an
a%%!sed ,,, +iolates d!e pro%ess where the e+iden%e is material either to g!ilt or to
p!nishment,,,,/United 9tates +, 9hagan( AA& F,9!pp,)d &)4;( &?)< H9,0, Fla, )'';I
H2!dge reser+ed the right .to impose an f!rther san%tions and1or dis%iplinar
meas!res as ma "e ne%essar against Qthe federal prose%!torsR after re+iewing the
res!lts of the #!sti%e 0epartmentJs in+estigation,/I; United 9tates +, #ones( No, CR
'7>&')4;> MEF( )'&' FE <A<374 H0,Mass, )'&'I H%o!rt determined that
imposition of san%tions against AU9A or go+ernment for fail!re to ade6!atel train
AU9A "ased on fail!re to dis%lose plainl material e@%!lpator e+iden%e were
neither ne%essar nor appropriate where( sin%e +iolation dis%los!re( AU9A( U9
AttorneJs Offi%e and 0O# offi%ials too* a%tions s!%h as parti%ipating in dis%o+er
training programs( whi%h o"+iated need for san%tionsI, As for the P!"li% 0efender=
Ro B, Flemming( If Bo! Pa the Piper( 0o Bo! Call the T!neS P!"li% 0efenders in
Ameri%a-s Criminal Co!rts( &3 EAF T 9OC, INOUIRB ?;? H&;4;I-, Fhat P!"li%
0efenderS The !ndersigned was denied one in %ontra+ention of the 9i@th
Amendment( and it doesn-t matter if the state doesn-t intent to see* 2ail time( one is
re6!ired where 2ail time is a possi"ilit, 9!%h a de%ision wo!ld %onstit!te an
Lo"2e%ti+eL of the representation, 9ee MO0EE RUEE9 OF PROFE99IONAE
CON0UCT R!le &,)HaI; ABA 9tandards for Criminal #!sti%e( 9tandard 3><,)
Page &? -

LControl and 0ire%tion of the CaseL H&;;)I Hspe%ifing that the de%isions to "e made
" the a%%!sed after f!ll %ons!ltation with %o!nsel in%l!de what pleas to enter(
whether to a%%ept a plea agreement( whether to wai+e 2!r trial( whether to testif(
and whether to appealI, The lawers who %hara%teristi%all gra+itate toward indigent
defense wo!ld not( it seems( easil ad2!st to a pra%ti%e that in+ol+ed adhering to a set
of o+erriding instit!tional o"2e%ti+es, Neither their training nor their imp!lses wo!ld
tpi%all prepare p!"li% defenders to "end to the offi%e-s larger goals, In fa%t( the anti>
a!thoritarian nat!re of the wor* appealed to me as a staff lawer, I e@pe%ted to
represent m %lients witho!t either inter+ention or interferen%e from m s!per+isors,
M %lients- o"2e%ti+es were not onl important( "!t the onl ones that mattered, I
remain sensiti+e that " imposing instit!tional %ontrols that to some e@tent %!r" the
re"ellio!s spirit of defenders( the defender offi%e might r!n the ris* of %hanging "oth
the nat!re of defenders- pra%ti%e and the tpe of lawers who %hoose to 2oin the
offi%e, Clearl( if a %riminal defendant has a legitimate and arti%!la"le "asis for
wanting a Motion to 0ismiss filed( it sho!ld "e filed( e+en " a P!"li% 0efender
whose "oss was %hosen( in part( " the 0istri%t Attorne, This is parti%!larl tr!e
where e@%!lpator a!dio and +ideo e+iden%e e@ists( and e+en more so where
e@tortion or other poli%e mis%ond!%t is e+ident( s!%h as %oer%i+e attempts to garner
%onsent to sear%h( threats to "ad mo!th one to a professional li%ens!re "od(
e@%essi+e for%e( se@!al "atter( o+er%harging in a retaliator manner in light of an
assertion of Fo!rth or Fifth Amendment rights( false imprisonment( et%,,,, B now(
the a%tions of Mi%hael Nifong( the former 0istri%t Attorne of 0!rham Co!nt( North
Carolina( that led to his dis"arment are well *nown, 9ee generall Ro"ert P,
Mosteller( The 0!*e Ea%rosse Case( Inno%en%e( and False Identifi%ations= A
F!ndamental Fail!re to .0o #!sti%e/( 7A Fordham E, Re+, &??7 H)''7I, 9ome arg!e
that the sit!ation in+ol+ing Nifong is an isolated %ase, Bet prose%!torial o+errea%hing
has "een an iss!e well "efore this headline>gra""ing %ase %ame along, A re%ent report
Page &3 -

iss!ed " the California Commission on the Fair Administration of #!sti%e referred to
a st!d that re+iewed )(&?' California appellate %ases in whi%h a %laim of
prose%!torial mis%ond!%t was raised, Cal, CommJn on the Fair Admin, of #!sti%e(
Report and Re%ommendations on Professional Responsi"ilit and A%%o!nta"ilit of
Prose%!tors and 0efense Eawers H)''7I( a+aila"le at
http=11www,%%fa2,org1do%!ments1reports1prose%!torial1offi%ial1offi%ial report on
reporting mis%ond!%t,pdf, Of those )(&?' %ases( 33? res!lted in findings that
prose%!torial mis%ond!%t a%t!all o%%!rred, In <? of the 33? %ases( a re+ersal of
%on+i%tion was the res!ltMthe rest %on%l!ding that the mis%ond!%t was harmless
error, Perhaps the most dist!r"ing statisti% is that a follow>!p st!d loo*ing at half of
the %ases res!lting in a re+ersed %on+i%tion %on%l!ded that the prose%!tor was not
referred to the California 9tate Bar for dis%ipline( whi%h is re6!ired !nder California
law, If there is a positi+e aspe%t to the 0!*e Ea%rosse saga( it is that NifongJs a%tions
and !ltimate dis"arment ha+e ser+ed to highlight the important iss!e of prose%!torial
mis%ond!%t and the need for effe%ti+e remedies, Prose%!torial Mis%ond!%t and
Frongf!l Con+i%tions= 9haping Remedies for a Bro*en 9stem( )''A Fis, E, Re+,
?;;( 3'? H)''AI, Moreo+er( ass!ming that the defendant is fa%t!all %!lpa"le( a
%on+i%tion se%!red thro!gh the improper a%tions of a prose%!tor %o!ld "e
!n%onstit!tional and( th!s( s!"2e%t to re+ersal, The res!lt is that the inno%ent are
%on+i%ted and the g!ilt go free( whi%h %an onl e@a%er"ate the p!"li%Js loss of tr!st
in the integrit of the %riminal 2!sti%e sstem, PRO9ECUTORIAE $UI0EEINE9 In
performing their d!ties to see* 2!sti%e( prose%!tors are "o!nd " %onstit!tional
standards( %ase law go+erning trial %ond!%t( and +ario!s ethi%s r!les and standards
pertaining to the prose%!torial f!n%tion, R!le ?,4 of the ABA Model R!les of
Professional Cond!%t H.Model R!les/I spe%ifi%all %o+ers the a%tions and
responsi"ilities of prose%!tors, All state 2!risdi%tions ha+e an ethi%s r!le imposing
spe%ial responsi"ilities on prose%!tors( most "ased on Model R!le ?,4, Prose%!tors
Page &< -

are also g!ided " standards fo!nd in the ABA 9tandards for Criminal #!sti%e
Prose%!tion F!n%tion and 0efense F!n%tion H?d ed, &;;?I H.ABA 9tandards/I and
the National 0istri%t Attornes Asso%iation Prose%!tion 9tandards H)d ed, &;;&I
H.N0AA 9tandards/I, In assessing the %ond!%t of prose%!tors( %o!rts ha+e oftentimes
loo*ed to the ABA 9tandards for g!idan%e, 9ee( e,g,( Miller +, North Carolina( <4?
F,)d 7'&( 7'A n,A H3th Cir, &;74I, For ears( the U,9, 0epartment of #!sti%e H.0O#/I
too* the position that Assistant United 9tates Attornes H.AU9As/I were e@empt
from state ethi%s r!les, The M%0ade Amendment in &;;; laid to rest this arg!ment,
The amendment( atta%hed as a rider to an appropriations "ill( pro+ides= An attorne
for the $o+ernment shall "e s!"2e%t to 9tate laws and r!les( and lo%al Federal %o!rt
r!les( go+erning attornes in ea%h 9tate where s!%h attorne engages in that
attorneJs d!ties( to the same e@tent and in the same manner as other attornes in that
9tate, )4 U,9,C, K <?'BHaI, The Professional Responsi"ilit Ad+isor Offi%e within
the 0O# pro+ides ad+i%e to AU9As regarding ethi%al iss!es and %hoi%e>of>law
matters, EUAMPEE9 OF PRO9ECUTORIAE MI9CON0UCT .Ei*e the Cdra slain
" Cer%!les( prose%!torial mis%ond!%t has man heads,/ United 9tates +, Filliams(
<'3 U,9, ?A( A' H&;;)I H9te+ens( #,( dissentingI; see also #o( s!pra( at 3') Hlisting
n!mero!s forms of prose%!torial mis%ond!%tI, This arti%le fo%!ses on fi+e %ategories=
H&I s!ppression of e+iden%e( H)I mis!se of the media( H?I mis%ond!%t in+ol+ing
witnesses( H3I in+estigati+e mis%ond!%t( and H<I trial mis%ond!%t, An spe%ifi% a%t of
prose%!torial mis%ond!%t ma fall into more than one %ategor, For e@ample(
*nowingl presenting per2!red testimon wo!ld "e mis%ond!%t in+ol+ing a witness(
as well as a +iolation of the d!t to dis%lose e@%!lpator e+iden%e, Nifong %ommitted
in+estigati+e mis%ond!%t in de+ising the photo arra that led to the arrest of the three
la%rosse plaers, The a%%!ser in the %ase( Crstal Mang!m( had "een shown two
photo arrasM one on Mar%h &A( )''A and another on Mar%h )&( )''AMthat did not
%ontain an .fillers,/ E+er single pi%t!re( ?A in total( that Mang!m loo*ed at was a
Page &A -

la%rosse plaer, Mang!m was !na"le to identif an of her alleged atta%*ers, Then(
on Mar%h ?&( )''A( Nifong s!ggested to the poli%e that Mang!m "e shown
photographs of all 3A white mem"ers of the team at the same time, 9ee Mosteller(
s!pra( at &?;4, 0!ring this pro%ed!re( whi%h o%%!rred on April 3( )''A( Mang!m( at
the dire%tion of Nifong( was told that the poli%e had reason to "elie+e that all of the
men she was loo*ing at were at the part where she was allegedl raped, Again( the
arra %ontained no .fillers,/ In essen%e( Mang!m was told that she %o!ld not ma*e a
wrong %hoi%e, It was at this time that Mang!m identified the plaers who were later
%harged, The dire%t %onse6!en%e of this in+estigati+e mis%ond!%t was the indi%tment
of three inno%ent people, Trial Mis%ond!%t Prose%!torial mis%ond!%t d!ring the
%o!rse of trial %o+ers a "road spe%tr!m, For e@ample( a prose%!tor ma improperl=
introd!%e e+iden%e( assassinate the %hara%ter of a defendant( refer to the fa%t that a
defendant did not tal* to the poli%e or ta*e the stand in his or her defense( ma*e
inflammator statements d!ring %losing arg!ment( or attempt to "olster the %redi"ilit
of a prose%!tion witness, 9ee generall( Eawless( s!pra( KK ;N&'; $ershman(
Mis%ond!%t( s!pra( KK &'N&&, ABA 9tandard ?><,4 and N0AA 9tandard 4<,& go+ern
the s%ope of %losing arg!ments, The N0AA 9tandard simpl states= .Closing
arg!ments sho!ld "e %hara%teriGed " fairness( a%%!ra%( rationalit( and a relian%e
!pon the e+iden%e or reasona"le inferen%es drawn therefrom,/ N0AA 9tandard 4<,&,
The ABA 9tandard goes f!rther and spe%ifi%all states that a prose%!tor sho!ld not
e@press his or her personal "elief as to the +era%it of an e+iden%e or g!ilt of the
defendant, The ABA 9tandard also pro+ides that a prose%!tor sho!ld not appeal to
the pre2!di%es of the 2!r, 9ee ABA 9tandard ?> <,4H"IN H%I, Case law is filled with
inn!mera"le instan%es of improper trial %ond!%tMmost of whi%h is deemed harmless,
One prose%!tor who repeatedl went o+er the line a%%ording to appellate %o!rts is
Ro"ert C, Ma%( the former 0istri%t Attorne of O*lahoma Co!nt( O*lahoma, 9ee
Den Armstrong( .Cow"o Bo"/ Ropes FinsMB!t at Considera"le Cost( Chi, Tri",(
Page &7 -

#an, &'( &;;;( at &?, Called a .tr!e patriot/ " former Attorne $eneral Filliam Barr
and honored as .Ameri%aJs prose%!tor/ " the O*lahoma 9enate !pon his retirement
in )''&( Ma% left "ehind a string of %ases %ommenting !nfa+ora"l on his trial
%ond!%t, Pa@ton +, Fard( &;; F,?d &&;7 H&'th Cir, &;;;I; Fashington +, 9tate( ;4;
P,)d ;A' HO*la, Crim, App, &;;;I; O%hoa +, 9tate( ;A? P,)d <4? HO*la, Crim, App,
&;;4I; Torres +, 9tate( ;A) P,)d ? HO*la, Crim, App, &;;4I; Ee +, 9tate( ;37 P,)d <?<
HO*la, Crim, App, &;;7I; 0!%*ett +, 9tate( ;&; P,)d 7 HO*la, Crim, App, &;;<I;
Ro"inson +, 9tate( ;'' P,)d ?4; HO*la, Crim, App, &;;<I; Caw*ins +, 9tate( 4;&
P,)d <4A HO*la, Crim, App, &;;<I; Coo*er +, 9tate( 447 P,)d &?<& HO*la, Crim,
App, &;;3I; Cowell +, 9tate( 44) P,)d &'4A HO*la, Crim, App, &;;3I;
M%Cart +, 9tate( 7A< P,)d &)&< HO*la, Crim, App, &;4<I; Cantrell +, 9tate( A;7
P,)d ;A4 HO*la, Crim, App, &;4<I HPar*s( #,( dissentingI, The re"!*es seem not to
ha+e had an effe%t on his %ond!%t, Ne+ada R!les of Professional Cond!%t R!le &,),
9%ope of Representation and Allo%ation of A!thorit Between Client and Eawer, HaI
9!"2e%t to paragraphs H%I and HdI( a lawer shall a"ide " a %lientJs de%ision
%on%erning the o"2e%ti+es of representation and( as re6!ired " R!le &,3( shall %ons!lt
with the %lient as to the means " whi%h the are to "e p!rs!ed, A lawer ma ta*e
s!%h a%tion on "ehalf of the %lient as is impliedl a!thoriGed to %arr o!t the
representation, A lawer shall a"ide " a %lientJs de%ision whether to settle a matter,
In a %riminal %ase( the lawer shall a"ide " the %lientJs de%ision( after %ons!ltation
with the lawer( as to a plea to "e entered( whether to wai+e 2!r trial and whether the
%lient will testif, H"I A lawerJs representation of a %lient( in%l!ding representation
" appointment( does not %onstit!te an endorsement of the %lientJs politi%al(
e%onomi%( so%ial or moral +iews or a%ti+ities, H%I A lawer ma limit the s%ope of the
representation if the limitation is reasona"le !nder the %ir%!mstan%es and the %lient
gi+es informed %onsent, HdI A lawer shall not %o!nsel a %lient to engage( or assist a
%lient( in %ond!%t that the lawer *nows is %riminal or fra!d!lent( "!t a lawer ma
Page &4

dis%!ss the legal %onse6!en%es of an proposed %o!rse of %ond!%t with a %lient and
ma %o!nsel or assist a %lient to ma*e a good faith effort to determine the +alidit(
s%ope( meaning or appli%ation of the law, QAdded; effe%ti+e Ma &( )''A,R Model
R!le ComparisonM)''A R!le &,) Hformerl 9!preme Co!rt R!le &<)I is the same as
ABA Model R!le &,), R!le &,?, 0iligen%e, A lawer shall a%t with reasona"le
diligen%e and promptness in representing a %lient, QAdded; effe%ti+e Ma &( )''A,R
Model R!le ComparisonM)''A R!le &,? Hformerl 9!preme Co!rt R!le &<?I is the
same as ABA Model R!le &,?, In+estigati+e Mis%ond!%t Press!re to sol+e a %rime
might lead a prose%!tor to get intimatel in+ol+ed in the pre>trial in+estigation of a
matter, 9ee ABA 9tandard ?>?,& H.QTRhe prose%!tor has an affirmati+e responsi"ilit
to in+estigate s!spe%ted illegal a%ti+it when it is not ade6!atel dealt with " other
agen%ies,/I, REME0IE9 To date( prose%!torial mis%ond!%tMe+en the most
egregio!sMhas largel gone !n%he%*ed, 9ee $ershman( Mis%ond!%t( s!pra( at +i
H.Relati+el few 2!di%ial or %onstit!tional san%tions e@ist to penaliGe or deter
mis%ond!%t; the a+aila"le san%tions are sparingl !sed and e+en when !sed ha+e not
pro+ed effe%ti+e,/I, In #an!ar &;;;( the Chi%ago Tri"!ne p!"lished a fi+e>part series
titled= Trial T Error= Cow Prose%!tors 9a%rifi%e #!sti%e to Fin, AnalGing tho!sands
of %ases( the newspaper fo!nd that sin%e &;A? at least ?4& defendants had their
%on+i%tions re+ersed either "e%a!se prose%!tors s!ppressed e@%!lpator e+iden%e or
s!"orned per2!r, Alarmingl( of those ?4& %ases( .not one of those prose%!tors was
%on+i%ted of a %rime, Not one was "arred from pra%ti%ing law, Instead( man saw
their %areers ad+an%e( "e%oming 2!dges or distri%t attornes, One "e%ame a
%ongressman,/ Den Armstrong T Ma!ri%e Possle( The 8erdi%t= 0ishonor( Chi,
Tri",( #an, &'( &;;;( at &, Criminal Prose%!tions The %riminal prose%!tion of a
prose%!tor is e@tremel rare, A%%ording to the Chi%ago Tri"!ne series( .QfRew
prose%!tors nationall ha+e "een indi%ted( and the were a%6!itted or( at worst(
%on+i%ted of a misdemeanor and fined,/ Den Armstrong T Ma!ri%e Possle( Brea*
Page &; -

R!les( Be Promoted( Chi, Tri",( #an, &3( &;;;( at & Qhereinafter Armstrong T Possle(
Brea* R!lesR, This statisti% seems not to ha+e %hanged in the last nine ears,
9!"se6!ent to the Tri"!ne series( two separate %ases were "ro!ght against
prose%!tors for a%ts %ommitted in their offi%ial %apa%it; neither res!lted in
%on+i%tions, The first o%%!rred in mid>&;;;M a %ase in whi%h three former Illinois
state prose%!tors were %harged with %onspiring to frame a man " the name of
Rolando Cr!G for m!rder, Cr!G spent nearl &' ears on 0eath Row "efore it "e%ame
%lear that the prose%!tion had s!ppressed e+iden%e that another person had
%ommitted the %rime and that prose%!tors had %onspired with poli%e offi%ers to
introd!%e a .dream statement/ of Cr!GJs into e+iden%e at his original trial and two re>
trials, A 2!dge dismissed %harges against two of the prose%!tors for ins!ffi%ient
e+iden%e, HOne later "e%ame an Illinois 2!dgeMthe other( an AU9A,I A 2!r
a%6!itted the third after a )4>da trial, 9ee Andrew Bl!th( Prose%!tor and 3 9heriff Js
0ep!ties Are A%6!itted of Frongf!ll A%%!sing a Man of M!rder( N,B, Times( #!ne
<( &;;;( at A;, R!le &,3, Comm!ni%ation, HaI A lawer shall= H&I Promptl inform the
%lient of an de%ision or %ir%!mstan%e with respe%t to whi%h the %lientJs informed
%onsent is re6!ired " these R!les; H)I Reasona"l %ons!lt with the %lient a"o!t the
means " whi%h the %lientJs o"2e%ti+es are to "e a%%omplished; H?I Deep the %lient
reasona"l informed a"o!t the stat!s of the matter; H3I Promptl %ompl with
reasona"le re6!ests for information; and H<I Cons!lt with the %lient a"o!t an
rele+ant limitation on the lawerJs %ond!%t when the lawer *nows that the %lient
e@pe%ts assistan%e not permitted " the R!les of Professional Cond!%t or other law,
H"I A lawer shall e@plain a matter to the e@tent reasona"l ne%essar to permit the
%lient to ma*e informed de%isions regarding the representation, ,,,Added; effe%ti+e
Ma &( )''A; as amended; effe%ti+e No+em"er )&( )''4,R Model R!le ComparisonM
)''7 R!le &,3 Hformerl 9!preme Co!rt R!le &<3I is the same as ABA Model R!le
&,3( e@%ept that the )''7 amendments in%l!de lang!age in paragraph H%I that was
Page )' -

pre+io!sl part of repealed R!le 7,)AHaI thro!gh HdI and HfI Hformerl 9!preme Co!rt
R!le &;A,<I whi%h is Ne+adaspe%ifi% lang!age and has no %o!nterpart in the Model
R!les, 0is%iplinar A%tions Ea%h state "ar has a me%hanism in pla%e for the
dis%ipline of mis%ond!%t " attornes li%ensed in that state, 9eparatel( federal %o!rts
ma dis%ipline attornes who appear "efore them( whi%h ma res!lt in the s!spension
or dis"arment of attornes from that parti%!lar %o!rt, 9ee( e,g,( In re Dramer( )4)
F,?d 7)& H;th Cir, )'')I, F!rther( the 0O#Js Offi%e of Professional Responsi"ilit
H.OPR/I has responsi"ilit for in+estigating allegations of mis%ond!%t %ommitted "
AU9As, It appears that these pro%ed!res are rarel effe%ti+e in dealing with
prose%!torial mis%ond!%t, The dis%iplinar a%tion against Nifong is !n!s!al in that
not onl did it res!lt in dis"arment( "!t "e%a!se it was initiated while %harges against
the 0!*e st!dents were still pending, Re%entl( the Center for P!"li% Integrit
%ond!%ted a st!d that fo!nd onl 33 instan%es of dis%iplinar a%tions against
prose%!tors sin%e &;7', Of those 33= S in 7( the %o!rt dismissed the %omplaint or did
not impose p!nishment; S in ?( the %o!rt remanded the %ase for f!rther pro%eedings; S
in )3( the %o!rt assessed the %osts of the pro%eedings against the prose%!tor; S in )'(
the %o!rt imposed a p!"li% or pri+ate reprimand or %ens!re; S in &( the prose%!tor was
pla%ed on pro"ation; S in &)( the prose%!torJs li%ense was s!spended; S in )( the
prose%!tor was dis"arred, Neil $ordon( Mis%ond!%t and P!nishment= 9tate
0is%iplinar A!thorities In+estigate Prose%!tors A%%!sed of Mis%ond!%t H)''7I(
http=11www,p!"li%integrit,org1pm1defa!lt,asp@Sa%tVside"ars"Taid V?;; see
generall 9te+e Fein"erg et al,( Ctr, for P!", Integrit( Carmf!l Error= In+estigating
Ameri%aJs Eo%al Prose%!tors H)''?I, A follow>!p to the T!lia %ase dis%!ssed a"o+e
re+ealed that the prose%!tor( whose s!"ornation of per2!r and Brad +iolations led
to the wrongf!l %on+i%tions of s%ores of people( re%ei+ed two ears of pro"ation, 9ee
0is%iplinar A%tions( A4 Te@, B,#, 7<?( 7<4 H)''<I, The OPR has the a!thorit to
determine whether an AU9A %ommitted .professional mis%ond!%t in the e@er%ise of
Page )& -

his or her a!thorit to in+estigate( litigate or pro+ide legal ad+i%e,/ U,9, 0epJt of
#!sti%e Offi%e of ProfJl Responsi"ilit( Analti%al Framewor* Hre+, )''<I( a+aila"le
at http=11www,!sdo2,go+1opr1framewor*,pdf, Professional mis%ond!%t is defined as
the intentional or re%*less disregard .of an o"ligation or standard imposed " law(
appli%a"le r!le of professional %ond!%t( or 0epartment reg!lation or poli%,/ Id, If the
OPR determines that an AU9A %ommitted professional mis%ond!%t( it re%ommends a
%ertain san%tion to the attorneJs s!per+isor, A+aila"le san%tions range from a written
reprimand to remo+al, The OPR ma also refer the matter to the "ar dis%iplinar
a!thorit in the 2!risdi%tion in whi%h the attorne is li%ensed, 9ee U,9, 0epJt of
#!sti%e Offi%e of ProfJl Responsi"ilit( Poli%ies T Pro%ed!res( a+aila"le at
http=11www,!sdo2,go+1opr1 polandpro%,htm, In )''&( a $eneral A%%o!nting Offi%e
report %on%l!ded that the OPR was ineffe%ti+e in dealing with prose%!torial
mis%ond!%t, 9ee News Ad+isor( U,9, Co!se of Representati+es( Committee on the
#!di%iar( $AO Report Finds 9ignifi%ant Pro"lems with #!sti%e 0epartmentJs Offi%e
of Professional Responsi"ilit HFe", )'( )''&I( a+aila"le at
http=11www,2!di%iar,ho!se,go+1lega%1news'))',htm, A re%ent highl>p!"li%iGed
%ase ill!strates the pro"lem, Chief #!dge Mar* Folf of the U,9, 0istri%t Co!rt(
0istri%t of Massa%h!setts fo!nd .e@traordinar mis%ond!%t " the 0epartment of
#!sti%e in its in+estigation and prose%!tion of mem"ers of the Patriar%a Famil of Ea
Cosa Nostra,/ Ferrara +, United 9tates( ?43 F, 9!pp, )d ?43( ?47 H0, Mass, )''<I( aff
Jd( 3<A F,?d )74 H&st Cir, )''AI, Chief #!dge Folf fo!nd that AU9A .#effre
A!erhahn( +iolated QhisR %learl esta"lished %onstit!tional d!t to dis%lose , , , "efore
trial( important e@%!lpator information that dire%tl negated Q8in%ent FerraraJs and
Pas6!ale BaroneJsR g!ilt on/ m!rder %harges, Id, The s!ppression of the e+iden%e
was intentional a%%ording to Chief #!dge Folf, 9ee id, at ?;?N ;4, The First Cir%!it
agreed( stating= .QTRhe go+ernmentJs a%tions in this %ase , , , paint a grim pi%t!re of
"latant mis%ond!%t, The re%ord +irt!all %ompels the %on%l!sion that this fe%*less
Page )) -

%o!rse of %ond!%t , , , %onstit!ted a deli"erate and serio!s "rea%h of its promise to
pro+ide e@%!lpator e+iden%e,/ Ferrara +, United 9tates( 3<A F,?d )74( );? H&st Cir,
)''AI Hfootnote omittedI, The OPR in+estigated A!erhahn and %on%l!ded that he had
a%ted in re%*less disregard of his d!t to dis%lose e@%!lpator e+iden%e,
I ha+e "een e+i%ted and perhaps s!"2e%t to an illegal lo%*o!t and !nlawf!l rent
distraint " an attorne representing m Be+erl Cills Cigh 9%hool grad!ate
California Ne!ros!rgeon landlord( who has spent appro@ P?'(''' in attornes fees
p!rs!ing a s!mmar e+i%tion( and whose attorne is withholding m state iss!ed
indentifi%ation( wallet( and all materials ne%essar to m law pra%ti%e all in an
!nlawf!l rent distraint prohi"ited " NR9 3',3A' and 3',<)', I am p!rs!ing a
%ontin!an%e of the !p%oming hearing1trial( I %annot e+en a%%ess when that hearing is,
I ha+e informed opposing %o!nsel Ro"erts of some of the iss!es whi%h will re6!ire
e@tensi+e dis%o+er( a 2!r trial( and more time to afford mself a legitimate
opport!nit to defend this %ase, I ha+e not "een ser+ed an Order responding to m
re6!est for appointment of %o!nsel( as I "elie+e it is re6!ired e+en if the 9tate does
not LintendL to see* 2ail time( where an in%ar%eration is a possi"ilit( the 9i@th
Amendment g!arantees it, Please note that m temporar address for now is= 5a%h
Co!ghlin( Es6, %1o 9il+er 0ollar Motel 4&7 N, 8irginia 9t,( Unit : ) Reno( N8 4;<'&
The opposing %o!nsel in the s!mmar e+i%tion matter is withholding m phone as
well and ref!sing to allow me to a%%ess an mail that ma remain at the propert
from those times when the U9P9 was pro%essing m offi%ial Change of Address,
Email is the "est wa to get in %onta%t with me d!ring this transition period, For
instan%e( I am !nware whether m Motion for Appointment of Co!nsel was granted
or not, I %alled #!dge Coward-s assistant and re6!ested that she email me the do%*et
in this %ase and an pleadings or orders filed( in%l!ding an order that ma ha+e
stemmed form an of m pre+io!s motions( as I am not s!re how those were r!led
on, I "elie+e m internet "ased fa@ ser+i%e will allow me to re%ei+e those materials at
Page )? -

m n!m"er ;3; AA7 73')( tho!gh I wo!ld prefer email( "!t I *now man
go+ernmental entities prefer to fa@ s!%h items, I am re6!esting a 2!r trial( a
s!"stantial %ontin!an%e( and the appointment of %o!nsel, I o"2e%t to the RMC-s
pra%ti%e of ref!sing to tell litigants who the 3 Lho!seL appointed defenders are !pon
6!estioning, F!rther( it has "e%ome %lear that some of these Lformer prose%!torsL
who are now the gang of fo!r Lho!seL defenders( do not e+en anno!n%e to a%%!sed
arraignees that the are( in fa%t( the defender or an attorne or that the ma "e
representing the arraignees, I am here" filing a motion in limine regarding an
materials or information gleaned from the !nlawf!l sear%h " the R9IC Offi%er( who
%learl anno!n%ed that the wo!ld "ase their pro"a"le %a!se to arrest and %ond!%t a
sear%h in%ident to arrest !pon an fail!re to %onsent to a sear%h " the a%%!sed,
F!rther( the alleged %ond!%t did not o%%!r in the Offi%er-s presen%e( and I "elie+e
there e@ists a!thorit pre+enting a minor misdemeanor arrest and transport !nder
those %ir%!mstan%es, Additionall( more time is needed to %ond!%t dis%o+er in this
matter( espe%iall in light of allegations that Falmart had pre+io!sl threatened
indi+id!als( in%l!ding( perhaps( the a%%!sed( with retaliator a%tion( in%l!ding illi%it
a"!se of pro%ess( for the p!rported attempts " someone to ha+e the Falmart Ret!rn
Poli% enfor%ed( and to hold a%%o!nta"le all Falmart emploees and managers( some
of whom ha+e o+er a de%ade e@perien%e in their positions( who %!rio!sl LforgetL
the Ret!rn Poli% Falmart holds o!t to the p!"li% when it is %on+enient to do so(
the same Ret!rn Poli% that Falmart !sed to dri+e o!t of "!siness so man
%ompetitors, F!rther( this %ase is li*el to get e@tremel %ompli%ated gi+en the
apparent %onfli%t of interest stemming from the fa%t that the Falmart in 6!estion is
on land owned " the R9IC( whi%h ma own or emplo the R9IC poli%e( and whi%h
is rented or owned in part " Falmart, I *now Opposing Co!nsel Ro"erts ma
appre%iate a %ontin!an%e as well and the opport!nit it wo!ld afford her to f!lfill her
NRCP && d!t and other prose%!torial d!ties to %ond!%t a reasona"l diligent in6!ir
Page )3 -

into these matters,,,,,/I did o"tain a %op of the Ldis%o+erL a"o!t the se%ond da it
was made a+aila"le to me from o!r offi%e in person, At that time( no +ideo e+iden%e
was made a+aila"le to me, Is there now some +ideo or a!dio re%ording to whi%h I
ma "e pro+ided a%%essS Fo!ld o! mind 2!st emailing me the names of the
intended witnesses, 0o o! "elie+e o! do not ha+e a d!t to ma*e a reasona"l
diligent in6!ir of either Falmart or R9IC do assess the +alidit of the matters
mentioned in m last email( ie the retaliator moti+e +is a +is Falmart and or the
impermissi"le sear%h1 3) U9C 9e% &;4? poli%e mis%ond!%t of the R9IC offi%ersS
F!ll +iewWWBa%* to messagesRE= motion for %ontin!an%eS &&1&A1&& Pamela
Ro"ertsTo 5a%h Co!ghlin From= Pamela Ro"erts Hro"ertspXreno,go+I 9ent= Fed
&&1&A1&& <=&) PM To= 5a%h Co!ghlin HGa%h%o!ghlinXhotmail,%omI Mr, Co!ghlin(
o! sho!ld ha+e alread re%ei+ed a noti%e regarding the a+aila"ilit of dis%o+er and
re6!est for re%ipro%al dis%o+er, Bo! 2!st need to %all ahead at ??3>)'<' and arrange
to pi%* it !p, Bo! are entitled to %opies of all the reports and witness statements and
+ideo we ma ha+e on this %ase, 9in%e I am not %alling an additional witnesses that
are not alread mentioned in the reports1statements( I am not o"ligated to send o! an
additional list of witnesses, I am also not o"ligated to do an f!rther in+estigation or
inter+iews, Pam Ro"erts, >>>>>Original Message>>>>> From= 5a%h Co!ghlin
YGa%h%o!ghlinXhotmail,%omZ To= Yro"ertspXreno,go+Z 0ate= Fed( &A No+ )'&&
&<=?<=34 >'4'' 9!"2e%t= RE= motion for %ontin!an%e Ms, Ro"erts( Than*s for o!r
repl, Please as%ertain from Falmart whether an Falmart emploees had( pre+io!s
to this in%ident( made an threats respe%ting mali%io!sl ha+ing the a%%!sed "anned
from Falmart-s in%ident to a disagreement o+er Falmart staff and managers %!rio!s
pra%ti%e of LforgettingL their ret!rn poli%( despite some indi+id!als ha+ing wor*ed
there o+er &' ears,,,,F!rther( I "elie+e it rele+ant and part of o!r d!t to pro+ide
e@%!lpator information to as%ertain whether the R9IC poli%e offi%er made
statements wherein he attempted to %oer%e a %onsent to an impermissi"le sear%h and
Page )< -

f!rther "!ttressed his pro"a"le %a!se finding to %ond!%t a sear%h in%ident to arrest(
e@pressl( in words( to the a%%!sed( !pon the a%%!sed-s fail!re to %onsent to s!%h a
sear%h, Please pro+ide a list of an witnesses o! intend to %all at trial( in%l!ding a
s!mmation of the matters the will testif to( in addition to prod!%ing a %op or
ma*ing a+aila"le for reprod!%tion an do%!mentation( a!dio( +ideo( or other
materials intended to "e !sed in an wa at trial, Than* Bo!(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0ate= Mon( &3
No+ )'&& &'=?A=3< >'4'' From= ro"ertspXreno,go+ To= Ga%h%o!ghlinXhotmail,%om
9!"2e%t= Re= motion for %ontin!an%e Mr, Co!ghlin( we were %losed on Frida and I
ha+e 2!st read o!r email, If o! ha+e not re%ei+ed %onfirmation from the Co!rt that
o!r trial date has "een %ontin!ed( o! will need to appear this afternoon at &='' pm
in Co!rtroom B of the Reno M!ni%ipal Co!rt, Fe %an dis%!ss o!r %ase f!rther at
that time and if we are !na"le to resol+e the %ase( o! %an as* the Co!rt again for a
%ontin!an%e and I won-t o"2e%t, Cowe+er( it is the Co!rt-s de%ision to grant o!r
motion to %ontin!e, It is also the Co!rt-s de%ision whether to appoint o! a legal
defender, I do not plan to as* for 2ail time( so the Co!rt is not re6!ired to appoint o!
an attorne, In addition( o! ha+e no right to a 2!r trial in a misdemeanor %ase, I
hope o!r ho!sing sit!ation impro+es, 9ee o! this afternoon, Pam Ro"erts( 0ep!t
Cit Attorne, >>>>>Original Message>>>>> From= 5a%h Co!ghlin
YGa%h%o!ghlinXhotmail,%omZ To= Yro"ertspXreno,go+Z 0ate= Fri( && No+ )'&&
'&=3'=<? >'4'' 9!"2e%t= motion for %ontin!an%e 0ear Co!nselor Ro"erts( I "elie+e
o! are the prose%!tor for the %ase against me( 9tate +, Co!ghlin( whi%h I "elie+e is
still set for trial on No+em"er &3th( I thin* at &pm, I am not totall s!re that there is a
d!t to ser+e o! on s!%h a thing( "!t I filed a Motion for Contin!an%e and a Motion
for Appointment of Co!nsel sometime within a"o!t the last &' das( I wo!ld sa, I
"elie+e I attempted to %op o! on it( "!t ha+e re%entl "een e+i%ted and its "een a
+er diffi%!lt time in terms of %oordinating paperwor*( et%,( et%, I apologiGe for an
Page )A -

in%on+enien%e this ma ha+e %a!se o!, I am !ns!re of whether the No+em"er &3th
trial is still set to ta*e pla%e, I "elie+e fairness di%tates that it "e %ontin!ed to a later
date, I ha+e re6!est %o!nsel "!t ha+e et to re%ei+e an( or wait( I was denied a
re6!est to re%ei+e %o!nsel "e%a!se #!dge Coward said there is not a Ath amendment
right to %o!nsel where( e+en tho!gh 2ail time is te%hni%all a possi"ilit( the state
does not anti%ipate see*ing 2ail time,,,or something li*e that( howe+er( I fo!nd some
%ases that sa I sho!ld still get %o!nsel appointed( espe%iall where I show I am
indigent( and I "elie+e I 6!alif as indigent rather easil, Can and wo!ld o! agree to
a %ontin!an%eS I "elie+e I tried to %onta%t a"o!t this prior to filing m Re6!est for a
Contin!an%e, I maintain m inno%en%e in this %ase and feel an sort of %on+i%tion(
espe%iall one in+ol+ing an sort of theft "ased %harge( wo!ld wor* a terri"le
in2!sti%e and greatl damage m rep!tation and emploment prospe%ts, I want a 2!r
trial( too, 9in%erel(/
The san%tion was a pri+ate written reprimand, Not satisfied( Chief #!dge Folf
initiated his own dis%iplinar a%tion against A!erhahn and wrote then> Attorne
$eneral Al"erto $onGales a letter on #!ne );( )''7 %riti%iGing the OPR, Asso%iate
0ep!t Attorne $eneral 0a+id Margolis replied " letter to Chief #!dge Folf(
asserting that .the dis%ipline imposed " the 0epartment was %onsistent with(
%orrelated to( and proportional with the findings that res!lted from OPRJs
in+estigation,/ Eetter from 0a+id Margolis to The Conora"le Mar* E, Folf HO%t, )(
)''7I, 9till not satisfied( Chief #!dge Folf wrote Attorne $eneral Mi%hael
M!*ase, In this letter( Chief #!dge Folf noted that he assisted in the esta"lishment
of OPR( "!t now has .serio!s 6!estions a"o!t whether 2!dges sho!ld %ontin!e to rel
!pon the 0epartment to in+estigate and san%tion mis%ond!%t " federal prose%!tors,/
Eetter from The Conora"le Mar* E, Folf to The Conora"le Mi%hael B, M!*ase
H#an, )( )''4I, The letters ma "e fo!nd in the %o!rt files of Barone +, United 9tates(
No, ;4>&&&'3 H0, Mass, &;;4I and Ferrara +, United 9tates( No, ''>&&A;? H0, Mass,
Page )7 -

)'''I, 9ellers +, Fo!rth #!di%ial 0ist, Ct,( &&; Ne+, )<A( 7& P ,?d 3;< H)''?I( "!t(
see= NOTE= Awarding Attorne-s Fees to Pro 9e Eitigants Under R!le &&( #!ne(
&;;7( ;< Mi%h, E, Re+, )?'4( #erem 0, 9pe%tor, 9ellers spea*s to awards of
attorne-s fees to pre+ailing parties in %i+il a%tions, It does not p!rport to spea* to
attorne-s fees awards stemming from R!le && +iolation( a sit!ation where the
granting of attorne-s fees to an attorne pro se litigant is far more a%%epted
thro!gho!t Ameri%an 2!rispr!den%e, To wit= .states that ha+e %onsidered whether an
attorne proper person litigant ma "e awarded attorne fees are di+ided( with a
slight ma2orit permitting s!%h fees, 0e%isions appro+ing fee awards to attorne
proper person litigants generall do so on the "asis that an attorne is paid for
rendering legal ser+i%es( and if he renders s!%h ser+i%es on his own "ehalf( it res!lts
in as m!%h pe%!niar loss to him as if he paid another attorne to render the same
ser+i%es, 9o( if a losing part m!st pa attorne fees anwa( it sho!ld ma*e no
differen%e whether the fees are to "e paid to an attorne representing himself or
another attorne emploed " him, In short( La lawer-s time and ad+i%e are his sto%*
in trade,L,,,Fe interpret NR9 A;,'?' to re6!ire that all proper person litigants(
whether attorne or non>attorne( "e o"ligated to pa attorne fees as a prere6!isite
for an award of pre+ailing part attorne fees, This interpretation gi+es effe%t to the
Eegislat!re-s %lear intent that the pre+ailing part in 2!sti%e-s %o!rt "e reim"!rsed "
the losing part for o!t>ofpo%*et %osts in%!rred to prose%!te the s!it, To interpret the
stat!te otherwise wo!ld re6!ire !s to redefine what is meant " an attorne fee(
whi%h is %ommonl !nderstood to "e the s!m paid or %harged for legal ser+i%es,
Be%a!se Matthews represented himself and did not pa or in%!r an o"ligation to pa
attorne fees( the 2!sti%e-s %o!rt e@%eeded its 2!risdi%tion " awarding s!%h fees, Fe
therefore grant( in part( the petition for a writ of %ertiorari,/ 9ellers +, Fo!rth #!di%ial
0ist, Ct,( &&; Ne+, )<A( 7& P ,?d 3;< H)''?I, NR9 A;,'?' .Pre+ailing part allowed
attorne-s fee to "e ta@ed as %osts in 2!sti%e %o!rt, The pre+ailing part in an %i+il
Page )4 -

a%tion at law in the 2!sti%e %o!rts of this 9tate shall re%ei+e( in addition to the %osts of
%o!rt as now allowed " law( a reasona"le attorne fee, The attorne fee shall "e
fi@ed " the 2!sti%e and ta@ed as %osts against the losing part,/
AFFIRMATION P!rs!ant to NR9 )?;B,'?' The !ndersigned does here" affirm
that the pre%eding do%!ment does not %ontain the so%ial se%!rit n!m"er of an
person,
0ATE0 this No+em"er );
th
( )'&&
[1s1 5a%h Co!ghlin
5a%h Co!ghlin
Attorne for 0efendant Co!ghlin
Page ); -

PROOF OF SER:ICE
I( 5a%h Co!ghlin( de%lare= On No+em"er );( )'&&( I( Mr, 5a%h Co!ghlin ser+ed
the foregoing MOTION FOR 9ANCTION9 AN0 ATTORNEB-9 FEE9; emailing a
tr!e %op thereof to=
Pam Ro"ert( Es6, -
Reno Cit Att Offi%e -
ro"ertspXreno,go+
AFFIRMATION P!rs!ant to NR9 )?;B,'?'
The !ndersigned does here" affirm that the pre%eding do%!ment does not
%ontain the so%ial se%!rit n!m"er of an person,
0ATE0 this No+em"er );
th
( )'&&
[1s1 5a%h Co!ghlin
5a%h Co!ghlin
Attorne for 0efendant Co!ghlin
Page ?' -

INDE; TO ATTAC<MENTS
EUCIBIT &= TFO EAF RE8IEF ARTICEE9 ON PRO9ECUTORIAE
MI9CON0UCT= .Crossing the Eine= Responding to Prose%!torial Mis%ond!%t/ H&?
PA$E9/( AN0 .PRO9ECUTORIAE MI9CON0UCT/ H?? PA$E9I
Page ?& -

EUCIBIT &
Page ?)

ABA Section of Litigation Annual Conference, April 16 18, 2008:
Crossing the Line: Responding to Prosecutorial Misconduct
Crossing the Line:
Responding to Prosecutorial Misconduct
INTRODUCTION
Among lawyers, a prosecutor is in a unique position. Normally a lawyer is free toindeed, expected
tozealously advocate on behalf of his or her client. Prosecutors, however, are not simply advocates
for the government. They are also ministers of justice whose aim is not to win a case, but that justice
shall be done. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). As such, [i]t is as much his duty to
refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every
legitimate means to bring about a just one. Id.; see generally Bennett L. Gershman, The Prosecutors
Duty to Truth, 14 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 309 (2001).
By now, the actions of Michael Nifong, the former District Attorney of Durham County, North
Carolina, that led to his disbarment are well known. See generally Robert P. Mosteller, The Duke
Lacrosse Case, Innocence, and False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure to Do Justice, 76
Fordham L. Rev. 1337 (2007). Some argue that the situation involving Nifong is an isolated case. Yet
prosecutorial overreaching has been an issue well before this headline-grabbing case came along.
A recent report issued by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of J ustice referred to a
study that reviewed 2,130 California appellate cases in which a claim of prosecutorial misconduct was
raised. Cal. Commn on the Fair Admin. of J ustice, Report and Recommendations on Professional
Responsibility and Accountability of Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers (2007), available at
http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/prosecutorial/official/official report on reporting
misconduct.pdf. Of those 2,130 cases, 443 resulted in findings that prosecutorial misconduct actually
occurred. In 53 of the 443 cases, a reversal of conviction was the resultthe rest concluding that the
misconduct was harmless error. Perhaps the most disturbing statistic is that a follow-up study looking
at half of the cases resulting in a reversed conviction concluded that the prosecutor was not referred to
the California State Bar for discipline, which is required under California law. If there is a positive
aspect to the Duke Lacrosse saga, it is that Nifongs actions and ultimate disbarment have served to
highlight the important issue of prosecutorial misconduct and the need for effective remedies.
Few would claim that any prosecutor intentionally sets out to seek the conviction of an innocent
person. Rather, it is argued that prosecutorial misconduct stems from a win at all cost mentality
underlying the desire to further a career, or a firm belief in the defendants guilt notwithstanding
admissible evidence. See Joseph F. Lawless, Prosecutorial Misconduct 1:06, at 1-15 (3d ed. 2003).
Regardless of the causes, the effects of prosecutorial misconduct are distressing. Two different studies
of persons exonerated by DNA evidence have shown that prosecutorial misconduct played a role in
convicting an innocent person nearly half of the time. See Peter A. J oy, The Relationship Between
1

Prosecutorial Misconduct and Wrongful Convictions: Shaping Remedies for a Broken System, 2006
Wis. L. Rev. 399, 403 (2006). Moreover, assuming that the defendant is factually culpable, a
conviction secured through the improper actions of a prosecutor could be unconstitutional and, thus,
subject to reversal. The result is that the innocent are convicted and the guilty go free, which can only
exacerbate the publics loss of trust in the integrity of the criminal justice system.
PROSECUTORIAL GUIDELINES
In performing their duties to seek justice, prosecutors are bound by constitutional standards, case law
governing trial conduct, and various ethics rules and standards pertaining to the prosecutorial function.
Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) specifically covers the
actions and responsibilities of prosecutors. All state jurisdictions have an ethics rule imposing special
responsibilities on prosecutors, most based on Model Rule 3.8. Prosecutors are also guided by
standards found in the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Prosecution Function and Defense
Function (3d ed. 1993) (ABA Standards) and the National District Attorneys Association
Prosecution Standards (2d ed. 1991) (NDAA Standards). In assessing the conduct of prosecutors,
courts have oftentimes looked to the ABA Standards for guidance. See, e.g., Miller v. North Carolina,
583 F.2d 701, 706 n.6 (4th Cir. 1978).
For years, the U.S. Department of J ustice (DOJ ) took the position that Assistant United States
Attorneys (AUSAs) were exempt from state ethics rules. The McDade Amendment in 1999 laid to
rest this argument. The amendment, attached as a rider to an appropriations bill, provides:
An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local
Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages
in that attorneys duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other
attorneys in that State.
28 U.S.C. 530B(a). The Professional Responsibility Advisory Office within the DOJ provides
advice to AUSAs regarding ethical issues and choice-of-law matters.
EXAMPLES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Like the Hydra slain by Hercules, prosecutorial misconduct has many heads. United States v.
Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 60 (1992) (Stevens, J ., dissenting); see also J oy, supra, at 402 (listing
numerous forms of prosecutorial misconduct). This article focuses on five categories: (1) suppression
of evidence, (2) misuse of the media, (3) misconduct involving witnesses, (4) investigative
misconduct, and (5) trial misconduct. Any specific act of prosecutorial misconduct may fall into more
than one category. For example, knowingly presenting perjured testimony would be misconduct
involving a witness, as well as a violation of the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.
Suppression of Evi dence
[V]iolations of Brady are the most recurring and pervasive of all constitutional
procedural violations, with disastrous consequences: innocent people are wrongfully
2

convicted; the reputation of U.S. prosecutors suffer; and the absence of meaningful
legal and ethical enforcement and accountability has a corrosive effect on the
publics perception of a justice system that often appears to be arbitrary, unjust, and
simply unreliable.
Bennett L. Gershman, Litigating Brady v. Maryland: Games Prosecutors Play, 57 Case W. Res. L.
Rev. 13, 15 (2007) [hereinafter Gershman, Litigating].
The key holding of Brady v. Maryland is that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence
favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to
guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. 373 U.S. 83, 87
(1963). Arguably, because a Brady violation may occur even when the prosecutor acts in good faith,
the term prosecutorial misconduct in the suppression of evidence context should be used only when
the prosecutor intentionally withholds exculpatory material.
In United States v. Agurs, the Supreme Court explained that a prosecutor has a constitutional duty of
disclosure when he or she is in possession of evidence that would deny a defendant a fair trial if that
evidence were not disclosed. See 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976). The Court has stressed that because a
prosecutor is in a different position to determine the materiality of a piece of evidence than is an
appellate court, the prudent prosecutor will resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclosure. Id.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the constitutional requirement that a prosecutor disclose
evidence that is favorable and material exists regardless of whether the defendant makes a request for
a specific piece of evidence, a general request for favorable evidence, or no request at all. United
States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). When considering the issue retrospectively, appellate
courts conclude that the duty existed when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence
been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. Moreover, a
prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the
governments behalf in the case, including the police. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995).
Finally, there is no constitutional significance between impeachment evidence and evidence that is
directly exculpatory. The key to a Brady violation is the materiality of the withheld evidence. See
Bagley, 473 U.S. at 67678.
Ethical rules require more than the constitutional minimum of Brady. Although the NDAA Standards
seem to require only slightly more than the constitutional minimum, see NDAA Standard 25.4 (The
prosecutor should disclose the existence or nature of exculpatory evidence pertinent to the defense.),
the Model Rules and ABA Standards go further. Model Rule 3.8(d) provides that a prosecutor must:
make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the
prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and,
in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all
unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the
prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.
3

Likewise ABA Standard 3-3.11(a) provides:
A prosecutor should not intentionally fail to make timely disclosure to the defense, at
the earliest feasible opportunity, of the existence of all evidence or information which
tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense charged or which
would tend to reduce the punishment of the accused.
The commentary to ABA Standard 3-3.11 notes that this provision is virtually identical to that
imposed by ABA model ethical codes, [and] goes beyond the corollary duty imposed upon prosecutors
by constitutional law. (Footnote omitted.) See also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437 (noting that Brady
requires less of the prosecution than the ABA Standards for Criminal J ustice, which call generally for
prosecutorial disclosures of any evidence tending to exculpate or mitigate). Finally, ABA Standard 3-
3.11(c) warns that [a] prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence because he or she
believes it will damage the prosecutions case or aid the accused.
Nifong suppressed exculpatory evidence when he did not tell the defense team that DNA from
numerous males, none of it from any of the lacrosse players, was found in items obtained from the
complainant during her medical examination. This evidence was inconsistent with the complainants
allegations that she was raped by several of the team members. It also contradicted her claims that she
had not had sex with anyone in over a week prior to the alleged incident. See generally Stuart Taylor,
J r. & KC J ohnson, Until Proven Innocent (2007).
One of the most egregious cases of a prosecutor failing to disclose impeachment evidence occurred in
the small town of Tulia, Texas. In 1999, 38 people (36 of them black) were arrested on drug charges
and later convicted. The only evidence used to secure their convictions was the uncorroborated
testimony of one undercover officer with severe credibility problems. At a hearing several years later,
a judge determined that the prosecutor had failed to turn over evidence impeaching the officers
credibility, and stood silent when he knew the officer was committing perjury. All of the defendants
were either pardoned or had their convictions overturned. See Laura Parker, Court Cases Raise
Conduct Concerns, USA Today, J une 26, 2003, at 3A. A more thorough discussion of how
prosecutors may evade their responsibility to disclose exculpatory evidence may be found in
Gershman, Litigating, supra.
Mi suse of the Media
Ethical rules prohibit all lawyers involved in litigation or investigations from making statements to the
media that would prejudice the matter. Model Rule 3.6(a) provides:
A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of
a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or
reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and
will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative
proceeding in the matter.
Model Rule 3.8(f), which applies specifically to prosecutors and is meant to protect a defendants
Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, is worded similarly to Model Rule 3.6(a). It also imposes a duty
4

on a prosecutor to take reasonable steps to prevent the entire prosecutorial team from making
prejudicial statements:
[E]xcept for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and
extent of the prosecutors action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement
purpose, [a prosecutor shall] refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have
a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and
exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel,
employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal
case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited
from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
Standard 3-1.4 of the ABA Standards is basically an amalgam of Model Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f). The
full text of Standard 3-1.4 follows:
(a) A prosecutor should not make or authorize the making of an extrajudicial
statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of
public communication if the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know that it will
have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding.
(b) A prosecutor should exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law
enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the
prosecutor from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be
prohibited from making under this Standard.
The DOJ has promulgated regulations governing the release of information in criminal cases. 28
C.F.R. 50.2(a)(b). The regulations provide that very general information about the defendant,
charging instrument, investigating agency, and circumstances of arrest may be released. 50.2(b)(3).
Importantly, [d]isclosures should include only incontrovertible, factual matters, and should not
include subjective observations. 50.2(b)(3)(iv). The regulations clearly prohibit dissemination of
any information concerning a defendants prior criminal record, 50.2(b)(4), and also list numerous
types of information or opinions that a prosecutor should refrain from making available.
50.2(b)(6). The United States Attorney Manual (USAM) contains guidelines to implement the
regulations, but cautions that they do not create any rights enforceable in law or otherwise in any
party. USAM 1-7.001.
Improper extra-judicial statements include: releasing grand jury material, commenting on the bad
character of a defendant, referring to the crime as heinous or reprehensible, disclosing a defendants
confession, disclosing a defendants criminal record, discussing trial strategy, opining on the
defendants guilt, claiming that the governments case is strong, and commenting on the defendants
lack of cooperation. See Bennett L. Gershman, Prosecutorial Misconduct 6:3:10 (2d ed. 2007)
[hereinafter Gershman, Misconduct]. But see 28 C.F.R. 50.2(b)(6) (providing that a prosecutor
should refrain from giving an opinion as to the defendants guilt and referring to the defendants
character or confession).
5

The Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar determined that Nifong had
violated Rule 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) of North Carolinas Revised Rules of Professional Conduct on at least
30 different occasions. A small sampling of the statements include:
[O]ne would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything
wrong.
The contempt that was shown for the victim, based on her race was totally abhorrent. It adds
another layer of reprehensibleness to a crime that is already reprehensible.
I would not be surprised if condoms were used. Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first
choice for unprotected sex.
Im not going to let Durhams view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players
from Duke raping a black girl in Durham.
What happened here was one of the worst things thats happened since I have become district
attorney.
They dont want to admit the enormity of what they have done.
Natl Org. of Bar Counsel, Case of the Month (J une 2007), http://www.nobc.org/cases/0607.asp.
Nifongs numerous statements inflamed the public, the pool from which the jury would have been
drawn had the case gone to trial.
Mi sconduct Invol vi ng Wi tnesses
It should go without saying that a prosecutor acts unethically when he or she suborns perjury. Such
conduct undermines the integrity of our adversarial system and, at a minimum, violates Model Rule
3.3(a)(3), which prohibits any lawyer from knowingly offering false evidence. Similar to the Model
Rule, ABA Standard 3-5.6(a) succinctly states: A prosecutor should not knowingly offer false
evidence, whether by documents, tangible evidence, or the testimony of witnesses, or fail to seek
withdrawal thereof upon discovery of its falsity.
Beyond the ethics of presenting perjured testimony, the knowing use of such testimony involve[s] a
corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 104. [A] conviction
obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if
there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the
jury. Id. at 103 (emphases added) (footnote omitted). This rule equally applies when a prosecutor,
although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears, even when the
uncorrected testimony goes to the credibility of the witness. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269
(1959).
In addition to the Tulia case discussed above, another well-known case of a prosecutor using perjured
testimony in order to obtain a conviction occurred in the Detroit Sleeper Cell terrorism trial.
Although the case was riddled with various forms of prosecutorial misconduct, perjury played a key
role.
Central to the prosecutions case in United States v. Koubriti, No. 01-80778 (E.D. Mich.), was a sketch
recovered from the defendants apartment containing the words Queen Alia and Hashemite
Kingdom of J ordan written in Arabic. Indictment, United States v. Convertino, No.06-cr-20173, at 3
6

(E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2006). The government presented testimony through a Department of State
Special Agent that he had traveled to the Queen Alia Military Hospital in Jordan and concluded that
the sketch was almost an exact representation of the facility. Among the agents assertions was that a
very large dead tree corresponded with a marking on the sketch and provided certainty that the
drawing depicted the hospital. See Bennett L. Gershman, How Juries Get It WrongAnatomy of the
Detroit Terror Case, 44 Washburn L.J. 327, 33233 (2005). Both on direct and on cross, the agent
claimed that he had not taken any photographs of the facility because of security restrictions.
According to the DOJ , however, the truth was that the agent had taken numerous aerial photographs of
the facility at the request of the prosecutor, Richard Convertino. Although it appears Convertino never
received these specific photographs taken, he did obtain photographs of the Queen Alia Military
Hospital taken by the agents replacement. Not only did Convertino elicit perjury from the agent
during his direct testimony (and allow it to stand during cross-examination), Convertino never
disclosed to the defense the photographs he eventually did receive. Indictment, United States v.
Convertino, No.06-cr-20173, at 34. In an unprecedented case, the DOJ s Public Integrity Section
charged and tried Smith and Convertino with obstruction of justice, perjury, and conspiracy. Id. Both
were acquitted.
Witness coaching can also be a form of prosecutorial misconduct. See generally Bennett L.
Gershman, Witness Coaching by Prosecutors, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 829 (2002). Although witness
coaching has received scant attention from courts, a recent case may cause jurists to more closely
scrutinize this issue. A Virginia lawyer, Leslie Smith, represented William J ones, the co-defendant of
Daryl Atkins. Based on J oness testimony, Atkins received the sentence of death for the murder of
Eric Nesbitt. Atkinss case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled that the U.S.
Constitution bars the execution of those with mental retardation. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304
(2002). As of early 2008, however, Virginia was still trying to put Atkins to death, arguing that Atkins
was not mentally retarded.
Recently, Smith came forward and revealed that in 1997 prosecutors had coached his client, William
J ones, into providing testimony that more closely aligned with their theory that Atkins, and not J ones,
was the triggerman. Soon after the coaching had occurred, Smith went to the Virginia State Bars
ethics counsel, but was told that he could not disclose information about the coaching since it would
be detrimental to his client. Approximately ten years later, Smith finally came forward after getting
the green light from the Virginia State Bar because J oness case is now final. Because of Smiths
account, a court in J anuary 2008 commuted Atkinss death sentence to life imprisonment. See Adam
Liptak, Lawyer Reveals Secret, Toppling Death Sentence, N.Y. Times, J an. 19, 2008, at A1.
Investi gati ve Mi sconduct
Pressure to solve a crime might lead a prosecutor to get intimately involved in the pre-trial
investigation of a matter. See ABA Standard 3-3.1 ([T]he prosecutor has an affirmative responsibility
to investigate suspected illegal activity when it is not adequately dealt with by other agencies.).
Although the line between investigating a crime and prosecuting a crime can be fuzzy, suffice it to say
that a prosecutor acts in an investigative capacity when gathering facts such as staging an undercover
operation or engaging in wiretapping. See generally Gershman, Misconduct, supra, 1.
7

Nifong committed investigative misconduct in devising the photo array that led to the arrest of the
three lacrosse players. The accuser in the case, Crystal Mangum, had been shown two photo arrays
one on March 16, 2006 and another on March 21, 2006that did not contain any fillers. Every
single picture, 36 in total, that Mangum looked at was a lacrosse player. Mangum was unable to
identify any of her alleged attackers. Then, on March 31, 2006, Nifong suggested to the police that
Mangum be shown photographs of all 46 white members of the team at the same time. See Mosteller,
supra, at 1398. During this procedure, which occurred on April 4, 2006, Mangum, at the direction of
Nifong, was told that the police had reason to believe that all of the men she was looking at were at
the party where she was allegedly raped. Again, the array contained no fillers. In essence, Mangum
was told that she could not make a wrong choice. It was at this time that Mangum identified the
players who were later charged. The direct consequence of this investigative misconduct was the
indictment of three innocent people.
Tri al Mi sconduct
Prosecutorial misconduct during the course of trial covers a broad spectrum. For example, a
prosecutor may improperly: introduce evidence, assassinate the character of a defendant, refer to the
fact that a defendant did not talk to the police or take the stand in his or her defense, make
inflammatory statements during closing argument, or attempt to bolster the credibility of a prosecution
witness. See generally, Lawless, supra, 910; Gershman, Misconduct, supra, 1011.
ABA Standard 3-5.8 and NDAA Standard 85.1 govern the scope of closing arguments. The NDAA
Standard simply states: Closing arguments should be characterized by fairness, accuracy, rationality,
and a reliance upon the evidence or reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. NDAA Standard 85.1.
The ABA Standard goes further and specifically states that a prosecutor should not express his or her
personal belief as to the veracity of any evidence or guilt of the defendant. The ABA Standard also
provides that a prosecutor should not appeal to the prejudices of the jury. See ABA Standard 3-5.8(b)
(c).
Case law is filled with innumerable instances of improper trial conductmost of which is deemed
harmless. One prosecutor who repeatedly went over the line according to appellate courts is Robert
H. Macy, the former District Attorney of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. See Ken Armstrong,
Cowboy Bob Ropes WinsBut at Considerable Cost, Chi. Trib., J an. 10, 1999, at 13. Called a true
patriot by former Attorney General William Barr and honored as Americas prosecutor by the
Oklahoma Senate upon his retirement in 2001, Macy left behind a string of cases commenting
unfavorably on his trial conduct. Paxton v. Ward, 199 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1999); Washington v. State,
989 P.2d 960 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999); Ochoa v. State, 963 P.2d 583 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998); Torres
v. State, 962 P.2d 3 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998); Le v. State, 947 P.2d 535 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997);
Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995); Robinson v. State, 900 P.2d 389 (Okla. Crim.
App. 1995); Hawkins v. State, 891 P.2d 586 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995); Hooker v. State, 887 P.2d 1351
(Okla. Crim. App. 1994); Howell v. State, 882 P.2d 1086 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994); McCarty v. State,
765 P.2d 1215 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985); Cantrell v. State, 697 P.2d 968 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985)
(Parks, J ., dissenting). The rebukes seem not to have had any effect on his conduct.
The introduction of misleading (or patently false) forensic evidence has been publicized recently. As
Professor Gershman discusses in a law review article, [t]he records of contemporary criminal trials
8

are replete with instances of so-called junk science finding its way into courtrooms, and championed
by prosecutors to win convictions. Bennett L. Gershman, Misuse of Scientific Evidence by
Prosecutors, 28 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 17, 30 (2003). Examples include tendering evidence of sloppy
or outright faulty lab work of otherwise reliable forensic tests, or the presentation of scientific
evidence of dubious quality such as bite-mark and hair analysis. See id. One example of faulty
forensic evidence is the FBIs use of compative-bullet lead analysis. The procedure supposedly
allowed the FBI to match fired bullets found at a crime scene with unfired bullets in the possession of
a suspect. The FBI used the procedure for decades, but stopped doing so in 2005 after finally
acknowledging that the technique is unreliable and misleading. It is estimated that comparative bullet-
lead analysis played a role in convicting over 2,500 people. See J ohn Solomon, FBIs Forensic Test
Full of Holes, Wash. Post, Nov. 18, 2007, at A1.
REMEDIES
To date, prosecutorial misconducteven the most egregioushas largely gone unchecked. See
Gershman, Misconduct, supra, at vi (Relatively few judicial or constitutional sanctions exist to
penalize or deter misconduct; the available sanctions are sparingly used and even when used have not
proved effective.). In January 1999, the Chicago Tribune published a five-part series titled: Trial &
Error: How Prosecutors Sacrifice Justice to Win. Analyzing thousands of cases, the newspaper found
that since 1963 at least 381 defendants had their convictions reversed either because prosecutors
suppressed exculpatory evidence or suborned perjury. Alarmingly, of those 381 cases, not one of
those prosecutors was convicted of a crime. Not one was barred from practicing law. Instead, many
saw their careers advance, becoming judges or district attorneys. One became a congressman. Ken
Armstrong & Maurice Possley, The Verdict: Dishonor, Chi. Trib., J an. 10, 1999, at 1.
Cri mi nal Prosecutions
The criminal prosecution of a prosecutor is extremely rare. According to the Chicago Tribune series,
[f]ew prosecutors nationally have been indicted, and they were acquitted or, at worst, convicted of a
misdemeanor and fined. Ken Armstrong & Maurice Possley, Break Rules, Be Promoted, Chi. Trib.,
J an. 14, 1999, at 1 [hereinafter Armstrong & Possley, Break Rules]. This statistic seems not to have
changed in the last nine years. Subsequent to the Tribune series, two separate cases were brought
against prosecutors for acts committed in their official capacity; neither resulted in convictions.
The first occurred in mid-1999a case in which three former Illinois state prosecutors were charged
with conspiring to frame a man by the name of Rolando Cruz for murder. Cruz spent nearly 10 years
on Death Row before it became clear that the prosecution had suppressed evidence that another person
had committed the crime and that prosecutors had conspired with police officers to introduce a dream
statement of Cruzs into evidence at his original trial and two re-trials. A judge dismissed charges
against two of the prosecutors for insufficient evidence. (One later became an Illinois judgethe
other, an AUSA.) A jury acquitted the third after a 28-day trial. See Andrew Bluth, Prosecutor and 4
Sheriff s Deputies Are Acquitted of Wrongfully Accusing a Man of Murder, N.Y. Times, J une 5, 1999,
at A9.
9

The second such prosecution of a prosecutor is the Convertino case discussed above. Convertino led
the U.S. governments case in convicting two men on terrorism-related charges in 2003. Then-
Attorney General J ohn Ashcroft asserted that the convictions sent a clear message that the DOJ
would work diligently to detect, disrupt and dismantle the activities of terrorist cells in the United
States and abroad. Danny Hakim, U.S. Asks for Dismissal of Terrorism Convictions, N.Y. Times,
Sept. 1, 2004, at A17. A little over a year later, however, the federal government asked the court to
throw out the convictions due, in part, to prosecutorial misconduct committed by the lead prosecutor,
Richard Convertino.
The DOJ s Public Integrity Section eventually charged Richard Convertino with perjury, obstruction
of justice, and conspiracy in what may be the only time that the DOJ has ever charged an AUSA for
acts committed in his or her official capacity. Convertino was acquitted by a jury in October 2007 and
is now seeking reimbursement for attorney fees, alleging that the governments prosecution of him
was vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith. Ironically, Convertino is in essence asserting that the
prosecution against him was itself an act of prosecutorial misconduct.
Di scipli nary Actions
Each state bar has a mechanism in place for the discipline of misconduct by attorneys licensed in that
state. Separately, federal courts may discipline attorneys who appear before them, which may result in
the suspension or disbarment of attorneys from that particular court. See, e.g., In re Kramer, 282 F.3d
721 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, the DOJ s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has
responsibility for investigating allegations of misconduct committed by AUSAs. It appears that these
procedures are rarely effective in dealing with prosecutorial misconduct.
The disciplinary action against Nifong is unusual in that not only did it result in disbarment, but
because it was initiated while charges against the Duke students were still pending. Recently, the
Center for Public Integrity conducted a study that found only 44 instances of disciplinary actions
against prosecutors since 1970. Of those 44:
in 7, the court dismissed the complaint or did not impose punishment;
in 3, the court remanded the case for further proceedings;
in 24, the court assessed the costs of the proceedings against the prosecutor;
in 20, the court imposed a public or private reprimand or censure;
in 1, the prosecutor was placed on probation;
in 12, the prosecutors license was suspended;
in 2, the prosecutor was disbarred.
Neil Gordon, Misconduct and Punishment: State Disciplinary Authorities Investigate Prosecutors
Accused of Misconduct (2007), http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=sidebarsb&aid
=39; see generally Steve Weinberg et al., Ctr. for Pub. Integrity, Harmful Error: Investigating
Americas Local Prosecutors (2003). A follow-up to the Tulia case discussed above revealed that the
prosecutor, whose subornation of perjury and Brady violations led to the wrongful convictions of
scores of people, received two years of probation. See Disciplinary Actions, 68 Tex. B.J . 753, 758
(2005).
10

The OPR has the authority to determine whether an AUSA committed professional misconduct in the
exercise of his or her authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. U.S. Dept of J ustice
Office of Profl Responsibility, Analytical Framework (rev. 2005), available at
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/framework.pdf. Professional misconduct is defined as the intentional or
reckless disregard of an obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule of professional
conduct, or Department regulation or policy. Id. If the OPR determines that an AUSA committed
professional misconduct, it recommends a certain sanction to the attorneys supervisor. Available
sanctions range from a written reprimand to removal. The OPR may also refer the matter to the bar
disciplinary authority in the jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed. See U.S. Dept of J ustice
Office of Profl Responsibility, Policies & Procedures, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/
polandproc.htm.
In 2001, a General Accounting Office report concluded that the OPR was ineffective in dealing with
prosecutorial misconduct. See News Advisory, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the
J udiciary, GAO Report Finds Significant Problems with Justice Departments Office of Professional
Responsibility (Feb. 20, 2001), available at http://www.judiciary.house.gov/legacy/news0220.htm. A
recent highly-publicized case illustrates the problem.
Chief Judge Mark Wolf of the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts found extraordinary
misconduct by the Department of J ustice in its investigation and prosecution of members of the
Patriarca Family of La Cosa Nostra. Ferrara v. United States, 384 F. Supp. 2d 384, 387 (D. Mass.
2005), aff d, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006). Chief J udge Wolf found that AUSA J effrey Auerhahn,
violated [his] clearly established constitutional duty to disclose . . . before trial, important exculpatory
information that directly negated [Vincent Ferraras and Pasquale Barones] guilt on murder charges.
Id. The suppression of the evidence was intentional according to Chief J udge Wolf. See id. at 393
98. The First Circuit agreed, stating: [T]he governments actions in this case . . . paint a grim picture
of blatant misconduct. The record virtually compels the conclusion that this feckless course of
conduct . . . constituted a deliberate and serious breach of its promise to provide exculpatory
evidence. Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278, 293 (1st Cir. 2006) (footnote omitted).
The OPR investigated Auerhahn and concluded that he had acted in reckless disregard of his duty to
disclose exculpatory evidence. The sanction was a private written reprimand. Not satisfied, Chief
J udge Wolf initiated his own disciplinary action against Auerhahn and wrote then-Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales a letter on J une 29, 2007 criticizing the OPR. Associate Deputy Attorney General
David Margolis replied by letter to Chief J udge Wolf, asserting that the discipline imposed by the
Department was consistent with, correlated to, and proportional with the findings that resulted from
OPRs investigation. Letter from David Margolis to The Honorable Mark L. Wolf (Oct. 2, 2007).
Still not satisfied, Chief Judge Wolf wrote Attorney General Michael Mukasey. In this letter, Chief
J udge Wolf noted that he assisted in the establishment of OPR, but now has serious questions about
whether judges should continue to rely upon the Department to investigate and sanction misconduct
by federal prosecutors. Letter from The Honorable Mark L. Wolf to The Honorable Michael B.
Mukasey (J an. 2, 2008). The letters may be found in the court files of Barone v. United States, No.
98-11104 (D. Mass. 1998) and Ferrara v. United States, No. 00-11693 (D. Mass. 2000).
11

Contempt
A court could exercise its contempt powers to curb prosecutorial misconduct that occurs in the
courtroom. However, [a]lthough contempt is frequently used to punish defense counsel for
misconduct, it is rarely used to punish prosecutors. Gershman, Misconduct, supra, 14:9 (footnote
omitted). Even when a trial court imposes contempt on a prosecutor, appellate courts rarely sustain
the charge. See id.; Lawless, supra, 13.35.
Appel l ate Court Action
If prosecutorial misconduct violates a defendants constitutional rights to a fair trial, the defendants
conviction might be overturned on appeal. Reversals of convictions, however, are limited by the
harmless-error doctrine, which generally precludes relief when the court finds that the defendant was
not fundamentally prejudiced by the prosecutorial misconduct. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570
(1986). The Center for Public Integrity looked at 11,452 appellate cases since 1970 where
prosecutorial misconduct was an issue raised by the defendant. The study revealed that in 2,012 cases
the prosecutors misconduct was so serious that a dismissal of the charges, a reversal of conviction, or
a reduction in the imposed sentence was warranted. In thousands of others, prosecutorial misconduct
was found to have occurred, but was deemed to be harmless. Steve Weinberg, Breaking the Rules:
Who Suffers When a Prosecutor Is Cited for Misconduct? (2007), http://www.publicintegrity.org/
pm/default.aspx?act =main; see generally Weinberg et al., supra.
One should ask whether a reversal of a conviction adequately sanctions a prosecutor for misconduct
since the focus is on the defendant, rather than the prosecutor. Moreover, many have questioned
whether prosecutorial misconduct is adequately deterred when the harmless-error doctrine is
consistently applied. For example, one commentator has asserted that application of the rule is
tantamount to saying that if one is obviously guilty as charged, he has no fundamental right to be
tried fairly. Note, Prosecutor Indiscretion: A Result of Political Influence, 34 Ind. L.J. 477, 486
(1959); see also Rose, 478 U.S. at 58889 (Stevens, J ., concurring) (An automatic application of
harmless-error review in case after case, and for error after error, can only encourage prosecutors to
subordinate the interest in respecting the Constitution to the ever-present and always powerful interest
in obtaining a conviction in a particular case.).
Another way appellate courts can address prosecutorial misconduct is by public rebuke. In Bank of
Nova Scotia v. United States, the Supreme Court stated that defendants should not be given a
windfall when they are not prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct. 487 U.S. 250, 263 (1988). One
way to deal with prosecutorial misconduct when the defendants rights are not violated, according to
the Court, is for an appellate court to chastise the prosecutor in a published opinion. Id. The
effectiveness of this remedy has been questioned as well. An article in the Chicago Tribune series
noted that even when the prosecutors actions are criticized in appellate opinions, the courts usually do
not call out the prosecutors by name. According to the article, [t]he granting of anonymity isnt
mandated anywhere, but instead stems from tradition and professional courtesy. Armstrong &
Possley, Break Rules, supra. Moreover, even when prosecutors are named in appellate opinions, there
is little evidence that it adversely impacts that persons career or future conduct. See id.; supra Part
III.E (discussing the chastising of Robert H. Macy).
12

Ci vi l Li abi li ty
When being sued under federal civil rights laws, prosecutors often assert they are immune from
liability. The law is nuanced in this area, but prosecutors can be found liable. For example, a man by
the name of John Thompson spent 14 years on Death Row after an assistant district attorney destroyed
exculpatory evidence. A jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana awarded Thompson $14 million after
finding that the district attorney was deliberately indifferent to the need to train, monitor, and
supervise his prosecutors to comply with the constitutional requirements concerning production of
evidence favorable to an accused. Thompson v. Connick, No. 03-2045, 2007 WL 1200826, at *1
(E.D. La. April 23, 2007). The availability for redress under state tort law (e.g., malicious
prosecution) varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
One avenue of relief for those wrongly prosecuted by the federal government is a Hyde Amendment
claim. See Department of Commerce, J ustice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Appropriations Act
of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-119, 617, 111 Stat. 2440 (codified at 18 U.S.C. 3006A Note). This law
provides for the recovery of attorney fees for prosecutions by the U.S. government that were
vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. To recover attorney fees, the defendant must be a prevailing
party. To determine whether a defendant is a prevailing party, courts look to the totality of the
circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2001),
aff d, 291 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2002). Generally, a defendant prevails when he or she was completely
exonerated through voluntary dismissal of all charges without sanction, dismissal by way of a motion
of judgment for acquittal or dispositive motion, or through acquittal. Id. at 1108. Moreover, a
defendant is a prevailing party when the government dismisses the case with prejudice, and may or
may not be considered as such when the case is dismissed without prejudice. See United States v.
Gardner, 23 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1292 (N.D. Okla. 1998).
CONCLUSION
The Nifong / Duke Lacrosse saga brought to the publics awareness the sad and disturbing nature of
prosecutorial overreaching. While Nifongs actions may have been particularly egregious, it is clear
that the problem of prosecutorial misconduct is nothing newit has simply taken place outside of
public view for the most part. It is also clear that, to date, there has not been an effective remedy to
this systemic problem. Hopefully something good can come out of the tragedy of the Duke case
public awareness of the need to hold prosecutors accountable for misconduct, and a newfound
willingness of the courts, bar associations, and the DOJ to impose harsher sanctions on wayward
prosecutors.
13
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
J on Sands Steven Kalar Geoffrey Hansen
Federal Public Defender AFPD Chief Assistant Public Defender
Phoenix, Arizona San Francisco, California San Francisco, California
Chris Miles Peter Davids J onathan Katchen
R&W Attorney, FPD Associate Assistant Attorney General
San Francisco, California J ones Day State of Alaska, Dept. of Law
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy,
but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not
that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very
definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not
escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor indeed, he
should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.
It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful
conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)
. . . it is the responsibility of the United States Attorney and his senior staff to create a
culture where win-at-any-cost prosecution is not permitted. Indeed, such a culture must
be mandated from the highest levels of the United States Department of J ustice and the
United States Attorney General. It is equally important that the courts of the United
States must let it be known that, when substantial abuses occur, sanctions will be imposed
to make the risk of non-compliance too costly.
United States v. Shaygan, 661 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1292 (S.D.Fla. 2009)
The Court finds [the governments] explanation wholly incredible.
United States v. Stevens, 593 F.Supp.2d 177, 181 (D.D.Ct. 2009)
Prosecutorial Misconduct 1
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. Policing the Prosecutors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Ethical Immunity Before 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. The Citizens Protection Act of 1998, 28 U.S.C. 530B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. The Hyde Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Criminal Contempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
E. Case Remedies - Mistrial, Dismissal, J ury Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
II. Winning-At-All-Costs: Prosecutorial Misconduct During Various Phases of a Criminal
Prosecution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Pre-Indictment Investigation and The Grand J ury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Subpoenas to Defense Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Pre-indictment Contact with Represented Witnesses . . . 11
3. Exculpatory Evidence Before the Grand J ury . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Miscellaneous Prosecutorial Misconduct Within the Grand
J ury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Brady, Due Process, and State Ethical Rules on Discovery . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. Prosecutorial Misconduct During Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Misconduct During J ury Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Improper Conduct During Opening Statements . . . . . . . 19
3. Ethical Problems with Government Witnesses and Trial
Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Improper Closing Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
D. Broken Promises: Breached Pleas at Sentencing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
III. Normalizing J ustice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A. The Proposed Expansion of Rule 16 and DOJ s Opposition . . . . . . . . . . 27
B. For the Defense Commentators Opinions and Recommendations . . . 29
Parting Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendices

Introduction
Most experienced practitioners would agree that the vast majority of federal prosecutors
behave in an ethical manner, and would further agree that federal prosecutorial misconduct has
been the exception, rather than the rule. As will be described in greater detail below, federal
prosecutorial misconduct is now a local inquiry as well as a constitutional inquiry after 1998,
state ethical rules now also bind federal prosecutors. Therefore, while this outline may be a
useful starting point, counsel should be encouraged to turn to state bar rules of professional
responsibility and, if questions arise, consult an ethics hotline.
I. Policing the Prosecutors
A. Ethical Immunity Before 1998
Before the late1990's, the system of ethical rules and restraints that constrained any other
attorney including defense counsel did not apply to federal prosecutors. As will be discussed
in greater depth below, Congressman McDades 1998 Citizens Protection Act (CPA or
530B) revolutionized the application of state rules to federal prosecutors in ways that have
still not been fully explored. Even before J oseph McDade successfully slipped the CPA into
law, however, national discontent about the special treatment of federal prosecutors had been
brewing.
Before 1998, federal prosecutors could be sanctioned for ethical misconduct by the
federal court in which they practiced, or by the Department of J ustice. Many commentators
including federal judges were (and remain) dubious of the governments ability to self-regulate
its attorneys. See, e.g., Lynn R. Singband, THE HYDE AMENDMENT AND PROSECUTORIAL
INVESTIGATION: THE PROMISE OF PROTECTION FOR CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, 28
FORDHAM URB. L.J . 1967, 1978 (Aug. 2001) (discussing the creation and limitations of the
DOJ Office of Personal Responsibility (OPR.)). In 1993, Ninth Circuit J udge Kozinski, for
example, openly questioned the failure of the United States Attorney to supervise the ethical
behavior of its AUSAs:
How can it be that a serious claim of prosecutorial misconduct
remains unresolved even unaddressed until oral argument in
the Court of Appeals? Surely when such a claim is raised, we can
expect that someone in the United States Attorneys office will
take an independent, objective look at the issue. The claim here
turned entirely on verifiable facts: A dispassionate comparison
between the transcript of the AUSA's statement to the jury and
Nourian's plea agreement would have disclosed that the defense
was right and the government was wrong. Yet the United States
Attorney allowed the filing of a brief in our court that did not own
up to the problem, a brief that itself skated perilously close to
misrepresentation.
United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315, 1320 (9th Cir. 1993).

Despite the shortcomings of self-regulation, it was the common view that a federal
prosecutor was not subject to state or local ethical rules or restraints. This view was based on the
position that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution preempted state regulation
of federal prosecutors, practical arguments about conflicts of local state rules arising in a
national federal practice, and a healthy dose of self-interest from the Department of J ustice.
Two issues helped to sharpen the debate over the propriety of an exemption for federal
prosecutors from state ethical rules. See Fred C. Zacharias, Bruce A. Green, The Uniqueness of
Federal Prosecutors, 88 GEO. L.J . 207, 213 (2000). The first of these issues related to attorney
contact of represented parties. Though such contact was widely prohibited by state local rules,
in 1989 Attorney General Thornburgh distributed an infamous memorandum that purported to
exempt federal prosecutors. This memorandum was controversial both within and outside of the
legal community. See Dick Thornburgh, Ethics and the Attorney General: The Attorney General
Responds, 74 J udicature 290 (April/May 1991) (Given the normally high quality of the articles
in J udicature, I had hoped to see a discussion of the Department of J ustices policy on contacting
representing persons that was free of the near-hysteria that has punctuated articles written by
some members of the defense bar.)
The second debate focused on a prosecutors ability to subpoena witnesses. Zacharias &
Green, supra at 212; see also Stern v. United States District Court, 214 F.3d 4, 7 (1st Cir. 2000)
(The 1980s witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of subpoenas served on defense
attorneys by federal prosecutors. The reasons for this trend are difficult to pinpoint, but some
commentators have linked it with heightened efforts to fight organized crime and drug-
trafficking, new forfeiture laws, and an unprecedented expansion of the Department of J ustice
(DOJ ).)
In the wake of the controversy of the Thornburgh memorandum, in 1994 Attorney
General J anet Reno issued formal regulations which continued the exemption for federal
prosecutors from state ethical violations, but promised voluntary compliance with most
professional rules (the Reno Rule.) Zacharias & Green, supra at 212; see also
Communications With Represented Persons, 59 FR 39910-01 (Aug. 4, 1994) (containing text of
the Reno Rule regarding contact with represented persons).
Also fueling the fire of this ethical debate were a number of developments that sharpened
the adversarial process and directly impacted the criminal defense bar, including federal grand
jury subpoenas to defense attorneys, forfeiture of funds paid by defendants to retained counsel,
and non-discretionary sentencing provisions in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. See Rory K.
Little, Who Should Regulate the Ethics of Federal Prosecutors?, 65 FORDHAM L. REV. 355, Oct.
1996; see also Note, Federal Prosecutors, State Ethics Regulations, and the McDade
Amendment, 113 HARV. L. REV. 2080, 2083 (2000) (discussing three Model Rules of Ethics that
prompted national debate on state ethical limitations on federal prosecutors).
Outside of the national limelight of this ethical debate, however, a federal criminal
prosecution was brewing a prosecution which led to a further attempt to formally regulate
federal prosecutors.

B. The Citizens Protection Act of 1998, 28 U.S.C. 530B
In 1992, Pennsylvania Congressional Representative J oseph McDade was indicted with
five federal counts relating to bribery. While Congressman McDade admitted that errors had
been made, he denied the allegations.
1
He kept his seat in office and four years later was
acquitted by a jury of all of the charges. Zacharias & Green, supra at 212.
McDade complained that federal prosecutors had turned his life into a living nightmare
and had harassed and hounded him.
2
In his role as a criminal defendant, he filed a number of
motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct all of which were denied. See, e.g., United States v.
McDade, No. 92-249, 1992 WL 187036, at *2 (E.D. Pa. J uly 30, 1992) (discussing motion to
dismiss arising from prosecutors alleged conflict of interest).
Stinging from his recent personal experiences with federal prosecutors, McDade
introduced in the House of Representatives a version of the Citizen Protection Act which would
have imposed state and local ethical rules on federal prosecutors (as well as a number of other,
wide-ranging changes). That bill was killed in committee, and a re-introduced bill the following
year also never made it out of committee. Zacharias & Green, supra, at 214-15. Finally, in 1998
the CPA was introduced as a rider to an appropriations bill, and was passed without ever clearing
committee much to the chagrin of (DOJ advocate) Senator Hatch. Id. at 215. The bills unique
road to passage was a source of later criticism from DOJ allies and sparked later efforts at repeal;
efforts that were unsuccessful. See, e.g., NAAUSA Initiatives, Federal Prosecutor Ethics Act,
http://www.naausa/org./ initiatives/ethics.htm (visited Feb. 18, 2003) (discussing congressional
testimony of national AUSA representative against CPA and describing alternative bills
proposed).
The Citizens Protection Act has been codified at 28 U.S.C. 530B.
3
530B. Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government
(a) An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local
Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that
attorney's duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.
(b) The Attorney General shall make and amend rules of the Department of J ustice to
assure compliance with this section.
(c) As used in this section, the term attorney for the Government includes any attorney
1
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/06/us/top-republican-on-a-house-panel
-is-charged-with-accepting-bribes.html?pagewanted=1 (last visited 4/7/10)
2
Id.
3
The Citizens Protection Act is referred to as the CPA or, more frequently, 530B.

described in section 77.2(a) of part 77 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations and
also includes any independent counsel, or employee of such a counsel, appointed under
chapter 40.
28 U.S.C. 530B (West 2003). Section 530B has been worked into the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) and integrated into the United States Attorneys Manual. See, e.g., 28 CFR
77.3 (applying 28 U.S.C. 530B to all attorneys for the government involved in, among other
actions, all criminal investigations and proceedings); U.S.A.M. 9-13.200 (2005) (Department
attorneys are governed in criminal and civil law enforcement investigations and proceedings by
the relevant rule of professional conduct that deals with communications with represented
persons.).
As will be discussed in greater depth infra, remedies for violation of the CPA may be
sparse. In one of the few published cases on the new statute and regulations, the Eleventh
Circuit rejected the idea that a violation of a state ethical rule would support suppression of
evidence in federal court. See United States v. Lowery, 166 F.3d 1119, 1124-25 (11th Cir. 1999)
(Assuming for present purposes that the rule is violated when a prosecutor promises a witness
some consideration regarding charges or sentencing in return for testimony, a state rule of
professional conduct cannot provide an adequate basis for a federal court to suppress evidence
that is otherwise admissible.) Similarly, in United States v. Syling, the court held that any state
ethical standards would not override the law governing presentation of [exculpatory] evidence
at grand jury proceedings. 553 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1192 (D.Haw. 2008). Indeed, the CFR itself
provides that 530B should not be construed in any way to alter federal substantive,
procedural, or evidentiary law or to interfere with the Attorney General's authority to send
Department attorneys into any court in the United States. 28 CFR 77.1.
The First Circuit has flatly refused to view the CPA as an inroad for state (or local)
regulation of federal prosecutors in federal court. See Stern, 214 F.3d at 19. In Stern, the First
Circuit rejected a local rule from the District of Massachusetts that required judicial
authorization for grand jury subpoenas of defense attorneys. Id. Despite the clear language of
the CPA, the Court in Stern concluded that Congress did not mean to empower state (or federal
district courts, for that matter) to regulate government attorneys in a manner inconsistent with
federal law. Id.
Nonetheless, other federal courts have conceded that 530B does extend state ethical
rules to federal prosecutors. See J ennifer Blair, The Regulation of Federal Prosecutorial
Misconduct by State Bar Associations, 28 U.S.C. 530B and the Reality of Inaction, 49 UCLA
L. REV. 625, 637 (Dec. 2001) (collecting federal authority acknowledging the extension of state
ethical rules to federal prosecutors after 28 U.S.C. 530B). One of the most thoughtful of these
decisions is United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, 189 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 1999). In that
case, the Tenth Circuit held that in light of 530B a Colorado state ethical rule prohibiting
federal prosecutors [from] subpoenaing attorneys to divulge information on past and present
clients in connection with a criminal proceeding other than a grand jury, was not inconsistent
with federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Id. at
1288-89.

The ultimate impact of 530B on federal prosecutors remains an open question one
commentator has discovered that during a year-and-a-half long period only one federal
prosecutor was disciplined out of the 1767 lawyers punished by ten state bar organizations.
Blair, supra, at 641 (If punishment for prosecutors was previously lax, one federal prosecutor
disciplined out of the 1767 lawyers punished by ten state bar associations from April 1999 until
December 2000 does virtually nothing to increase the regulation of unethical behavior by federal
prosecutors.)
Courts appear reluctant to file a complaint with a state bar organization. Currently, at
least one federal prosecutor is in state disciplinary proceedings after allegedly withholding
exculpatory evidence in a case.
4
The district court judge on that case filed the letter of complaint
with state bar counsel after learning that DOJ had only issued a written reprimand to the
prosecutor.
5
Another district court judge has reserved the right to impose any further sanctions
and/or disciplinary measures as may be necessary against [the federal prosecutors] after
reviewing the results of the J ustice Departments investigation. United States v. Shaygan, 661
F.Supp.2d 1289, 1325 (S.D. Fla 2009).
C. The Hyde Amendment
Another champion of ethical restraints on federal prosecutors has been Congressman
Hyde. In 1997, his infamous Hyde Amendment exposed the federal government to civil
liability for criminal lawsuits that are vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith:
Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses to Defense
Pub.L. 105-119, Title VI, 617, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2519, provided that: "During
fiscal year 1998 and in any fiscal year thereafter, the court, in any criminal case (other
than a case in which the defendant is represented by assigned counsel paid for by the
public) pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 26, 1997], may
award to a prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and
other litigation expenses, where the court finds that the position of the United States was
vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, unless the court finds that special circumstances
make such an award unjust. Such awards shall be granted pursuant to the procedures and
limitations (but not the burden of proof) provided for an award under section 2412 of title
28, United States Code. To determine whether or not to award fees and costs under this
section, the court, for good cause shown, may receive evidence ex parte and in camera
(which shall include the submission of classified evidence or evidence that reveals or
might reveal the identity of an informant or undercover agent or matters occurring before
a grand jury) and evidence or testimony so received shall be kept under seal. Fees and
4
See Boston AUSA Faces J udicial Panel Over Alleged Misconduct,
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/01/22/boston-ausa-faces-judicial-panel-regarding-alleged-mis
conduct/ (last visited 4/9/10).
5
Id.

other expenses awarded under this provision to a party shall be paid by the agency over
which the party prevails from any funds made available to the agency by appropriation.
No new appropriations shall be made as a result of this provision.
18 U.S.C. 3006A, stat. history (West 2003).
Like 530B, the Hyde Amendment had its origins in the eight-year prosecution of
Congressman McDade. See Singband, supra at 1981-82; see also United States v. Gilbert, 198
F.3d 1293, 198-99 (11th Cir. 1999) (tracing legislative history of the Hyde Amendment). The
Hyde Amendment has had some recent success in federal courts. See id. at 1986-88 (collecting
Hyde Amendment cases). See also United States v. Aisenberg, No. 899-CR-324-T23 MAP, 2003
WL 403071, *39 (M.D. Fla. J an. 31, 2003) (Pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, the Aisenbergs
are entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee in the amount of $2,680,602.22 and other litigation
expenses in the amount of $195,670.32.); United States v. Shaygan, 661 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1324
(S.D.Fla 2009) (attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $601,795.88 awarded to the
defendant); United States v. Claro, 579 F.3d 452, 456 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting the district court
awarded and government paid $391,292.29 in attorneys fees pursuant to Hyde Amendment);
United States v. Adkinson, 247 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) (determining that defendants were
entitled to attorneys fees where government included bank fraud in conspiracy indictment with
knowledge that it was precluded by controlling precedent). See also Brown v. United States, SA-
03-CV-0792-WRF (W.D.Tex. 2007)(wherein parties reached settlement agreement and
government agreed to pay plaintiff $1,340,000 to settle plaintiffs complaint filed under the
Federal Tort Claims Act based on nature of governments criminal investigation and prosecution
of plaintiffs).
The Hyde Amendment certainly heightened the sensitivity of the DOJ to charges of
vexatious prosecution. See Elkan Abramowitz, Peter Scher, The Hyde Amendment: Congress
Creates a Toehold for Curbing Wrongful Prosecution, THE CHAMPION (Mar. 1998) (discussing
aggressive DOJ stance against Hyde Amendment before its adoption). The courts recent awards
suggest that the federal defense bar should continue to push for such recourse against the
government for wrongful prosecutions.
6
See also Dick DeGuerin, Neal Davis, If They Holler,
Make Em Pay . . . The Hyde Amendment, THE CHAMPION (Sept./Oct. 1999).
7
6
Larry Breuer, head of DOJ s Criminal Division, speaking at the ABAs white collar
crime conference, called on the defense bar to refrain from terming discovery violations as
endemic stating that nothing could be further from the truth. He criticized those who think it
is acceptable to use motions for sanctions, or threats of OPR referrals, as a way to gain some sort
of strategic litigation advantage. http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/25/
breuer-tells-white-collar-bar-to-ease-up-on-prosecutors/ (last visted 4/12/10).
7
This Champion article is an excellent starting point for any Hyde Amendment
litigation, and includes a useful check-list for defense counsel to review before initiating a Hyde
Amendment petition.

D. Criminal Contempt
The five DOJ employees who prosecuted Senator Ted Stevens in United States v. Stevens
are currently the subject of criminal contempt proceedings instigated by U.S. District Court
J udge Emmet Sullivan based in part on allegations of Brady and Giglio violations.
8
J udge
Sullivan appointed a special counsel to examine the conduct of the prosecutors after the J ustice
Department moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. The DOJ s Office of Professional
Responsibility is conducting a simultaneous investigation. Both reports are due to be completed
in the near future.
E. Case Remedies - Mistrial, Dismissal, Jury Instruction
Unethical behavior or improper methods by the prosecutor may result in a mistrial or a
reversal of a conviction where the methods so infect the trial with unfairness as to make the
resulting conviction a denial of due process. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986).
In United States v. Ted Stevens, the government itself motioned to set aside the verdict and
dismiss the case with prejudice based on admitted Brady violations. The judge voided the
conviction. In United States v. Chapman, the district court determined that the prosecutor
violated both Brady and Giglio and the district court declared a mistrial. 524 F.3d 1073, 1083-
84 (9th Cir. 2008).
9
Following a hearing on the matter, the district court judge dismissed the
indictment with prejudice. Id. In United States v. W.R. Grace, CR 05-07-M-DWM (D.Mt
2009), based on the governments Brady and Giglio violations, the court explained to the jury
why the government would not be permitted to do any redirect examination of one of the
governments main witnesses and why they should view any proof offered by [that main
witness] with skepticism. See Appendix A W.R. Grace Jury Instruction. The court instructed
the jury, in part, that, the Department of J ustice and the United States Attorneys Office have
violated their constitutional obligation to the defendants and they have violated orders of the
court. Id.
At the appellate level, review of prosecutorial misconduct . . . consists of a two part test:
first, was the prosecutors conduct actually improper; second, did the misconduct, taken in the
context of the trial as a whole, violate the defendants due process rights. Andrew M.
Hetherington, Prosecutorial Misconduct, 90 GEO. L.J . 1679 (May 2002). In evaluating the
seriousness of the misconduct, courts will find harmless error if the misconduct was not severe,
effective curative measures were taken by the trial court, or if the weight of evidence made
conviction certain absent the improper conduct. Id. at 1689 (footnotes omitted). Some courts
will additionally consider whether the misconduct was deliberately or accidentally made [and]
the extent to which the defense was able to counter the improper conduct with rebuttal, or both,
8
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/10/21/welch-to-step-down-as-public-integrity-chief/
(last visited 4/9/10).
9
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the mistrial was supported by a valid
determination of manifest necessity and thus, a retrial of the defendant would not violate the
Double J eopardy Clause. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2008)

to their evaluation of the seriousness of misconduct. Id.
The one, universal lesson from all authority regarding remedies for prosecutorial
misconduct is the need to object to preserve the error. Timidity in the face of prosecutorial
misconduct will injure the client on later appellate review, where the (nearly insurmountable)
plain error standard will be applied.
II. Winning-At-All-Costs: Prosecutorial Misconduct During Various Phases of a
Criminal Prosecution
With the McDade and Hyde laws in hand and remedies in mind, we turn to examples of
prosecutorial misconduct as they arise during various stages of a criminal prosecution and
investigation.
A. Pre-Indictment Investigation and The Grand Jury
1. Subpoenas to Defense Counsel
Grand jury misconduct was one of the ethical issues that sparked the McDade revolution,
and yet five years after 530B was enacted, it still remains an unsettled issue. One of the most
controversial aspects of grand jury practice has been the issuance of a grand jury subpoena to
defense counsel, to secure information about a counsels client. The American Bar Association
has promulgated model ethical rules that limit this type of grand jury subpoena. See Appendix B,
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(e). Because the ABA Model Rules have been
adopted in many states, after 530B the issue is ripe for conflict in federal court. State ethical
rules in Colorado provide a good example of the problem.
Grand jury subpoenas to defense counsel on the subject of their representation are
prohibited by Colorado state ethical rules. See Appendix C, Colorado State Rule of Professional
Conduct 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.
10
The federal governments policy of
10
Because this state rule is based on rules from ABA Standards of Criminal J ustice
Relating to the Prosecution Function, the conflict between this state ethical rule and federal
action is likely to arise more frequently. A non-exhaustive list of states that have adopted Model
Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, (or a substantially-similar rule), includes
Arizona, Colorado, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan,
New J ersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and West Virginia. California is
currently proposing such an adoption. See, e.g., http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/public-comment
/2009/Revision-Rules-Professional-Conduct-11-Rules_11-13-09.pdf (comparing and contrasting
other states adoption and Californias proposed changes) (last visited 4/9/10); Arizona v.
Talmadge, 999 P.2d 192, 197 (Az. S. Ct. 2000) (discussing E.R. 3.8, Arizona Rules of
Professional Conduct); Colorado v. Mucklow, 35 P.3d 527, 534 (Co. S.Ct. 2000) (discussing
Colo. RPC 3.8(d)); Arkansas R. Prof. Conduct 3.8 (West 2002); Connecticut Rule Prof. Conduct
3.8 (West 2002); Del. R. Prof. Conduct 3.8 (West 2002); Indiana R. Prof. Conduct 3.8 (West
2003); Kansas v. Dimaplas, 978 P.2d 891, 894 (Ka. S.Ct. 1999); Md. R. Prof. Conduct 3.8 (West

forcing defense counsel to testify regarding their clients thus became an issue for the Tenth
Circuit. See United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, 189 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.3 (10th Cir.
1999).
The Tenth Circuit noted that before 530B (McDades Citizen Protection Act) was
adopted there had been a circuit split on the issue of federal grand jury subpoenas to defense
counsel, over state ethical prohibitions. See United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, 189 F.3d
1281, 1284 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1999) (discussing contrary authority permitting, and striking, local
rules limiting federal government grand jury subpoenas of defense counsel). In Colorado
Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit managed to avoid the grand jury issue because that particular
aspect of the Colorado state rule was not appealed. Id. at 1284.
The short, and unsatisfying, answer is that there is now no definitive authority on whether
530B extends state ethical prohibitions on grand jury subpoenas to defense counsel. See
Brenner & Shaw, Federal Grand Jury: A Guide To Law And Practice, FED. GRAND J URY 13.5
(discussing conflicting authority on issue and Department of J ustice Guidelines).
If faced with such a subpoena, the first step should be to turn to state ethical rules to see
whether they prohibit such action (likely to be found in Rule 3.8, adopted from the ABA Model
Rule). Defense counsel will then need to argue that this state ethical rule has been extended to
the federal prosecutor by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 530B, and that this statute trumps any Supremacy
Clause issues.
2. Pre-indictment Contact with Represented Witnesses
Does a federal prosecutor violate state ethical rules when he or she speaks to a
represented witness before indictment? That was the question before the Ninth Circuit in one of
the lead cases on the subject, United States v. Talao, 222 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2000). In Talao, a
federal prosecutor spoke to an employee of a corporation that was represented by counsel
before indictment, and while that corporate counsel was banging on the door of the interview
room. Id. at 1136. The district court held that the prosecutor had violated California ethical rule
2-100, prohibiting contact with represented persons. Id. at 1136. The Ninth Circuit reversed, but
not before articulating several important rules regarding federal prosecutors, ethics, and contact
with represented persons.
As an initial matter, it was by no means clear that pre-indictment contact with
represented persons was prohibited. The Court turned to the Second Circuits decision in United
States v. Hammand, 858 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1988), and concluded that there was no bright-line
2002); Michigan R. Prof. Conduct 3.8 (West 2003); New Jersey v. Torres, 744 A.2d 699, 708
(N.J . S. Ct. 2000) (discussing R.P.C. 3.8); In re: Grand Jury Investig., 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 354
(Super. Ct. Mass. 2002) (mem.) (discussing Mass. R. Prof. Conduct 3.8(f)); RI Rule Prof.
Conduct 3.8 (West 2002); South Carolina v. Quattlebaum, 338 S.E.2d 105, 109 (S.C. S. Ct.
2000) (discussing South Carolina R. Prof. Conduct 3.8); West Va. R. Prof. Conduct 3.8 (West
2002).

categorical rule on the issue. Id. at 1139. The Ninth Circuit concluded that in the pre-indictment
procedural context of the Talao case, there were fully defined adversarial roles
11
that triggered
the ethical prohibition. Id.
The Court also was not troubled by the controversy over DOJ s previous position and the
Thornburgh memorandum, which permitted contact with represented witnesses. Id. at 1139-40.
The Ninth Circuit flatly concluded that 28 U.S.C. 530B made state ethical rules applicable to
federal attorneys, which dissipated any previous dispute. Id. at 1140.
The Court in Talao ultimately let the prosecutor off of the ethical hook, however, because
it concluded that in the unique circumstances of a disgruntled employee seeking to distance
herself from corporate counsel an employee who was alleging subornation of perjury by the
lead defendant Rule 2-100 did not preclude contact. Id. at 1140.
The Talao case is notable because it un-hesitantly extends state ethical rules to federal
prosecutors, extends the prohibition of represented-witness contact to the pre-indictment context,
and it suggests that under a less-unique factual setting the disciplinary referral would have stood.
3. Exculpatory Evidence Before the Grand Jury
Consider the following hypothetical: The defendant is charged with being a felon in
possession of a gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C . 922(g)(1). During his arrest, his girlfriend
protests that it was her gun, and that the defendant was unaware that the weapon was in the
house. Need the AUSA present the girlfriends exculpatory statement to the grand jury before
indictment?
The federal rule before 530B has been that a federal prosecutor need not present
exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. See United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 52 (1992)
(Imposing upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence in his
possession would be incompatible with this [grand jury] system.) Yet, despite the Williams rule,
the United States Attorneys Manual states that when an AUSA is personally aware of
substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the
prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an
indictment against such a person. U.S.A.M. 9-11.233 (2008). The Manual also states that an
indictment should not be dismissed for a violation of this policy, but appellate courts may refer
prosecutors to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility for review if they violate the
policy. Id.
Since enactment of 530B, a district court has held that any state ethical standards
requiring the presentation of exculpatory evidence would not override the law governing
11
The case had already undergone a civil investigation, a qui tam action, an corporate
counsel had already initiated settlement discussions with the government. Talao, 222 F.3d at
1139.

presentation of [exculpatory] evidence at grand jury proceedings. United States v. Syling, 553
F.Supp.2d 1187, 1192 (D.Haw. 2008). The district courts opinion did not address any
prosecutorial obligations created by the United States Attorneys Manual.
4. Miscellaneous Prosecutorial Misconduct Within the Grand Jury
If it is true that an experienced prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich,
then why would an AUSA cut corners to get an indictment? While unethical behavior before a
grand jury seems particularly unnecessary, it nonetheless occurs. A good summary of prohibited
acts can be found in United States v. Samango, 607 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1979).
In Samango, an indictment was dismissed by a federal district judge in Hawaii. Id. at
878.
12
Samango was a witness called before the grand jury relating to a cocaine importation case
from Tahiti. Id. The AUSA informed the grand jury of his dissatisfaction with Samangos
performance under a non-pros agreement, chided the witness when he asked to see counsel,
insinuated that the witness was lying and threatened to charge him as a defendant. Id. at 879.
The AUSA later sought a sanitized indictment by dumping 1,000 pages of transcript on the
grand jury, and telling them that he had a deadline for their consideration eight days later. Id.
The Ninth Circuit conceded that an attack against an indictment based on incompetent or
inadequate evidence was not possible. Id. at 880-81 & n.6. The Court observed, however, that
dismissal of an indictment can be appropriate to protect the integrity of the judicial process . . .
particularly the functions of the grand jury, from unfair or improper prosecutorial conduct. Id.
at 877 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
13
This was such a case; Although deliberate
introduction of perjured testimony is perhaps the most flagrant example of misconduct, other
prosecutorial behavior, even if unintentional, can also cause improper influence and usurpation
of the grand jurys role. Id. at 882.
Other prosecutorial misconduct may be grounds to dismiss the indictment. An AUSA
may not ask questions of a grand jury witness solely to discredit the witness. United States v.
DiGrazia, 213 F. Supp. 232, 234 (N.D. Ill. 1963).
While this may seem self-evident, the government may not rely on perjured testimony to
secure an indictment before the grand jury. United States v. Useni, 516 F.3d 634, 656 (7th Cir.
2008); United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781, 785-86 (9th Cir. 1974) (We hold that the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated when a defendant has to stand trial on an
indictment which the government knows is based partially on perjured testimony, when the
perjured testimony is material, and when jeopardy has not attached. Whenever the prosecutor
12
Interestingly, the government did not make an appearance in the appeal.
13
One leading case authorizing a dismissal of an indictment for prosecutorial misconduct
is Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256 (1988) (discussing harmless error
standard for dismissal of an indictment, and contrasting dismissal for errors deemed
fundamental).

learns of any perjury committed before the grand jury, he is under a duty to immediately inform
the court and opposing counsel and, if the perjury may be material, also the grand jury in
order that appropriate action may be taken.).
Often it is the cumulative impact of grand jury misconduct that will cost the government
an indictment. In United States v. Hogan, 712 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1983), the Court upheld
dismissal of an indictment when the AUSA portrayed the defendant as a hoodlum in front of
the grand jury, relied too heavily on hearsay evidence,
14
and presented false DEA testimony. Id.
at 761 (In summary, the incidents related are flagrant and unconscionable. Taking advantage of
his special position of trust, the AUSA impaired the grand jurys integrity as an independent
body.).
Another critical rule is the donut ban: an AUSA shouldnt bond with grand jurors by
bringing them donuts at the beginning of their deliberations. United States v. Breslin, 916 F.
Supp. 438, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996). It is also improper to rush the grand jurys deliberations by
suggesting that the assigned time was short, to make improper characterizations of the evidence,
to suggest that live witness testimony was unavailable, or to warn that the statute of limitations
was about to run on the charges. Id. at 442.
While the DiGrazia case is a useful laundry list of prosecutorial misconduct before the
grand jury, the opinion is depressingly candid about a defendants chances to prevail on such a
claim. It is rare that defendants have sufficient information from Jencks material to find a basis
for a motion to dismiss. It is unusual that the trial judge would be required to review sufficient
material presented to the grand jury to develop a concern for the cumulative unfairness of the
grand jury proceedings. Id. at 446.
B. Brady, Due Process, and State Ethical Rules on Discovery
Even before state ethical obligations were extended to federal prosecutors, some federal
courts did not hesitate to impose sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct relating to Brady
violations. One inspiring example is found in United States v. Ramming, 915 F. Supp. 854 (S.D.
Texas 1996). In that case, the district court carefully chronicled the various Brady and Giglio
violations of the federal government in a banking prosecution. Id. at 868. The court concluded,
the governments contentions of equal access, neutral evidence, that the defendants were aware
of the information possessed by the Grand J ury, that the testimony was merely impeachment,
and that they acted in good faith, is incredible. Only a person blinded by ambition or ignorance
of the law and ethics would have proceeded down this dangerous path. Id. (emphasis added).
The defendants motion to dismiss because of prosecutorial misconduct was granted. Id.
14
Note that there is no per se ban on hearsay evidence before the grand jury. Although
there is no prohibition on the use of hearsay evidence before a grand jury, our decision in United
States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132 (2d Cir. 1972), indicates that extensive reliance on hearsay
testimony is disfavored. More particularly, the government prosecutor, in presenting hearsay
evidence to the grand jury, must not deceive the jurors as to the quality of the testimony they
hear. Hogan, 712 F.2d at 761.

To date, few federal courts have equated discovery violations with ethical misconduct
requiring bar referral. As stated supra, filing a complaint with the state bar authorities seems to
be considered a last resort by most federal courts
15
even though such a sanction has been
approved of and, in the appropriate case, encouraged by the circuit courts. See United States v.
Wilson, 149 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir. 1998) ([W]e want to make clear that improper remarks
and conduct in the future, especially if persistent, ought to result in direct sanctions against an
offending prosecutor individually.(emphasis in original)); United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d
1173, 1185 (2d Cir. 1981) (We suspect that the message of a single 30-day suspension from
practice would be far clearer that the disapproving remarks in a score of appellate opinions.).
16
Federal constitutional requirements for disclosure of exculpatory and witness-
impeachment evidence are well-established. The United States Attorneys Manual disclosure
policy exceeds constitutional obligations although the government notes that the expanded
disclosure policy, however, does not create a general right of discovery in criminal cases. Nor
does it provide defendants with any additional rights or remedies. USAM 9-5.001 (2010).
Those state ethical rules modeled after the ABAs Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8
impose a still higher duty of discovery than that required by constitutional due process or the
United States Attorneys Manual. Query whether 530B imposes a higher discovery obligation
on federal prosecutors, by virtue of state ethical rules, and whether that is enforceable?
The American Bar Association has promulgated a model ethical rule relating to the
production of discovery by the prosecutor:
Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8
15
See Gibeaut, J ohn, The Roach Motel, ABA J OURNAL, J uly 2009 (J udges seldom
discipline lawyers who practice before them for professional misconductthough other actions,
such as Rule 11 sanctions, sometimes attempt to curb the same behavior and may go
unrecognized as punishment dealt to individuals), http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/
article/the_roach_motel (last visited 4/13/10); United States v. Shaygan, 661 F.Supp.2d 1289,
1325 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (judge reserved the right to impose any further sanctions and/or
disciplinary measures as may be necessary against [the federal prosecutors] after reviewing the
results of the J ustice Departments investigation.); United States v. Jones, No. CR 07-10289-
MLW, 2010 WL 565478 (D.Mass. 2010) (court determined that imposition of sanctions against
AUSA or government for failure to adequately train AUSA based on failure to disclose plainly
material exculpatory evidence were neither necessary nor appropriate where, since violation
disclosure, AUSA, US Attorneys Office and DOJ officials took actions such as participating in
discovery training programs, which obviated need for sanctions).
16
It appears that state courts are also reluctant to report prosecutorial misconduct to state
bar authorities. In California for instance, it is rare that prosecutorial misconduct is referred to
the California State Bar although required under California law. See Crossing the Line:
Responding to Prosecutorial Misconduct, at http://www.abanet.org/litigation/prog_materials
/2008_sectionannual/016.pdf (last visited 4/9/10).

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
. . . .
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to
the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the
offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the
tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except
when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the
tribunal;
Appendix B, Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d).
This model rule is patterned after ABA Standard 3-3.11, Prosecution/Defense Function:
Disclosure of Evidence by the Prosecutor
(a) A prosecutor should not intentionally fail to make timely disclosure to the defense, at
the earliest feasible opportunity, of the existence of all evidence or information which
tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense charged or which would
tend to reduce the punishment of the accused.
ABA Standard 3-3.11 (emphases added).
The ABA has recently issued an 8-page formal opinion regarding the prosecutorial
ethical duty to disclose evidence and information favorable to the defense which clearly exceeds
constitutional discovery obligations. See Appendix D, Formal Opinion 09-454 (July 8, 2009).
Key excerpts follow:
Rule 3.8(d) is more demanding that the constitutional case law, in that it requires
the disclosure of evidence or information favorable to the defense without regard
to the anticipated impact of the evidence or information on a trials outcome. The
rule thereby requires prosecutors to steer clear of the constitutional line, erring on
the side of caution.
Id. at 4.
Further, this ethical duty of disclosure is not limited to admissible evidence,
such as physical and documentary evidence, and transcripts of favorable
testimony; it also requires disclosure of favorable information. Though possibly
inadmissible itself, favorable information may lead a defendants lawyer to
admissible testimony or other evidence or assist him in other ways, such as in
plea negotiations. In determining whether evidence and information will tend to
negate the guilt of the accused, the prosecutor must consider not only defenses to
the charges that the defendant or defense counsel has expressed an intention to
raise but also any other legally cognizable defenses. Nothing in the rule suggests a

de minimis exception to the prosecutors disclosure duty where, for example, the
prosecutor believes that the information has only a minimal tendency to negate
the defendants guilt, or that the favorable evidence is highly unreliable.
Id. at 5.
The Supreme Court has observed that federal due process requirements provide for less-
complete discovery than the ABA standards. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995).
Yet, the Court has also noted that, nonetheless, a prosecutor may have an obligation under
applicable ethical or statutory rules to greater disclosure. Cone v. Bell, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct.
1769, 1783 n.15 (2009) (As we have often observed, the prudent will err on the side of
transparency, resolving doubtful questions in favor of disclosure.).
There are two primary differences between federal due process requirements and the
ABA model ethical rules. The first relates to scope of disclosure. As noted in Kyles, the ABA
model rule requires disclosure of any evidence tending to exculpate or mitigate. Id. (emphasis
added). Federal due process, by contrast, is primarily a standard forged out of appellate review;
it prohibits the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon
request, [which] violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or the bad faith of the prosecution. Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
The second distinction relates to the timing of disclosure. When the model rule is read in
conjunction with the ABA standard, the prosecutor is required to disclose discovery at the
earliest feasible opportunity. By contrast, Brady law and timing focuses on prejudice to the
defense viewed in the hindsight of an appeal if there was no prejudice to the defense by failing
to disclose Brady material before trial, no violation lies. See, e.g., United States v. Knight, 867
F.2d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 1989) (Appellants received the information during the trial and have
failed to demonstrate that the disclosure came so late that it could not be effectively used; and
thus they cannot show prejudice.) Of even greater concern, federal due process does not require
any disclosure of impeachment information before a defendant pleads guilty so this Giglio
information may never come to the attention of the defense.
17
17
Federal courts have long held that the government has a duty under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny to disclose favorable material evidence to the
defense in time for the material to be of value to the defendant. See, e.g., United States v.
Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir. 1988). This duty to disclose includes impeachment
evidence (sometimes known as Giglio material) as well as actual innocence evidence. See,
e.g., United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985). The prosecutor has a duty to obtain this
information from state as well as federal agents who have worked on the case. See Kyles v.
Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437-38 (1995).
The Supreme Court has held that impeachment (Giglio) material need not be disclosed to
the defense before a plea of guilt. United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002). The Court
reasoned that a defendant can constitutionally misjudge other components of his or her case
The tension between the federal due process discovery standards and the ABA model rule
is more than just an academic debate; many states have adopted the ABA model rule or an
analogous provision relating to discovery.
18
Consider another Colorado case as an illustration of
the tension between state ethical rules and federal discovery requirements.
In People v. Mucklow, 35 P.3d 527 (Co. S. Ct. Office Discipline 2000), a district attorney
twice failed to disclose exculpatory statements to the defense before preliminary hearings. Id. at
530-31. The Discipline Office of the Supreme Court emphasized that Colorado had adopted a
version of ABA model rule 3.8, and that this rule meant The prosecutor is required to provide
exculpatory information and materials to the defense as soon as it is practicable or feasible to do
so. Id. at 535. The opinion emphasizes the difference between due process discovery
requirements and (the more rigorous) ethical discovery obligations created by the state ethical
rule. Id. at 535. The D.A. who ignored that distinction did so at her peril; she was publically
censured. Id. at 540.
For the federal practitioner in Colorado or any state that has adopted a version of ABA
model rule 3.8 theMucklow case is intriguing. If Congressman McDades 530B extends
state ethical rules to federal prosecutors, then the Colorado ethical rule requiring early discovery
should apply to an AUSA as well.
C. Prosecutorial Misconduct During Trial
1. Misconduct During Jury Selection
Prosecutorial misconduct cases make for remarkable reading. One such case is Williams
v. Netherland, 181 F.Supp.2d 604 (E.D. Va. 2002). In Williams, petitioner sought relief from a
before a plea; the quality of the States case, the likely penalties, a change in law regarding
punishment, the admissibility of a confession, and potential defenses. There accordingly was no
constitutional problem with a plea if the defendant misjudged the grounds for impeachment of
potential witnesses as a possible future trial. Id. at 2455.
18
States adopting a substantial equivalent of ABA Model Rule 3.8(d) include Colorado,
Idaho, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. See, e.g., People v. Mucklow, 35 P.3d 527 (Co. S. Ct.
Office Discipline 2000) (discussing Colo. RPC 3.8d, based on ABA Model Rule 3.8); Id. R.
Prof. Conduct 3.8(d) (incorporating subsection (d) of ABA model rule relating to discovery); Md
Rule of Prof. Conduct 3.8 (same); Pa Rule. Prof. Conduct 3.8 (same). Other states have adopted
less-specific ethical rules regarding a prosecutors disclosure obligations. California is in the
process of adopting a rule based in large part on ABA Model Rule 3.8(d). See, e.g.,
http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/
public-comment/2009/Revision-Rules-Professional-Conduct-11-Rules_11-13-09.pdf (comparing
and contrasting other states adoption and Californias proposed changes) (last visited 4/9/10).

capital conviction when i) a juror was the ex-wife of a government witness; ii) the prosecutor
was this jurors former divorce attorney (and who therefore obviously knew about the
relationship, and iii) neither the juror nor the prosecutor bothered to reveal these relationships
during voir dire. Id. at 609-12. The court found that the prosecutor acted improperly and
granted the writ. Id.
Less favorable is the Ninth Circuits affirmance in United States v. Steele, 298 F.3d 906
(9th Cir. 2002). In Steele, the AUSA questioned a prospective juror on voir dire who had been
employed as a public defender. Id. at 911-12. She asked, In the course of trying [felony
robbery cases], did you ever make a decision that your client was guilty and youve got to do
whatever you have got to do because thats your job? Id. at 912. The juror answered,
truthfully, I guess so, yeah. You know, it gets the facts might show one way or the other, and
you have to pursue the case if the client wants to or not, its their decision. Id.
Defense counsel sitting next to a client heading into a federal bank robbery trial
understandably objected to a question about defending guilty defendants at trial. Id. The Ninth
Circuit, however, refused to find misconduct. The prosecutors questions in the present case
may not have been the best way to elicit signs of bias, but the circumstances do not support the
conclusion that there was prosecutorial misconduct. Id.
2. Improper Conduct During Opening Statements
In her opening statement, an AUSA states that the armed robbery case before the jury has
rocked the sense of security of an entire Maine community, a community that had been
relatively free from random acts of violence. United States v. Mooney, 315 F.3d 54, 58-59 (1st
Cir. 2002). She continues on to comment that the defendant chose not to speak to the police, and
encouraged the jury to compare that silence with the testimony of his cooperating- co-
defendants. Id. Prosecutorial misconduct?
The government conceded as much in Mooney, choosing not to defend the prosecutors
opening remarks. Id. at 59. Instead, while finding misconduct the First Circuit focused
primarily on the remedy (which it ultimately denied).
In Mooney, the First Circuit acknowledged its dismay that any prosecutor in this circuit
could apprise a jury in an opening statement that a defendant had chosen not to talk to the police.
It is difficult to imagine a more fundamental error. Id. at 61 & n.1. Nonetheless, in light of the
strength of the evidence and immediate curative instructions, the First Circuit upheld the
conviction. Id.
One particularly interesting aspect of the Mooney decision is the Courts analysis of the
timing of the misconduct. The Court observed The context of the prosecutors comments also
weighs against a finding that they likely affected the outcome of the trial. The comments
occurred during opening arguments, not during summation where the last words the jury hears
have significant potential to cause prejudice. Id. at 60. Prosecutorial misconduct during
opening statements thus may be more difficult to remedy on appeal than improper statements
during closing arguments.
3. Ethical Problems with Government Witnesses and Trial Evidence
Government witnesses and evidence at trial present a grab-bag of ethical problems. One
straightforward prohibition precludes eliciting a witness opinion of another witness testimony.
United States v. Geston, 299 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2002), nicely summarizes the due process
concerns behind this rule. Id. at 1136 (collecting cases). In Geston, the Ninth concluded that the
prosecutors improper questioning seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation
of judicial proceedings, or [] failing to reverse [the] conviction would result in a miscarriage of
justice. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). In a case where witness credibility was
paramount, it was plain error for the court to allow the prosecutor to persist in asking witnesses
to make improper comments upon the testimony of other witnesses. Id. at 1137.
Not surprisingly, it is also improper for a prosecutor to intentionally elicit testimony
precluded by a courts in limine ruling. See Thomas v. Hubbard, 273 F.3d 1164, 1175-76 (9th
Cir. 2001), as amend. J an. 22, 2002 (granting petition for writ of habeas from murder conviction
when, among other things, the prosecutor intentionally ignored a court ruling prohibiting
testimony about a defendants previous use of a gun).
It is also unsurprising that it is prosecutorial misconduct for the government to sponsor
perjured testimony, to permit its witnesses to commit perjury, or to fail to reveal a witness lies
to the defense. What is surprising is the vehemence of courts when confronted with this conduct.
Commonwealth v. Bowie, 243 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2001), as amend. Mar. 23, 2001 is a
remarkable example of a courts intolerance for such conduct. In Bowie, the defendant was
implicated in a particularly brutal murder in the Northern Mariana Islands. Id. at 1111. Much of
the governments case involved cooperating co-defendants, one of whom was caught early in the
case, in a jail cell, while trying to discard an incriminating letter handwritten on yellow paper.
Id. at 1112-13. That letter by an unknown author suggested that the author i) was actually
guilty of the murder, ii) was conspiring to frame the defendant, iii) had lied during cooperation
before, and iv) had lied to his lawyer about the murder. Id. The letter may have come from
another cooperating witness.
Despite this dramatic evidence, the prosecutor did not investigate the letter, did not
submit it for handwriting analysis, and never asked any of the cooperating witnesses about it. Id.
at 1114.
The Ninth Circuit (in an opinion written by former federal prosecutor Trott), was to put
it mildly livid in light of the studied decision by the prosecution not to rock the boat, but
instead to press forward with testimony that was possibly false on the apparent premise that all
these accomplices were actually responsible for [the victims] murder. Id. at 1118. The Court
explained that the prosecutors duty was not to merely disclose the letter to the defense, but to
actively investigate the many (potentially exculpatory) ramifications of the evidence. Id. at
1117-18. A prosecutors responsibility and duty to correct what he knows to be false and elicit
the truth . . . requires a prosecutor to act when put on notice of the real possibility of false
testimony. This duty is not discharged by attempting to finesse the problem by pressing ahead
without a diligent and a good faith attempt to resolve it. A prosecutor cannot avoid this
obligation by refusing to search for the truth and remaining willfully ignorant of the facts. Id. at
1118.
The Court did not particularly care what the defendant actually did with this letter during
trial. [The defendant] has certain constitutional rights that he could waive or forfeit, but he
could not waive the freestanding ethical and constitutional obligation of the prosecutor as a
representative of the government to protect the integrity of the court and the criminal justice
system . . . . Id. at 1122.
Bowie is a useful place to start when researching prosecutorial misconduct regarding
perjury.
19
First, the tone of the case is welcome righteous indignation in contrast to so many
cases that seem blandly resigned to prosecutorial misconduct. The case also includes a useful
collection of authority regarding prosecutorial misconduct in the presentation in evidence.
Finally, Bowie employs a thoughtful dual analysis using both due process and prosecutorial
misconduct authority in arriving at its ultimate reversal. See id. at 1115-17.
4. Improper Closing Arguments
One of the lead cases on prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments is the source
for the wonderful quote used at the beginning of this outline - Berger v. United States, 295 U.S.
78 (1935). In Berger, the prosecuting attorney misstated evidence during cross examination, an
argument that was undignified and intemperate, containing improper insinuations and assertions
calculated to mislead the jury. Id. at 86. The Court found pronounced and persistent
misconduct, a case against the defendant that was not strong, and accordingly reversed and
remanded for a new trial. Id. at 89.
What is interesting about the Berger opinion is the lack of analysis as to the Courts
power to reverse in light of prosecutorial misconduct. The Court presumably acted under its
supervisory power a power that it handily distinguished fifty-one years later when presented
with a capital habeas alleging improper closing statements. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S.
168 (1986). In Darden, the defendant had been convicted of an admittedly horrific murder and
sexual assault. Id. at 172-74. In the closing argument, the prosecutor asserted that the only way
to be sure that the defendant would not return to the public was the death penalty. Id. at 181 &
n.9. The prosecutor argued that the defendant shouldnt be out of his cell unless he has a leash
on him and a prison guard at the other end of that leash. Id. at 181 & n.12. The prosecutor
wished that the homicide victim had had a shotgun in his hand when he walked in the back door
and blown [the defendants] face off. I wish that I could see him sitting here with no face, blown
19
Other useful cases on perjured testimony include United States v. Valentine, 820 F.2d
565 (2d Cir. 1987) (reversing conviction when AUSA mischaracterized grand jury testimony
during trial), and United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing conviction
when AUSA tolerated perjury from central government witness).
away by a shotgun. Id.
20
The Court found that the comments did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, setting a
test that still haunts federal review: The prosecutors argument did not manipulate or misstate
the evidence, nor did it implicate other specific rights of the accused such as the right to counsel
or the right to remain silent. Id. at 181-82.
A persuasive dissent in Berger quotes a remarkably candid passage on the futility of
condemnations without remedies:
This court has several times used vigorous language in denouncing government counsel
for such conduct as that of the [prosecutor] here. But, each time, it has said that,
nevertheless, it would not reverse. Such an attitude of helpless piety is, I think,
undesirable. It means actual condonation of counsel's alleged offense, coupled with
verbal disapprobation. If we continue to do nothing practical to prevent such conduct, we
should cease to disapprove it. For otherwise it will be as if we declared in effect,
'Government attorneys, without fear of reversal, may say just about what they please in
addressing juries, for our rules on the subject are pretend-rules. If prosecutors win
verdicts as a result of "disapproved" remarks, we will not deprive them of their victories;
we will merely go through the form of expressing displeasure. The deprecatory words we
use in our opinions on such occasions are purely ceremonial.' Government counsel,
employing such tactics, are the kind who, eager to win victories, will gladly pay the small
price of a ritualistic verbal spanking. The practice of this court recalling the bitter tear
shed by the Walrus as he ate the oysters breeds a deplorably cynical attitude towards
the judiciary. I believe this Court must do more than wring its hands when a State uses
improper legal standards to select juries in capital cases and permits prosecutors to
pervert the adversary process. I therefore dissent.
Id. at 206 (Blackmun, J ., Brennan, J ., Marshall, J ., Stevens, J ., dissenting) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
Recently, the Ninth Circuit signaled an end to the wringing of the hands. In United
States v. Reyes, 577 F.3d 1069, 1076-79 (9th Cir. 2009), the court reversed and remanded for a
new trial based on the prosecutors remarks in closing argument. The Ninth Circuit found that
the government had asserted material facts to the jury that it knew were false or had strong
reason to doubt, based on contradictory evidence that was not presented to the jury. Id. The
Ninth Circuit sternly warned the DOJ that, [w]e do not lightly tolerate such conduct, and that
were was no reason to tolerate such misconduct here. Id. at 1078.
Generally, however, courts routinely condemn prosecutors conduct, but refuse to grant
20
The district court has observed, Anyone attempting a text-book illustration of a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility . . . could not possibly improve upon
[prosecutor Whites final statement]. Id. at 189 & n.2 (Blackmun, J ., Brennan, J ., Marshall, J .,
Stevens, J ., dissenting).

any relief to the defense. In 1970, for example, the First Circuit resignedly repeated warnings it
had made many times before:
We will recapitulate, we hope for the last time, in the light of the number of occasions it
has been necessary to do so, the basic ground rules. Essentially, the prosecutor is to
argue the case. He may discuss the evidence, the warrantable inferences, the witnesses,
and their credibility. He may talk about the duties of the jury, the importance of the case,
and anything else that is relevant. He is not to interject his personal beliefs. The
prosecutor is neither a witness, a mentor, nor a thirteenth juror . . . . He must not appeal
to the passion or prejudice of the jury directly, or by the introduction of irrelevant matter,
indirectly.
United States v. Cotter, 425 F.2d 450, 452 (1st Cir. 1970). In Cotter, this meant that it was
improper for a prosecutor to argue that a defendants who failed to pay his taxes was
jeopardizing future moon landings the first landing was taking place during the trial. Id.
Absent a timely objection, however, the Court declined to reverse. Id.
Forced to deal with repeated allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during closing
arguments, federal appellate courts gradually developed stringent hurdles to overcome before a
defendant would be entitled to any relief. The Second Circuit, for example, developed a three-
part test to determine whether a prosecutors statements during closing amounted to misconduct:
The district court correctly identified the three-pronged analysis employed by this Court
to determine whether the statements or actions of a prosecutor amount to misconduct.
That analysis focuses on: the severity of the misconduct, the curative measures taken, and
the certainty of conviction absent the misconduct.
United States v. Burns, 104 F.3d 529, 537 (2d Cir. 1997). In Burns, a prosecutor clapped
(sarcastically) after defense counsel finished their closing in tears. Id. & n.3. The government
conceded on appeal that this was inappropriate, but the court refused to reverse the denial of a
new trial motion. Id.
At times, a courts tolerance of misconduct during closing argument is breathtaking. For
example, in a habeas case arising from a murder conviction, the Ninth Circuit was confronted
with a prosecutor who had actually taken the witness stand during closing argument, testified
in the voice of the murdered, gay, victim, and who during this soliloquy characterized the victim
as a peaceful, gentle man who did nothing to deserve his dismal fate. Drayden v. White, 232
F.3d 704, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2000). While the Ninth Circuit agreed that the prosecutor had
committed misconduct, it refused to hold that this misconduct had violated petitioners due
process rights. Id.
Faced with what J ustice Blackmun characterized as an attitude of helpless piety from
most federal courts reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, 530B may provide some
support. There are no shortage of state and local ethical rules directed towards prosecutorial
misconduct in closing arguments. An ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct, for example,
prohibits an attorney from stating a personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness:
RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
A lawyer shall not:
. . . .
(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or
that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in
issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of
a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or
innocence of an accused; or
Appendix E, ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4 (2002) (emphasis added).
In states that have adopted this model rule
21
or that have analogous limitations on
closing arguments such behavior during a federal closing should earn the prosecutor a referral
to the state bar disciplinary committee in this post- 530B world. Even if the misconduct is not
sufficiently prejudicial to entitle a defendant to relief, the specter of a public censure by the state
bar should help to put some teeth into the judicial hand wringing that J ustice Blackmun
warned against in Berger.
Notably, even when courts do not directly censure AUSAs based on local ethical rules,
the moral weight of these rules is gradually making its way into federal case law. For example,
the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial a federal bank robbery case where the
prosecutor misstated central eyewitness testimony during closing. See United States v. Carter,
236 F.3d 777, 793 (6th Cir. 2001). In its analysis of the threshold question
22
of whether the
21
A non-exhaustive list of states that have adopted Model Rule 3-4 includes
Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah,
West Virginia. See, e.g., State v. Floyd, 523 A.2d 1323 (Conn. App. 1987) (applying Rule of
Professional Conduct 3.4 to alleged ethical violation); State v. Pabst, 996 P.2d 321, 326 (Kan.
S.Ct. 2000)(same); Merritt v. Karcioglu, 668 So.2d 469, 475-76 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1996) (same);
Attorney Grievance Com'n v. Alison, 709 A.2d 1212, 1215 (Md. Ct. App. 1998) (same); State v.
Stewart, 833 P.2d 1085, 1089-90 (Mont. S. Ct. 1992) (same); State v. Jones, 558 S.E.2d 97, 127-
28 (N.C. S. Ct. 2002); State v. Bujnowski, 532 A.2d 1385, 1387 (N.H. S. Ct. 1987) (same); State
v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221 (Utah S. Ct. 1989) (same); State v. Stephens, 525 S.E.2d 301, 424 (W.
Va. S. Ct. 1999)
22
The Court in Carter articulated the Sixth Circuits two-part test to determine whether
prosecutorial misconduct has taken place:
The Sixth Circuit has adopted a two-step approach for determining when
prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. See United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d
1380, 1385-87 (6th Cir.1994). Under this approach, a court must first consider whether
the prosecutor's conduct and remarks were improper. Id. at 1387; see also Boyle v.
Million, 201 F.3d 711, 717 (6th Cir.2000). If the remarks were improper, the court must
AUSAs closing was improper, the Sixth Circuit quoted with favor the ABA Standard stating
that the prosecutor should not intentionally misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the
inferences it may draw. Id. at 785 (quoting ABA Standards for Criminal J ustice Prosecution
Function and Defense Function 3-5.8(a) (3d ed. 1993)).
Our personal experience in this field also reveals that the specter of ethical sanction is a
powerful weapon in combating unethical behavior. A prime example is United States v.
Blueford, 312 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2002), as amend. & further amend., Nov. 22, 2002. Northern
District Assistant Federal Public Defender J oyce Leavitt ably litigated this felon in possession
case. The defense who had provided notice of an alibi defense was presented with a huge
stack of the clients taped conversations from the jail; and was first presented with these tapes in
the midst of trial. Id. at 966. The AUSA suggested that he was going to use these tapes as
impeachment material relating to the testimony of defense alibi witnesses implying that the
tapes revealed a defendant who was suborning perjury. Id. at 965. During the trial the AUSA
elicited in his cross of defense alibi witnesses that they had spoken much more frequently to the
defendant just before the trial. Id. at 966. In his closing, the AUSA asked the jury to infer that
the defendant and the alibi witness fabricated the alibi defense just before trial. Id. at 967.
In reality, however, when the thirty hours of tapes were reviewed by the defense (after
trial), they revealed the defendant telling an alibi witness, [A]ll you got to do is tell the truth.
Id. The district court judge was surprised to learn the tapes did not, in fact, reveal a defendant
who was coaching alibi witnesses. Id.
The Ninth Circuit reversed; It is decidedly improper for the government to propound
inferences that it knows to be false, or has very strong reason to doubt, particularly when it
refuses to acknowledge the error afterwards to either the trial court or this court and instead
offers far-fetched explanations of its actions. Id. at 968.
then consider and weigh four factors in determining whether the impropriety was flagrant
and thus warrants reversal. These four factors are as follows: (1) whether the conduct and
remarks of the prosecutor tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant; (2)
whether the conduct or remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were
deliberately or accidentally made; and (4) whether the evidence against the defendant
was strong. Carroll, 26 F.3d at 1385; see also Boyle, 201 F.3d at 717; United States v.
Collins, 78 F.3d 1021, 1039 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 872, 117 S.Ct. 189, 136
L.Ed.2d 127 (1996).
When reviewing challenges to a prosecutor's remarks at trial, we examine the
prosecutor's comments within the context of the trial to determine whether such
comments amounted to prejudicial error. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11-12, 105
S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); Collins, 78 F.3d at 1040. In so doing, we consider
whether, and to what extent, the prosecutor's improper remarks were invited by defense
counsel's argument. Young, 470 U.S. at 12, 105 S.Ct. 1038; Collins, 78 F.3d at 1040.
Carter, 236 F.3d at 783.
What is not clear from the opinion is the enormous publicity and controversy that this
case generated in the Northern District of California. The government and the AUSA himself
devoted enormous resources to seeking rehearing and (later, successful amendment) of the
opinion alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Notably, the opinion does not clearly specify the
AUSA involved in trial. Id. Nonetheless, the Blueford case and this AUSAs involvement are
well-known by every federal practitioner and district judge in the Northern District. In short, the
combination of a remedy for the defendant (reversal and new trial), and even an oblique moral
sanction may have some impact.
D. Broken Promises: Breached Pleas at Sentencing
Is a broken plea agreement at sentencing best analyzed using contract law, or when
framed as prosecutorial misconduct? More importantly, does it matter to the client as long as a
remedy is secured?
The lead case on breached plea agreements is Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257
(1971). In that opinion, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded after (the second) prosecutor
in the case refused to make a sentencing recommendation agreed upon before the plea. Id. at
260. Despite the fact that the judge disclaimed any reliance on the D.A.s recommendation, the
Court found that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the
prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise
must be fulfilled. Id. at 262. While the Court did not engage in much analysis of the ethics of a
breached plea, it made no mention of any principles of contract law. J ustice Douglas
concurrence, however, emphasized that outright vacation is often appropriate after a breached
plea promise, in light of an outraged sense of fairness. Id. at 266 (Douglas, J ., concurring)
(internal quotations and citation omitted).
While deferring to Santobello, federal appellate courts have routinely avoided the ethical
issues by analyzing plea agreement breach under contract law. In United States v. Grimm, 170
F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 1999), for example, the Seventh Circuit employed contract principles when an
AUSA failed to recommend acceptance of responsibility and did not dispute a gun possession, in
violation of the plea agreement. Id. at 764-66. Without engaging in any ethical finger-pointing,
the Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 765.
Ethical overtones in plea-breach cases are becoming more common, however. For
example, in Gunn v. Ignacio, 263 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit granted a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus when a district attorney breached a plea agreement regarding
concurrent time. Id. at 969. Because the Court granted relief, it did not get to the second issue
raised by the Petitioner a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the
prosecutorial misconduct arising from this breach! Id. at 968. Although Gunn did not consider
the issue, Petitioners claim is sobering: defense counsel too timid to raise prosecutorial
misconduct challenges may regret their decision when faced with a later I.A.C. claim.
If sufficiently dramatic, a prosecutors breach of a plea agreement may even prompt a
Court to enforce promises that were actually unfulfillable! Such was the case in Palermo v.
Warden, Green Haven State Prison, 545 F.2d 286 (2d Cir. 1976). In Palermo, the Petitioner had

been promised that state district attorneys would aggressively lobby the parole board for a
reduced sentence, in return for him leading them to $4 million worth of stolen jewelry. Id. at
289-90. The jewels were recovered, sympathetic letters were written by the DAs to the parole
commission but at the same time, prosecutors sandbagged the defendant by calling a parole
investigator and analogizing the defendant to another parolee who had received a lenient
sentence and then committed a violent crime. Id. at 291. The states case was not helped by
contractions in the prosecutors testimony, inconsistencies too numerous to mention that
undermined their credibility. Id. at 294.
While contesting the habeas petition, the state argued that the prosecutors never had the
authority to offer a bargain from another jurisdiction the state parole commission. The Court
was unimpressed. The Second Circuit proclaimed fundamental fairness and public confidence
in government officials require that prosecutors be held to meticulous standards of both promise
and performance. Id. at 296. The Court accordingly held, where a defendant pleads guilty
because he reasonably relies on promises by the prosecutors which are in fact unfulfillable, he
has a right to have those promises fulfilled. Id. The district courts unconditional release order
was affirmed. Id.
To answer the question posed at the outset of this section regarding contract law versus
ethical analysis, the scope of remedy may depend on whether a prosecutors action in breaching
a plea agreement was egregious or intentional. United States v. Brye, 146 F.3d 1207, 1213.
(10th Cir. 1998). In Brye, the Tenth Circuit analyzed a breach where the AUSA promised to
defer on a motion for a downward departure, then undermined (albeit subtly) the defendants
motion at sentencing. Id. at 1212. While the Court found the breach, it observed that it would
only permit the defendant to withdraw his plea when the breach was egregious or intentional.
Id. at 1213. Because the governments breach was based on a misunderstanding of the plea
agreement, the case was only remanded for resentencing. Id. The lesson from Brye is clear
when faced with a breach, defense counsel should argue contract law but should also emphasize
the ethical violation, to secure better remedies for their client.
III. Normalizing Justice
A. The Proposed Expansion of Rule 16 and DOJs Opposition
On April 28, 2009, J udge Emmet Sullivan, following the conclusion of United States v.
Stevens case, wrote the J udicial Conference Advisory Committee and urged its members to
consider an amendment to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Appendix F
(Sullivan, J. Letter, April 28, 2009). J udge Sullivan wrote, A federal rule of criminal procedure
requiring all exculpatory evidence to be produced to the defense would eliminate the need to rely
on a prudent prosecutor deciding to err on the side of transparency, . . . and would go a long
way towards furthering the search for the truth in criminal trialsand ensuring that justice shall
be done. Id. He noted that it has now been nearly three years since the United States
Attorneys Manual was modified to establish[] guidelines for the exercise of judgment and
discretion by attorneys for the government in determining what information to disclose to a
criminal defendant pursuant to the governments discovery obligations as set out in Brady v.
Maryland and Giglio v. United States and its obligation to seek justice in every case. Id. J udge

Sullivan also reiterated the serious Brady violations in the Stevens case.
Rule 16 currently requires that the government produce, upon a defendants request,
those documents and objects and the results of examinations and tests that are material to
preparing the defense. Spivack, Roth and Golden, Troubling the Heavens, 34 CHAMPION 24 at
2. In contrast to the governments obligations under Brady, the governments Rule 16 obligation
to produce items material to preparing the defense extends only to items material to the
defendants response to the govenrments case in chief. Id.
In October 2009, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Lanny Breuer,
addressed the committee and described steps that the Department had taken in the aftermath of
the Stevens trial, including forming a working group to study discovery in criminal proceedings
and to suggest improvements. He said that while the Department took its obligations seriously,
an Office of Professional Responsibility report of alleged Brady violations over the past nine
years did not reveal evidence of a widespread problem. See October 13, 2009, Draft Minutes,
Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Agenda%20Books
/Criminal/CR2010-04.pdf (last visited 4/9/10).
23
He indicated that the DOJ would not object to amending Rule 16 to codify Brady
disclosure requirements but would object to any proposed amendment beyond Brady obligations.
Id. Presumably, the DOJ opposition to an expansion of Rule 16, even if only to the extent to
which the United States Atorneys Manual now provides, is based on a concern that such an
expansion would provide defendants with an enforceable right to the governments disclosure
of any and all exculpatory material, not just the information that the government deems to be
material. See Spivack, Roth and Golden, Troubling the Heavens, 34 CHAMPION 24 at 10.
According to the draft minutes of the October 2009 meeting, [a] participant suggested
that the training of federal prosecutors should include presentations by members of the defense
bar who could offer their perspective on discovery issues. Id. There was some discussion of an
open-file policy that has been adopted by some U.S. Attorney Offices. One member thought
that the policy had been successfully used in the Northern District of California. However,
J udge Tallman noted that as an appellate judge, he sees Brady issues arising in many cases from
California, including that district. Id.
In a later March 2010 meeting, materials distributed to the members included the Ogden
Memoranda outlining the DOJ s efforts to improve discovery practices by federal prosecutors, a
letter from J udge Mark Wolf also advocating for an amendment to Rule 16 (see Appendix G,
Wolf, J. Letter, June 23, 2009), a proposed draft survey of all federal judges designed by the
23
At an April, 2010 panel session at the D.C. J udicial and Bar Conference, the director
of the Criminal Divisions Policy and Legislation, J onathan Wroblewski, stated that DOJ
officials who have reviewed available data conclude there is no widespread misconduct when it
comes to prosecutors turning over favorable material to defense lawyers . . . .
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/13/doj-defends-against-critics-of-prosecutors-discovery-pr
oduction/ (last visited 4/14/10)

Federal J udicial Center regarding discovery practices and judicial experience with Brady and
Giglio violations, and the ABAs Formal Ethics Opinion 09-454.
Further discussion of the proposed amendment of Rule 16 will be held at the next
meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules in April, 2010.
B. For the Defense Commentators Opinions and Recommendations
From Pivack, Stephen R., Troubling the Heavens: Production of Evidence Favorable to
Defendants by the United States, THE CHAMPION, J anuary/February 2010:
24
One major remedy for these problems is an amendment to FRCrP 16, in line with
that proposed by the Advisory Committee, that provides defendants an
enforceable right to the governments disclosure of any and all exculpatory
material, not just the information that the government deems to be material.
Such an amendment was endorsed by J udge Sullivan himself in the aftermath of
the Stevens case, and would represent an important step towards safeguarding the
rights of criminal defendants. It would codify the governments obligation to
provide exculpatory and impeaching information regardless of its perceived
materiality and would grant defendants a right that is enforceable in court and is
not currently recognized by most courts absent a showing of materiality. In
addition, it would help to ensure that federal prosecutors do not make decisions
with respect to what information to provide to defendants based on an inherently
subjective assessment of whether its use at trial would impact the outcome of the
prosecution. Perhaps most importantly, amending FRCrP 16 would insulate
defendants against future changes in J ustice Department policy that might de-
emphasize as a goal the full production of all exculpatory and impeaching
information to criminal defendants. For all of those reasons, amending FRCrP 16
is an important and necessary step.
. . . .
Along with the adoption of specific new procedures and the retraining of
prosecutors relative to existing requirements, the Department of J ustice also
should make clear that the failure of prosecutors to comply with the Departments
internal guidelines will result in real and significant consequences.
From the blog of Scott H. Greenfield, Criminal Defense Attorney
25
:
24
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923
/e11dccac91ec12b9852576fc0073bc75?OpenDocument, (footnotes omitted) (last visited
4/12/10).
25
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/07/09/brady-violations-not-just-a-rules-issue.aspx
(last visited 4/12/10).
The solutions to the Brady problem fall into two categories. Trust the DOJ or
create a new rule that requires courts to trust the DOJ . While the new Rule 16
proposal has certain virtue, foremost of which is that it resolves the long-standing
problem of when the government must disclose Brady, which it now holds to the
very last second if it's to be disclosed at all, rendering the defense incapable of
investigating or making good use of the information. But it still doesn't address
the core issue: The determination of what is Brady is left to the discretion of the
prosecution, and the duty to disclose it at all remains the decision of the prosecutor.
The proposed solutions are thus dependent on the answer to this question: Do
you trust the prosecutor?
If we cant trust the prosecutor, each and every prosecutor in every district
throughout the country, to disclose Brady, to err on the side of disclosure, to
disclose timely, then neither new rules nor procedures that continue to rely on the
discretion of prosecutors will solve the problem. Clearly, former prosecutors and
even judges who've been burned still seem to put their faith in the integrity of the
government. Somehow, I don't find this satisfying, but then nobody engaged in
this discussion seems to think that the defense side of the courtroom should have
any say in the matter.
From Irwin H. Schwartz, Beyond Brady: Using Model Rule 3.8(d) in Federal Court for
Discovery of Exculpatory Information, THE CHAMPION, March, 2010:
In the aftermath of the scandals of 2009, Attorney General Holder and Assistant
Attorney General Breuer spoke about the Department's failures. Breuer said, The
Department of J ustice is committed to the very highest ethical standards. Yet,
when the Department issued its 2010 guidance on discovery, it made no mention
of prosecutors duty under Rule 3.8(d). It listed Rules 16 and 26.2, the J encks
Act, and Brady as sources generally establish[ing] its discovery obligations.
How can the Department achieve the very highest ethical standards when it does
not acknowledge that Rule 3.8(d) establishes a duty of disclosure and a broader
duty than the sources it listed? Worse, the guidance is inconsistent with Rule
3.8(d) on the critical matter of disclosure timing. The ABA Opinion requires
disclosure of exculpatory information as soon as reasonably practicable. The
Departments guidance permits prosecutors to delay production of exculpatory
information.
Although acknowledging that Brady practices vary from office to office and even
within offices, the guidance does not assure uniform practices within the
Department. One way in which uniformity could be accomplished is by moving
Brady discovery to Rule 16. J udge Emmet Sullivan, who tried the Ted Stevens
case, asked the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules to
consider this idea. The Department opposed the suggestion, as it did in 2006.
Recent cases show its efforts were not sufficient. Today, the Department clings to
a narrow view of its disclosure obligations and continues to oppose rules reform.

NACDL led the way to passage of 28 U.S.C. 530B and passage of the Hyde
Amendment. Recent events show that defense attorneys need to roll up their
sleeves again -- in court and Congress. If the Department of J ustice is unwilling
or unable to mandate compliance with Rule 3.8(d), and if it is unwilling or unable
to assure compliance with the rule, then courts or Congress must step in to
mandate compliance. Now.
From Professor Ellen Podgors White Collar Crime Prof Blog:
In the wake of recent events that demonstrate discovery violations, DOJ has
issued three new policies. It is wonderful to see that DOJ is beefing up its
discovery practices and taking a hard look at what should happen in the future. It
also sounds like a better management system is being considered. But that said,
looking at the actual guidance memo, here are a few preliminary comments -
After telling prosecutors that they need to familiarize themselves with Brady,
Giglio and other discovery rules and statutes, the paragraph ends with a statement
that this new memo provides prospective guidance only and is not intended to
have the force of law or to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits.
Yes, this is the standard language one finds throughout the DOJ manual. But wait
a minute -- although DOJ guidelines can be guidelines, these mandates are
constitutional, statutory, and rules - they often do have the force of law. This fact
should be emphasized to prosecutors.
The memo states - Prosecutors should never describe the discovery being
provided as open file. The memo explains the fears of missing something. It
seems odd that the DOJ doesnt want prosecutors to accept credit when they do
the right thing and provide all discovery. Saying not to call it open, for fear of
missing something, implies that this is not a policy that recognizes the value of an
open file system that can work well and provide efficiency. And taking this one
step further -- if it is not acknowledged as an open discovery practice, and
something is missed - will it sound any better to the accused who failed to receive
their discovery material?
The memo gives no real guidance as to when a prosecutor has to turn over Jencks
material, and leaves it to the individual offices to create their individual rules. It is
ironic that DOJ wants sentencing consistency, but doesnt want discovery
consistency. Should a defendant in Wyoming have different rights to witness
statements than the defendant in New York?
It is good to see memorialization of witness statements is important. But only
turning over material variances in a witness's statements? Shouldnt all
variances be turned over?
It is interesting how the memo provides an extensive review process of discovery
material - will this hold up getting the materials to defense counsel? Also will
defense counsel be given an equal amount of time to review these materials and

time to conduct additional investigation that may be warranted as a result of the
materials provided?
And yes, it is important to protect witnesses and national security - but should
DOJ be the one deciding when they think they can withhold evidence? Shouldnt
that be for neutral parties like the judiciary?
It is good to see DOJ trying to do a better job than past administrations, but what
really needs to be done is setting forth clearer rules and statutes by independent
parties, as opposed to a working group made up of senior prosecutors from
throughout the Department and from United States Attorney Offices, law
enforcement representatives, and information technology professionals, so that
our system does do justice as desired by AG Holder.
26
Parting Thoughts
It is the easiest thing in the world for people trained in the adversarial ethic to
think a prosecutors job is simply to win . . . . It is not.
United States v. Blueford, 312 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir. 2002) as amend. & further amend., Nov.
22, 2002 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make
sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the
criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the
commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not
adversary at all; nor should it be.
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256 (1967) (White, J ., concurring and dissenting) (footnote
omitted).
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal,
well-meaning but without understanding.
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (Brandeis, J ., dissenting).
[T]he Constitution prescribes a floor below which protections may not fall, rather
than a ceiling beyond which they may not rise. The Model Code of Professional
Responsibility, on the other hand, encompasses the attorneys duty to maintain
the highest standards of ethical conduct. Preamble, Model Code of Professional
26
New DOJ Discovery Policies Fall Short, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/
whitecollarcrime_blog/2010/01/new-doj-discovery-policies.html (last visited 4/14/10).
Responsibility (1981). The Code is designed to safeguard the integrity of the
profession and preserve public confidence in our system of justice.
United States v. Hammad, 858 F.2d 834, 839 (2d Cir. 1988).
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0, >otion )or
Recon<i*eration5 >otion )or Recu<al5 >otion #or &u?lication 1) Tran<cri't at &u?lic 0$'en<e,
&etition )or /n #or@a &au'eri< Statu<
&1/NTS ,N( ,.T31R/T/0S
C,S0 ,&&0,: ST,T0>0NT
(e)en*ant+,''ellant, Zach Coughlin, here?A )ile< thi< Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an*
or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0, >otion )or Recon<i*eration5 >otion )or Recu<al5 >otion #or
&u?lication 1) Tran<cri't at &u?lic 0$'en<e, &etition )or /n #or@a &au'eri< Statu<.
&1/NTS ,N( ,.T31R/T/0S
,N,:4S/S
/NC1R&1R,T0 74 R0#0R0NC0 ,:: :,2 ,N( ,SS0RT/1NS /N ,TT,C30(
&,&0RS ,N( &:0,(/N9S ,N( 2R/T/N9S /N 0B3/7/T 1:
R.:0 59. N02 TR/,:S5 ,>0N(>0NT 1# -.(9>0NTS
(a) Grounds. , ne= trial @aA ?e grante* to all or anA o) the 'artie< an* on all or 'art o) the i<<ue< )or anA o) the
)ollo=ing cau<e< or groun*< @ateriallA a))ecting the <u?<tantial right< o) an aggrie6e* 'artA: C1; /rregularitA in the
'rocee*ing< o) the court, DurA, @a<ter, or a*6er<e 'artA, or anA or*er o) the court, or @a<ter, or a?u<e o) *i<cretion ?A
=hich either 'artA =a< 're6ente* )ro@ ha6ing a )air trial5 C2; >i<con*uct o) the DurA or 're6ailing 'artA5 C"; ,cci*ent or
<ur'ri<e =hich or*inarA 'ru*ence coul* not ha6e guar*e* again<t5 C%; Ne=lA *i<co6ere* e6i*ence @aterial )or the 'artA
@aEing the @otion =hich the 'artA coul* not, =ith rea<ona?le *iligence, ha6e *i<co6ere* an* 'ro*uce* at the trial5 C5;
>ani)e<t *i<regar* ?A the DurA o) the in<truction< o) the court5 C!; 0$ce<<i6e *a@age< a''earing to ha6e ?een gi6en un*er
the in)luence o) 'a<<ion or 'reDu*ice5 or, C7; 0rror in la= occurring at the trial an* o?Decte* to ?A the 'artA @aEing the
@otion. 1n a @otion )or a ne= trial in an action trie* =ithout a DurA, the court @aA o'en the Du*g@ent i) one ha< ?een
entere*, taEe a**itional te<ti@onA, a@en* )in*ing< o) )act an* conclu<ion< o) la= or @aEe ne= )in*ing< an* conclu<ion<,
an* *irect the entrA o) a ne= Du*g@ent.
(b) Time for Motion. , @otion )or a ne= trial <hall ?e )ile* no later than 10 *aA< a)ter <er6ice o) =ritten notice o) the
entrA o) the Du*g@ent.
(c) Time for Serving Affidavits. 2hen a @otion )or ne= trial i< ?a<e* u'on a))i*a6it< theA <hall ?e )ile* =ith the @otion.
The o''o<ing 'artA ha< 10 *aA< a)ter <er6ice =ithin =hich to )ile o''o<ing a))i*a6it<, =hich 'erio* @aA ?e e$ten*e* )or
an a**itional 'erio* not e$cee*ing 20 *aA< either ?A the court )or goo* cau<e <ho=n or ?A the 'artie< ?A =ritten
<ti'ulation. The court @aA 'er@it re'lA a))i*a6it<.
(d) On Courts Initiative; Notice; Secif!ing Grounds. No later than 10 *aA< a)ter entrA o) Du*g@ent the court, on it<
o=n, @aA or*er a ne= trial )or anA rea<on that =oul* Du<ti)A granting one on a 'artAF< @otion. ,)ter gi6ing the 'artie<
notice an* an o''ortunitA to ?e hear*, the court @aA grant a ti@elA @otion )or a ne= trial )or a rea<on not <tate* in the
@otion. 2hen granting a ne= trial on it< o=n initiati6e or )or a rea<on not <tate* in a @otion, the court <hall <'eci)A the
groun*< in it< or*er.
(e) Motion to A"ter or Amend a #udgment. , @otion to alter or a@en* the Du*g@ent <hall ?e )ile* no later than 10 *aA<
a)ter <er6ice o) =ritten notice o) entrA o) the Du*g@ent.
G,< a@en*e*5 e))ecti6e -ulA 1, 2005.H
Recon<i*eration5 >otion )or Recu<al
2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
R.:0 !0. R0:/0# #R1> -.(9>0NT 1R 1R(0R
(a) C"erica" Mista$es. Clerical @i<taEe< in Du*g@ent<, or*er< or other 'art< o) the recor* an* error< therein ari<ing )ro@
o6er<ight or o@i<<ion @aA ?e correcte* ?A the court at anA ti@e o) it< o=n initiati6e or on the @otion o) anA 'artA an*
a)ter <uch notice, i) anA, a< the court or*er<. (uring the 'en*encA o) an a''eal, <uch @i<taEe< @aA ?e <o correcte* ?e)ore
the a''eal i< *ocEete* in the a''ellate court, an* therea)ter =hile the a''eal i< 'en*ing @aA ?e <o correcte* =ith lea6e o)
the a''ellate court.
(b) Mista$es; Inadvertence; %&cusab"e Neg"ect; Ne'"! (iscovered %vidence; )raud* %tc. 1n @otion an* u'on <uch
ter@< a< are Du<t, the court @aA relie6e a 'artA or 'artAF< legal re're<entati6e )ro@ a )inal Du*g@ent, or*er, or 'rocee*ing
)or the )ollo=ing rea<on<: C1; @i<taEe, ina*6ertence, <ur'ri<e, or e$cu<a?le neglect5 C2; ne=lA *i<co6ere* e6i*ence =hich
?A *ue *iligence coul* not ha6e ?een *i<co6ere* in ti@e to @o6e )or a ne= trial un*er Rule 59C?;5 C"; )rau* C=hether
hereto)ore *eno@inate* intrin<ic or e$trin<ic;, @i<re're<entation or other @i<con*uct o) an a*6er<e 'artA5 C%; the
Du*g@ent i< 6oi*5 or, C5; the Du*g@ent ha< ?een <ati<)ie*, relea<e*, or *i<charge*, or a 'rior Du*g@ent u'on =hich it i<
?a<e* ha< ?een re6er<e* or other=i<e 6acate*, or it i< no longer eIuita?le that an inDunction <houl* ha6e 'ro<'ecti6e
a''lication. The @otion <hall ?e @a*e =ithin a rea<ona?le ti@e, an* )or rea<on< C1;, C2;, an* C"; not @ore than ! @onth<
a)ter the 'rocee*ing =a< taEen or the *ate that =ritten notice o) entrA o) the Du*g@ent or or*er =a< <er6e*. , @otion
un*er thi< <u?*i6i<ion C?; *oe< not a))ect the )inalitA o) a Du*g@ent or <u<'en* it< o'eration. Thi< rule *oe< not li@it the
'o=er o) a court to entertain an in*e'en*ent action to relie6e a 'artA )ro@ a Du*g@ent, or*er, or 'rocee*ing, or to <et
a<i*e a Du*g@ent )or )rau* u'on the court. 2rit< o) cora@ no?i<, cora@ 6o?i<, au*ita Iuerela, an* ?ill< o) re6ie= an* ?ill<
in the nature o) a ?ill o) re6ie=, are a?oli<he*, an* the 'roce*ure )or o?taining anA relie) )ro@ a Du*g@ent <hall ?e ?A
@otion a< 're<cri?e* in the<e rule< or ?A an in*e'en*ent action.
(c) (efau"t #udgments+ (efendant Not ,ersona""! Served. 2hen a *e)ault Du*g@ent <hall ha6e ?een taEen again<t anA
'artA =ho =a< not 'er<onallA <er6e* =ith <u@@on< an* co@'laint, either in the State o) Ne6a*a or in anA other
Duri<*iction, an* =ho ha< not entere* a general a''earance in the action, the court, a)ter notice to the a*6er<e 'artA, u'on
@otion @a*e =ithin ! @onth< a)ter the *ate o) <er6ice o) =ritten notice o) entrA o) <uch Du*g@ent, @aA 6acate <uch
Du*g@ent an* allo= the 'artA or the 'artAF< legal re're<entati6e< to an<=er to the @erit< o) the original action. 2hen,
ho=e6er, a 'artA ha< ?een 'er<onallA <er6e* =ith <u@@on< an* co@'laint, either in the State o) Ne6a*a or in anA other
Duri<*iction, the 'artA @u<t @aEe a''lication to ?e relie6e* )ro@ a *e)ault, a Du*g@ent, an or*er, or other 'rocee*ing
taEen again<t the 'artA, or )or 'er@i<<ion to )ile an an<=er, in accor*ance =ith the 'ro6i<ion< o) <u?*i6i<ion C?; o) thi<
rule.
(d) (efau"t #udgments+ Modification Nunc ,ro Tunc. 2hene6er a *e)ault Du*g@ent or *ecree ha< ?een entere*, the
'artA or 'artie< in *e)ault therein @aA at anA ti@e therea)ter, u'on =ritten con<ent o) the 'artA or 'artie< in =ho<e )a6or
Du*g@ent or *ecree ha< ?een entere*, enter general a''earance in the action, an* the general a''earance <o entere* <hall
ha6e the <a@e )orce an* e))ect a< i) entere* at the 'ro'er ti@e 'rior to the ren*ition o) the Du*g@ent or *ecree. 1n <uch
a''earance ?eing entere* the court @aA @aEe an* enter a @o*i)ie* Du*g@ent or *ecree to the e$tent onlA o) <ho=ing <uch
general a''earance on the 'art o) the 'artA or 'artie< in *e)ault, an* it <hall ?e entere* nunc 'ro tunc a< o) the *ate o) the
original Du*g@ent or *ecree5 'ro6i*e*, ho=e6er, that nothing herein containe* <hall 're6ent the court )ro@ @o*i)Aing
<uch Du*g@ent or *ecree a< <ti'ulate* an* agree* in =riting ?A the 'artie< to <uch action, an* in accor*ance =ith the ter@<
o) <uch =ritten <ti'ulation an* agree@ent.
R.:0 !2. ST,4 1# &R1C00(/N9S T1 0N#1RC0 , -.(9>0NT
(a) Automatic Sta!. 0$ce't a< <tate* herein, no e$ecution <hall i<<ue u'on a Du*g@ent nor <hall 'rocee*ing< ?e taEen )or
it< en)orce@ent until the e$'iration o) 10 *aA< a)ter <er6ice o) =ritten notice o) it< entrA.
(b) Sta! on Motion for Ne' Tria" or for #udgment. /n it< *i<cretion an* on <uch con*ition< )or the <ecuritA o) the
a*6er<e 'artA a< are 'ro'er, the court @aA <taA the e$ecution o) or anA 'rocee*ing< to en)orce a Du*g@ent 'en*ing the
*i<'o<ition o) a @otion )or a ne= trial or to alter or a@en* a Du*g@ent @a*e 'ur<uant to Rule 59, or o) a @otion )or relie)
)ro@ a Du*g@ent or or*er @a*e 'ur<uant to Rule !0, or o) a @otion )or Du*g@ent in accor*ance =ith a @otion )or a
Du*g@ent a< a @atter o) la= @a*e 'ur<uant to Rule 50, or o) a @otion )or a@en*@ent to the )in*ing< or )or a**itional
)in*ing< @a*e 'ur<uant to Rule 52C?;.
(c) -eserved.
(d) Sta! .on Aea". 2hen an a''eal i< taEen the a''ellant ?A gi6ing a <u'er<e*ea< ?on* @aA o?tain a <taA. The ?on*
@aA ?e gi6en at or a)ter the ti@e o) )iling the notice o) a''eal. The <taA i< e))ecti6e =hen the <u'er<e*ea< ?on* i< )ile*.
"

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
(e) Sta! in )avor of t/e State or Agenc! T/ereof. 2hen an a''eal i< taEen ?A the State or ?A anA countA, citA or to=n
=ithin the State, or an o))icer or agencA thereo) an* the o'eration or en)orce@ent o) the Du*g@ent i< <taAe*, no ?on*,
o?ligation, or other <ecuritA <hall ?e reIuire* )ro@ the a''ellant.
(f) -eserved.
(g) ,o'er of Ae""ate Court Not 0imited. The 'ro6i<ion< in thi< rule *o not li@it anA 'o=er o) an a''ellate court or o)
a Du*ge or Du<tice thereo) to <taA 'rocee*ing< *uring the 'en*encA o) an a''eal or to <u<'en*, @o*i)A, re<tore, or grant an
inDunction *uring the 'en*encA o) an a''eal or to @aEe anA or*er a''ro'riate to 're<er6e the <tatu< Iuo or the
e))ecti6ene<< o) the Du*g@ent <u?<eIuentlA to ?e entere*.
(/) Sta! of #udgment as to Mu"ti"e C"aims or Mu"ti"e ,arties. 2hen a court ha< or*ere* a )inal Du*g@ent un*er the
con*ition< <tate* in Rule 5%C?;, the court @aA <taA en)orce@ent o) that Du*g@ent until the entering o) a <u?<eIuent
Du*g@ent or Du*g@ent< an* @aA 're<cri?e <uch con*ition< a< are nece<<arA to <ecure the ?ene)it thereo) to the 'artA in
=ho<e )a6or the Du*g@ent i< entere*.
G,< a@en*e*5 e))ecti6e -ulA 1, 2005.H
'ro<ecutorial @i<con*uct C<uch a< the (.,. =ithhol*ing Je$cul'atorAJ e6i*ence that coul*F6e hel'e* Aour *e)en<e;
Du*icial error< C<uch a< the Du*ge 'er@itting e6i*ence that <houl*F6e ?een e$clu*e* or 6ice 6er<a;
erroneou< a''lication o) a la= or regulation i@'ro'er DurA in<truction<
ine))ecti6e a<<i<tance o) coun<el or other @al'ractice the e6i*ence *i* not 'ro6e Aour guilt ?eAon* a rea<ona?le *ou?t
/ =ent to the )iling o))ice at the R>C a cou'le ti@e< recentlA, inclu*ing to*aA, an* <ent in another =ritten reIue<t <eeEing
an au*io ta'e o) the Trial in R>C 11 CR 2217! /C 110!27 RS/C ?ut =a< tol* ?A a ClerE that / =oul* nee* to 'aA )or
the entire Trial to ?e tran<cri?e*, an* onlA then =oul* / ?e allo=e* to rea* it, an* that / =oul* not ?e allo=e* to acce<<
the au*io o) the hearingK /< thi< correctK / nee* to ha6e the au*io o) the Trial to )ini<h @A Rule 59, !0, an* >otion )or
Recon<i*eration >otion<..../ =ill 'aA )or the au*io. / ha6e recei6e* @anA au*io c*+*6*L< )ro@ ?oth Reno -u<tice Court
an* 2a<hoe (i<trict Court, an* it =a< announce* in court that the trial =a< ?eing au*io recor*e*, a< <uch, / ho'e Aou =ill
a))or* @e a co'A. To*aA, / calle* the R>C an* <'oEe =ith Veronica, =ho <oun*e* 6erA angrA =ith @e an* *i<@i<<i6e. /
=a< <u@@arilA <entence* to " *aA< in Dail at the en* o) the trial in thi< @atter, e6en =here / ha* ?een *enie* @A Si$th
,@en*@ent Right To Coun<el, a)ter a Conte@'t co@@itte* in the courtL< 're<ence )in*ing =a< announce*, in a**ition to
a guiltA 6er*ict in the un*erlAing action. Veronica in)or@e* @e that <he =a< at the trial an* that the R>C ha* )aile* to
@ail @e or other=i<e <er6e @e =ith a co'A o) the =ritten 1r*er, either )or the guiltA con6iction in the un*erlAing ca<e or
the conte@'t or*er. / =a< )orce* into han*cu))< <o IuicElA ater -u*ge 3o=ar* conclu*e* i<<uing hi< oral ruling that / =a<
not e6en a?le to <a6e @A note< on @A co@'uter, it =a< literallA a''arentlA that e$igent a <ituation to han*cu)) @e....Then
a )e= >ar<hall< 'lace <o@e 'iece< o) 'a'er in )ront o) @e an* *e@an*e* / <ign the@, an* ?eca@e angrA, liEe Veronica
an* liEe >ar<hall >onte, / ?elie6e, =a< at the arraing@ent, =hen / a<Ee* a <i@'le Iue<tion relate* to *ue 'roce<<,
<o@ething @anA at the R>C *o not <ee@ all that ena@ore* =ith. / a<Ee* i) / coul* e6en rea* the 'a'er< theA =ere
*e@an*ing / <ign right then an* there. The curtlA an* lou*lA <ai* no, then *ragge* @e a=aA ?e)ore / coul* rea* the
'a'er<, @uch le<< <ign the@. Veronica <narle* at @e that that =a< all the <er6ice o) the 1r*er o) Conte@'t an* 9uiltA
Ver*ict that / =oul* get, ?ut that <he @ight )a$ it to @e, ho=e6er, no )a$ ha< arri6e*, *e<'ite @A illu<trating the
e$igencie< o) recei6ing the 1r*er in 're'aring @A Relie) #ro@ -u*g@ent >otion<. Veronica continue to curtlA re)u<e to
'ro6i*e @e anA co'A o) anA o) the 're6iou<lA )ile* 1r*er< o) the Court unle<< / 'ai* )or the@, *e<'ite @A a''arentlA not
ha6ing ?een 'ro6i*e* a co'A o) <uch or*er< in the )ir<t 'lace. / ha6e no i*ea =hat tho<e 'a'er< =ere CtheA certainlA =ere
not in the 'ro'ertA gi6en to @e u'on @A relea<e )ro@ Dail; an* ha6e recei6e* nothing in the @ail, *e<'ite u'*ating the
R>C =ith @A ne= a**re<< o): 817 N. Virginia St. #2, Reno NV 89501 an* )iling an o))icial Change o) ,**re<< =ith the
.S&S <hortlA a)ter / =a< <u@@arilA e6icte* C*e<'ite there ?eing onlA a No Cau<e Su@@arA 06iction notice again<t @A
co@@ercial lea<e, <o@ething entirelA 'ro?i?ite* again<t un*er NRS %0.25". Not onlA =a< / *enie* @A Si$th ,@en*@ent
Right to Coun<el =here Dail ti@e =a< a 'o<<i?ilitA Can* =here, /, in )act =a< Daile*, i@@e*iatelA;. / =a< *enie* a
continuance in thi< @atter *e<'ite a =ritten a<<ent to one ?A Reno CitA ,ttorneA &a@ Ro?ert< an* *e<'ite the )act that the
%
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Reno CitA ,ttorneA =a< gi6en one ?A @A <u''o<e* a''ointe* coun<el :e= Taitel C=ho@ i< Ja<<ociate* =ithJ
C htt':++===.ne6c<.co@+attorneA.ht@l ; an entitA that / ha''en to ?e <uing Ne6a*a Court Ser6ice<, inci*ent to the <a@e
e6iction 'rocee*ing )or =hich >r. Taitel *i* grant, an* the R>C *i* grant, a continuance in the other R>C ca<e again<t
@e, the tre<'a<< action that =a< <et )or trial on (ece@?er 1"th, ?ecau<e Richar* 9. 3ill, =ho / a@ al<o <uing in
connection =ith the =rong)ul e6iction again<t, =a< going to ?e on 6acation an* the R>C a''arentlA )oun* that a goo*
rea<on )or a continuance, co@'are* to the R>C )eeling @A ?eing e6iction on or aroun* No6e@?er 1"th, then =rong)ullA
arre<te* in connection =ith the e6iction, un*er a tre<'a<< charge, an* incarcerate* )or a nu@?er o) *aA<, all =hile Richar*
3ill a''lie* an unla=)ul rent *i<traint u'on @anA e$cul'atorA @aterial< that =oul* <'eaE to a <tate* an* e$'re<<
retaliatorA @oti6e on the 'art o) 2al@art an* the RS/C, an* other e$cul'atorA @aterial< ?eing =rong)ullA =ithhel* un*er
an unla=)ul rent *i<traint ?A Richar* 9. 3ill, 0<I., the <a@e 'er<on >r. Taitel, the Reno CitA ,ttorneA, an* the R>C
*eci*e* *e<er6e* <uch <anctitA a''lie* to hi< @onthlong 6acation )ro@ ThanE<gi6ing to Ne= 4earL< to grant a
continuance, =ith no in'ut )ro@ @e.
#,/:.R0 T1 ,##1R( S/BT3 ,>0N(>0NT R/93T T1 C1.NS0: 1R 9R,NT (0>,N( #1R -.R4 TR/,:5
another (0>,N( #1R -.R4 TR/,: 30R074 >,(0 /N 0V0NT 1# N02 TR/,:, S/>/:,R:4 R0M.0ST #1R
/N #1R>, &,.&0R/S ST,T.S 30R074 >,(0 ,N( S.&&1RT0( 74 ,TT,C30( /#& &0T/T/1N
C1NC:.S/1N
(e)en*ant+,''elant Coughlin here?A re<'ect)ullA reIue<t< all 1r*er<, Con6iction<,
-u*g@ent<, Conte@'t #in*ing<, =hate6er, <te@@ing )ro@ the No6e@?er "0
th
, 2011 Trial ?e Vacate*
or Set ,<i*e or Recon<i*ere*..
,##/R>,T/1N &ur<uant to NRS 2"97.0"0
The un*er<igne* *oe< here?A a))ir@ that the 'rece*ing *ocu@ent *oe< not contain
the <ocial <ecuritA nu@?er o) anA 'er<on.
(,T0( thi< 12
th
(aA o) (ece@?er, 2011
N+<+ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
(e)en*ant
5
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
&R11# 1# S0RV/C0
/, Zach Coughlin, *eclare:
1n (ece@?er 12, 2011, /, >r. Zach Coughlin <er6e* the )oregoing Notice o) ,''eal,
>otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0, >otion )or Recon<i*eration5 >otion )or
Recu<al ?A e@ailing an* )a$ing an* or 'lacing in the @ail a true co'A thereo) to:
&a@ela 9 Ro?ert< Co@'anA: Reno CitA ,ttorneAL< 1))ice Cri@inal (i6i<on ,**re<<: &.1. 7o$
1900 Reno , NV 89505 &hone Nu@?er: 775""%2050 #a$ nu@?er: 775""%2%20 0@ail:
ro?ert<'Oreno.go6
(,T0( T3/S12th *aA o) (ece@?er, 2011 74:
Zach Coughlin
(e)en*ant
!
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?
cid=43084638f32f5f28&resid=43084638F32F5F28!
1031&parid=root
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.maillive.corn/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=57...
RE: your failure to propound discovery
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/08/11 5:14 PM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov
Chris,
I am engaging you in relation to 11 CR 22176 an your failure to provide me
access to or copies of the discovery from the arrest of September 9, 2011, not
the trespass case. We will deal with the trespass case later. For now, please
just address your failure of provide copies of the discovery when I requested.
Can you check your phone records? Would you like me to check mine?
How about your fax records. Mine? I think you will find that we definately
did speak. Anyways, can you indicate your offices standard operating
procedure when a defendant or accused calls and writes your office up
requesting discovery within a day after the arrest? Must you provide
something within 48 hours of the arrest? What about if the arraignment is set
out one month from the arrest? Must an arraignment occur prior to that? It
seems rather suspect to assert that your office does not have any records or
discovery incident to the an arrest of September 9, 2011, when the accused
calls and writes requesting documentation incident to the arrest on
approximately September 13th, 2011 and again soon thereafter, and again
somewhat later, when discovery subsequently provided by Pam Roberts
shows a fax (only a partial portion of which, apparently, was included in the
discovery) from Sargent Avansino to your office dated September 12,
2011...Further, you did not indicate that your office had something but
wouldn't provide it, you indicated that your office simply did not have
anything. You made remarks about how you weren't going to tell this and
that person how to do their job, etc...Remember? It seems patently unfair for
the prosecutor to be provided access to this documentation over one month
prior to the defendant being afforded access to it, and sufficient time to do
who knows what with it (several pages of Sargent Avansino's fax appear
missing and the Probable Cause sheet does not appear to be reviewed and
signed off on for a probable cause finding by any Magistrate, the form is
simply blank), particularly were a continuance was at first agreed to by
Roberts in writing (only to have her weasel out of that at trial while making
jokes about the defendant's need to use the restroom in open court). Please
indicate, further, in writing, if your office received any faxed or emailed
records request from me, Zach Coughlin, at any time, including the period of
1 of 7 12/12/2011 4:21 PM
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=57...
time prior to the Oct 10th, 2011 arraignment.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Licensed in Nevada and USPTO
** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the
sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone
other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable
privilege.
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:05:11 -0800
From: Hazlett-StevensC@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: your failure to propound discovery
Mr. Coughlin. I have never spoken to you and have never denied discovery to a defendant in any matter. Again
you seek to engage me in a convesation about the pending trespassing. I cannot speak with you. You are
represented by counsel.
Thank you,
Chris
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
Deputy City Attorney
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
2 of 7 12/12/2011 4:21 PM
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.maillive.corn/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=57...
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
This e-mail message transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, are
confidential and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that
any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or
attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify us by forwarding this e-mail to the sender or by telephone at (775) 334-2050 and
then delete the message and its attachments.
- - - Original Message - - -
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov>, <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 15:44:36 -0800
Subject: RE: your failure to propound discovery
Mr. Hazlett-Stevens,
We did definately talk on the phone regarding the matter to which I do not
have representation, the RSIC arrest case 11 DR 22176 21 for which Deputy
City Attorney Pam Roberts is the prosecutor. I was denied my Sixth
Amendment right to court appointed defense counsel in that matter, and
represented myself. As such, there is no rule precluded you from
communicating with me about 11 DR 22176 21. You did speak with me
about that. I called you within a couple days of the September 9th, 2011
arrest in that matter describing my exigent desire to obtain a copy of the
discovery. I was transferred to you and we spoke at length about it, you
describing why you could not give it to me. Is it your contention that your
office or the State does not have a duty to provide the defendant a copy of
certain pieces of discovery within 48 hours of arrest?
Regarding the matter for which Mr. Puentes took the baton from Mr. Taitel,
is it clear to you how Mr. Taitel was somehow, apparently, able to assent to
a continuance, only to, apparently, find some need to pass the baton to Mr.
Puentes very, very shortly thereafter? Why did Mr. Taitel's status as
attorney of record change? Was it due to a conflict? Why didn't that
conflict prevent Mr. Taitel from abstaining from assenting to the
continuance in the trespass case, which was scheduled for trial December
13, 2011?
Sincerely,
3 of 7 12/12/2011 4:21 PM
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
** Notice** ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, andmaycontainconfidential informationintendedfor thespecifiedindividual (s) only. If youare
not theintendedrecipient or anagent responsiblefor deliveringit totheintendedrecipient, youareherebynotifiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocument inerror andthat anyreview, dissemination, copying, or thetakingof anyactionbased
onthecontentsof thisinformationisstrictlyprohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt fromdisclosure
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please
notify the sender, delete this e-mail fromyour computer, and destroy any copies in any formimmediately.
Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or
other applicable privilege.

Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:34:25 -0800
Subject: Re: your failure to propound discovery
Mr. Coughlin. You are represented by counsel and I cannot correspond with you. I have never correponded
with you, and your statement that you spoke with me is false. I have never spoken with you. You may have
your attorney, Roberto Puentes, contact me with any discovery issues or issues regarding the City's Motion to
Continue. Please do not correspond with me regarding this case in the future. As an attorney, you are fully
aware that I cannot communicate with a you as a represented party. Do not contact me without your
counsel.
Thank you,
Chris
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
confidential and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not
WindowsLiveHotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=57...
4of 7 12/12/20114:21PM
the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby
notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information
contained in, or attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
transmission in error, please immediately notify us by forwarding this e-mail to the sender or by telephone at
(775) 334-2050 and then delete the message and its attachments.
-----Original Message-----
To: <hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 01:48:03 -0800
Subject: your failure to propound discovery
Dear Mr. Hazlett-Stevens,
I amwritingtorequest acopyof anyandall discovery, pleadings, documentation,
correspondences, or mediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainst mefor
whichLewTaitel wasapparentlymycourt appointedattorney, but whomnolonger is.
Further, I wishtobecopiedoneverythingpast andpresent inanywayrelatedtothis
matter until andafter I procureanother attorney. I didnot agreetothecontinuanceyou
sought, nor wasI informedyouwereseekingit. I findit particularlytroublingthat a
continuancewasgrantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhoisapplyingan
unlawful rent distraint onbothmyclient files, personal property, AND THE
EXCLUPATING EVIDENCE I NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF IN THE PETIT
LARCENY CASE FOR WHICH I DETAIL THE COMPLAINTS I HAVE AGAINST
YOU AND YOUR OFFICE'S HANDLING BELOW. NO CONTINUANCE WAS
GRANTED OR AGREED TO AT TRIAL BY THE RMC OR MS. ROBERTS,
PERHAPS SHE WAS TOO BUSY ALLEGEDLY SUBORNING THE PERJ URY OF
RSIC OFFICER KAMERON CRAWFORD.
Inthediscoveryyour officeprovidedinthepetit larcenymatter Ms. Robertsprosecuted
against methereisafaxfromtheRSIC toyouthat hasafaxheadingfor what appearsto
be"page1" followedbypageswithout that heading...thenaheadingwith"page4" etc...
I want theentirecontentsof anythingprovidedbytheRSIC andWalmart toyouor
anyoneconnectedwiththeRenoCityAttorneyor theRenoMunicipal Court. Further, I
want all mediaprovidedbyWalmart, andI questionwhyyouneeded45minuteswith
thethreewitnesswhotestifiedat theNovember 30th, 2011trial, from1pmto1:45pm.
Additionally, youareherebyservedaNRCP 11motionrequiringyoutocorrect the
perjuryyousubornedincourt withrespect tothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyof
Officer Crawfordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourself providedindiscovery.
5of 7 12/12/20114:21PM
Further, I spokewithyou, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, shortlyafter theSeptember 9, 2011
arrest inthismatter demandingacopyof all documentationor discoverythat I hadany
right to. I wastoldI wouldnot haveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialsprior to
thearraignment, whichwasnot set for afull 30daysout fromthearrest. DoI not have
aright toacopyof thepcsheet, arrest report, andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursof
thearrest? Thefaxtoyour officefromtheRSIC isdated9/12/2011, yet mywritten
demandsandrequestsfor suchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremet withrefusalsto
providesuchmaterials, and, insomecase, claimsthat your officedidnot evenhavesuch
materialsandwouldnot get themuntil after thearraignment. Further, I spokewithand
providedwrittenrequeststoRSIC Sargent Avansinowithin2daysafter thearrest andhe
refusedtoprovidethematerials, asdidtheRenoMunicipal Court. Pleasealert thecourt
toanywrongdoingonyour'sor theRenoCityAttorneyor theRSIC part inthisregardin
prejudicingmyabilitytodefendmycasebydelayingtheproductionof essential
discovery, thenrefusingtoagreetoacontinuanceat trial, after earlier providinga
writtenagreement tosuchacontinuance.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
** Notice** ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,
18U.S.C. 2510-2521, andmaycontainconfidential informationintendedfor thespecifiedindividual (s) only. If you
arenot theintendedrecipient or anagent responsiblefor deliveringit totheintendedrecipient, youareherebynotified
that youhavereceivedthisdocument inerror andthat anyreview, dissemination, copying, or thetakingof anyaction
basedonthecontentsof thisinformationisstrictlyprohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the
named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information
is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s),
please notify the sender, delete this e-mail fromyour computer, and destroy any copies in any form
immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work
product, or other applicable privilege.

6of 7 12/12/20114:21PM
7of 7 12/12/20114:21PM

Nevada Court Services
475 So. Arlington Suite 1A
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775) 348-7560
(Toll Free) 800-570-5583
Fax: (775) 348-7977
Email: nevcs@nevcs.com
The following Attorney is associated with and highly recommended by Nevada Court Services
" Serving the People of Nevada"
Lewis S. Taitel
Attorney at Law
475 S. Arlington Suite 1A
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775) 322-2272
Fax: (775) 348-7977
Nevada State Bar No. 4397
Disclaimer: " The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert.."
Criminal Law - DUI Defense - Personal Injury
Property Law - Collections - Divorce - Civil Law
Adoption - Family Law
Nevada Attorney Directory
Page1of 2 NevadaCourt Services- Attorney
12/12/2011 http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html
Copyright 1997-2011 - Nevada Court Services - All Rights Reserved
Page2of 2 NevadaCourt Services- Attorney
12/12/2011 http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html
motion for continuance
Sent: Fri 11/11/11 1:40 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
U.S.C. 2510-2521, andmaycontainconfidential informationintendedfor thespecifiedindividual (s) only. If youarenot
WindowsLiveHotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=dd...
RE: motion for continuance
theintendedrecipient or anagent responsiblefor deliveringit totheintendedrecipient, youareherebynotifiedthat you
havereceivedthisdocument inerror andthat anyreview, dissemination, copying, or thetakingof anyactionbasedonthe
contentsof thisinformationisstrictlyprohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named
sender, delete this e-mail fromyour computer, and destroy any copies in any formimmediately. Receipt by anyone
privilege.
Sent: Wed 11/16/11 3:35 PM

Thank You,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
Subject: Re: motion for continuance
Mr. Coughlin, we were closed on Friday and I have just read your email. If you have not received confirmation
fromthe Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pmin
CourtroomB of the Reno Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at that time and if we are unable to
resolve the case, you can ask the Court again for a continuance and I won't object. However, it is the Court's
decision to grant your motion to continue.
It is also the Court's decision whether to appoint you a legal defender. I do not plan to ask for jail time, so the
Court is not required to appoint you an attorney. In addition, you have no right to a jury trial in a misdemeanor
case.
I hope your housing situation improves. See you this afternoon. PamRoberts, Deputy City Attorney.
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118

Sent: Wed 11/16/11 5:30 PM

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
privilege.

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Mr. Coughlin, you should have already received a notice regarding the availability of discovery and request for
reciprocal discovery. You just need to call ahead at 334-2050 and arrange to pick it up. You are entitled to
copies of all the reports and witness statements and video we may have on this case. Since I amnot calling any
additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I amnot obligated to send you
an additional list of witnesses. I amalso not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam
Roberts.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800

Thank You,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
Mr. Coughlin, we were closed on Friday and I have just read your email. If you have not received
confirmation fromthe Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at
1:00 pmin CourtroomB of the Reno Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at that time and if we
are unable to resolve the case, you can ask the Court again for a continuance and I won't object. However, it
is the Court's decision to grant your motion to continue.
It is also the Court's decision whether to appoint you a legal defender. I do not plan to ask for jail time, so
the Court is not required to appoint you an attorney. In addition, you have no right to a jury trial in
a misdemeanor case.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118

Sent: Thu 11/17/11 3:37 PM
Dear Ms. Roberts,

I do not mean to suggest you do not know what your duty it. Believe me, I am well aware that you could mop
up the court room with a neophyte attorney such as myself. I was merely hoping to get some direction from you
regarding trial practice approaches in general.

Sincerely,

Zach
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 1:05 PM
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
privilege.

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:40:44 -0800
CC: colterp@reno.gov
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart
employee) and Officers Crawford and Braunworth fromthe Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the
video at the first trial date fromthe Walmart employee and it is available for you to viewor get a copy. You
may want to viewit at the City Attorney's Office as the CDdoesn't seemto work on everyone's computer. Penie
Colter will be able to assist you. I amnot clear on what you think my duty is, but I knowwhat my duty is and I
will not debate it via email. PamRoberts, Deputy City Attorney.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:30:36 -0800

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
Mr. Coughlin, you should have already received a notice regarding the availability of discovery and request for
reciprocal discovery. You just need to call ahead at 334-2050 and arrange to pick it up. You are entitled to
copies of all the reports and witness statements and video we may have on this case. Since I amnot calling
any additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I amnot obligated to send
you an additional list of witnesses. I amalso not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam
Roberts.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800

Thank You,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
confirmation fromthe Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon
at 1:00 pmin CourtroomB of the Reno Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at that time and
if we are unable to resolve the case, you can ask the Court again for a continuance and I won't object.
However, it is the Court's decision to grant your motion to continue.
It is also the Court's decision whether to appoint you a legal defender. I do not plan to ask for jail time, so
the Court is not required to appoint you an attorney. In addition, you have no right to a jury trial in
a misdemeanor case.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
18U.S.C. 2510-2521, andmaycontainconfidential informationintendedfor thespecifiedindividual (s) only. If
youarenot theintendedrecipient or anagent responsiblefor deliveringit totheintendedrecipient, youarehereby
notifiedthat youhavereceivedthisdocument inerror andthat anyreview, dissemination, copying, or thetakingof
anyactionbasedonthecontentsof thisinformationisstrictlyprohibited. This message is confidential, intended
only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or
exempt fromdisclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents
of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the
named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail fromyour computer, and destroy any copies
in any formimmediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.

Sent: Mon 11/21/11 4:06 PM
To: howardk@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov

WindowsLiveHotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=dd... WindowsLiveHotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=dd...
Zach Coughlin
privilege.
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 7:18 PM
Ms. Roberts, the opposing attorney's unlawful rent distraint is preventing me from providing all the discovery I
would like to provide you with or ascertain the need to do, and further is preventing me from having access to
the materials and information I need to litigate this case.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
privilege.

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
Mr. Coughlin, we were closed on Friday and I have just read your email. If you have not received confirmation
fromthe Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pmin
CourtroomB of the Reno Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at that time and if we are unable to
resolve the case, you can ask the Court again for a continuance and I won't object. However, it is the Court's
decision to grant your motion to continue.
It is also the Court's decision whether to appoint you a legal defender. I do not plan to ask for jail time, so the
Court is not required to appoint you an attorney. In addition, you have no right to a jury trial in a misdemeanor
case.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
verint user agreement

Sent: Mon 11/21/11 8:40 PM
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
Re: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
privilege.
From: Ken Howard (HowardK@reno.gov)
Sent: Tue 11/22/11 7:01 AM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com); robertsp@reno.gov
Mr. ZachCoughlin
Thereisanappropriatemanner inwhichtotender "motions" tothecourt. Theyaretobeproperly
preparedandfiled. Donot usethise-mail addresstocommunicatedirectlywiththejudge.
KenHoward
RenoMunicipal Court J udge
Department 4
(775) 326-6673
To: <howardk@reno.gov>, <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:06:32 -0800
Subject: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance

WindowsLiveHotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=dd... WindowsLiveHotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=dd...
Zach Coughlin
onthecontentsof thisinformationisstrictlyprohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s)
and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the
named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately.
Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable
privilege.

Sent: Tue 11/29/11 1:33 PM
Dear Ms. Roberts,

The opposing attorney in the Summary Eviction Proceeding against me in my home law office/business is
asserting a lien against my office, law practice files, and materials necessary to discovery production and
defending the case that you are the prosecutor on. I believe a continuance is absolutely necessary in the
interests of justice. Additionaly, you have been informed that Walmart previous to the arrest in this matter
became upset at the accused and made threats of malicious prosecution and abuse of process incident to the
accused questioning various Wal-mart personnel and managers about Wal-Marts curious practice of remixing
and forgetting the Return Policy stated in writing at Walmart.com (and expressly made applicable to purchases
made in Wal-Mart stores). A manager named "Ellis", though who may have identified himself as "John" and a
Loss prevention associate at the West 7th Street Wal-Mart in Reno allegedly told the accused that they would
have him banned from all Wal-Marts in retaliation for the accused seeking to do something to which he was
legally entitled to do, return and item at a Wal-Mart stores in accordance with Wal-Mart's stated and written
Return Policy. There are other retaliatory aspects to the conducts and statements made by both Wal-Mart and
RSIC personnel in this case.

Additionally, the video "evidence" that you provided is shameful. It consists of two short clips in some Wal-Mart
back room where 5-6 people, including 2 RSIC officers acting under color of state law on land their employer
owns and leases to Wal-Mart attempt to coerce not only a confession, but a consent to search. There is no audio
of the video, at least not the video you provided, that is. Where is the video of the alleged acts? How you can
maintain a case such as this stemming from the accused acts in a store like Wal-Mart, that has hundreds of
cameras and only provide video from some backroom that proves nothing and, in the words of "Jeannie" the
contact person at your office "doesn't show anything", I am not sure, and whether that is violative of your duties
as a prosecutor, Nifong, NRCP 11 (see Schumacher's application of that civil rule to the DA) is not clear. You
have been informed that the RSIC officer committed police misconduct and yet you brazenly announce in writing
that you do not intend to follow up on that, nor do you feel compelled to.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
privilege.

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:59:37 -0800
Dear Mr. Coughlin, you will need to file a motion to continue in compliance with Reno Municipal Court
procedures. As I have stated in a previous email, I do not object to your motion to continue, however, it is up
to the J udge whether or not he will grant your motion. Regarding the video which I obtained at your previous
court date, I have told you that you can come to our office and viewthe video. If you still want a copy, I
believe our staff will be able to make one for you. NRS 174.235 does not require me to do more than what I
have already done. We have provided you with the reports we have, listed the witnesses we will call and made
the video available to you. PamRoberts, Deputy City Attorney.
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:05:28 -0800
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:40:44 -0800
CC: colterp@reno.gov
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart
employee) and Officers Crawford and Braunworth fromthe Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the
video at the first trial date fromthe Walmart employee and it is available for you to viewor get a copy. You
may want to viewit at the City Attorney's Office as the CDdoesn't seemto work on everyone's computer.
Penie Colter will be able to assist you. I amnot clear on what you think my duty is, but I knowwhat my duty
is and I will not debate it via email. PamRoberts, Deputy City Attorney.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:30:36 -0800

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
Mr. Coughlin, you should have already received a notice regarding the availability of discovery and request
for reciprocal discovery. You just need to call ahead at 334-2050 and arrange to pick it up. You are entitled
to copies of all the reports and witness statements and video we may have on this case. Since I amnot
calling any additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I amnot
obligated to send you an additional list of witnesses. I amalso not obligated to do any further investigation
or interviews. PamRoberts.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800

Thank You,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
confirmation fromthe Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this
afternoon at 1:00 pmin CourtroomB of the Reno Municipal Court. We can discuss your case further at
that time and if we are unable to resolve the case, you can ask the Court again for a continuance and I
won't object. However, it is the Court's decision to grant your motion to continue.
It is also the Court's decision whether to appoint you a legal defender. I do not plan to ask for jail time,
so the Court is not required to appoint you an attorney. In addition, you have no right to a jury trial in
a misdemeanor case.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
** Notice** ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacy
Act, 18U.S.C. 2510-2521, andmaycontainconfidential informationintendedfor thespecifiedindividual (s)
only. If youarenot theintendedrecipient or anagent responsiblefor deliveringit totheintendedrecipient, youare
herebynotifiedthat youhavereceivedthisdocument inerror andthat anyreview, dissemination, copying, or the
FW: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
takingof anyactionbasedonthecontentsof thisinformationisstrictlyprohibited. This message is confidential,
intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work
product or exempt fromdisclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or
are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail fromyour computer, and
destroy any copies in any formimmediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a
waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.

Sent: Tue 11/29/11 3:14 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
Motion for Continuance to Reno City Atty Roberts RMC.pdf (448.9 KB)
Ms. Roberts and RMC Records Supervisor Donna,
I am forwarding this apology I sent to Judge Howard in response to his remonstration responding to my email to
him, in an abundance of caution to avoid ex parte communications with the court, outside your presence. Please
also find attach e a NRCP Rule 11 safe harbor filing ready sanctions motions I am hereby serving on you,
invoking the 21 day safe harbor, with a reservation that any misconduct you commit in the court's presence may
be punished sua sponte or subject to contemporaneous sanctions requests, particular with regard to you blase
dismissal of the official misdoncut, malicious prosecution, 42 USC Sec 1983 deprivations of civil rights under
color of state law and all those other things your office and Hartshorn, et all have been sued for over the years.

Please find attached my Motion for Continuance, being filed by fascimile today with the RMC.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
privilege.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: howardk@reno.gov
Subject: RE: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:22:45 -0800

Zach Coughlin,
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 3:37 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
privilege.
FW: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 3:45 AM

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
privilege.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at 6:49 mark
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 03:37:24 -0800
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
privilege.
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 4:05 AM
To: lcooley@rsic.org; voldenburg@rsic.org; rariwite@rsic.org; police@rsic.org; robertsp@reno.gov
pgoins@rsic.org, lcooley@rsic.org; voldenburg@rsic.org; rariwite@rsic.org; police@rsic.org
Subject: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at 6:49 mark
THE OFFICERSARE KAMERON CRAWFORD AND BRAUNWORTH, WHOCAME ACROSSA
FAR MORE COGNITIVELY IMPAIRED IN COURT THAN HE DID IN PERSON, TOAN EXTENT
THAT WOULD SUGGEST HE WASDISHONORING THE LEGAL PROCESSBY HIS
"PARTICIPATION", AND ITSALL ON TAPE.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
discovery request;
privilege.
Sent: Wed 12/07/11 1:16 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov

RE: your failure to propound discovery

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
privilege.
Sent: Thu 12/08/11 3:44 PM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
privilege.

Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:34:25 -0800
Subject: Re: your failure to propound discovery
Mr. Coughlin. You are represented by counsel and I cannot correspond with you. I have never correponded
with you, and your statement that you spoke with me is false. I have never spoken with you. You may have
your attorney, Roberto Puentes, contact me with any discovery issues or issues regarding the City's Motion to
Continue. Please do not correspond with me regarding this case in the future. As an attorney, you are fully
aware that I cannot communicate with a you as a represented party. Do not contact me without your counsel.
Thank you,
Chris
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
confidential and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that
any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or
attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify us by forwarding this e-mail to the sender or by telephone at (775) 334-2050 and
then delete the message and its attachments.
To: <hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 01:48:03 -0800
Subject: your failure to propound discovery
Dear Mr. Hazlett-Stevens,
I amwritingtorequest acopyof anyandall discovery, pleadings, documentation,
correspondences, or mediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainst mefor which
LewTaitel wasapparentlymycourt appointedattorney, but whomnolonger is. Further, I
wishtobecopiedoneverythingpast andpresent inanywayrelatedtothismatter until
andafter I procureanother attorney. I didnot agreetothecontinuanceyousought, nor
wasI informedyouwereseekingit. I findit particularlytroublingthat acontinuancewas
grantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhoisapplyinganunlawful rent distraint on
bothmyclient files, personal property, AND THE EXCLUPATING EVIDENCE I NEED
TO DEFEND MYSELF IN THE PETIT LARCENY CASE FOR WHICH I DETAIL THE
COMPLAINTS I HAVE AGAINST YOU AND YOUR OFFICE'S HANDLING
BELOW. NO CONTINUANCE WAS GRANTED OR AGREED TO AT TRIAL BY
THE RMC OR MS. ROBERTS, PERHAPS SHE WAS TOO BUSY ALLEGEDLY
SUBORNING THE PERJ URY OF RSIC OFFICER KAMERON CRAWFORD.
Inthediscoveryyour officeprovidedinthepetit larcenymatter Ms. Robertsprosecuted
against methereisafaxfromtheRSIC toyouthat hasafaxheadingfor what appearsto
be"page1" followedbypageswithout that heading...thenaheadingwith"page4" etc... I
want theentirecontentsof anythingprovidedbytheRSIC andWalmart toyouor anyone
connectedwiththeRenoCityAttorneyor theRenoMunicipal Court. Further, I want all
mediaprovidedbyWalmart, andI questionwhyyouneeded45minuteswiththethree
witnesswhotestifiedat theNovember 30th, 2011trial, from1pmto1:45pm.
Additionally, youareherebyservedaNRCP 11motionrequiringyoutocorrect the
perjuryyousubornedincourt withrespect tothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyof
Officer Crawfordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourself providedindiscovery.
Further, I spokewithyou, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, shortlyafter theSeptember 9, 2011arrest
inthismatter demandingacopyof all documentationor discoverythat I hadanyright to.
I wastoldI wouldnot haveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialsprior tothe
arraignment, whichwasnot set for afull 30daysout fromthearrest. DoI not havea
right toacopyof thepcsheet, arrest report, andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursof the
arrest? Thefaxtoyour officefromtheRSIC isdated9/12/2011, yet mywrittendemands
andrequestsfor suchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremet withrefusalstoprovidesuch
materials, and, insomecase, claimsthat your officedidnot evenhavesuchmaterialsand
wouldnot get themuntil after thearraignment. Further, I spokewithandprovidedwritten
requeststoRSIC Sargent Avansinowithin2daysafter thearrest andherefusedtoprovide
thematerials, asdidtheRenoMunicipal Court. Pleasealert thecourt toanywrongdoing
onyour'sor theRenoCityAttorneyor theRSIC part inthisregardinprejudicingmy
abilitytodefendmycasebydelayingtheproductionof essential discovery, thenrefusing
toagreetoacontinuanceat trial, after earlier providingawrittenagreement tosucha
continuance.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402

Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 7 Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 7 of 7
11 cr 22176 2I
x
J udge Howar d
Zachar y Bar ker Coughl i n
November 30, 2011
1pm
Zach Coughl i n
29t h November 2011
" El l i s" or " J ohn" , Cust omer Ser vi ce Manager or ASM W. 7t h St . Wal mar t 89503
Loss pr event i on manager and
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc #1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 1 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc #1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 2 of 19 Pg ID 2
ht t ps: / / skydr i ve. l i ve. com/ r edi r . aspx?
ci d=43084638f 32f 5f 28&r esi d=43084638F32F5F28! 1031&par i d=r oot

1 Case No. 11CR 22176
F I LED
2 Dept. 4 0t
! '
3
4
5
6
7
:eM N
Cor - D 4
Y
Deu CI
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO
8 CITY OF RENO,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintif,
vs.
Defendant.

ORDER
On November 30, 2011, Defendant Coughlin was found guilty of the
offense of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, Appellant filed his
Notice of Appeal on December 13, 2011. Additionally, Defendant Coughlin filed a
Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside, Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Recusal
and Motion for Publication of Transcript at Public Expense.
Appellant Coughlin
requested that he be provided the trial transcript at public expense on the basis that
he was indigent. On November 14, 2011, Defendant Coughlin filed a Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis wherein he seeks a waiver of certain fees due to his
asserted indigence.
A. FAILURE TO PROPERLY SERVE CITY ATTORNEY
Written motions are to be served upon each of the parties. NRS
178.582. Service upon the attorney or upon a party must be made in the manner
provided in civil actions. NRS 178.584.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Appellant has chosen to serve the City Attorney with these various
pleadings via electronic mail. There is no provision in the Nevada Revised Statutes or
the Rules of Court which denotes electronic mail as an appropriate means of serice
of process. This alone is a basis for non-consideration/denial of Appellant's various
requests.
B. MOTION FOR PUBLICATION OF TRANSCRIPT AT PUBLIC EXPENSE and
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Defendant Coughlin cites to NRS 12.015 as authority for allowing him to
issue "any, necessary writ, process, pleading or paper without charge, with the
exception of jury fees because I lack sufficient financial ability to proceed without this
waiver".
Appellant Coughlin's reference to NRS 12.015 is misplaced as that
provision refers to civil procedure. He cites no other authority for his request.
This case has gone to verdict and the defendant was found guilty. It is
difficult to see what additional costs will be incurred by Appellant Coughlin other than
the trial transcript. This is not a complex case with numerous factual or legal issues.
Mr. Coughlin is a licensed attorney-at-law who implied during trial that
his incarceration for contempt would adversely affect his clients. Yet, Mr. Coughlin, in
his "afidavit of poverty" does not indicate any income from his practice of law. Of
note, Mr. Coughlin posted cash bail during the litigation of the instant matter.
This Court has not been provided suficient information to determine Mr.
Coughlin's indigency status and will not grant him carte blanche authority to continue
the fishing expedition he conducted during the trial of this matter. Appellant's motion
to further pursue this matter at public expense is denied.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C. MOTION TO VACATE AND/OR SET ASIDE, MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERA TION AND MOTION FOR RECUSAL
These motions will not be addressed as Defendant Coughlin has not
submitted a basis for their consideration.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Coughlin's Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis and Motion for Publication of Transcript at Public Expense is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORR DE RED that the Motion to Vacate and/or Set
Aside, Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Recusal are presently DENIED.
G
DATED this /5 day of December, 201 .
1
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certif that I a an employee of the Reno MuniciII Court,
Reno, Nevada, and that on this date I served a true and correct copy of te foregoing document,
ORDER on the party(ies) set forth below:
1
Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed for collecting and mailing in the
United States mail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary business
practices.
Facsimile to :
Federal Express or other overight delivery.
Inner-office mail following ordinary business practices.
Personal Delivery.
City Attorney's Ofce
Post Ofce Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89509
Zachary Coughlin
817 N. Virginia Street, #2
Reno, Nevada 89501
DA TED this J day of Dec mber, 20 II.
4
2
3
4

JOH J. KADLIC
Reno City Attorey
Pamela G. Roberts
Deputy City Attorey
Nevada State Bar No. 4041
Post Ofice Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89505

5 Attorneys/or Plaintif
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. 80x 1900
Reno, NV 89505
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO,
CITY OF RENO,
Plaintiff CASE NO. IC 11-0627
vs. DEPT. NO. 4
ZACHAR COUGHLIN,
Defendant.
1m~- 1
NOTICE OF DENIAL OF SERVICE
Plaintiff City of Reno by and throug John J. Kadlic, Reno City Attorey, and Pamela G.
Roberts, Deputy City Attorey, fles this Notice of Denial of Service.
Plaintiff City of Reno (hereinafer the "City") is infonned and believes that on or about
December 13, 2011 Defendant Zachary Coughlin (hereinafer "Coughlin ") sent a email to
"renomunirecords@reno.gov" and former Reno Municipal Court Administrator Matt Fisk at
"fiskm@reno.gov". See Declaration of Pamela G. Roberts. Coughlin subsequently forward that
email to DeputyCityAttoreyPamelaG.Roberts(hereinafer .. DCARoberts ).1d.
Contained witin the email Coughlin sent to "renomunirecords@reno.gov" and foner
Reno Municipal Court Administrator Matt Fisk at "fskm@reno.gov" and forwarded to DCA
Roberts is the allegation:
PROOF OF SERVICE:
I emailed a copy of this to Pam Roberts for the Plaintiff City
=1 =
f^ ~wm.=-..
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Krn0City Attorney
.U.B0x1V
Reno, ^NV55
of Reno on this date, a true and correct copy and further

email her a copy of all the 12 11 11 MOtion [sic] for New
Trial, etc. yesterday to:
Pamela G Rober

Company: Reno City Attorney's Office - Criminal
Divison [sic]
Address: P.O. Box 1900 Reno, NV 89505
Phone Number: 775-334-2050
Fax number: 775-334-2420
Email: robertsp@reno.gov
Id Thus it appears that Coughlin is making the allegation that the City has been served with
some type of motion for a new tial.
There is no provision in the Nevada Revised Statutes, Reno Municipal Code or R.M.C.R.
which provides for service of motions or other pleadings via email. S-- Nevada Revised
Statutes, Reno Municipal Code and the R.M.C.R. Indeed, Coughlin has been informed by DCA
Roberts that the City will not accept service of any motions or other pleadings via email. S--
Declaration of Pamela G. Roberts.
The City has not been properly served by Coughlin with any motions or other pleading or
filings in this case since Coughlin's conviction for Petit Larceny on November 30, 2011.
Dated this j+ day of December, 2011.
_=
JOHN J. KADLIC
Reno City Attorey
B
y
: -- .. __
Pamela G. Robe11s
Deputy City Attorey
P.O. Box
Reno, Nevada 89505
tora-vs):rP/oiot((
DECLARATION OF PAMELA G. ROBERTS

2 !. d a Deputy City Attorey for the City of Reno, Nevada.
3
2. Defendant Zachary Coughlin was found Guilty of Petit Larceny by the Honorable Judge
4 Kenneth Howard afer a Trial on Wednesday, November 30, 2011.
5 3. On Monday, December 5, 2011, opened an email from Defendant Coughlin and replied to
6 him stating that would not respond to any correspondence from him via email and that he
7 needed to fle any motions or notices in accordance with the applicable rules of the Court.
8
4. That despite my admonition to Defendant Coughlin, he has sent at least three more emails,
9
some of which could be construed as an attempt to serve me with a motion.
10
5. The aforementioned emails contain links and attachments that the City and I will not open as
1
we have concers about computer viruses.
12
6. Plaintiff City of Reno is informed and believes that on or about December 13, 2011
13 Defendant Zachary Coughlin (hereinafter "Coughlin") sent an email to
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HruuLlIyAII0rnry
F.L. o\ 1V0
Hrn0PV50S
"renomunirecords@reno.gov" and former Reno Municipal Court Administrator Matt Fisk at
"fiskm@reno.gov". Coughlin subsequently forward that email to me.
7.
Contained within the email Coughlin sent to "renomunirecords@reno.gov" and former Reno
Municipal Court Administrator Matt Fisk at "fiskm@reno.gov" and forwarded to me is the
allegation:
///
/l
PROOF OF SERVICE:
emailed a copy of this to Pam Roberts for the Plaintiff City of Reno on this date, a true
and correct copy and further email her a copy of all the 2 1 MOtion [sic] for New
Tnal, etc. yesterday to.
H8m6l8 U H006U5

Company: Reno City Attorney's Office -Criminal Divison [sic]
Address: P.O. Box 1UUU Reno, NV UOUO
Phone Number. O-4-2UOU
Fax number: /O-4-242U
Email: robertsp@reno.gov
--
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RraoItyA!t0rnry
F.L. Box V
Reno. PY0
8.
The City has not been served by Defendant Coughlin with any motions or other pleading or
filings in this case by mail or personal service since Coughlin's conviction for Petit Larceny
on November 30, 2011.
Pursuant to NRS 53.045, I declare under penalty of pequry that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on December 14, 2011.
-4-
Pamela O. Roberts
Deputy City Attorey
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attol'ney
P.O. Bo,
Reno, NV55
certify that d an employee of the Reno City Attorey, Reno, Nevada, and that on the.
'
day of December, 2011, I deposited for mailing at Reno, Nevada, first class postage
prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document addressed to:
Zachary Coughlin
817 N. Virginia Street #2
Reno, Nevada 89501
.
J
---------- -----
J
"
"
'
"
I
'
"
'
,
,
,
I,':
'I"
j,i:
I
'
"
'
.
"
I!'
!
i
'
.
10`
'
'
, i
Iii
,
I
,
,
,
'
I'
,
Ii
'
, :

! '
'
I I
II! | j
|'+`
| I
D
1
,
1
:
i
De(emb
12011
r.Blt I :q.R>C;At>:ney,
IA^C:7753 22;
+
From: zachcouqh11n
f C M
61!V|r|uiahI B2
1eue,^ 6V1
\01 0 22V-
4. VV 42
7a.h+eag||ia|etmai|.cem
!ev!am !e:z
F@CU

J: 8n Nmc a Cuxt

Ia: emadappre drg]DeDam C:renammecmd@rene.ga- 71j21oj

.
Nmrctyag dugee-e-.Ieer 2
OgJwnoI w.
R.
CQ w -CeugnRMC lJ CR221721
m
W
es permit serving a goverment
art ,-ey' :uch as yourself via email? Wat
`
| ''
r t 1 " "
||i
I
i,'
"I "

!
,\
OIn00|0y,
IZ16II I:4laz [. I
{[( \ . '' ~`~
I
!,
Zach Coughlin, Esq,
'
|
|
I'
.
|

"
'
"
|,
.
id
'
+l
'
|
" |
I! l

' '
.
'

' '
:1"
]
'`
'

i
of l1
"

|
rb,
,
" I
'
' I
|.
|
,
!
"
.
'" I r I
I, .
815J5`-J7ebd1Jec~65cJZba
] |]

7+:| eaghlia,Bs.
!V !e.V
Vitgiaia8t4^

1eae,!Vkv:o
: 1e|e,
7:-^^96

JX' V--U2
7a:h a||iahe.m+i|:em

Pte I Deteaaaa./ A eliaa.
'
l|~\ 1\as
P
i
a
LJHLtICIA! CUX!HL CJY!KL^,
CU^JY!VPoHL,oJPJL!^LVPP
9
,
CJ\ iPBNO,
atn|
.
I: v.
.'
`PA1COuCu!
| LCm anI.
..
`
:i'
.
1
'
1
:a
19
! ccOlLcNl OlbcIV0c L OtON C Ol
O| 8A!DA"uO1"|I8
!
!
J
+ase!e:II+1^^ |6^'
J
Det!e:Jaageuewata
J
)
Noc of Deaia|of 8e0
evaC
J
et1;e's !eti:eetDea|a|et8etv|:e,1eves:
J
Cacao Rew Dealie |F
J
Moton 0I Ta !OTl Motons,
J
;|;,[[[L+[ 1 O!!OTDEERL O1
)
WR !COURT 1LLAD L
)
J
)
)
OlO 0c c uc8OIL 0
ot l1
' "ae eeram1etet.steviaeamhetDiseevetye|e+t|ysaewsVa|-Mat.sPtea.iaee:aas
'
tataetxite!y|aaaiaga:ate18|+O^i:etsBtaaawet|h+aa+tawtetaat.|ecea:|asieaef
, |
t
^
e

stmquestieo. ueweve:,te|ievea||\0f00D0n\08\\10OU8\nO OlD0f V\O0O 0X\s\0Ot0\0Vml
I:
'
:;
!
i:
c
'
'1
27
-
:asa.|eaet+ttestet|ectaaat|eta.ecreat|eateemv|aee,w||:|wass:||Imn
[
.|e
geeft|e:ahetweeaIteatiaeaaa .ae18+Ofi:e:s. Iat||et,18+Of:et+t-weta:aa
:|ea:l heseeaia.|eiateneatieateemviaeeste.eiviaaacive:s!i:easettem+ea||iaaaa:a||ia
^D 0tD os' '0
'! I
0 ' O 'ceo e I O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
it in on his ra0io, 0"s-it" CraA/or0, t"sti/Bing, un0"r oath, at trial, that Coughlin Aas arr"st"0, in larg"
-art, D"caus" h" 0i0 not -ro0uc" a -hBsical 0ri<"rCs lic"ns" an0 th" in/or+ation Ahich Aoul0 D"
contain"0 th"r"on an0 n"c"ssarB to Arit" a citation. CraA/or0 t"sti/i"0 that this lacE o/ -ro0ucing a
0ri<"rs lic"ns" Fan0 th" 0is-atch r"cor0s can cl"arlB shoA th" running o/ CoughlinCs 0ri<"rs lic"ns"
nu+D"r, Ahich Coughlin h"r"DB 0"clar"s un0"r -"naltB o/ -"rGurB h" has n"<"r co++itt"0 to +"+orB
in his "ntir" li/"?. (urth"r, in 0ir"ct contra0iction to th" sAorn t"sti+onB o/ Doth (rontino an0
CraA/or0, th" 6,C /or th" cough 0ro-s 0o"s a--"ar on Doth th" all"g"0lB stol"n it"+s H14.$$ r"c"i-t
an0 th" H8$.$$ r"c"i-t o/ it"+s -urchas"0 i++"0at"lB -rior to th" arr"st. Both (rontino an0
CraA/or0 sAor" that th" 6,C 0i0 not a--"ar on Doth.
2N279S3S
:inston ,ro0ucts <. ."Bo"r, 1 N"<. 20<.8-. 48, 134 ,. 3r0 7' F$$'?;I3n r"sol<ing this +otion,
A" r"<isit th" +"tho0 us"0 to co+-ut" th" ti+" /or /iling +otions /or Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA an0
/or a n"A trial an0 th" tolling -"rio0 to /il" a notic" o/ a--"al Ah"n th"s" +otions ar" s"r<"0 DB +ail
or "l"ctronic +"ans. J %h" N"<a0a !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur" FN!C,? r"quir" th"s" so&call"0 tolling
+otions to D" /il"0 Aithin 1$ 0aBs /ro+ th" 0at" a Gu0g+"nt is /il"0 an0 s"r<"0. J 4oA"<"r, th" $$4
a+"n0+"nts to th" N!C, chang"0 th" co+-utation o/ ti+" Ah"r" th" -r"scriD"0 -"rio0 is l"ss than
11 0aBs to ")clu0" Satur0aBs, Sun0aBs an0 nonGu0icial 0aBs. J :h"r", as h"r", th" ti+" to /il" a
tolling +otion is 1$ 0aBs, A" conclu0" that th" I-"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0K in N!C, 'Fa? 0o"s not
inclu0" th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or s"r<ic" DB +ail un0"r N!C, 'F"?. J %h"r"/or", th" /iling -"rio0 /or a
tolling +otion is co+-ut"0 /irst un0"r N!C, 'Fa?, an0 th"n 3 a00itional 0aBs ar" a00"0 un0"r N!C,
'F"? Ah"n s"r<ic" Aas +a0" DB +ail or "l"ctronic +"ans. J 6sing this co+-utation +"tho0, A"
conclu0" that a--"llantCs tolling +otions A"r" ti+"lB /il"0 in th" 0istrict court. J 2ccor0inglB, A"
0"nB r"s-on0"ntCs +otion to 0is+iss this a--"al. J (urth"r, although this issu" Aas not a00r"ss"0 DB
Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing ."a0lin"
/or (iling 5otion (or N"A %rial, 8th"r %olling 5otions, "tc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
th" -arti"s, A" conclu0" that th" tolling +otions also toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ th" -ost&Gu0g+"nt
or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs.
(2C%S
%h" /inal Gu0g+"nt a/t"r a GurB <"r0ict in /a<or o/ r"s-on0"nt Aas /il"0 on 2-ril 18, $$#. J
!"s-on0"nt s"r<"0 a--"llant Aith notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" 0istrict courtCs /inal Gu0g+"nt <ia /acsi+il"
an0 +ail on 2-ril 1, $$#. J (i/t""n 0aBs lat"r, on 5aB ', $$#, a--"llant +o<"0 th" 0istrict court
/or Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA un0"r N!C, #$FD? or /or a n"A trial -ursuant to N!C, #9. J
!"s-on0"nt o--os"0 a--"llantCs +otions in th" 0istrict court, arguing, in -art, that th"B A"r" not
ti+"lB /il"0.
B"/or" r"sol<ing th" +otions, on @un" 9, $$#, th" 0istrict court "nt"r"0 a -ost&Gu0g+"nt or0"r
aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs in /a<or o/ r"s-on0"nt. J Notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" or0"r Aas s"r<"0 on
a--"llant on @un" 1$, $$#. J 8n @un" 7, $$#, th" 0istrict court "nt"r"0 its or0"r 0"nBing
a--"llantCs +otion /or Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA or /or a n"A trial. J %h" 0istrict court 0"t"r+in"0
that a--"llantCs +otions ha0 D""n ti+"lB /il"0 Dut conclu0"0 that a--"llant Aas not "ntitl"0 to anB
r"li"/. J 8n @ulB 9, $$#, Aithin 3$ 0aBs a/t"r s"r<ic" o/ notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" @un" 7 or0"r
r"sol<ing th" +otions, a--"llant /il"0 a notic" o/ a--"al /ro+ that or0"r, th" /inal Gu0g+"nt, an0 th"
-ost&Gu0g+"nt or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs.
!"s-on0"nt has /il"0 a +otion to 0is+iss th" a--"al, all"ging that a--"llantCs +otions /or Gu0g+"nt as
a +att"r o/ laA an0 /or a n"A trial A"r" not ti+"lB an0 th"r"/or" 0i0 not toll th" ti+" to a--"al. J
2--"llant o--os"s th" +otion.
DISCUSSION
3 Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing ."a0lin"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L%his court lacEs Guris0iction to consi0"r an a--"al that is /il"0 D"Bon0 th" ti+" alloA"0 un0"r
N!2, 4Fa?.
1
J2 ti+"lB /il"0 +otion /or Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA un0"r N!C, #$FD? or /or a n"A
trial un0"r N!C, #9 tolls th" ti+" /or /iling an a--"al until no lat"r than 3$ 0aBs a/t"r a -artB s"r<"s
Aritt"n notic" that th" or0"r r"sol<ing such +otions has D""n "nt"r"0.
J2 tolling +otion un0"r

N!C, #$FD? or N!C, #9 is ti+"lB i/ it is /il"0 Aithin 1$ 0aBs a/t"r a -artB s"r<"s Aritt"n notic" that a
Gu0g+"nt has D""n "nt"r"0.
3
J%hr"" a00itional 0aBs ar" a00"0 to this /iling 0"a0lin" Ah"n s"r<ic"
Aas +a0" DB +ail or "l"ctronic +"ans.
4

3n th" +otion to 0is+iss, r"s-on0"nt argu"s that our -rior cas" laA r"quir"s that th" 3&0aB alloAanc"
/or +ailing D" a00"0 0ir"ctlB to th" 1$&0aB -"rio0 to /il" tolling +otions D"/or" co+-uting th" /iling
0"a0lin" un0"r N!C, 'Fa?. J E+-loBing this rational" suDG"cts th"s" tolling +otions to a 13&0aB ti+"
-"rio0. J 6n0"r N!C, 'Fa?, int"r+"0iat" Satur0aBs, Sun0aBs an0 nonGu0icial 0aBs Aoul0 D" inclu0"0
in th" co+-utation o/ th" 13&0aB -"rio0. J 2--lBing this a--roach to this cas" r"sults in th" thirt""nth
0aB /ro+ s"r<ic" o/ notic" o/ "ntrB /alling on 5aB 4, $$#. J 3n this sc"nario, D"caus" a--"llantCs
+otions A"r" not /il"0 until 5aB ', $$#, th"B Aoul0 D" unti+"lB an0 Aoul0 not "//"cti<"lB toll th"
ti+" to a--"al.
2--"llant "ncourag"s us to a0o-t th" o--osit" a--roach to that sugg"st"0 DB r"s-on0"nt. J 3nst"a0 o/
/irst a00ing th" 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail to r"ach a 13&0aB ti+" -"rio0, a--"llant cont"n0s that
soun0 Gu0icial -olicB /a<ors a00ing th" 3&0aB alloAanc" onlB a/t"r co+-uting th" 1$&0aB /iling -"rio0
an0 ")clu0ing int"r+"0iat" nonGu0icial 0aBs un0"r N!C, 'Fa?. J 2--"llant argu"s that this +"tho0 o/
co+-uting th" ti+" -"rio0 is consist"nt Aith /"0"ral court int"r-r"tation o/ th" analogous /"0"ral rul",
(!C, ', an0 /urth"rs th" int"nt o/ N!C, 'F"? DB alloAing /or +or" ti+" Ah"n s"r<ic" is +a0" DB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
+ail. J 6sing this +"tho0 in this cas", a--"llant argu"s that its +otions /or Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/
laA an0 /or a n"A trial A"r" ti+"lB /il"0 an0 "//"cti<"lB toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al.
!ul" 'Lo/ th" N"<a0a !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur" go<"rns ti+":
Fa?JCo+-utation. 3n co+-uting anB -"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0 or alloA"0 DB th"s" rul"s, DB th" local
rul"s o/ anB 0istrict court, DB or0"r o/ court, or DB anB a--licaDl" statut", th" 0aB o/ th" act, "<"nt, or
0"/ault /ro+ Ahich th" 0"signat"0 -"rio0 o/ ti+" D"gins to run shall not D" inclu0"0. J %h" last 0aB
o/ th" -"rio0 so co+-ut"0 shall D" inclu0"0, unl"ss it is a Satur0aB, a Sun0aB, or a nonGu0icial 0aB, in
Ahich "<"nt th" -"rio0 runs until th" "n0 o/ th" n")t 0aB Ahich is not a Satur0aB, a Sun0aB, or a
nonGu0icial 0aB, or, Ah"n th" act to D" 0on" is th" /iling o/ a -a-"r in court, a 0aB on Ahich A"ath"r
or oth"r con0itions ha<" +a0" th" o//ic" o/ th" cl"rE o/ th" 0istrict court inacc"ssiDl", in Ahich "<"nt
th" -"rio0 runs until th" "n0 o/ th" n")t 0aB Ahich is not on" o/ th" a/or"+"ntion"0 0aBs. J :h"n th"
-"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0 or alloA"0 is l"ss than 11 0aBs, int"r+"0iat" Satur0aBs, Sun0aBs, an0
nonGu0icial 0aBs shall D" ")clu0"0 in th" co+-utation ")c"-t /or thos" -roc""0ings /il"0 un0"r %itl"s
1 or 13 o/ th" N"<a0a !"<is"0 Statut"s.
F"?J200itional %i+" 2/t"r S"r<ic" DB 5ail or El"ctronic +"ans. J :h"n"<"r a -artB has th" right or
is r"quir"0 to 0o so+" act or taE" so+" -roc""0ings Aithin a -r"scriD"0 -"rio0 a/t"r th" s"r<ic" o/ a
notic" or oth"r -a-"r, oth"r than -roc"ss, u-on th" -artB an0 th" notic" or -a-"r is s"r<"0 u-on th"
-artB DB +ail or DB "l"ctronic +"ans, 3 0aBs shall D" a00"0 to th" -r"scriD"0 -"rio0.
FE+-has"s a00"0.? J %his court has -r"<iouslB consi0"r"0 in tAo cas"s th" issu" o/ co+-uting ti+"
-"rio0s un0"r N!C, ' Ah"n s"r<ic" Aas +a0" DB +ail. J 3n !oss <. >iaco+o, this court conclu0"0
that in calculating th" ti+" to /il" a tolling +otion, th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or s"r<ic" DB +ail is a00"0
# Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing ."a0lin"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0ir"ctlB to th" 1$&0aB -"rio0&r"sulting in a 13&0aB /iling -"rio0.
#
J5or" r"c"ntlB, in Custo+ CaDin"t
(actorB o/ N"A 9orE <. .istrict Court, a $$3 cas" in<ol<ing th" 3$&0aB ti+" -"rio0 to /il" a r"qu"st
/or trial 0" no<o a/t"r arDitration, A" a//ir+"0 th" co+-utation +"tho0 "+-loB"0 in !oss an0 h"l0
that th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or s"r<ic" DB +ail Ishoul0 D" a00"0 to th" ti+" allott"0 DB statut" or rul"
/irstK an0 th"n th" ti+" -"rio0 shoul0 D" co+-ut"0 un0"r N!C, 'Fa?.
'
J:" r"ason"0 that th"
alt"rnati<" +"tho0 o/ co+-uting ti+" un0"r !ul" 'Fa? o/ a00ing th" 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail a/t"r
co+-uting th" /iling 0"a0lin" IAoul0 -ot"ntiallB r"sult in an a00itional /i<" to s"<"n 0aBs to /il"
+otionsK Ahich Aas Ico+-licat"0 an0 aDsur0.KM
7
J3nst"a0, A" D"li"<"0 at th" ti+" that using th"
+"tho0 o/ /irst a00ing th" 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail to th" ti+" allott"0 DB statut" or rul" an0 th"n
co+-uting th" ti+" -"rio0, Aas a si+-l"r an0 s-""0i"r co+-utation sch"+".
8

4oA"<"r, in $$4, a/t"r our 0"cisions in !oss an0 Custo+ CaDin"t, A" a+"n0"0 N!C, ' to D"
consist"nt Aith th" 198# a+"n0+"nts to th" /"0"ral rul".
9
J%hat a+"n0+"nt +a0" th" ")clusion o/
int"r+"0iat" Satur0aBs, Sun0aBs, an0 nonGu0icial 0aBs a--licaDl" in co+-uting ti+" -"rio0s o/ l"ss
than 11 0aBs.
1$
JB"/or" th" $$4 a+"n0+"nt, N!C, 'Fa? onlB ")clu0"0 int"r+"0iat" nonGu0icial
0aBs in co+-uting -"rio0s o/ l"ss than 7 0aBs. J S"<"ral /"0"ral courts ha<" consi0"r"0 th" int"nt
D"hin0 (!C, 'F"?Cs 3&0aB +ailing alloAanc" in int"r-r"ting th" 198# a+"n0+"nt to th" co+-utation
-ro<ision o/ (!C, 'Fa?.
11
J3n co+-uting ti+" -"rio0s in thos" cas"s, th" /"0"ral 0"cisions ha<"
/ocus"0 on th" I-"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0K an0 0"t"r+in"0 that it 0o"s not inclu0" th" 3 a00itional
0aBs /or +ailing un0"r !ul" 'F"?. J %hos" /"0"ral courts ha<" th"r"/or" /oun0 that th" l"ss&than&11&
0aB -ro<ision o/ !ul" 'Fa? is a--licaDl" to 1$&0aB -"rio0s "<"n Ah"n s"r<ic" is +a0" DB +ail.
3n th" /irst s"+inal cas" a/t"r th" 198# a+"n0+"nt to (!C, ', a /"0"ral 0istrict court in NaltB <.
NaltB %r"" (ar+ r"cogniN"0 that th" a+"n0+"nt IAas int"n0"0 to ")t"n0 th" r"s-ons" ti+" alloA"0
' Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing ."a0lin"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
un0"r <arious rul"s -r"scriDing t"n 0aB li+its.KM
1
J%h" NaltB court oDs"r<"0, hoA"<"r, that a00ing
a00itional ti+" /or +ailing un0"r !ul" 'F"? to cr"at" a 13&0aB ti+" -"rio0 ulti+at"lB r"sult"0 in th"
sa+" a+ount o/ ti+" that Aas alloA"0 D"/or" th" 198# a+"n0+"nt D"caus" at that ti+", nonGu0icial
0aBs A"r" not ")clu0"0 /ro+ th" co+-utation o/ 1$&0aB -"rio0s.
13
J%h" court 0"t"r+in"0 that
IOsPuch a r"sult cannot D" consist"nt Aith th" oD<ious int"ntions o/ th" a0<isorB co++itt""K an0
0"clar"0 that IOtPh" +ailing rul" shoul0 -ro<i0" thr"" ")tra 0aBs, in a00ition to Ahat"<"r -"rio0 th"
-artB Aoul0 oth"rAis" ha<", to r"/l"ct th" -r"su+"0 la-s" in notic" D"caus" o/ s"r<ic" DB +ail.KM
14
J
%h" NaltB court thus h"l0 that th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or +ailing shoul0 D" a00"0 onlB a/t"r co+-uting
th" ti+" -"rio0 un0"r !ul" 'Fa?.
1#

7iE"Ais", in 7"rro <. QuaE"r 8ats Co.,
1'
th" S"<"nth Circuit Court o/ 2--"als a00r"ss"0 this sa+"
issu" in th" cont")t o/ an oDG"ction to a +agistrat" Gu0g"Cs r"-ort an0 conclu0"0 that Ith" -"rio0 o/
ti+"K in !ul" 'Fa? Aas not th" su+ o/ all alloAaDl" -"rio0s. J %h" court not"0 that !ul" 'F"? is
I0"sign"0 to gi<" a litigant a--ro)i+at"lB th" sa+" "//"cti<" ti+" to r"s-on0 Ah"th"r -a-"rs ar"
s"r<"0 DB han0 or DB +ail.KM
17
J2n0 th" court r"ason"0 that IOtPh" onlB AaB to carrB out !ul" 'F"?Cs
/unction o/ a00ing ti+" to co+-"nsat" /or 0"laBs in +ail 0"li<"rB is to "+-loB !ul" 'Fa? /irst.KM
18

3n %ushn"r <. 6nit"0 Stat"s .istrict Court /or C"ntral .istrict o/ Cali/ornia, th" Ninth Circuit Court
o/ 2--"als conclu0"0 that th" 1$&0aB -"rio0 -r"scriD"0 /or /iling a GurB 0"+an0 0i0 not D"co+" a 13&
0aB -"rio0 /or -ur-os"s o/ !ul" 'Fa? as a r"sult o/ th" s"r<ic"&DB&+ail -ro<ision o/ !ul" 'F"?.
19
J%h"
court stat"0 that !ul" 'F"? shoul0 not D" Iconstru"0 to r"n0"r -r"scriD"0 -"rio0s o/ l"ss than "l"<"n
0aBs in"ligiDl" /or D"n"/icial tr"at+"nt un0"r !ul" 'Fa?K an0 conclu0"0 that it IAoul0 D" ano+alous
to int"r-r"t th" rul"s so that a litigant s"r<"0 DB +ail Aoul0 ha<" l"ss ti+" /or action than a litigant
s"r<"0 -"rsonallB.KM
$
J3nst"a0, th" court h"l0 that IOtPh" -"rio0 is calculat"0 /irst DB a--lBing th"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l"ss&than&"l"<"n&0aB -ro<ision o/ !ul" 'Fa?, th"r"DB ")clu0ing anB int"r<"ning A""E"n0s an0 l"gal
holi0aBs. J 2/t"r this co+-utation, thr"" a00itional 0aBs ar" a00"0 /or +ail s"r<ic" un0"r !ul" 'F"?.KM
1

2s A" not"0 in Custo+ CaDin"t, /"0"ral 0"cisions ar" not Din0ing on this court.
J4oA"<"r, IOAP"
ha<" -r"<iouslB r"cogniN"0 that /"0"ral 0"cisions in<ol<ing th" ("0"ral !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur"
-ro<i0" -"rsuasi<" authoritB Ah"n this court ")a+in"s its rul"s.KM
3
J8n th" -articular issu" o/
co+-uting ti+" un0"r N!C, ', th" /"0"ral 0"cisions 0iscuss"0 aDo<" in r"gar0 to th" /"0"ral rul" ar"
logicallB co+-"lling.
8ur 0"cisions in Custo+ CaDin"t an0 !oss r"/l"ct th" courtCs 0"sir" to +aintain a si+-l", "//ici"nt
an0 uni/or+ sBst"+ /or co+-uting ti+" -"rio0s un0"r N!C, '.
4
4oA"<"r, n"ith"r o/ thos" cas"s
consi0"r"0 th" i+-act that th"ir co+-utation sch"+" Aoul0 ha<" on /iling -"rio0s suDG"ct to th"
-ro<ision in N!C, 'Fa? /or th" ")clusion o/ int"r+"0iat" nonGu0icial 0aBs. J 3n light o/ our r"c"nt
a+"n0+"nt to N!C, 'Fa?, Ahich +a0" th" nonGu0icial&0aB ")clusion a--licaDl" to long"r ti+"
-"rio0s, A" can no long"r r"concil" th" utilitB o/ !oss an0 Custo+ CaDin"t Aith th" sti/ling "//"ct
that th"B ha<" on th" int"nt D"hin0 !ul" 'F"?. J!ul" 'F"? is int"n0"0 to -ro<i0" litigants Aith
a00itional ti+" Ah"n s"r<ic" is +a0" DB +ail. J %h" co+-utation +"tho0 A" "+-loB"0 in Custo+
CaDin"t an0 !oss AorEs contrarB to that int"nt. J 6sing th" +"tho0 "+-loB"0 in thos" cas"s a/t"r th"
a+"n0+"nt to !ul" 'Fa?, Ah"n a 1$&0aB ti+" -"rio0 is in<ol<"0, th" -artB -"rsonallB s"r<"0 Aoul0
alAaBs ha<" +or" ti+" to act than a -artB s"r<"0 DB +ail.
(or ")a+-l", N!C, #9FD? -ro<i0"s that IOaP +otion /or a n"A trial shall D" /il"0 no lat"r than 1$ 0aBs
a/t"r s"r<ic" o/ Aritt"n notic" o/ th" "ntrB o/ th" Gu0g+"nt.K J 3/ a -artB is -"rsonallB s"r<"0 Aith
notic" o/ "ntrB, that -artB has 14 cal"n0ar 0aBs to /il" a +otion D"caus" un0"r N!C, 'Fa?, th"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
int"r+"0iat" nonGu0icial 0aBs Aoul0 D" ")clu0"0 /ro+ th" co+-utation. J But un0"r th" !oss an0
Custo+ CaDin"t co+-utation sch"+", i/ that -artB ha0 D""n s"r<"0 DB +ail, that -artB Aoul0 onlB
ha<" 13 cal"n0ar 0aBs to /il" th" sa+" +otion D"caus" th" int"r+"0iat" nonGu0icial 0aBs Aoul0 D"
inclu0"0 in th" co+-utation. J 2n0 a/t"r taEing into account th" actual ti+" /or 0"li<"rB o/ +ail, a
-artB s"r<"0 DB +ail Aoul0 c"rtainlB ha<" "<"n l"ss than 13 cal"n0ar 0aBs to act. J %his r"sult 0"/"ats
th" -ur-os" o/ !ul" 'F"? an0 "ss"ntiallB +aE"s th" a+"n0+"nt to !ul" 'Fa? a nullitB DB con<"rting
1$&0aB ti+" -"rio0s into 13&0aB -"rio0s that 0o not garn"r th" D"n"/it o/ th" a+"n0+"nt. J 2s th"
S"<"nth Circuit oDs"r<"0 in 7"rro, IOiPnt"ractions Aithin a co+-l") s"t o/ rul"s so+"ti+"s can ha<"
un")-"ct"0 an0 unA"lco+" "//"cts, Dut A" shoul0 not cr"at" th"+ Ah"n th" t")t r"a0ilB can D"ar
anoth"r +"aning.KM
#
J:" shoul0 not 0o so h"r" in int"r-r"ting N!C, '.
L:" th"r"/or" r"<"rs" our 0"cisions in Custo+ CaDin"t an0 !oss to th" ")t"nt that th"B r"quir" that
/iling -"rio0s D" co+-ut"0 DB a00ing th" 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail un0"r N!C, 'F"? to th"
-r"scriD"0 -"rio0 D"/or" a--lBing N!C, 'Fa?. J Consist"nt Aith th" co+-"lling /"0"ral cas"s
0iscuss"0 aDo<", A" hol0 that th" 1$&0aB ti+" -"rio0 /or /iling +otions /or Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/
laA an0 /or a n"A trial shoul0 D" calculat"0 /irst un0"r N!C, 'Fa?, ")clu0ing int"r+"0iat" Satur0aBs,
Sun0aBs an0 nonGu0icial 0aBs. J 3/ s"r<ic" Aas +a0" DB +ail or "l"ctronic +"ans, 3 0aBs shoul0
th"r"a/t"r D" a00"0 -ursuant to N!C, 'F"?.
3n this cas", notic" o/ th" Gu0g+"ntCs "ntrB Aas s"r<"0 DB +ail on %hurs0aB, 2-ril 1, $$#. J
Co+-uting th" 1$&0aB ti+" -"rio0 /ro+ this 0at" an0 ")clu0ing int"r+"0iat" nonGu0icial 0aBs un0"r
N!C, 'Fa?, ")t"n0"0 th" 0"a0lin" /or tolling +otions to %hurs0aB, 5aB #, $$#. J 200ing 3 0aBs at
that -oint /or s"r<ic" DB +ail +a0" 5on0aB, 5aB 9, $$#, th" /inal 0"a0lin" to /il" +otions /or
Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA or /or a n"A trial. J 2--"llantCs +otions A"r" /il"0 D"/or" that 0at", an0
th"r"/or" th"B A"r" ti+"lB /il"0 an0 "//"cti<"lB toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al. J %h"r"a/t"r, a--"llant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ti+"lB /il"0 a notic" o/ a--"al Aithin 3$ 0aBs a/t"r s"r<ic" o/ Aritt"n notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" or0"r
r"sol<ing th" tolling +otions.
'

L(inallB, although th" +otion to 0is+iss an0 o--osition 0i0 not a00r"ss Ah"th"r a--"llantCs tolling
+otions toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ th" -ost&Gu0g+"nt or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s, D"caus" o/ th"
a+Diguous natur" o/ this ar"a o/ laA an0 th" -ot"ntial -it/all that it +aB -r"s"nt to -ractition"rs, A"
"l"ct to a00r"ss it sua s-ont".
7
J%h" -r"cis" issu" is Ah"th"r a tolling +otion 0ir"ct"0 at th" /inal
Gu0g+"nt also tolls th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ a s-"cial or0"r a/t"r /inal Gu0g+"nt. J %his is an issu" o/
/irst i+-r"ssion in N"<a0a.
L2n or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs is suDstanti<"lB a--"alaDl" as a s-"cial or0"r a/t"r /inal
Gu0g+"nt.
8
JS-"cial or0"rs a/t"r /inal Gu0g+"nt ar" a--"alaDl" D"caus" th"B a//"ct th" rights o/ a
-artB groAing out o/ th" /inal Gu0g+"nt.
9
J7iE" an a--"al /ro+ a /inal Gu0g+"nt, an a--"al /ro+ an
or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs +ust D" /il"0 no +or" than 3$ 0aBs /ro+ th" 0at" that notic"
o/ th" or0"rCs "ntrB is s"r<"0.
3$

4"r", notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs Aas s"r<"0 on a--"llant on @un"
1$, $$#. J 4oA"<"r, a--"llant 0i0 not /il" its notic" o/ a--"al until @ulB 9, $$#&A"ll D"Bon0 th"
3$&0aB ti+" li+it alloA"0 un0"r N!2, 4Fa?F1?. J 2ccor0inglB, this court onlB has Guris0iction to
consi0"r issu"s r"lating to th" attorn"B /""s an0 costs or0"r i/ th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ that or0"r Aas
toll"0 DB a--"llantCs +otions /or Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA an0 /or a n"A trial.
N!2, 4Fa?F4? -ro<i0"s that Ah"n a tolling +otion is /il"0, Ith" ti+" to /il" a notic" o/ a--"al runs /or
all -arti"s /ro+ "ntrB o/ an or0"r 0is-osing o/ th" last such r"+aining +otion.K J %his courtCs
0"cisions ha<" "<aluat"0 tolling +otions in th" cont")t o/ a--"als /ro+ /inal Gu0g+"nts.
31
J4oA"<"r,
1$ Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
."a0lin" /or (iling 5otion (or N"A %rial, 8th"r %olling 5otions, "tc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D"caus" N!2, 4Fa?F4? 0o"s not s-"ci/B /ro+ Ahich or0"rs th" ti+" to a--"al +aB D" toll"0, its
a--licaDilitB to -ost&Gu0g+"nt or0"rs aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs is uncl"ar.
3n this cas", th" or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s to r"s-on0"nt Aas -r"0icat"0 on th" /inal Gu0g+"nt in
r"s-on0"ntCs /a<or. J %h"r" is thus a clos" conn"ction D"tA""n th" /inal Gu0g+"nt an0 th" s-"cial
or0"r a/t"r /inal Gu0g+"nt in that a chang" to th" /inal Gu0g+"nt Aoul0 liE"lB r"sult in a chang" to th"
s-"cial or0"r a/t"r /inal Gu0g+"nt. J BB 0"/inition, anB s-"cial or0"r a/t"r /inal Gu0g+"nt +ust D"
clos"lB r"lat"0 to th" Gu0g+"nt. J %his clos" conn"ction l"a0s us to conclu0" that th" tolling +otions
"nu+"rat"0 in N!2, 4Fa?F4? a--lB to Doth tB-"s o/ or0"rs. J 2nB oth"r int"r-r"tation o/ N!2, 4Fa?
F4? Aoul0 r"sult in th" a--"al o/ a -ost&Gu0g+"nt or0"r -roc""0ing in this court Ahil" th" un0"rlBing
Gu0g+"nt Aas still suDG"ct to chang" 0uring th" -"n0"ncB o/ tolling +otions in th" 0istrict court. J
Such an "//"ct Aoul0 not onlB i+-"0" Gu0icial "cono+B an0 r"sult in -i"c"+"al litigation,
3
Dut it
Aoul0 also liE"lB D" count"rintuiti<" to +anB l"gal -ractition"rs an0 cr"at" signi/icant con/usion o<"r
th" ti+" /or /iling a--"als /ro+ s-"cial or0"rs a/t"r /inal Gu0g+"nt. J 2s A" ha<" -r"<iouslB
")-lain"0, IOtPh" /iling o/ a si+-l" notic" o/ a--"al Aas int"n0"0 to taE" th" -lac" o/ +or"
co+-licat"0 -roc"0ur"s to oDtain r"<i"A, an0 th" notic" shoul0 not D" us"0 as a t"chnical tra- /or th"
unAarB 0ra/ts+an.KM
33
J8ur int"r-r"tation o/ N!2, 4Fa?F4? tolling +otions shoul0 r"/l"ct our int"nt
to -r"s"r<" a si+-l" an0 "//ici"nt -roc"0ur" /or /iling a notic" o/ a--"al.
L:" th"r"/or" hol0 that a ti+"lB /il"0 tolling +otion un0"r N!2, 4Fa?F4? tolls th" ti+" to a--"al
/ro+ Doth /inal Gu0g+"nt an0 s-"cial or0"rs "nt"r"0 a/t"r /inal Gu0g+"nt. J 2ccor0inglB, this court
has Guris0iction to consi0"r th" +"rits o/ anB issu"s rais"0 in this a--"al r"lating to th" aAar0 o/
attorn"B /""s an0 costs in th" 0istrict courtCs @un" 9, $$#, or0"r.
C8NC76S38N
11 Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
:" r"<"rs" our 0"cisions in Custo+ CaDin"t an0 !oss to th" ")t"nt that th"B r"quir" that /iling
-"rio0s D" co+-ut"0 DB a00ing 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail un0"r N!C, 'F"? to th" -r"scriD"0 ti+"
-"rio0 D"/or" a--lBing N!C, 'Fa?. J (urth"r, A" hol0 that th" I-"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0K 0o"s not
inclu0" th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or s"r<ic" DB +ail un0"r N!C, 'F"? an0 that ti+" -"rio0s shoul0 D"
calculat"0 /irst un0"r N!C, 'Fa? D"/or" a00ing ti+" un0"r N!C, 'F"?. J 6sing this +"tho0 o/
co+-utation, A" conclu0" that a--"llantCs +otions /or Gu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA an0 /or n"A trial
A"r" ti+"lB /il"0 an0 thus "//"cti<"lB toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al. J 2s a r"sult, a--"llantCs notic" o/
a--"al Aas ti+"lB /il"0. J 2ccor0inglB, A" 0"nB r"s-on0"ntCs +otion to 0is+iss.
:" /urth"r hol0 that ti+"lB +otions list"0 un0"r N!2, 4Fa?F4? toll Doth th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ th"
/inal Gu0g+"nt an0 th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ a s-"cial or0"r "nt"r"0 a/t"r /inal Gu0g+"nt. J
2ccor0inglB, this court also has Guris0iction to consi0"r th" +"rits o/ a--"llantCs a--"al /ro+ th"
0istrict courtCs or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs in /a<or o/ r"s-on0"nt.
(88%N8%ES
1. LS"" N!2, 3Fa?; M2l<is <. Stat", >a+ing Control B0., 99 N"<. 184, ''$ ,.0 98$ F1983?.
. LN!2, 4Fa?F4?.
3. LN!C, #$FD?; MN!C, #9FD?.
4. LN!C, 'F"?.
#. L97 N"<. ##$, ##3 nn. 1 R , '3# ,.0 98, 3$$ nn. 1 R F1981?.
'. L119 N"<. #1, #4&##, ' ,.30 741, 743 F$$3?.
7. L30. at #4, ' ,.30 at 74&43.
8. L30.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. LS"" N!C, ' 0ra/t"rCs not" F$$4?.
1$. L30.
11. LS"", ".g., NaltB <. NaltB %r"" (ar+, '#4 (.Su--. 131# FS...2la.1987?; M%ushn"r <. 6.S. .ist.
Court /or C"nt. .ist. o/ Cal., 89 (.0 8#3 F9th Cir.1987?; M7"rro <. QuaE"r 8ats Co., 84 (.30 39
F7th Cir.199'?.
1. L'#4 (.Su--. at 1317.
13. L30.
14. L30.
1#. L30. at 1317&18.
1'. L84 (.30 39, 4.
17. L30.
18. L30.
19. L89 (.0 at 8##&#'.
$. L30. Fciting NaltB, '#4 (.Su--. at 1317?.
1. L30. at 8##&#'.
. L119 N"<. at #4, ' ,.30 at 74&43.
3. LN"lson <. 4""r, 11 N"<. 83, 1 ,.30 1#, 1#3 F$$#?.
4. LCusto+ CaDin"t, 119 N"<. at ##, ' ,.30 at 743.
#. L84 (.30 at 4.
'. LN!2, 4Fa?F4?.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. LS"" 2lDios <. 4oriNon Co++uniti"s, 3nc., 1 N"<. 4$9, 13 ,.30 1$ F$$'?; M5cNair <.
!i<"ra, 11$ N"<. 4'3, 4'8 n. ', 874 ,.0 14$, 144 n. ' F1994?; MBra0l"B <. !o+"o, 1$ N"<. 1$3,
1$#, 71' ,.0 7, 8 F198'?; M:"st"rn 3n0us., 3nc. <. >"n"ral 3ns. Co., 91 N"<. , 9&3$, #33
,.0 473, 478 F197#?.
8. LS+ith <. CroAn (inancial S"r<ic"s, 111 N"<. 77, 89 n. , 89$ ,.0 7'9, 771 n. F199#?.
9. LS"" >u++ <. 5ainor, 118 N"<. 91, #9 ,.30 1$ F$$?.
3$. LN!2, 4Fa?F1?.
31. LS"", ".g., 5att"r o/ 2--lication o/ .uong, 118 N"<. 9$, 9&3, #9 ,.30 11$, 11 F$$?
Fconclu0ing that a ti+"lB /il"0 +otion to a+"n0 or +aE" a00itional /in0ings o/ /act toll"0 th" ti+" to
a--"al /ro+ a /inal Gu0g+"nt 0"nBing a -"tition to s"al cri+inal r"cor0s?; MCha-+an 3n0ustri"s <.
6nit"0 3nsuranc", 11$ N"<. 4#4, 4#7, 874 ,.0 739, 741 F1994? Fconclu0ing that ti+"lB /il"0 tolling
+otions toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ th" /inal Gu0g+"nt?; M2Dl" El"ctric, 3nc. <. =au/+an, 1$4 N"<.
9, 31&3, 7# ,.0 18, $ F1988? Fconclu0ing that a +otion to alt"r or a+"n0 toll"0 th" ti+" to
a--"al /ro+ th" /inal Gu0g+"nt?.
3. LS"", ".g., 4allicra/t"rs Co. <. 5oor", 1$ N"<. #', 78 ,.0 441 F198'?.
33. L(or+an <. Eagl" %hri/tB .rugs R 5arE"ts, 89 N"<. #33, #3', #1' ,.0 134, 13# F1973?,
o<"rrul"0 on oth"r groun0s DB >ar<in <. .ist. Ct., 118 N"<. 749, 7#1, #9 ,.30 118$, 1181 F$$?.K
:inston ,ro0ucts <. ."Bo"r, 1 N"<. 20<.8-. 48, 134 ,. 3r0 7' F$$'?;
%h" aDo<", a0+itt"0lB ")t"n0"0 citation, a--li"s to this issu"s at han0. :h"r"/or", th"
u0n"rsign"0 s""Es a co-B o/ th" 8r0"r /ro+ th" 11 3$ , $11 %rial, inclu0ing anB Cont"+-t 8r0"r,
Ahich +ust s"t /or th" Aith s-"ci/icitB -ursuant to 4ouston <. Eight @u0icial .istirct Court Ah"n
@u0g" ,o+"ranN" -ut 4ouston in cu//s /or aDout 3$ +inut"s, a cas" 3 a+ so+"Ahat aAar" o/:
Coughlin 5an0a+us:
htt-:11cas"in/o.n<su-r"+"court.us1-uDlic1cas"Vi"A.0oScs33.T74'
4ouston 5an0a+us:
htt-:11cas"in/o.n<su-r"+"court.us1-uDlic1cas"Vi"A.0oScs33.T14$#
.2%E. this ."c"+D"r 1'th, $11
U1s1 Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
."/"n0ant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGHIN
1. 3 a+ th" ."/"n0ant in this action.
. 3 a+ not sur" ")actlB Ahat @u0g" 4oAar0 8r0"r"0 at th" conclusion o/ th" No<"+D"r $
th
,
$ll %rial
3. 3 ha<" not D""n "ntir"lB sur" Ahat th" 0i//"r"nc" is D"tA""n "+ails an0 /a)"s, as +anB -"o-l"
s"n0 /a)"s /ro+ th"ir co+-ut"rs, liE" "+ail, an0 it is +B un0"rstan0ing that all "l"ctronic
trans+issions, Ah"th"r t")t, soun0, <i0"o, Ahat"<"r, ar" ulti+at"lB Gust con<"rt"0 to s"ri"s o/
1Cs an0 $Cs....Non"th"l"ss, 3 ha<" r"a0 th" !5C! !ul" # on s"r<ic" o/ +otions DB /asci+il"
an0 +a0" r"asonaDl" att"+-ts to co+-lB Aith 5s. !oD"rts r"qu"st that 3 int"r-r"t that rul" to
+"an a trans+ission o/ 1Cs an0 $Cs that is not I"+ailK Das"0. 2s such, 3 /a) h"r /ro+ a /a)
nu+D"r o/ +in", 949&''7&74$ an0 ha<" /a)"0 h"r th" ."c"+D"r 13
th
5otion /or a N"A %rial,
"tc. to 5s. !oD"rts at h"r /a) nu+D"r. 3 EnoA o/ EnoA rul" that alloAs 5s. !oD"rts, a -uDlic
"+-loB"", to all th" su00"n 0"clar" a citiN"n is not alloA"0 to "+ail h"r, +uch l"ss o--osing
couns"l in a cas".
4. 2ttorn"Bs in -ri<at" -ractic", as /ar as 3 EnoA, +anag" to o-"n attach+"nts, us" S-BDot,
5alAar"DBt"s, Su-"r2ntiS-BAar", Ahat"<"r....th"B +aE" it ha--"n Aithout a su-"r Dloat"0
go<"rn+"ntal salarB an0 0onCt clai+ a I/"ar o/ <irus"sK shoul0 0ictat" "<"rBthing, in +B
o-inion.
#. 2t th" conclusion o/ th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial, in0""0, s"<"ral hours -rior to its
conclusion "<"n, 3 Aas ")tr"+"lB /aint an0 it Aas <"rB 0i//icult to /unction at th" l"<"l
n"c"ssarB to -ut on a 0"/"ns". 3 0o not Aish to go into th" AhBCs an0 Ah"r"/or"s o/ this, it
1# Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
+aB in<ol<"0 2.21-ri<acB issu"s1+"0ical issu"s, Dut, su//ic" to saB, 3 in no AaB coul0 ha<"
i+agin"0 that th" !5C Aoul0 s"" /it to hol0 "<"rBon" th"r", +anB g"tting -ai0 quit" a Dit o/
o<"rti+", in so+" incr"0iDl" "//ort to +aE" sur" this on" littl" ol0 -"tit larc"nB trial got 0on"
su-"r, su-"r /ast. 3 coul0 ha<" n"<"r i+agin"0 that th" %rial Aoul0 continu" until al+ost 9 -+
at night, AhB, in +B ")-"ri"nc", go<"rn+"nt "+-loB""s g"n"rallB l"a<" th"ir o//ic" Duil0ings
as soon a/t"r # -+ as hu+anlB -ossiDl". 2s such, 3 Aas in no AaB -r"-ar"0,
-hBsicallB1+"ntallB1+"0icallB, "tc. to continu" on that lat" into th" "<"ning.
'. 2--ar"ntlB, at th" clos" o/ %rial, @u0g" 4oAar0 +a0" a ruling. 3 ha<" r"c"i<"0 con/licting
r"-orts as to Ah"th"r th" !5C is ass"rting that 3 "nt"r"0 a guiltB -l"a F3 0o not D"li"<" that
ass"rtion co+-orts Aith r"alitB in anB AaB? or Ah"th"r @u0g" 4oAar0 +a0" a /in0ing o/
Cont"+-t co++itt"0 in th" -r"s"nc" o/ th" Court .$3$ an0 su++arilB s"nt"nc"0 +" to
thr"" 0aBs in Gail, Aith no -ossiDilitB o/ staB or a--"llat" r"<i"A, 0"s-it" @u0g" 4oAar0 ha<ing
0"ni"0 +" +B Si)th 2+"n0+"nt !ight %o Couns"l, assuring +" h" Aoul0 not or0"r anB
incarc"ration. 3 outlin"0 to @u0g" 4oAar0 Ahat a 0"<astating "//"ct his ruling +ight ha<" on
+B cli"nts cas"s to th" ")t"nt h" Aas not a//or0ing +" anB o--ortunitB to h"l- th"+ +aE"
oth"r arrang"+"nts to a<oi0 -r"Gu0icing th"ir cas"s, an0 @u0g" 4oAar0 agr""0 that h" Aas sa0
aDout that th"n angrilB l"/t th" D"nch a/t"r ")clai+ing so+"thing liE" IA" ar" o// th" r"cor0K.
7. 2t that -oint @u0g" 4oAar0Cs t"a+ o/ 5arshalls F3 thinE aDout /our o/ th" 5arshalls, at l"ast
A"r" AorEing at o<"rti+" Aag"s at that -oint in th" night to insur" that th" :al&5art cl"rE
Aoul0 not D" Dur0"n"0 DB ha<ing to r"turn to court 0uring nor+al Dusin"ss hours shoul0 a
continuanc" ha<" D""n grant"0? stor+"0 u- to +" an0 0"+an0"0 3 assu+" a han0cu//"0
-osition, 0"s-it" +B -assionat" -l"as that 3 n""0"0 to D" aDl" to hit th" Isa<"K Dutton on +B
not"s /ro+ th" trial on +B n"tDooE co+-ut"r. %h" 5arshals tol0 +" that Aas not alloA"0 to
1' Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hit th" Isa<"K Dutton an0 that th"B 0i0nCt car" aDout +B not"s D"ing lost. 3ts r"allB Aas quit"
r"+arEaDl" th" ")t"nt to Ahich th"s" 5arshals tr"at"0 +" liE" 3 Gust EnocE"0 o// a liquor stor"
Aith a /ir"ar+, -istol Ahi--"0 th" cashi"r, th"n ha--"n"0 u-on th"+ in th" -arEing lot a/t"r
th"B Aitn"ss"0 th" "ntir" "<"nt.
8. 3 Aas taE"n DacE to a hol0ing c"ll /or s"<"ral +inut"s, Ah"r"u-on 3 Aas su++on"0 DacE into
th" court roo+ an0 @u0g" 4oAar0s -r"s"nc" Ah"r" h" talE"0 so+" +or". 2s 3 r"call, @u0g"
4oAar0 +"ntion"0 a 1$ 0aB li+itations -"rio0 or 0"a0lin" that Aoul0 D" running /ro+ th"
notic" o/ "ntrB o/ his V"r0ict an0 Cont"+-t (in0ing. @u0g" 4oAar0 +"ntion"0 that, gi<"n
that h" Aas incarc"rating +" /or th" n")t 3 0aBs, h" Aas going to ")t"n0 all 0"a0lin"s Ahich
+ight a--lB to anB notic"s o/ a--"al or +otions s""Eing a n"A trial, to s"t asi0" th" Gu0g+"nt,
<acat", "tc an a00itional thr"" 0aBs a/t"r th" nor+al ti+" on Ahich thos" li+itations -"rio0s
Aoul0 run. @u0g" 4oAar0 s""+"0 to ")-lain that this Aoul0 ha<" th" "//"ct o/ gi<ing +"
+or" ti+" to un0"rtaE" to /il" th"s" -l"a0ings, +otions, an0 notic"s i/ 3 so choos" so that th"
su++arB incarc"ration FAhich @u0g" 4oAar0 Aas sur" to -oint out Aoul0 not D" DailaDl" or
oth"rAis" circu+<"nt"0 DB anB att"+-ts to acc"ss Gustic"? Aoul0 not -r"Gu0ic" +B aDilitB to
0o so. 2s 3 un0"rstoo0 it this +"ant l"ngth"ning th" ti+" 3 ha0 to /il" such -a-"rs, not
short"ning it, an0 @u0g" 4oAar0 s""+"0 to in0icat" that th" -"rio0 to /il" such things Aoul0
still D" a0Gu0g"0 to D" Aithin th" 11 0aBs or l"ss cit"0 in N!C, 'Fa?, an0, as such, non
Gu0icial 0aBs Aoul0 not count toAar0s th" 1$ 0aBs Aithin Ahich 3 +ust /il" th" <arious -ost
V"r0ict -a-"rs 3 +ight Aant to /il". @u0g" 4oAar0 s""+"0 to in0icat" that th" thr"" a00itional
0aBs h" Aas granting +" Aoul0 D" a00"0 on a/t"r th" ")-iration o/ thos" 1$ non Gu0icial 0aBs
/ro+ notic" o/ "ntrB o/ @u0g" 4oAar0Cs 8r0"r Aas /il"0 Aith th" !5C an0 s"r<"0 u-on +".
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. 3t is +B r"coll"ction that @u0g" 4oAar0 th"n l"/t th" courtroo+ an0 3 Aas l"/t alon" Aith
aDout 4 5arshals, all coll"cting o<"rti+". 2t that -oint th" got a Dit rough Aith +" an0
start"0 s-"aEing in <"rB hostil", o+inous ton"s, sho<ing so+" -a-"rs in /ront o/ +B /ac", Dut
not long "nough /or +" to D" aDl" to r"a0 th"+ or 0isc"rn Ahat th"B r"lat"0 to. %h" 5arshals
D"gan 0"+an0ing that 3 sign th"s" -a-"rs. 3 asE"0 th"+ i/ th"B A"r" +ortgag" 0ocu+"nts or
-"rha-s so+" stu0"nt loan agr""+"nts or oth"r sorts o/ 0ocu+"nts /or Ahich anB r"asonaDl"
-"rson Aoul0 Aant an o--ortunitB to r"<i"A -rior to signing. %his +a0" th" 5arshals "<"n
+or" angrB than th"B nor+allB s""+, an0 th"B tB-icallB s""+ <"rB, <"rB angrB +ost o/ th"
ti+", to +" at l"ast. 3n /act, 5arshal 5"ntN"l, at 5B 8ctoD"r 11
th
, $11 arraign+"nt ha0
D"co+" "nrag"0 Aith +" /or asEign qu"stions aDout +B Si)th 2+"n0+"nt !ight to Couns"l. 3
r"-ort"0 this to th" court an0 "<"n +a0" a notation aDout it, 3 D"li"<", on th" 0ocu+"nt
5arshal 5"ntN"l 0"+an0"0 3 sign on that 0aB. %hat sa+" 0aB 5arshal 5"ntN"l criticiN"0 +"
to +B /ac" a/t"r 3 a--"ar"0 D"/or" @u0g" >ar0n"r /or th" arraign+"nt. 5"ntN"l tol0 +" 3 ha0
asE"0 @u0g" >ar0n"r stu-i0 qu"stions, an0 3 D"li"<" h" +a0" so+" oth"r insulting an0
thr"at"ning r"+arEs to +" at that ti+", Dut 3 a+ a Dit a/rai0 to g"t into h"r" in +uch 0"tail.
1$. So, on No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11, a/t"r @u0g" 4oAar0 l"/t th" courtroo+ th" 5arshals Aoul0 not
l"t +" r"a0 th" -a-"rs th"B Aant"0 +" to sign /or +or" than a s"con0 or tAo D"/or" th"B
D"gan houn0ing +" to sign th"+ in angrB an0 thr"at"ning ton"s. 3 Aas so 0istraught /ro+ th"
<arious irr"gulariti"s 3 -"rc"i<"0 in th" %rial, an0 that Aas onlB co+-oun0"0 DB th" thuggish
D"ha<ior o/ th" 5arshals, Aho quicElB in/or+"0 +" that th"B 0i0nCt ha<" ti+" /or +" to r"a0
anBthing an0 0ragg"0 +" aAaB to th" 3 0aBs o/ incarc"ration 3 /ac"0, Ahil" +B car Aas sur"
to g"t toA"0 F"s-"ciallB consi0"ring th" ."-ut""s at th" :asho" CountB @ail saA /it to r"/us"
to alloA +" to +aE" +or" than, 3 D"li"<", a singl" -hon" call, shortlB a/t"r arri<ing at th" Gail,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ah"r"u-on th"B A"nt into th"ir usual routin" o/ r"taliating against on" Aho r"/us"s to 0i<ulg"
th"ir r"ligious -r"/"r"nc" or on" Aho cannot ansA"r all o/ th"ir highlB in<asi<" qu"stions Aith
th" ")act 0"gr"" o/ s-"ci/icitB th"B 0"+an0. %his r"taliation, in +B cas", inclu0"0 /orcing +"
into so+" sort o/ -osition on +B En""s ")tr"+"lB clos" to th" crotch"s o/ s"<"ral :CS8
."-ut""s in so+" sort o/ sa0istic /orc"0 si+ulation o/ +B -"r/or+ing oral s") u-on th"+, at
l"ast /ro+ +B -oint o/ <i"A. 3 Aas -lac"0 in a /r""Ning col0 roo+, Aith a c"+"nt /loor, DB
+Bs"l/, in r"taliaton /or /ailing to 0isclos" +B r"ligious -r"/"r"nc" an0 in0icating that 3 Aas
not ")actlB sur" hoA +uch +on"B 3 +a0" "ach +onth gi<"n th" <ariaDl" natur" o/ +B
co+-"nsation. 3 Aas -lac" alon" in a hol0ing c"ll Aith nothing Dut a Aoo0"n D"nch, an0 th"
ic" col0 c"+"nt /loor 0u" to th" c"ll D"ing s"qu"st"r"0 aAaB /ro+ th" Duil0ings h"at sourc"s,
inclu0ing oth"r -"o-l". 5B 0og Aas l"/t to /"n0 /or its"l/. 5B 0og Aas /"atur" in this
."c"+D"rCs N"<a0a 7aAB"r +agaNin", @acEson ,aAlucE, a 3 B"ar ol0 ,"Eingn"s".
11. 3 .aBs lat"r Ah"n 3 Aas r"l"as" /ro+ Gail, th" -"rsonal -ro-"rtB r"turn"0 to +" 0i0 not
inclu0"0 anB V"r0ict or Cont"+-t (in0ing18r0"r r"lat"0 to th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial in
!5C 11 C! 17'. 3 call"0 s"<"ral ti+"s in th" 0aBs /olloAing +B r"l"as" an0 s-oE" Aith
V"ronica 7o-"N Fthough it tooE s"<"ral 0aBs to asc"rtain h"r last na+" gi<"n that n"ith"r sh"
nor anBon" associat"0 Aith th" !5C Aoul0 0i<ulg" it to +"? Aho+ in/or+"0 +" that 3 ha0
D""n s"r<"0 @u0g" 4oAar0Cs 8r0"r at th" conclusion o/ th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial. 5s.
7o-"N i++"0iat"lB tooE a DullBing, hostil", aggr"ssi<" ton" Aith +" that s""+ co+-l"t"lB out
o/ -lac" co+ing /ro+ h"r gi<"n th" -osition o/ authoritB th" -uDlic has "ntrust"0 h"r Aith an0
Ahat 3 /""l is a 0utB on h"r -art to att"+-t to co+" across as IGu0icialK rath"r than tBrannical.
1. 3 in/or+"0 5s. 7o-"N that 3 0i0 not /""l 3 ha0 D""n s"r<"0 at all, an0 that 3 Aas not at all sur"
Ahat sh" Aas r"/"rring to, Dut that 3 Aoul0 0"/init"lB liE" to g"t a co-B o/ anB 8r0"r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i++"0iat"lB, as A"ll as a co-B o/ th" au0io o/ th" %rial. 3 D"li"<" 5s. 7o-"N in/or+"0 +"
that 3 Aoul0 not D" alloA"0 a co-B o/ th" au0io, Dut that 3 Aoul0 n""0 to -aB /or a transcri-t to
D" +a0". 3 a+ sur", hoA"<"r, that a /"+al" !5C /iling o//ic" count"r "+-loB"" tol0 +" on
or aDout th" sa+" 0aB that 3 Aoul0 not "<"r D" -ro<i0"0 a co-B o/ th" au0io r"cor0ing o/ th"
trial Dut that 3 Aoul0 n""0 to -aB to ha<" a transcri-t +a0", an0 that 3 coul0 onlB us" ,a+
7ongoni, th" !5CCs 8//icial %ranscri-tist.
13. 3 call"0 5s. 7ongoni an0 Ah"n 3 /inallB got ahol0 o/ h"r sh" in/or+"0 +" that sh" Aoul0 n""0
th" !5C to alloA h"r acc"ss to th" au0io F0"s-it" h"r D"ing IlinE"0K to th" !5CCs sBst"+s?,
an0 that until that Aas 0on", sh" coul0 not quot" +" an "sti+at" /or th" transcri-t cost, nor
coul0 sh" acc"-t anB -aB+"nt /or+ +". 3 D"li"<" 5s. 7ongoni /urth"r in0icat"0 to +" that 3
Aoul0 not D" aDl" to g"t a co-B o/ th" actual au0io r"cor0ing "ith"r
14. 3 ha<" s"nt s"<"ral Aritt"n co++unications an0 ha0 s"<"ral <"rDal co++unications Aith ..
Ballar0 an0 oth"r !5C -"rsonn"l ")-r"ssing +B ")ig"nt 0"sir" to g"t a co-B o/ th" au0io o/
th" %rial, an0 hoA n"c"ssarB it Aas to -r"-aring /ilings1+otions1-l"a0ings /or Ahich 3 ha0 a
<"rB li+it"0 -"rio0 o/ ti+" to cra/t.
1#. B"/or", Ahil", an0 a/t"r s-"aEing Aith 5s. Ballar0, a g"ntl"+an Ahos" na+" "sca-"s +" Dut
Aho is a /iling count"r cl"rE at th" !5C tol0 +" 3 Aoul0 n""0 to g"t a suD-o"na to g"t a co-B
o/ th" !5C 0ocE"t in +B cas", an0 that h" coul0nCt gi<" +" co-i"s o/ anBthing in +B cas",
c"rtainlB not th" 8r0"r st"++ing /ro+ th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial, that h" 0i0 not ha<"
acc"ss to such, an0 "<"n i/ h" 0i0, Aoul0 not -ro<i0" it, an0 that his sBst"+ 0i0 not shoA
"ntrB o/ anBthing in conn"ction Aith th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial. 4" /urth"r <"ri/i"0 that
th"r" ha0 not D""n anB "ntrB in his I0ocE"tK /or !5C 11 C!17' 3 an0 that no Notic" o/
EntrB o/ 8r0"r or EntrB o/ 8r0"r ")ist"0 in his sBt"+ or co+-ut"r /or that +att"r /olloAing
$ Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
th" %rial. 4" 0i0 in0icat" that Ith"BK sai0 th" 5otion /or N"A %rial that 3 ha0 r"c"ntlB /il"0
Aas ti+"lB, an0 3 D"li"<" h" sai0 Ith"BK sai0 th" 0aB h" an0 3 A"r" curr"ntlB s-"aEing Aas
Ith" last 0aB th"B ga<" Bou to /il"K, Ahich 3 D"li"<" %u"s0aB, ."c"+D"r 13
th
, an0 gi<"n th"
Ia00itional 3 0aBsK languag" that 3 r"call @u0g" 4oAar0 +"ntioning h" Aas a00ing on to
alloA +" +or" ti+" to /il", Aoul0 +"an that Ith"BK F3 tooE Ith"BK to D" IV"ronicaK, Aho+
th" g"ntl"+an cl"rE st"a0/astlB r"/us"0 to i0"nti/B DB last na+" an0 /or Ahich th" -hon"
nu+D"r h" Arot" 0oAn /or +" in his oAn han0Ariting Aith IV"ronicaK Aritt"n out turn"0 out
to D" a 0isconn"ct"0 nu+D"r? ha0 assu+"0 s"r<ic" Aas a--ro-riat"lB -"r/or+"0 at th"
conclusion o/ th" %rial, an0 that 13 0aBs D"gan running on th" /olloAing 0aB, that th" hal/ a
0aB th" !5C is o-"n on (ri0aBs Aoul0 count as a /ull Gu0icial 0aB, an0 that non Gu0icial 0aBs
Aoul0 D" inclu0"0 in counting toAar0s this 13 0aBs gi<"n th" AaB Ith"BK or IV"ronicaK ha0
int"r-r"t"0 @u0g" 4oAar0Cs 8r0"r, a--ar"ntlB in a AaB that +a0" th" ti+" 3 ha0 to /il" th"s"
<arious -a-"rs short"r than it Aoul0 ha<" D""n ha0 @u0g" 4oAar0 si+-lB not grant"0 an
a00itional thr"" 0aBs gi<"n th" 0ictat"s o/ not counting non Gu0icial 0aBs in N!C, 'F"?. 3t is
+B un0"rstan0ing, hoA"<"r, th" 3 ha<" not "<"n D""n s"r<"0 this V"r0ict18r0"r, an0 that anB
li+itations -"rio0 +ust not "<"n D"gin running until 3 a+ a--ro-riat"lB s"r<"0. V"ronica
a0+itt"0 to +" on th" -hon", 3 D"li"<" on 5on0aB or %u"s0aB Ah"n 3 call"0 h"r /ro+ th"
/r"" -hon" in th" :asho" CountB 7aA liDrarB Aith laA liDarian "+-loB"" 7in0a BlaE"l"B
sitting Aithin "arshot, that th" !5C /"lt it ha0 a--ro-riat"lB s"r<"0 +" th" 8r0"r at th"
conlcusion o/ th" trial an0 ha0 /ail"0 to oth"rAis" s"n0 +" a co-B in th" +ail or DB /a). 3
asE"0 5s. 7o-"N i/ 3 coul0 g"t a co-B o/ th" 8r0"r, as A"ll as anB oth"r 8r0"rs that ha0 D""n
issu"0 in th" cas". Sh" agr"" to /a) +" onlB th" 8r0"r /ro+ th" conclusion o/ th" No<"+D"r
3$
th
, $11 %rial, r"/using to -ro<i0" anB oth"r 8r0"rs. 2s o/ B"t, 0"s-it" r"a0ing DacE to h"r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
+B /a) nu+D"r at l"ast tAic", 3 ha<" B"t to r"c"i<" a /a) containing anBthing /ro+ th" !5C,
+uch l"ss th" 8r0"r /olloAing th" No<"+D"r 3$, $11 %rial.
2,,73C2%38N (8! .E(E!!27 8! :23VE! 8( C86!% (EES 2N. C8S%
%his is an 2--lication /or ."/"rral o/ Court (""s an0 Costs.
S%2%E5EN%S 52.E %8 %4E C86!% 6N.E! 82%4. 3 sA"ar or a//ir+ that th" in/or+ation in this a--lication is
tru" an0 corr"ct. 3 +aE" this stat"+"nt un0"r th" -"naltB o/ -ros"cution /or -"rGurB i/ it is 0"t"r+in"0 that 3 0i0 not t"ll th"
truth.
3 a+ r"qu"sting a 0"/"rral or Aai<"r o/ th" /olloAing /""s an0 costs in +B cas":
UUU)UUU2nB or all o/ th" /olloAing: 2ll /iling /""s; /""s /or th" issuanc" o/ "ith"r a su++ons an0 suD-o"na;
UUU)UUU(""s /or oDtaining on" c"rti/i"0 co-B o/ a t"+-orarB or0"r in a 0o+"stic r"lations cas" or a /inal or0"r, Gu0g+"nt
or 0"cr"" in all cri+inal -roc""0ings.
UUU)UUU(""s /or s"r<ic" o/ -roc"ss DB a sh"ri//, +arshal, constaDl" or laA "n/orc"+"nt. (""s /or s"r<ic" DB -uDlication.
UUUVUUU(iling /""s an0 -hotoco-B /""s /or th" -r"-aration o/ th" r"cor0 on a--"al.
UUUVUUUCourt r"-ort"rWs /""s o/ r"-ort"rs or transcriD"rs "+-loB"0 DB th" court /or th" -r"-aration o/ th" transcri-t.
%h" Dasis /or th" r"qu"st is:
1. :23VE!: 3 a+ -"r+an"ntlB unaDl" to -aB. 5B inco+" an0 liqui0 ass"ts ar" insu//ici"nt or Dar"lB su//ici"nt to +""t
th" 0ailB "ss"ntials o/ li/" an0 unliE"lB to chang" in th" /or"s""aDl" /utur".
. .E(E!!27:
a. 5B inco+" is insu//ici"nt or is Dar"lB su//ici"nt to +""t th" 0ailB "ss"ntials o/ li/", an0 inclu0"s no allot+"nt that coul0
D" Du0g"t"0 /or th" /""s an0 costs that ar" r"quir"0 to gain acc"ss to th" court.
D. 3 0o not ha<" th" +on"B to -aB th" court /""s an0 costs noA. 3 0o not EnoA i/ 3 can -aB th" /""s an0 costs at a lat"r
0at".
2((3!52%38N ,ursuant to N!S 39B.$3$
%h" un0"rsign"0 0o"s h"r"DB a//ir+ that th" -r"c"0ing 0ocu+"nt 0o"s not contain
th" social s"curitB nu+D"r o/ anB -"rson.
,ursuant to N!S #3.$4#, 3 0"clar" un0"r -"naltB o/ -"rGurB that th" /or"going is tru" an0 corr"ct. E)"cut"0 on ."c"+D"r
1', $11
.2%E. this ."c"+D"r 1'th, $11
U1s1 Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
."/"n0ant
Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
! :

,
, !
i

I
i

,
,

, ,
,
!
l
i
l
l
,
,
lid
I
,'
I

I
' ] :

i
:
I'
,
I

I
'I
J i"
II
"
I
I
,
"
"
I
,

II
I
I
,

I
,

,
84599J5
I
j07e-4bd b93.c-65c3Zba

: I '

I
I
,
i 1
'1
'

, ;il'
I
i
'

I ,
I
',
,"
"
: I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
,I ,t

3
Ii
From: zachcough'tn

12-16-11 7:41.. p. 24 of 24
POOF O SERYCE
I' ! O December 16, 2011, I,
i ',I " I
I
ad 1 ing a true copy thereof to:
5
Mr. Zach Coughlin served the foregoing document by emailing
Pame a G Robets, Esq.
,
Reno
,
ity Attorey's Office - Criminal Divison
..( ,Box 1900 Reno , NV 89505
,
Phon Number: 775-334-2050
! F
ax n mber: 775-334-2420
ov
D THIS 16t day of December, 2011 BY:
I JI
::
:

! ::1
I) ,i
2
i

1
I! '"
:
-

'ii,'
1'1
:
:
II I
, I'
i:
i
:
I,
!
I
:
I
i
:
I
I
2

i !
11'1

, ,I
,,23
t
.
'
111
"
li
il
I I'!
'I'
.

I'
' I; i ,
i!
Ii
i
,I
,
;1
j
I
I,
+
ofSeric ' s 0
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
Tele: 775229!7"7
#a$: 9%9!!77%02
&ro 'er (e)en*ant+,''ellant
-.ST/C0 C1.RT R0N1 T12NS3/&
2,S310 C1.NT4, N0V,(,
C/T4 1# R0N15
&lainti)).
;
;
6.
Z,C3,R4 7,R80R C1.93:/N
(e)en*ant.
;
;
;
Ca<e No:11 CR 2217! 2/
(e't No: -u*ge 3o=ar*
;
; S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal,
; >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59,
; -CRC& !0, >otion )or Recon<i*eration5
>otion )or Recu<al5 >otion to Stri?e
S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
>otion )or Recon<i*eration5 >otion )or Recu<al
1
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Recon<i*eration5 >otion )or Recu<al5 >otion #or &u@lication 1) Tran<cri't at &u@lic 0$'en<e,
&etition )or /n #orAa &au'eri< Statu<
&1/NTS ,N( ,.T31R/T/0S
C,S0 ,&&0,: ST,T0>0NT
(e)en*ant+,''ellant, Zach Coughlin, here@B )ile< thi< Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an*
or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0, >otion )or Recon<i*eration5 >otion )or Recu<al5 >otion #or
&u@lication 1) Tran<cri't at &u@lic 0$'en<e, &etition )or /n #orAa &au'eri< Statu<.
&1/NTS ,N( ,.T31R/T/0S
/ =aCR Rule !: Continuance< No continuance <hall @e grante*, inclu*ing a <ti'ulate* continuance,
e$ce't )or goo* cau<e. , Aotion or <ti'ulation )or continuance Au<t <tate the rea<on there)ore an*
=hether or not anB continuance ha< 're6iou<lB @een <ought or grante*.
R>CR Rule 9: ,''eal< to (i<trict Court 0$ce't a< other=i<e 'ro6i*e* in NRS 177.015 a
*e)en*ant in a criAinal action trie* @e)ore a >unici'al Court -u*ge AaB a''eal )roA the )inal
Du*gAent therein to the Secon* -u*icial (i<trict Court, at anB tiAe =ithin 10 *aB< )roA the *ate that
Du*gAent i< ren*ere*. The right to coun<el in trial court< =a< <igni)icantlB e$'an*e* in another ca<e =hen the Court,
in Argersinger v. Hamlin, e$ten*e* the right to coun<el to all Ai<*eAeanor <tate 'rocee*ing< =here there i< a 'otential
lo<< o) li@ertB. The *e)en*ant coul* ha6e )ace* u' to <i$ Aonth< in Dail )or thi< o))en<e un*er either <ai* co*e or <tatue.
/ *o not Aean to @e *i<re<'ect)ul in contacting the court 6ia eAail. / ha6e @een <o
<taA'e* out @B the e6ent< o) the la<t )e= Aonth< that it< all / can *o to trB to 'rotect
AB right< to get in)orAation an* Ae*ia to the court in AB atteA't< to acce<< Du<tice.
2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Veronica :o'eE tol* Ae on the 'hone on >on*aB o) thi< =ee? that <he =oul* )a$ Ae a co'B o) the
1r*er an* ConteA't )in*ing )roA the 11 "0, 2011 Trial, Bet / ha6e not recei6e* anB <uch )a$. / ha6e
not recei6e* anB or*er in anB )orA, not on AB relea<e )roA the " *aB< <uAAarB incarceration, not
e6er. The R>C con)irAe* there ha< @een no Notice o) 0ntrB o) anB or*er in their *oc?et or anBthing,
etc.
The R>C an* Reno CitB ,ttorneB iA'ro'erlB a<<erte* Duri<i*ction o6er thi< Aatter. /t occurre* on
/n*ian lan*<. The RS/C o))icer< *i* not a<certain AB race. There e$i<t< a Fue<tion a< to =hether
Duri<*iction =a< 'ro'erlB a<<erte* @B the R>C. Reno CitB ,ttorneB =rote to Ae o) a''ro6ing o) a
continuance, onlB to @ac? out at Trial. 9oo* cau<e =a< <ho=n )or a continuance an* / <ho=e* u' to
the )ir<t trial *ate, / =a< not @rought into the court rooA. / *o not @elie6e, a< <uch, anB continuance
=a< e6er grante* 're6iou<lB. #urther, the R>C )aile* to @ring Ae into court on No6eA@er 1%
th
,
2011. (ue to court 'er<onnel re)u<ing to 'ro6i*e Ae a co'B o) the or*er or @e u' )ront =ith re<'ect
to <er6ice, thi< )iling i< Aore ha'haEar* than it =oul* other=i<e @e.
/ @elie6e the )ollo=ing <houl* @e a**e* to recor* an* 're<ent< a <trong arguAent )or a
con)lict o) intere<t or other !0G@; @a<i< )or <etting a<i*e the 6er*ict an* conteA't 1r*er
in R>C 11 CR 2217! 2/. / *i* not 'lea* guiltB in that ca<e, an* anB R>C recor* that
<ugge<t< that i< coA'letelB inaccurate. &lea<e let Ae ?no= i) Bour recor*< in*icate /
'lea* guiltB in that Aatter. #urther, / ha6e ne6er @een 'ro6i*e* a co'B o) the 9uiltB
Ver*ict+1r*er in thi< Aatter, / reFue<te* on to @e eAaile* to Ae an* <ent in the .S&S
Aail. &lea<e <er6e Ae a co'B o) the or*er, 're)era@lB @B eAail an* .S&S Aail.
#urther, the HR>CI< o))icial court tran<cri'tioni<tH in)orAe* Ae Be<ter*aB that <he
coul* not Fuote Ae or acce't an AoneB )roA Ae )or the tran<cri't on a''eal. #urther /
"

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
ha6e @een tol* @B court <ta)) that / =oul* ne6er @e 'ro6i*e* acce<< to the au*io
recor*ing o) the Trial o) 11 "0, 2011. / @elie6e / ha6e a right to it, an* nee* it on an
e$igent @a<i< in connection =ith the 6ariou< Aotion< / ha6e, =ill, or inten* to to )ile
challenging the *eci<ion in thi< ca<e. The R>C )iling o))ice in)orAe* Ae there ha<
@een no Notice o) 0ntrB o) 1r*er in thi< Aatter at thi< 'oint.
The Reno CitB ,ttorneB ha< a 6e<te* intere<t in getting a con6iction in R>C 11 CR
2217! 2/ =ith re<'ect to antici'ate* litigation in connection =ith the =rong)ul arre<t
an* 'olice Ai<con*uct <ho=n in the 6i*eo< @elo=, a< <uch a NRC& !0G@; @a<i< e$i<t<
)or <etting a<i*e anB 6er*ict entere* in R>C 11 CR 2217! 2/:
/ a<? that all the 6i*eo< at the Boutu@e account lin?e* to @elo= @e a**e* to the recor*
an* con<i*ere*.htt':++Boutu.@e+5&R7F%1/5@0
htt':++===.Boutu@e.coA+u<er+anonBAou<'ri6acBJ)eatureK=atch
'ro<ecutorial Ai<con*uct G<uch a< the (.,. =ithhol*ing He$cul'atorBH e6i*ence that coul*L6e hel'e* AB *e)en<e;
Du*icial error< G<uch a< the Du*ge 'erAitting e6i*ence that <houl*L6e @een e$clu*e* or 6ice 6er<a;
erroneou< a''lication o) a la= or regulation iA'ro'er DurB in<truction<
ine))ecti6e a<<i<tance o) coun<el or other Aal'ractice the e6i*ence *i* not 'ro6e Bour guilt @eBon* a rea<ona@le *ou@t
/ =ent to the )iling o))ice at the R>C a cou'le tiAe< recentlB, inclu*ing to*aB, an* <ent in another =ritten reFue<t <ee?ing
an au*io ta'e o) the Trial in R>C 11 CR 2217! /C 110!27 RS/C @ut =a< tol* @B a Cler? that / =oul* nee* to 'aB )or
%
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
the entire Trial to @e tran<cri@e*, an* onlB then =oul* / @e allo=e* to rea* it, an* that / =oul* not @e allo=e* to acce<<
the au*io o) the hearingJ /< thi< correctJ / nee* to ha6e the au*io o) the Trial to )ini<h AB Rule 59, !0, an* >otion )or
Recon<i*eration >otion<..../ =ill 'aB )or the au*io. / ha6e recei6e* AanB au*io c*+*6*I< )roA @oth Reno -u<tice Court
an* 2a<hoe (i<trict Court, an* it =a< announce* in court that the trial =a< @eing au*io recor*e*, a< <uch, / ho'e Bou =ill
a))or* Ae a co'B. To*aB, / calle* the R>C an* <'o?e =ith Veronica, =ho <oun*e* 6erB angrB =ith Ae an* *i<Ai<<i6e. /
=a< <uAAarilB <entence* to " *aB< in Dail at the en* o) the trial in thi< Aatter, e6en =here / ha* @een *enie* AB Si$th
,Aen*Aent Right To Coun<el, a)ter a ConteA't coAAitte* in the courtI< 're<ence )in*ing =a< announce*, in a**ition to
a guiltB 6er*ict in the un*erlBing action. Veronica in)orAe* Ae that <he =a< at the trial an* that the R>C ha* )aile* to
Aail Ae or other=i<e <er6e Ae =ith a co'B o) the =ritten 1r*er, either )or the guiltB con6iction in the un*erlBing ca<e or
the conteA't or*er. / =a< )orce* into han*cu))< <o Fuic?lB ater -u*ge 3o=ar* conclu*e* i<<uing hi< oral ruling that / =a<
not e6en a@le to <a6e AB note< on AB coA'uter, it =a< literallB a''arentlB that e$igent a <ituation to han*cu)) Ae....Then
a )e= >ar<hall< 'lace <oAe 'iece< o) 'a'er in )ront o) Ae an* *eAan*e* / <ign theA, an* @ecaAe angrB, li?e Veronica
an* li?e >ar<hall >onte, / @elie6e, =a< at the arraingAent, =hen / a<?e* a <iA'le Fue<tion relate* to *ue 'roce<<,
<oAething AanB at the R>C *o not <eeA all that enaAore* =ith. / a<?e* i) / coul* e6en rea* the 'a'er< theB =ere
*eAan*ing / <ign right then an* there. The curtlB an* lou*lB <ai* no, then *ragge* Ae a=aB @e)ore / coul* rea* the
'a'er<, Auch le<< <ign theA. Veronica <narle* at Ae that that =a< all the <er6ice o) the 1r*er o) ConteA't an* 9uiltB
Ver*ict that / =oul* get, @ut that <he Aight )a$ it to Ae, ho=e6er, no )a$ ha< arri6e*, *e<'ite AB illu<trating the
e$igencie< o) recei6ing the 1r*er in 're'aring AB Relie) #roA -u*gAent >otion<. Veronica continue to curtlB re)u<e to
'ro6i*e Ae anB co'B o) anB o) the 're6iou<lB )ile* 1r*er< o) the Court unle<< / 'ai* )or theA, *e<'ite AB a''arentlB not
ha6ing @een 'ro6i*e* a co'B o) <uch or*er< in the )ir<t 'lace. / ha6e no i*ea =hat tho<e 'a'er< =ere GtheB certainlB =ere
not in the 'ro'ertB gi6en to Ae u'on AB relea<e )roA Dail; an* ha6e recei6e* nothing in the Aail, *e<'ite u'*ating the
R>C =ith AB ne= a**re<< o): 817 N. Virginia St. #2, Reno NV 89501 an* )iling an o))icial Change o) ,**re<< =ith the
.S&S <hortlB a)ter / =a< <uAAarilB e6icte* G*e<'ite there @eing onlB a No Cau<e SuAAarB 06iction notice again<t AB
coAAercial lea<e, <oAething entirelB 'ro@i@ite* again<t un*er NRS %0.25". Not onlB =a< / *enie* AB Si$th ,Aen*Aent
Right to Coun<el =here Dail tiAe =a< a 'o<<i@ilitB Gan* =here, /, in )act =a< Daile*, iAAe*iatelB;. / =a< *enie* a
continuance in thi< Aatter *e<'ite a =ritten a<<ent to one @B Reno CitB ,ttorneB &aA Ro@ert< an* *e<'ite the )act that the
Reno CitB ,ttorneB =a< gi6en one @B AB <u''o<e* a''ointe* coun<el :e= Taitel G=hoA i< Ha<<ociate* =ithH
G htt':++===.ne6c<.coA+attorneB.htAl ; an entitB that / ha''en to @e <uing Ne6a*a Court Ser6ice<, inci*ent to the <aAe
e6iction 'rocee*ing )or =hich >r. Taitel *i* grant, an* the R>C *i* grant, a continuance in the other R>C ca<e again<t
Ae, the tre<'a<< action that =a< <et )or trial on (eceA@er 1"th, @ecau<e Richar* 9. 3ill, =ho / aA al<o <uing in
connection =ith the =rong)ul e6iction again<t, =a< going to @e on 6acation an* the R>C a''arentlB )oun* that a goo*
rea<on )or a continuance, coA'are* to the R>C )eeling AB @eing e6iction on or aroun* No6eA@er 1"th, then =rong)ullB
arre<te* in connection =ith the e6iction, un*er a tre<'a<< charge, an* incarcerate* )or a nuA@er o) *aB<, all =hile Richar*
3ill a''lie* an unla=)ul rent *i<traint u'on AanB e$cul'atorB Aaterial< that =oul* <'ea? to a <tate* an* e$'re<<
retaliatorB Aoti6e on the 'art o) 2alAart an* the RS/C, an* other e$cul'atorB Aaterial< @eing =rong)ullB =ithhel* un*er
an unla=)ul rent *i<traint @B Richar* 9. 3ill, 0<F., the <aAe 'er<on >r. Taitel, the Reno CitB ,ttorneB, an* the R>C
*eci*e* *e<er6e* <uch <anctitB a''lie* to hi< Aonthlong 6acation )roA Than?<gi6ing to Ne= 4earI< to grant a
continuance, =ith no in'ut )roA Ae.
#,/:.R0 T1 ,##1R( S/CT3 ,>0N(>0NT R/93T T1 C1.NS0: 1R 9R,NT (0>,N( #1R -.R4 TR/,:5
another (0>,N( #1R -.R4 TR/,: 30R074 >,(0 /N 0V0NT 1# N02 TR/,:, S/>/:,R:4 R0M.0ST #1R
/N #1R>, &,.&0R/S ST,T.S 30R074 >,(0 ,N( S.&&1RT0( 74 ,TT,C30( /#& &0T/T/1N
Cu<toA (ige<t 10 3ea*note<
Ru*in 6. State, 8! &."* 572
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110CC/ >otion< )or Ne= Trial
110?911 ?. (i<cretion o) court a< to ne= trial.
Ne6.,200%
Trial court e$erci<e< *i<cretion =hen con<i*ering a Aotion )or ne= trial.
>orten<en 6. State, 98! &.2* 1105
5
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ne6.,1999
9rant or *enial o) a ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< =ithin the *i<cretion o)
the trial court an* =ill not @e re6er<e* on a''eal a@<ent an a@u<e o) that *i<cretion.
Ri''o 6. State, 9%! &.2* 1017
Ne6.,1997
2hether to grant or *enB Aotion )or ne= trial i< =ithin trial courtI< *i<cretion.
(oAingue< 6. State, 917 &.2* 1"!%
Ne6.,199!
(eci<ion to grant or *enB Aotion )or ne= trial re<t< =ithin <oun* *i<cretion o) trial court an*
=ill not @e *i<tur@e* on a''eal a@<ent 'al'a@le a@u<e.
State 6. Carroll, 8!0 &.2* 179
Ne6.,199"
9enerallB, *i<trict court enDoB< *i<cretion in granting or *enBing Aotion< )or ne= trial<.
State 6. Soren<on, "15 &.2* 508
Ne6.,1957
The *i<cretion to <et a<i*e a Du*gAent or to grant a ne= trial, a)ter con6iction, on groun* o)
error =hich ha< re<ulte* in a Ai<carriage o) Du<tice or ha< actuallB 'reDu*ice* the *e)en*ant in
re<'ect to a <u@<tantial right, i< 6e<te* in the trial court a)ter it< e$aAination o) the entire ca<e.
N.R.S. 1!9.110.
State 6. Varga, 205 &.2* 80"
Ne6.,19%9
/n 'ro<ecution )or hoAici*e, *enial o) *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial =a< =ithin <oun* *i<cretion
o) the court an* =a< Du<ti)ie* in 6ie= o) the e6i*ence 'ro*uce* at the trial.
N.C.:.1929, N 110"2, a< aAen*e*.
State 6. St. Clair, 1! Ne6. 207
Ne6.,1881
The grant or re)u<al o) a ne= trial )or Ai<con*uct o) Duror< i< *i<cretionarB.
State 6. Salge, 2 Ne6. "21
Ne6.,18!!
>otion )or ne= trial i< a**re<<e* to trial courtI< <oun* *i<cretion.
Cu<toA (ige<t % 3ea*note<
Ri''o 6. State, 9%! &.2* 1017
!
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 91" 9roun*< )or Ne= Trial in 9eneral
110?91"G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,1997
CriAinal *e)en*antI< un<u''orte* allegation that he learne* a)ter trial that trial Du*ge ha* relation<hi'
=ith @u<ine<< 'artner o) 6ictiA *i* not <u''ort )in*ing that Du*ge a@u<e* hi< *i<cretion
in re)u<ing to *i<Fuali)B hiA<el)5 accor*inglB, *e)en*ant =a< not entitle* to ne= trial.
Co*e o) -u*.Con*uct, Canon " coAAent.
State 6. 2al?er, 857 &.2* 1
Ne6.,199"
.n*er Ne6a*a la= a< it e$i<te* 'rior to e))ecti6e *ate o) <tatute 'erAitting entrB o) Du*gAent
o) acFuittal i) e6i*ence i< in<u))icient to <u''ort con6iction, *i<trict Du*ge coul* grant ne= trial
)ollo=ing return o) guiltB 6er*ict =here he or <he *i<agree* =ith DurBI< re<olution o) con)licting
e6i*ence, @ut not =here there =a< in<u))icient e6i*ence to <u''ort guiltB 6er*ict.
N.R.S. 175."81 , 17!.515 5 ..S.C.,. Con<t.,Aen*. 5 .
3atten 6. State, %"5 &.2* %95
Ne6.,19!7
,''earance o) ne=<'a'er article a)ter *e)en*ant< )ile* Aotion )or ne= trial =herein Aention
=a< Aa*e o) *e)en*ant<I reFue<t to *i<charge their attorneB an* =herein it =a< re'orte* that
<heri)) ha* <ai* that he ha* not <een anB <ign< o) =ith*ra=al @B one *e)en*ant )roA narcotic<
or alcoholi<A *i* not entitle *e)en*ant< to ne= trial. N.R.S. 175.5"5.
Re)erence<
/NC1>&0T0NT &R/NC/&,:S, C1>&0T0NT T3/R( &,RT/0S, ,N( T30 :,2 1#
,90NC4 !1 /n*iana :a= -ournal 115 G198!;
Cu<toA (ige<t " 3ea*note<
:aneB 6. State, %!! &.2* !!!
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?915 ?. (e)ect< in in*ictAent or in)orAation a< groun* )or ne= trial.
Ne6.,1970
-u*gAent =ill not @e <et a<i*e or ne= trial grante* in criAinal ca<e unle<< accu<e* i< a@le to
7
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
a))irAati6elB *eAon<trate that in)orAation i< <o in<u))icient that it re<ult< in Ai<carriage o)
Du<tice or actuallB 'reDu*ice< hiA in re<'ect to a <u@<tantial right. N.R.S. 17".075 .
9ar*en 6. State, "18 &.2* !52
Ne6.,1957
/n 'ro<ecution )or <tatutorB ra'e o) 12 Bear ol* girl, although e6i*ence )i$e* *ate o) criAe a<
>aB 21 rather than >aB 20 a< charge* in the in)orAation, 6ariance =a< not Aaterial an* =a<
not groun* )or ne= trial =here no atteA't ha* @een Aa*e to <ho= ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence.
9eorge 6. State, 127 &."* 1055
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 918 0rror< an* /rregularitie< in Con*uct o) Trial
110?918G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,200!
/n*igent *e)en*ant =a< entitle* to tran<cri't< o) trial )or 'ur'o<e< o) *irect a''eal )roA Aulti'le
con6iction< )or <e$ual a<<ault an* le=*ne<< =ith Ainor, an* there)ore, *e<truction o)
tran<cri't< an* trial e6i*ence @B State nece<<itate* ne= trial.
(oAingue< 6. State, 917 &.2* 1"!%
Ne6.,199!
Trial courtI< *enial o) *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial =hich =a< @a<e* on reAar?< Aa*e @B
*e)en*antI< girl)rien* *uring trial that *e)en*ant ha* elu*e* la= en)orceAent in the 'a<t *i*
not con<titute a@u<e o) *i<cretion5 <tateAent< =ere <'ontaneou<lB uttere* an* there =a< no @a*
)aith on 'art o) 'ro<ecution regar*ing their elicitation, an* a*Ai<<ion o) <tateAent< =a< harAle<<
@eBon* rea<ona@le *ou@t in light o) other a*Ai<<i@le e6i*ence that *e)en*ant ha* <e6eral
're6iou< encounter< =ith la= en)orceAent o))icial<.
:o'eE 6. State, 7!9 &.2* 127!
Ne6.,1989
,@<ence o) trial tran<cri't )or one *aB o) trial *ue to Aal)ea<ance o) court re'orter *i* not
=arrant ne= trial =here te<tiAonB o) <i$ =itne<<e< =ho te<ti)ie* that *aB =a< recon<tructe*
through coA@ination o) note< ta?en @B t=o <tate trial coun<el an* =a< acce'te* @B trial court
a< )air re're<entation o) =itne<<e/N,: :,2
110?918G2; ?. /rregularitie< a))ecting =itne<<e<.
Ne6.,2009
, non0ngli<h<'ea?ing *e)en*ant =ho *i<co6er< inter'reter inaccuracie< in the tran<lation o)
trial te<tiAonB AaB )ile a 'o<ttrial Aotion to challenge the allege* inaccuracie< Aa*e @B the
courta''ointe* inter'reter5 i) there i< a challenge to the inter'reterI< tran<lation o) the trial
te<tiAonB, the challenging 'artB <houl* either Ao6e )or a ne= trial, i) the tran<lation inaccuracie<
are *i<co6ere* =ithin the a''lica@le tiAe )raAe, or, in the alternati6e, Ao6e to Ao*i)B
or correct the trial recor* on a''eal. 2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 5 Rule< ,''.&roc., Rule 10Gc; .
Ne6.,2009
,< )ir<t o) three <te'< in6ol6e* on a non0ngli<h<'ea?ing *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial
@a<e* on allege* inaccuracie< o) hi< tran<late* trial te<tiAonB, each 'artB <houl* ha6e it< o=n
inter'reter re6ie= the tran<late* te<tiAonB )or *i<cre'ancie<5 i) *i<cre'ancie< e$i<t, the *e)en*ant
ha< the @ur*en o) *eAon<trating the inaccuracB o) the tran<late* te<tiAonB an* that it
)un*aAentallB altere* the <u@<tance o) hi< actual te<tiAonB. 2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 .
Ne6.,2009
,< <econ* o) three <te'< in6ol6e* on a non0ngli<h<'ea?ing *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial
@a<e* on allege* inaccuracie< o) hi< tran<late* trial te<tiAonB, the *i<trict court <houl* a''oint
an in*e'en*ent an*, i) a6aila@le, certi)ie* court inter'reter to re6ie= the tran<lation<5 to *eterAine
=hether the *e)en*ant ha< Aet hi< @ur*en o) *eAon<trating the inaccuracB o) the
tran<late* te<tiAonB, the *i<trict court Au<t con<i*er the *i<'ute* 6er<ion< o) the te<tiAonB to
*eterAine =hether the allege* inaccuracie< or oAi<<ion< )un*aAentallB altere* the conte$t o)
the *e)en*antI< te<tiAonB an* =hether the inaccuracie< 'reDu*ice* the *e)en*ant <uch that a
ne= trial i< =arrante*. 2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 .
Re)erence<
Con*ition inter)ering =ith accu<e*I< 6ie= o) =itne<< a< 6iolation o) right o) con)rontation 19
,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th 128! G198";
9
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
2al?er 6. State, 59% &.2* 710
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?918G"; ?. SuAAoning, iA'aneling, an* oath o) DurB.
Ne6.,1979
(eterAination o) =hat re<ult <houl* )ollo= )ailure o) a Duror to an<=er )ullB a Fue<tion touching
u'on hi< Fuali)ication< turn< u'on =hether he =a< guiltB o) an intentional concealAent.
8inna 6. State, %%7 &.2* "2
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?918G5; ?. ReAar?< @B Du*ge.
Ne6.,19!8
3ara<<Aent o) coun<el, 'reDu*icial to hi< client, AaB reFuire ne= trial.
Re)erence<
9e<ture<, )acial e$'re<<ion<, or other non6er@al coAAunication o) trial Du*ge in criAinal ca<e
a< groun* )or relie) %5 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< 5th 5"1 G1997;
State 6. 3artleB, %0 &. "72
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?918G9; ?. ,@<ence o) *e)en*ant or coun<el.
Ne6.,1895
2here the court 'erAit< the DurB, on reFue<t o) *e)en*ant, to 6ie= the 'reAi<e< =here the
hoAici*e i< allege* to ha6e occurre*, the a@<ence o) *e)en*ant *uring the 6ie= @B the DurB i<
no groun* )or ne= trial, i) *e)en*ant Aa*e no reFue<t to @e 're<ent.
10 S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Stee<e 6. State, 9!0 &.2* "21
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 919 >i<con*uct o) Coun<el )or &ro<ecution
110?919G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,1998
ReFuireAent that ne= trial @e grante* =hen =itne<< intiAi*ation @B a 'ro<ecutor re<ult< in a
*enial o) the *e)en*antI< *ue 'roce<< right to a )air trial a''lie< =ith eFual )orce to ca<e<
=here a 'ro<ecutor atteA't< to *i<<ua*e a =itne<< )roA te<ti)Bing @B Ai<re're<enting the )act<
o) the ca<e. ..S.C.,. Con<t.,Aen*. 1% .
Roe6er 6. State, 901 &.2* 1%5
Ne6.,1995
3a6ing )oun* *i<co6erB 6iolation< @B <tate, trial court =a< reFuire* to *eterAine =hether
<tateI< )ailure to 'ro6i*e or a*6i<e *e)en*ant a< to e$i<tence o) co'ie< or tran<cri't< o) ta'e recor*e*
con6er<ation< =ith *e)en*ant that it ha* in it< 'o<<e<<ion an* that =ere 'otentiallB e$cul'atorB
'reDu*ice* *e)en*antI< right to )air trial on )ir<t*egree Aur*er an* AariDuana 'o<<e<<ion
charge<, <o a< to reFuire ne= trial.
3anleB 6. Sheri)) o) Clar? CountB, %!0 &.2* 1!2
Ne6.,19!9
/n<truction @B 'ro<ecutor to hi< =itne<< to =ithhol* <igni)icant e6i*ence )a6ora@le to accu<e*
reFuire< <etting a<i*e o) 6er*ict.
State 6. Carroll, 8!0 &.2* 179
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?919G2; ?. /n e$aAination o) =itne<<e<.
Ne6.,199"
,lthough 'ro<ecutorI< re)erence< to *e)en*antI< incu<to*B <tatu< *uring 'ro<ecutorI<
cro<<e$aAination
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
o) *e)en<e =itne<<e< =ere =hollB ina''ro'riate, e<'eciallB in light o) *i<trict
courtI< grant o) Aotion in liAine or*ering <tate not to re)er to *e)en*antI< 'retrial incarceration,
trial court a@u<e* it< *i<cretion in granting ne= trial to *e)en*ant, con6icte* o) le=*ne<<
=ith a Ainor, <ince e6i*ence o) *e)en*antI< guilt =a< o6er=helAing5 chil* *i* not =ai6er
)roA her allegation< *uring *irect or cro<<e$aAination, *e)en*ant ha* <'ent <e6eral Bear< in
'ri<on )or Aole<ting <e6enBearol* girl, *e)en*ant a*Aitte*, *uring 'olice inter6ie=, that he
=atche* nine an* tenBearol* girl< @ecau<e he )oun* theA <e$uallB attracti6e, an* *e)en*antI<
)orAer co=or?er te<ti)ie* that *e)en*ant coAAente* a@out <e$ual attracti6ene<< o) Boung
girl<.
Re)erence<
&reDu*icial e))ect o) <tateAent @B 'ro<ecutor that 6er*ict, recoAAen*ation o) 'uni<hAent, or
other )in*ing @B DurB i< <u@Dect to re6ie= or correction @B other authoritie< 10 ,Aerican :a=
Re'ort< 5th 700 G199";
State 6. 9reen, %00 &.2* 7!!
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?919G"; ?. /n arguAent in general.
Ne6.,19!5
StateAent o) 'ro<ecutor to DurB that theB Aight in)er guilt o) ro@@erB )roA )act that *e)en*ant
ha* O95, a@out onehal) o) 'rocee*< o) ro@@erB, in hi< 'o<<e<<ion iAAe*iatelB a)ter criAe *i*
not =arrant ne= trial.
State 6. 9reen, %00 &.2* 7!!
Ne6.,19!5
,rguAent o) *i<trict attorneB that te<tiAonB o) <tateI< =itne<<e< ha* not @een contra*icte* =a<
not groun* )or ne= trial a< aAounting to <tateAent that *e)en*ant coul* ha6e @rought in =itne<<e<
@ut *i* not.
State 6. 1rr, 122 &. 7"
Ne6.,1912
The reAar?< o) a *i<trict attorneB in hi< arguAent that *e)en*ant li6e* =ith a 'ro<titute, =hen
not Du<ti)ie* @B the e6i*ence, hel* groun* )or a ne= trial.
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Re)erence<
Re'ort< 5th 700 G199";
State 6. -u?ich, 2%2 &. 590
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?920 ?. /ncoA'etencB or neglect o) coun<el )or *e)en<e.
Ne6.,192!
Ne= trial <houl* not @e grante* )or incoA'etencB or neglect o) accu<e*I< coun<el, unle<< accu<e*
i< 'reDu*ice* an* *e'ri6e* o) )air trial.
Re)erence<
>o*ern <tatu< o) rule a< to te<t in )e*eral court o) e))ecti6e re're<entation @B coun<el 2!
,Aerican :a= Re'ort<, #e*eral 218 G197!;
>o*ern <tatu< o) rule< an* <tan*ar*< in <tate court< a< to a*eFuacB o) *e)en<e coun<elI<
re're<entation
o) criAinal client 2 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th 27 G1980;
3ar6eB 6. State, "75 &.2* 225
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 922 /n<truction< an* #ailure or Re)u<al to /n<truct
110?922G7; ?. 1@Dection< an* e$ce'tion< at trial.
Ne6.,19!2
Ne= trial i< =arrante* i) DurB i< Ai<le* @B con)licting in<truction<.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
1" S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 92" CoA'etencB o) -uror< an* Challenge<
110?92"G2; ?. &re6iou< o'inion, 'reDu*ice, or *eclaration.
Ne6.,200"
-uror< =ho )ail to *i<clo<e in)orAation or gi6e )al<e in)orAation *uring 6oir *ire coAAit Duror
Ai<con*uct, =hich, i) *i<co6ere* a)ter the 6er*ict, AaB @e groun*< )or a ne= trial un*er the
<tan*ar*< e<ta@li<he* )or Duror Ai<con*uct.
0cha6arria 6. State, 8"9 &.2* 589
Ne6.,1992
#in*ing that Duror ha* not intentionallB conceale* hi< 'rior in6ol6eAent a< 6ictiA o) a<<ault
=a< not a@u<e o) *i<cretion, <o that *e)en*ant =a< not entitle* to ne= trial on groun* o) Duror
Ai<con*uct, =here Duror in*icate* that he con<i*ere* 'rior inci*ent, not a< a<<ault, @ut a< )ight
@et=een hiA<el) an* other 'artici'ant<.
3all 6. State, 51" &.2* 12%%
Ne6.,197"
That hoAe o) one o) Duror< =a< @urglariEe* *uring )ir<t *aB o) trial o) @urglarB ca<e an* that
<uch )act ha* @een coAAunicate* to another Duror *i* not entitle accu<e* to ne= trial, a@<ent
<ho=ing o) 'reDu*ice on 'art o) anB Duror. N.R.S. 1!.050 , 1!.050 , <u@*. 1Gg;, 1!.0!0,
175.071, 175.121, <u@*. %.
State 6. >ar?<, 15 Ne6. ""
Ne6.,1880
/t i< no groun* )or a ne= trial that, a)ter a 6er*ict o) guiltB, the accu<e* a<certain< that a Duror,
@e)ore the iA'aneling, ha* )orAe* an* e$'re<<e* an o'inion o) guilt.
State 6. 3ar6eB, 1%8 &.2* 820
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 92" CoA'etencB o) -uror< an* Challenge<
110?92"G9; ?. Nece<<itB o) o@Dection< at trial.
Ne6.,19%%
1@Dection to coA'etencB o) a Duror cannot @e ta?en @B accu<e* )or )ir<t tiAe a)ter 6er*ict an*
relie* u'on a< groun* o) Aotion )or ne= trial. CoA'.:a=<, NN 109%0, 110"2.
State 6. 3ar6eB, 1%8 &.2* 820
1% S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ne6.,19%%
2here accu<e* )or )ir<t tiAe in hi< Aotion )or ne= trial challenge* Duror @ecau<e o) 're6iou<
con6iction o) )elonB, Aotion )or ne= trial =a< 'ro'erlB *enie*, <ince challenge =a< not tiAelB
Aa*e, not=ith<tan*ing that <uch )act =a< not ?no=n to accu<e* until a)ter 6er*ict, =here Duror
*i* not en*ea6or to conceal *i<Fuali)ication. CoA'.:a=<, NN 109%0, 110"2.
State 6. ,n*er<on, % Ne6. 2!5
Ne6.,18!8
/) *e)en*ant acce't< a Duror =ithout o@Dection, =hoA he ?no=< or Aight ha6e ?no=n to ha6e
)orAe* an* e$'re<<e* an unFuali)ie* o'inion a< to hi< guilt, he cannot, a)ter 6er*ict, rai<e an
o@Dection on that account.
Zana 6. State, 21! &."* 2%%
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 92% >i<con*uct o) or ,))ecting -uror<
110 925 /n 9eneral
110?925G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,2009
To Du<ti)B a ne= trial on the groun* o) Duror Ai<con*uct, a *e)en*ant Au<t, through a*Ai<<i@le
e6i*ence, *eAon<trate the nature o) the Duror Ai<con*uct an* that there i< a rea<ona@le 'ro@a@ilitB
that it a))ecte* the 6er*ict.
Val*eE 6. State, 19! &."* %!5
Ne6.,2008
, ne= trial Au<t @e grante* *ue to intrin<ic Duror Ai<con*uct unle<< it a''ear<, @eBon* a rea<ona@le
*ou@t, that no 'reDu*ice ha< re<ulte* )roA the DurB Ai<con*uct.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
Not e6erB inci*ence o) Duror Ai<con*uct reFuire< the granting o) a Aotion )or a ne= trial,
<ince each ca<e turn< on it< o=n )act<, an* on the *egree an* 'er6a<i6ene<< o) the 'reDu*icial
in)luence 'o<<i@lB re<ulting.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1nce a *e)en*ant ha< e<ta@li<he* occurrence o) Duror Ai<con*uct an* a <ho=ing that the Ai<con*uct
=a< 'reDu*icial, the trial court <houl* grant a Aotion )or ne= trial5 'reDu*ice i< <ho=n
=hene6er there i< a rea<ona@le 'ro@a@ilitB or li?elihoo* that the Duror Ai<con*uct a))ecte* the
6er*ict.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
The )actor< u<e* to *eterAine =hether there i< a rea<ona@le 'ro@a@ilitB that Duror Ai<con*uct
a))ecte* a 6er*ict are in<tructi6e onlB an* not *i<'o<iti6e.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
The *i<trict court, )or 'ur'o<e< o) a claiA o) Duror Ai<con*uct, Au<t *eterAine =hether the
a6erage, hB'othetical Duror =oul* @e in)luence* @B the Duror Ai<con*uct.
3ernan*eE 6. State, 50 &."* 1100
Ne6.,2002
Not e6erB inci*ence o) Duror Ai<con*uct reFuire< a ne= trial5 i) it a''ear< @eBon* a rea<ona@le
*ou@t that no 'reDu*ice occurre*, a ne= trial i< unnece<<arB.
Tan?<leB 6. State, 9%! &.2* 1%8
Ne6.,1997
Not e6erB inci*ence o) Duror Ai<con*uct reFuire< grant o) ne= trial5 ne= trial nee* not @e
grante* i) it a''ear< @eBon* rea<ona@le *ou@t that no 'reDu*ice occurre*.
2hite 6. State, 92! &.2* 291
Ne6.,199!
ReAar?< re'orte*lB Aa*e @B Duror *uring 'enaltB *eli@eration<, li?ening *e)en*ant to a
Pgorilla, a @a@oon, a nati6e tri@e<Aan,Q *i* not reFuire that DurBI< 6er*ict in guilt 'ha<e @e <et
a<i*e.
Roe6er 6. State, 901 &.2* 1%5
Ne6.,1995
Not e6erB inci*ence o) contact @et=een Duror< an* =itne<<e< reFuire< granting o) Aotion )or
ne= trial.
:ane 6. State, 881 &.2* 1"58
Ne6.,199%
Not e6erB inci*ence o) DurB Ai<con*uct reFuire< granting o) Aotion )or ne= trial.
:ane 6. State, 881 &.2* 1"58
1! S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ne6.,199%
Ne= trial on groun* o) Duror Ai<con*uct Au<t @e grante* unle<< it a''ear< @eBon* rea<ona@le
*ou@t that no 'reDu*ice ha< re<ulte* an* it i< )or trial court to *eterAine in the )ir<t in<tance
=hether Duror Ai<con*uct ha< re<ulte* in 'reDu*ice to litigant an* it< Du*gAent thereon =ill
not @e o6erturne* unle<< a@u<e o) *i<cretion i< Aani)e<t.
:o'eE 6. State, 7!9 &.2* 127!
Ne6.,1989
#ailure o) Duror< in 'ro<ecution )or Aur*er @B torture o) )ourBearol* <te'*aughter to *i<clo<e
on 6oir *ire that theB ha* @een a@u<e* a< chil*ren *i* not con<titute Ai<con*uct =arranting
ne= trial =here there =a< no intentional concealAent, *e<'ite contention that Duror< =oul* not
acce't a< correct *e)en<e theorB that chil*I< Aother, a< a@u<e* chil* her<el), @ecaAe a@u<er o)
the 6ictiA.
3ui 6. State, 7"8 &.2* 892
Ne6.,1987
Not e6erB in<tance o) Duror Ai<con*uct reFuire< granting Aotion )or ne= trial o) criAinal
charge<.
State 6. Thac?er, 59! &.2* 508
Ne6.,1979
, Aotion )or ne= trial AaB @e 'reAi<e* on Duror Ai<con*uct =here <uch Ai<con*uct i< rea*ilB
a<certaina@le )roA o@Decti6e )act< an* o6ert con*uct =ithout regar* to the <tate o) Ain*
an* Aental 'roce<<e< o) anB Duror.
7ar?er 6. State, 59% &.2* 719
Ne6.,1979
Not e6erB inci*ent o) DurB Ai<con*uct reFuire< granting o) a Aotion )or ne= trial.
:e=i< 6. State, 588 &.2* 5%1
Ne6.,1978
(e)en*ant< =ere not entitle* to a ne= trial @ecau<e three Duror< *i<cu<<e* the te<tiAonB an*
e6i*ence a**uce* at trial @e)ore the ca<e ha* @een <u@Aitte* to theA )or *eli@eration, =here
the three Duror<, at hearing on ne= trial Aotion, te<ti)ie* that hi< or her *eci<ion =a< @a<e*
<olelB on the e6i*ence 're<ente* at trial, an* =here the recor* )aile* to in*icate that a *i<cu<<ion
either a))ecte* the Duror<I *eli@eration< or other=i<e 'reDu*ice* *e)en*ant<I right to a )air
trial.
&ar<on< 6. State, "29 &.2* 1070
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ne6.,1958
/n Aur*er 'ro<ecution, =here no o@Dection =a< Aa*e *uring trial an* DurB =a< *ulB cautione*
@B court not to <e'arate, nor to allo= anB 'er<on to tal? to theA a@out ca<e, )act that *e'utB
<heri)) ha* not @een a*Aini<tere* o))icial oath )or hi< care o) DurB *uring a*DournAent )or
Aeal<, or until night ca<e =a< coAAitte* to DurB, *i* not o@ligate court to <et a<i*e 6er*ict an*
grant ne= trial a< Aatter o) la=.
>urraB 6. State, 2009 2: "190"!!
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 925 5 Con<i*ering >atter< Not in 06i*ence
110?925.5G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,2009
(e)en*ant =a< not entitle* to ne= trial in 'ro<ecution )or atteA'te* Aur*er =ith the u<e o) a
*ea*lB =ea'on an* *i<charging a =ea'on at a 6ehicle @a<e* on allege* DurB Ai<con*uct5 DurorI<
uniFue 'ur'orte* ?no=le*ge, a< to )act that inci*ent =a< allege*lB gang relate* e6ent, *i*
not con<titute Duror Ai<con*uct.
Ro=@ottoA 6. State, 779 &.2* 9"%
Ne6.,1989
-uror Ai<con*uct in )ir<t*egree Aur*er trial, in =hich Duror con*ucte* in*e'en*ent in6e<tigation
to *eterAine =hether 6ictiA coul* ha6e e$ite* 6ehicle =ith her han*< @oun* a< *e)en*ant
claiAe*, Aea<ure* *ri6ing tiAe< @et=een 6ariou< location< to *eterAine =hether *e)en*ant at
one 'oint coul* ha6e returne* to hi< a'artAent, 6i<ite* Aur*er <cene an* coA'are* gra6el
there =ith that *e'icte* in 'icture< o) 6ictiAI< @o*B, an* engage* in coAAunication =ith 6ictiAI<
'arent<, =a< 'reDu*icial error =hich entitle* *e)en*ant to ne= trial, e6en though Duror allege*lB
*i* not <hare her )in*ing< =ith other Duror< until 'enaltB 'ha<e o) trial.
Ro=@ottoA 6. State, 779 &.2* 9"%
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110?925.5G2; ?. Vi<iting or 6ie=ing 'lace o) criAe.
Ne6.,1989
-uror Ai<con*uct in )ir<t*egree Aur*er trial, in =hich Duror con*ucte* in*e'en*ent in6e<tigation
to *eterAine =hether 6ictiA coul* ha6e e$ite* 6ehicle =ith her han*< @oun* a< *e)en*ant
claiAe*, Aea<ure* *ri6ing tiAe< @et=een 6ariou< location< to *eterAine =hether *e)en*ant at
one 'oint coul* ha6e returne* to hi< a'artAent, 6i<ite* Aur*er <cene an* coA'are* gra6el
there =ith that *e'icte* in 'icture< o) 6ictiAI< @o*B, an* engage* in coAAunication =ith 6ictiAI<
'arent<, =a< 'reDu*icial error =hich entitle* *e)en*ant to ne= trial, e6en though Duror allege*lB
*i* not <hare her )in*ing< =ith other Duror< until 'enaltB 'ha<e o) trial.
&en*leton 6. State, 7"% &.2* !9"
Ne6.,1987
-urorI< act o) 6i<iting acci*ent <cene <oAe 17 Aonth< a)ter acci*ent, an* relating her o@<er6ation<
that *e)en*antI< theorB, that rough roa* an* 'oor con*ition< o) truc? =oul* ha6e re<ulte*
in acci*ent regar*le<< o) =hether *e)en*ant =a< *rin?ing, =a< un@elie6a@le, con<titute* Duror
Ai<con*uct, ina<Auch a< Duror e<<entiallB @ecaAe =itne<< )or 'ro<ecution not <u@Dect to
cro<<e$aAination
regar*ing =eather an* roa* con*ition<, an* thu< ne= trial )or *e)en*ant con6icte*
o) )elonB *ri6ing =hile un*er in)luence =a< =arrante*.
7u<hnell 6. State, 599 &.2* 10"8
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?925.5G"; ?. StateAent< @B Duror< *uring *eli@eration.
Ne6.,1979
2here, *uring *eli@eration< an* in re<'on<e to Duror<I Fue<tion<, Du*ge <ent note to )oreAan
e$'laining that DurB =a< con)ine* to recor* an* in<truction< gi6en an* that it =oul* @e iA'ro'er
)or court to a*6i<e Duror< on Aatter< o) e6i*ence or te<tiAonB, i), a< allege*, the )oreAan
rea* note <ilentlB an* then in)orAe* other Duror< that Du*geI< an<=er =a< that, i) *e)en*ant
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
=a< 're<ent *uring ro@@erB, he <houl* @e con6icte*, *e)en*ant =oul* @e entitle* to ne=
trial, unle<< it a''eare* @eBon* rea<ona@le *ou@t that no 'reDu*ice re<ulte*. N.R.S. %8.025 ,
50.0!5 , <u@*. 2.
2al?er 6. State, 59% &.2* 710
Ne6.,1979
(enBing Aotion )or ne= trial @a<e* on Duror Ai<con*uct =a< not error, not=ith<tan*ing that
Duror reAar?e* *uring *eli@eration< that he ha* @een in6ol6e* in a <ituation =here ro@@er< ha*
or*ere* hiA to lie on )loor, =here Duror ha* not intentionallB conceale* a Aaterial )act relating
to hi< Fuali)ication<, @ut ha* gi6en truth)ul re<'on<e< on 6oir *ire, an* =here <tateAent attri@ute*
to Duror *uring *eli@eration< *i* not iA'ro'erlB in)luence DurB or taint it< 6er*ict.
Sollar< 6. State, "19 &.2* 1"9
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?925.5G%; ?. ,cce<< to or rea*ing ne=<'a'er<.
Ne6.,1957
/n Aur*er 'ro<ecution, =here 'reDu*ice re<ulte* )roA the action o) the trial court u'on the
groun* o) 'reDu*icial ne=<'a'er co6erage at the trial, it =a< a 'ro'er <u@Dect o) Aotion )or
ne= trial, an* a Aotion )or Ai<trial =a< not a nece<<arB 'rereFui<ite.
State 6. ,n*er<on, % Ne6. 2!5
Ne6.,18!8
(uring the 'rogre<< o) a Aur*er trial, an* =hile the court ha* ta?en a rece<<, the DurB =ere in
the court hou<e in charge o) the <heri)), an* one o) the DurBAen, <tan*ing near a =in*o=, <a=
a ne=<'a'er in the han*< o) a 'er<on near the =in*o= on the out<i*e o) the court hou<e, an*
a<?e* hiA )or it. The 'artB a**re<<e* han*e* u' the 'a'er to the Duror <aBing no Aore than
P4ou are =elcoAe.Q The Duror glance* o6er the 'a'er an* then han*e* it @ac?. 3el*, that thi<
=a< not <uch Ai<con*uct in the Duror a< =oul* entitle *e)en*ant to a ne= trial.
State 6. -one<, 7 Ne6. %08
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?92! ?. .<e o) into$icating liFuor<.
Ne6.,1872
The u<e o) into$icating liFuor< @B the DurB, or a Duror, i< not groun* )or a ne= trial, in the a@<ence
o) anB <ho=ing that inDuriou< con<eFuence< re<ulte* there)roA.
State 6. -one<, 7 Ne6. %08
Ne6.,1872
, Du*ge at ni<i 'riu< <houl* ne6er he<itate to <et a<i*e a 6er*ict, in a criAinal ca<e, =here
there i< e6en a <u<'icion that anB Duror =a< in the lea<t a))ecte* @B into$icating liFuor *uring
the 'rogre<< o) the trial or the *eli@eration u'on the 6er*ict.
&ar<on< 6. State, "29 &.2* 1070
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 927 Se'aration
110?927G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,1958
2here <tate e<ta@li<he* that there =a< no taA'ering =ith or Ai<con*uct on 'art o) Duror, <e'aration
o) Duror< *uring Aur*er trial =a< not <u))icient groun* )or ne= trial.
Sollar< 6. State, "19 &.2* 1"9
Ne6.,1957
#act o) coAAunication to a DurB =hich ha< @een 'erAitte* to <e'arate <houl* @e @rought to the
attention o) the trial court through a''ro'riate Aotion )or relie).
State 6. 3arri<, 12 Ne6. %1%
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 927 Se'aration
110?927G2; ?. Se'aration a)ter <u@Ai<<ion o) ca<e.
Ne6.,1877
The Aere )act that a Duror =a< teA'orarilB <e'arate* )roA the DurB *uring their *eli@eration< i<
not groun* )or a ne= trial i) *e)en*ant coul* not ha6e @een 'reDu*ice* there@B.
&ar<on< 6. State, "29 &.2* 1070
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 927 Se'aration
110?927G5; ?. &re<uA'tion< an* @ur*en o) 'roo) a< to e))ect o) <e'aration.
Ne6.,1958
/) DurB in Aur*er ca<e i< allo=e* to <e'arate un*er con*ition< in*icating 'o<<i@ilitB o) iA'ro'er
coAAunication, @ur*en i< u'on <tate to <ho= that <uch <e'aration =a< not 'reDu*icial.
Sollar< 6. State, "19 &.2* 1"9
Ne6.,1957
No 'reDu*ice coul* re<ult or @e 're<uAe* )roA <e'aration o) DurB in a Aur*er 'ro<ecution in
the a@<ence o) a coAAunication.
Roe6er 6. State, 901 &.2* 1%5
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?928 ?. CoAAunication< @B or =ith Duror<.
Ne6.,1995
Ne= trial =a< reFuire* on )ir<t*egree Aur*er an* AariDuana 'o<<e<<ion charge< a< re<ult o)
contact @et=een Duror< an* 'ro<ecution =itne<<, in light o) *i<trict courtI< )in*ing that it coul*
not @e <ai* =ith anB *egree o) certaintB that contact< ha* no e))ect on 6er*ict<.
Roe6er 6. State, 901 &.2* 1%5
Ne6.,1995
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ne= trial Au<t @e grante* @a<e* u'on contact @et=een Duror< an* =itne<<e<, unle<< it a''ear<,
@eBon* rea<ona@le *ou@t, that no 'reDu*ice ha< re<ulte*.
Roe6er 6. State, 901 &.2* 1%5
Ne6.,1995
/n *eterAining =hether contact @et=een Duror< an* =itne<<e< =arrant< ne= trial, the trial court
*eterAine< =hether litigant ha< @een 'reDu*ice*, an* it< Du*gAent =ill not @e o6erturne* unle<<
a@u<e o) *i<cretion i< Aani)e<t.
Re)erence<
StrangerI< allege* coAAunication< =ith Duror, other than threat o) 6iolence, a< 'reDu*icial in
)e*eral criAinal 'ro<ecution 1"1 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort<, #e*eral %!5 G199!;
Threat< o) 6iolence again<t Duror in criAinal trial a< groun* )or Ai<trial or *i<Ai<<al o) Duror "
,Aerican :a= Re'ort< 5th 9!" G1992;
State 6. :ar?in, 11 Ne6. "1%
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9"0 ?. >i<con*uct o) @B<tan*er<.
Ne6.,187!
That the au*ience in the court rooA once coAAence* to a''lau* the *i<trict attorneB, =hich
the 're<i*ing Du*ge 'roA'tlB <u''re<<e*, i< not a groun* )or re6er<ing a con6iction, no 'reDu*ice
@eing <ho=n.
Sollar< 6. State, "19 &.2* 1"9
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9"1 ?. Nece<<itB o) o@Dection at trial.
Ne6.,1957
/n Aur*er 'ro<ecution, =here 'reDu*ice re<ulte* )roA the action o) the trial court u'on the
groun* o) 'reDu*icial ne=<'a'er co6erage at the trial, it =a< a 'ro'er <u@Dect o) Aotion )or
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
ne= trial, an* a Aotion )or Ai<trial =a< not a nece<<arB 'rereFui<ite.
-one< 6. State, 2010 2: %51%"!"
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9"2 ?. 0))ect a< to re<ult.
Ne6.,2010
(e)en*ant con6icte* o) @urglarB =a< not entitle* to ne= trial a)ter allege*lB *i<co6ering DurorI<
6ote to con6ict =a< in)luence* @B o6erhearing 'olice o))icer re)er to *e)en*antI< criAinal
hi<torB, =here there =a< o6er=helAing e6i*ence o) *e)en*antI< guilt, an* *e)en*ant )aile* to
*eAon<trate that Duror in Fue<tion =a< actuallB e$'o<e* to 'reDu*icial e$trin<ic e6i*ence.
2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 .
State 6. 9reen, %00 &.2* 7!!
Ne6.,19!5
StateAent o) uni*enti)ie* Duror, a)ter ren*ition o) 6er*ict an* *i<Ai<<al o) DurB, that Pthe *irtB
nigger got =hat he *e<er6e*Q =a< not PAi<con*uct o) DurBQPten*ing to 're6ent )air an* *ue
con<i*eration o) ca<eQ =ithin <tatute 'ro6i*ing )or ne= trial< in criAinal ca<e<. N.R.S.
175.5"5, <u@*. ".See 'u@lication 2or*< an* &hra<e< )or other Du*icial con<truction< an* *e)inition<.
3argro6e 6. State, !8! &.2* 222
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9"" ?. /rregularitie< or *e)ect< in 6er*ict a< groun* )or ne= trial.
Ne6.,198%
, *e)en*ant =ho<e guilt i< 're*icate* u'on a 6er*ict AaB rai<e a 'o<tcon6iction challenge to
the 6er*ictI< 6ali*itB @B Aean< o) a Aotion )or ne= trial, an* ha< the right to a''eal )roA an
or*er re)u<ing <uch relie). N.R.S. 177.015 .
/<@ell 6. State, !2! &.2* 127%
Ne6.,1981
,)ter DurB ha< gi6en it< 6er*ict<, ha< @een 'olle* in o'en court an* ha< @een *i<charge*, in*i6i*ual
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
DurorI< change o) Ain* or claiA that he =a< Ai<ta?en or un=illing to a<<ent to 6er*ict
coAe< too late an* *oe< not =arrant granting o) ne= trial.
Cu<toA (ige<t 1% 3ea*note<
4o=ell 6. State, 2010 2: %5"77%9
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9"5 Ver*ict ContrarB to 06i*ence
110?9"5G1; ?. 2eight an* <u))iciencB o) e6i*ence in general.
Ne6.,2010
(i<trict court *i* not a@u<e it< *i<cretion @B *enBing *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial on @a<i<
o) con)licting e6i*ence in 'ro<ecution )or ro@@erB =ith the u<e o) a *ea*lB =ea'on, ?i*na''ing
in the )ir<t *egree =ith the u<e o) a *ea*lB =ea'on, an* <e$ual a<<ault =ith the u<e o) a
*ea*lB =ea'on, although <oAe o) the e6i*ence coul* ha6e @een con)licting5 e6i*ence =a< not
<o at o**< =ith the 6er*ict that the totalitB o) e6i*ence )aile* to 'ro6e the *e)en*ant guiltB
@eBon* a rea<ona@le *ou@t.
06an< 6. State, 92! &.2* 2!5
Ne6.,199!
P1ther groun*<Q )or grant o) ne= trial e$i<t =here trial Du*ge )in*< that e6i*ence o) guilt i<
con)licting, an* a)ter in*e'en*ent e6aluation o) e6i*ence *i<agree< =ith DurBI< 6er*ict o)
guiltB. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. %.See 'u@lication 2or*< an* &hra<e< )or other Du*icial con<truction<
an* *e)inition<.
06an< 6. State, 92! &.2* 2!5
Ne6.,199!
Con)lict o) e6i*ence =arranting grant o) ne= trial occur< =here there i< <u))icient e6i*ence
're<ente* at trial =hich, i) @elie6e*, =oul* <u<tain con6iction, @ut e6i*ence i< conte<te* an*
*i<trict Du*ge, in re<ol6ing con)licting e6i*ence *i))erentlB )roA DurB, @elie6e< totalitB o) e6i*ence
)ail< to 'ro6e *e)en*ant guiltB @eBon* a rea<ona@le *ou@t. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. %.
06an< 6. State, 92! &.2* 2!5
Ne6.,199!
(i<trict court lac?< authoritB to grant ne= trial @a<e* on in<u))iciencB o) e6i*ence, an* =hen
there i< trulB in<u))icient e6i*ence to con6ict, *e)en*ant Au<t @e acFuitte*. N.R.S. 17!.515 ,
<u@*. %.
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
State 6. &urcell, 887 &.2* 27!
Ne6.,199%
There =a< con)lict in the e6i*ence <o a< to 'erAit trial court to grant ne= trial to *e)en*ant
con6icte* on charge< o) le=*ne<< =ith Ainor an* <e$ual a<<ault =here 6ictiAI< te<tiAonB =a<
<tateI< onlB e6i*ence an* the *e)en<e, on cro<<e$aAination, @rought out incon<i<tencie< in
6ictiAI< te<tiAonB, 'ut on it< o=n =itne<<e< to te<ti)B a@out 6ictiAI< untruth)ulne<< an* her
Aoti6ation to lie a@out *e)en*ant =ith =hoA <he an* her Aother li6e* <o that 6ictiA coul* go
li6e =ith her )ather, an* intro*uce* e6i*ence <ho=ing lac? o) o''ortunitB )or *e)en*ant to
ha6e coAAitte* criAe< at tiAe an* in Aanner that 6ictiA *e<cri@e*. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
State 6. &urcell, 887 &.2* 27!
Ne6.,199%
TotalitB o) the e6i*ence e6aluation i< <tan*ar* )or *i<trict court to u<e in *eci*ing =hether to
grant ne= trial @a<e* on in*e'en*ent e6aluation o) con)licting e6i*ence. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
State 6. &urcell, 887 &.2* 27!
Ne6.,199%
/n contra<t to con)licting e6i*ence a< @a<i< )or granting ne= trial, in<u))iciencB o) the e6i*ence
a< @a<i< )or granting ne= trial occur< =hen 'ro<ecution ha< not 'ro*uce* AiniAuA
thre<hol* o) e6i*ence u'on =hich con6iction AaB @e @a<e*, e6en i) <uch e6i*ence =ere @elie6e*
@B DurB. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
State 6. &urcell, 887 &.2* 27!
Ne6.,199%
.n*er aAen*e* <tatute <tating that court AaB <et a<i*e 6er*ict an* enter Du*gAent o) acFuittal
i) e6i*ence i< in<u))icient to <u<tain con6iction, *i<trict court AaB not grant ne= trial @a<e* on
)in*ing that there i< in<u))icient e6i*ence to <u''ort DurB 6er*ict5 i) there i< trulB in<u))icient
e6i*ence, *e)en*ant Au<t @e acFuitte*. N.R.S. 175."81 .
State 6. &urcell, 887 &.2* 27!
Ne6.,199%
,lthough *i<trict court terAe* e6i*ence Pin<u))icient,Q thorough rea*ing o) it< *eci<ion re6eale*
that *i<trict court *i* not )in* e6i*ence in<u))icient a< a Aatter o) la= to <u''ort 6er*ict,
@ut in<tea* )oun* that it =a< con)licting an* that 6er*ict =a< not @a<e* on <u@<tantial
e6i*ence an* thu<, *i<trict courtI< or*er granting ne= trial =a< 'ro'er. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
State 6. 2al?er, 857 &.2* 1
Ne6.,199"
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
.n*er Ne6a*a la= a< it e$i<te* 'rior to e))ecti6e *ate o) <tatute 'erAitting entrB o) Du*gAent
o) acFuittal i) e6i*ence i< in<u))icient to <u''ort con6iction, *i<trict Du*ge coul* grant ne= trial
)ollo=ing return o) guiltB 6er*ict =here he or <he *i<agree* =ith DurBI< re<olution o) con)licting
e6i*ence, @ut not =here there =a< in<u))icient e6i*ence to <u''ort guiltB 6er*ict.
N.R.S. 175."81 , 17!.515 5 ..S.C.,. Con<t.,Aen*. 5 .
2a<hington 6. State, !55 &.2* 5"1
Ne6.,1982
Trial Du*ge =a< not coA'elle* @B la= to *enB Aotion )or ne= trial )or in<u))iciencB o) e6i*ence.
N.R.S. 17!.515 , 17!.515 , <u@*<. 1, ", %.
,E@ill 6. State, %95 &.2* 10!%
Ne6.,1972
/) there i< <u@<tantial e6i*ence to <u''ort a DurB 6er*ict, neither trial court nor Su'reAe Court
AaB *i<tur@ it.
State 6. :e=i<, 91 &.2* 820
Ne6.,19"9
/n 'ro<ecution )or in6oluntarB Aan<laughter, =here 6ictiA =a< <truc? @B autoAo@ile *ri6en
@B *e)en*ant an* e6i*ence ten*e* to <ho= that *e)en*ant =a< guiltB o) <e6eral tra))ic la= 6iolation<,
Su'reAe Court coul* not <aB that re)u<al o) ne= trial =a< an a@u<e o) trial courtI<
*i<cretion.
Cu<toA (ige<t "% 3ea*note<
>orten<en 6. State, 98! &.2* 1105
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9"7 Ne=lB (i<co6ere* 06i*ence
110 9"8 /n 9eneral
110?9"8G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,1999
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, that a State =itne<<+'olice o))icer ha* e$'laine* hi< allege* @eha6ior
in coercing a )eAale arre<tee to 'er)orA an illicit <e$ act @B <tating that he =a< Pe6ilQ or
an Pe6il AanQ *i* not =arrant a ne= trial )or a Aur*er *e)en*ant =ho claiAe* that the =itne<<
=a< the <hooter, an* that a)ter the <hooting the =itne<< ha* *e<cri@e* hiA<el) a< Pe6ilQ5 <tateAent
ha* no connection to the circuA<tance< o) the Aur*er, it neither e$cul'ate* *e)en*ant
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
nor incul'ate* =itne<<, it< a*Ai<<i@ilitB =a< Fue<tiona@le, an* the arre<tee ha* change* her
<torB a@out her arre<t <e6eral tiAe<.
>orten<en 6. State, 98! &.2* 1105
Ne6.,1999
To e<ta@li<h a claiA )or a ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, the *e)en*ant Au<t
<ho= that the e6i*ence i<: ne=lB *i<co6ere*5 Aaterial to the *e)en<e5 <uch that e6en =ith the
e$erci<e o) rea<ona@le *iligence it coul* not ha6e @een *i<co6ere* an* 'ro*uce* )or trial5
noncuAulati6e5
<uch a< to ren*er a *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le u'on retrial5 not onlB an atteA't to
contra*ict, iA'each, or *i<cre*it a )orAer =itne<<, unle<< the =itne<< i< <o iA'ortant that a
*i))erent re<ult =oul* @e rea<ona@lB 'ro@a@le5 an* the @e<t e6i*ence the ca<e a*Ait<.
>orten<en 6. State, 98! &.2* 1105
Ne6.,1999
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, that a thir* 'artB+'olice o))icer ha* hear* a State =itne<<+'olice
o))icer re)er to hiA<el) a< Pe6ilQ *i* not =arrant a ne= trial )or a Aur*er *e)en*ant =ho
claiAe* that the =itne<< =a< the <hooter, an* that a)ter the <hooting the =itne<< ha* *e<cri@e*
hiA<el) a< Pe6ilQ5 <tateAent ha* no connection to the circuA<tance< o) the Aur*er, it neither
e$cul'ate* *e)en*ant nor incul'ate* =itne<<, an* it< a*Ai<<i@ilitB =a< Fue<tiona@le.
>orten<en 6. State, 98! &.2* 1105
Ne6.,1999
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, a letter an* t=o note< =ritten @B the StateI< )irearA< e$'ert, *i*
not Du<ti)B a ne= trial in a Aur*er 'ro<ecution5 e6en i) the letter <ho=e* that the e$'ert
'ro6i*e* con)u<ing te<tiAonB, intro*uction o) the letter at a ne= trial =oul* <iA'lB ha6e @een
an atteA't to *i<cre*it the e$'ert, an* the note<, e6en i) theB in*icate* the 'o<<i@le e$i<tence
o) another gun, =oul* not ha6e ren*ere* a *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le on retrial, a< *e)en*ant
te<ti)ie* that hi< gun =a< the Aur*er =ea'on.
>orten<en 6. State, 98! &.2* 1105
Ne6.,1999
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, the te<tiAonB o) a 'olice o))icer @e)ore a )e*eral DurB, <tating that
an o))icer =ho =a< a State =itne<< in *e)en*antI< Aur*er trial Pha* Aentione* <e6eral tiAe<
the )act a@out going an* *oing a *ri6e@B or <oAething li?e that nature,Q *i* not =arrant a
ne= trial, *e<'ite *e)en*antI< theorB that the =itne<< =a< the <hooter5 all o) the eBe=itne<<e<
te<ti)ie* that the 'a<<enger in a truc? =a< the actual <hooter, an* it =a< un*i<'ute* that *e)en*ant
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
=a< the 'a<<enger, an* it =a< un*i<'ute* that the Aur*er =ea'on =a< *e)en*antI< o))*utB
gun.
3ennie 6. State, 9!8 &.2* 7!1
Ne6.,1998
9rant or *enial o) a ne= trial on the groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< =ithin the *i<cretion
o) the trial court. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
3ennie 6. State, 9!8 &.2* 7!1
Ne6.,1998
9eneral <tan*ar* )or a ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< that: G1; the e6i*ence
Au<t @e ne=lB *i<co6ere*5 G2; it Au<t @e Aaterial to the *e)en<e5 G"; it coul* not ha6e @een
*i<co6ere* an* 'ro*uce* )or trial e6en =ith the e$erci<e o) rea<ona@le *iligence5 G%; it Au<t
not @e cuAulati6e5 G5; it Au<t in*icate that a *i))erent re<ult i< 'ro@a@le on retrial5 G!; it Au<t
not <iA'lB @e an atteA't to contra*ict or *i<cre*it a )orAer =itne<<5 an* G7; it Au<t @e the @e<t
e6i*ence the ca<e a*Ait<. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
2al?er 6. State, 9%% &.2* 7!2
Ne6.,1997
9rant or *enial o) ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< =ithin *i<cretion o)
trial court.
2al?er 6. State, 9%% &.2* 7!2
Ne6.,1997
To e<ta@li<h @a<i< )or a ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, the e6i*ence Au<t
@e: ne=lB *i<co6ere*5 Aaterial to the *e)en<e5 <uch that e6en =ith the e$erci<e o) rea<ona@le
*iligence it coul* not ha6e @een *i<co6ere* an* 'ro*uce* )or trial5 noncuAulati6e5 <uch a< to
ren*er a *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le u'on retrial5 not onlB an atteA't to contra*ict, iA'each, or
*i<cre*it a )orAer =itne<<, unle<< the =itne<< i< <o iA'ortant that a *i))erent re<ult =oul* @e
rea<ona@lB 'ro@a@le5 an* the @e<t e6i*ence the ca<e a*Ait<.
#unche< 6. State, 9%% &.2* 775
Ne6.,1997
9rant or *enial o) ne= trial on @a<i< o) ne=lB*i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< =ithin trial courtI< *i<cretion
an* =ill not @e re6er<e* on a''eal a@<ent it< a@u<e. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. 1.
#unche< 6. State, 9%% &.2* 775
Ne6.,1997
#or ne= trial on @a<i< o) ne=lB*i<co6ere* e6i*ence, the e6i*ence Au<t @e ne=lB *i<co6ere*5
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Aaterial to *e)en<e5 inca'a@le o) *i<co6erB an* 'ro*uction e6en =ith e$erci<e o) rea<ona@le
*iligence5 noncuAulati6e5 ca'a@le o) ren*ering *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le u'on retrial5 Aore
than atteA't to contra*ict, iA'each, or *i<cre*it )orAer =itne<<, unle<< =itne<< i< <o iA'ortant
that *i))erent re<ult =oul* @e rea<ona@lB 'ro@a@le5 an* the @e<t e6i*ence ca<e a*Ait<. N.R.S.
17!.515 , <u@*. 1.
-one< 6. State, 8"7 &.2* 1"%9
Ne6.,1992
06i*ence that co*e)en*ant =oul* ha6e te<ti)ie* on *e)en*antI< @ehal) ha* 'olice not coerce*
hi< <ilence con<titute* ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence on =hich *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial
<houl* ha6e @een grante*. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. 1.
San@orn 6. State, 812 &.2* 1279
Ne6.,1991
9rant or *enial o) ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< =ithin trial courtI< *i<cretion
an* =ill not @e re6er<e* on a''eal a@<ent it< a@u<e. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. 1.
San@orn 6. State, 812 &.2* 1279
Ne6.,1991
To e<ta@li<h @a<i< )or ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, e6i*ence Au<t @e:
ne=lB *i<co6ere*5 Aaterial to the *e)en<e5 <uch that e6en =ith the e$erci<e o) rea<ona@le *iligence
it coul* not ha6e @een *i<co6ere* an* 'ro*uce* )or trial5 noncuAulati6e5 <uch a< to
ren*er a *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le u'on retrial5 not onlB an atteA't to contra*ict, iA'each, or
*i<cre*it a )orAer =itne<<, unle<< the =itne<< i< <o iA'ortant that a *i))erent re<ult =oul* @e
rea<ona@lB 'ro@a@le5 an* the @e<t e6i*ence the ca<e a*Ait<. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. 1.
4oung 6. State, 7"7 &.2* 512
Ne6.,1987
(enial o) *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial @a<e* on claiA o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence a@out
allege* accoA'lice in Aur*er =a< not a@u<e o) *i<cretion, =here *e)en*ant ?ne= o) accoA'liceI<
allege* in6ol6eAent 'rior to trial, an* e6i*ence =a< not li?elB to 'ro*uce *i))erent re<ult<
u'on retrial.
>cCa@e 6. State, !55 &.2* 5"!
Ne6.,1982
/n 'ro<ecution )or Aur*er, trial court *i* not err in re)u<ing to grant *e)en*ant ne= trial on
@a<i< o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence =here e6i*ence 'ro))ere* @B *e)en*ant *i* not <ati<)B
reFuireAent<
"0 S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
)or ne= trial.
Cutler 6. State, 59! &.2* 21!
Ne6.,1979
Te<tiAonB o) *e)en*antI< coA'anion =a< cuAulati6e, 'artiallB incul'atorB, an* =oul* not
cau<e DurB to reach *i))erent re<ult, an* thu< it =a< not a@u<e o) *i<cretion )ollo=ing con6iction
)or )ir<t*egree Aur*er to *enB *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial @a<e* on allege* ne=lB
*i<co6ere* e6i*ence.
>c:eAore 6. State, 577 &.2* 871
Ne6.,1978
#or ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, e6i*ence Au<t @e ne=lB *i<co6ere*,
Au<t @e Aaterial to Ao6antI< *e)en<e, Au<t @e <uch that it coul* not =ith rea<ona@le *iligence
ha6e @een *i<co6ere* an* 'ro*uce* )or trial, Au<t not @e cuAulati6e, Au<t @e <uch a< to
ren*er *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le u'on retrial, Au<t not atteA't onlB to contra*ict )orAer =itne<<
or iA'each or *i<cre*it hiA, unle<< <uch =itne<< i< <o iA'ortant that *i))erent re<ult Au<t
)ollo=, an* <uch )act< Au<t @e <ho=n @B the @e<t e6i*ence the ca<e a*Ait<.
&orter 6. State, 57! &.2* 275
Ne6.,1978
2here e6i*ence 'ro))ere* @B *e)en*ant in <u''ort o) ne= trial Aotion, e6en i) Aaterial, =a<
not ne=lB *i<co6ere* @ut coul* ha6e @een 're<ente* at trial @B the e$erci<e o) rea<ona@le *iligence
an* =here the e6i*ence =a< cuAulati6e an* corro@orati6e an* not <uch a< to ren*er a
*i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le u'on retrial, e6i*ence *i* not reFuire a ne= trial. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
&orter 6. State, 57! &.2* 275
Ne6.,1978
2here allege* ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, a**uce* in <u''ort o) ne= trial Aotion, con<i<te*
e<<entiallB o) a 'ur'orte* 'olBgra'h e$aAination in =hich a thir* 'artB allege*lB truth)ullB
a*Aitte* coAAitting the ro@@erB )or =hich *e)en*ant =a< con6icte* an* the a))i*a6it o) a
courta''ointe* in6e<tigator <tating that the thir* 'artB ha* a*Aitte* coAAitting the ro@@erB,
allege* ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence *i* not Aeet gui*eline< )or granting a ne= trial. N.R.S.
17!.515 .
&orter 6. State, 57! &.2* 275
Ne6.,1978
2hether to grant a ne= trial on groun*< o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< *i<cretionarB an* tri
al courtI< *eci<ion =ill not @e re6er<e* on a''eal a@<ent an a@u<e o) *i<cretion. N.R.S.
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
17!.515 .
:ight)or* 6. State, 5"8 &.2* 585
Ne6.,1975
9ranting a ne= trial in criAinal ca<e< on the groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< largelB
*i<cretionarB =ith the trial court an* that courtI< *eterAination =ill not @e re6er<e* on a''eal
unle<< a@u<e o) *i<cretion i< clearlB <ho=n.
:ight)or* 6. State, 5"8 &.2* 585
Ne6.,1975
To e<ta@li<h @a<i< )or ne= trial, ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence Au<t @e ne=lB *i<co6ere*, Aaterial
to the *e)en<e, <uch that it coul* not, =ith rea<ona@le *iligence, ha6e @een *i<co6ere* an*
'ro*uce* )or trial, not cuAulati6e, <uch a< to ren*er a *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le u'on retrial,
not @a<e* u'on contra*iction or iA'eachAent o) a )orAer =itne<< unle<< the =itne<< iA'eache*
i< <o iA'ortant that a *i))erent re<ult Au<t )ollo=, an* the @e<t e6i*ence o) =hich the
ca<e a*Ait<.
:ight)or* 6. State, 5"8 &.2* 585
Ne6.,1975
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence =hich <ho=e* that *e)en*ant, =ho =a< con6icte* o) unla=)ul
'o<<e<<ion o) heroin, =a< AerelB )urni<he* =ith an o''ortunitB to coAAit the criAe @B hu<@an*
o) 'er<on to =hoA *e)en*ant ha* )urni<he* narcotic< on at lea<t )i6e or <i$ occa<ion< *i*
not entitle *e)en*ant to ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence o) entra'Aent.
1li6er 6. State, %5! &.2* %"1
Ne6.,19!9
To Du<ti)B ne= trial, ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence Au<t @e G1; ne=lB *i<co6ere*, G2; Aaterial to
*e)en<e, G"; <uch that it coul* not =ith rea<ona@le *iligence ha6e @een *i<co6ere* an* 'ro*uce*
)or trial, G%; not cuAulati6e, G5; <uch a< to ren*er *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le on retrial,
an* G!; not an atteA't onlB to contra*ict )orAer =itne<< or iA'each or *i<cre*it hiA, unle<<
=itne<< iA'eache* i< <o iA'ortant that *i))erent re<ult Au<t )ollo=. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
1li6er 6. State, %5! &.2* %"1
Ne6.,19!9
(e)en*ant in narcotic< 'o<<e<<ion 'ro<ecution =a< not entitle* to ne= trial on @a<i< o) te<tiAonB
@B =itne<<, =ho ha* 'lea*e* guiltB to <aAe o))en<e ha* not Bet @een <entence*, that
=itne<<, )or )ear o) Deo'ar*iEing hi< 'ro@ation 'o<<i@ilitie<, ha* not te<ti)ie* @ut =oul* ha6e
te<ti)ie* that he ha* o@taine* heroin )roA thir* 'er<on, =here thir* 'er<on te<ti)ie* on Aotion
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
that he ha* not gi6en heroin to =itne<<, <ince it =a< not <ho=n that e6i*ence coul* not ha6e
@een *i<co6ere* =ith rea<ona@le *iligence an* *i))erent re<ult =a< not 'ro@a@le. N.R.S.
17!.515 .
1li6er 6. State, %5! &.2* %"1
Ne6.,19!9
(e)en*ant =a< not entitle* to ne= trial in narcotic< 'ro<ecution on groun* that =itne<<, =ho
ha* 'lea*e* guiltB to <aAe o))en<e @ut ha* not Bet @een <entence*, ha* @een un=illing to gi6e
e$onerating te<tiAonB )or )ear o) Deo'ar*iEing 'ro@ation 'o<<i@ilitie< an* ha* in<tea* claiAe*
'ri6ilege, =here *e)en*ant *i* not Aa?e e))ort to te<t correctne<< o) =itne<<I< a<<ertion o)
'ri6ilege.
State 6. Croc?ett, %%% &.2* 89!
Ne6.,19!8
Trial court 'ro'erlB e$erci<e* it< *i<cretion granting a ne= trial on @a<i< o) ne=lB *i<co6ere*
e6i*ence to *e)en*ant con6icte* o) Aur*er =here a)ter trial in*i6i*ual, =ho coul* not @e
)oun* @B 'olice *uring trial, re6eale* that he =a< the 'er<on <een lea6ing Aur*er <ite =ith a
gun rather than *e)en*ant a< =itne<<e< ha* te<ti)ie*. N.R.S. 175.5"5, <u@*. 7.
7urton 6. State, %"7 &.2* 8!1
Ne6.,19!8
To <ati<)B <tatute allo=ing ne= trial on @a<i< o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence there Au<t @e a
)actual <ho=ing that ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence coul* not ha6e @een o@taine* through *iligence
'rior to trial, an* that it =oul* ha6e the 'ro@a@le e))ect o) a *i))erent 6er*ict on retrial.
N.R.S. 175.5"5.
7urton 6. State, %"7 &.2* 8!1
Ne6.,19!8
(e)en*ant charge* =ith ro@@erB =a< not entitle* to a ne= trial on groun*< o) ne=lB *i<co6ere*
e6i*ence, =hich allege*lB con<i<te* o) a*Ai<<ion @B co*e)en*ant =hich 'ur'orte* to
e$cul'ate *e)en*ant, a< =ell a< an a))i*a6it o) *e)en*antI< attorneB relating to circuA<tance<
an* tiAe o) *i<co6erB o) the ne= e6i*ence, <ince )act that co*e)en*ant =a< ?no=n @e)ore an*
*uring trial to all other 'artie< an* their coun<el a< a <ource o) e6i*ence a< to coAAi<<ion o)
the ro@@erie< coul* not @e re)ute* )roA the recor*. N.R.S. 175.5"5.
&acheco 6. State, %08 &.2* 715
Ne6.,19!5
Statute authoriEing court to grant ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence reFuire<
"" S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
)actual <ho=ing that e6i*ence i< ne=lB *i<co6ere*, Aaterial to *e)en<e an* coul* not =ith
rea<ona@le *iligence ha6e @een *i<co6ere* an* 'rocure* )or trial an* conclu<ion< =ill not <u))ice.
N.R.S. 175.5"5. <u@*. 7.
&acheco 6. State, %08 &.2* 715
Ne6.,19!5
>otion )or ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence call< )or e$erci<e o) *i<cretion
@B trial court an*, on re6ie=, inFuirB i< =hether an a@u<e o) *i<cretion ha< occurre*. N.R.S.
1!9.110, 175.5"5, <u@*. 7.
State 6. >cNeil, % &.2* 889
Ne6.,19"1
>otion )or ne= trial )or ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< a**re<<e* to courtI< *i<cretion.
Ser6in 6. State, "2 &."* 1277
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9"8 /n 9eneral
110?9"8G2; ?. 2hat con<titute< ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence in general.
Ne6.,2001
/n)orAation in 'o<<e<<ion o) one =itne<< that an a*Aitte* accoA'lice in Aur*er, =ho al<o
te<ti)ie* at *e)en*antI< trial, ha* con)e<<e* to the Aur*er, =a< not ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence
entitling *e)en*ant to ne= trial, *e<'ite *e)en*antI< contention that accoA'liceI< te<tiAonB
=a< <o crucial that hi< iA'eachAent =oul* ha6e nece<<itate* *i))erent 6er*ict, an* that he ha*
@een 'reclu*e* )roA <u@'oenaing =itne<< to te<ti)B, =here <tate *i<clo<e* accoA'liceI< a*Ai<<ion
to =itne<< nearlB nine Aonth< 'rior to trial. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
7ion*i 6. State, !99 &.2* 10!2
Ne6.,1985
,))i*a6it )roA co*e)en*ant <tating that he alone <ta@@e* 6ictiA an* that he ha* lie* at trial
=hen he *i<claiAe* anB re<'on<i@ilitB )or the ?illing *i* not con<titute Pne=lB *i<co6ere*
e6i*enceQ or e6i*ence =hich =oul* 'ro@a@lB change re<ult at trial, <o a< to entitle *e)en*ant
to ne= trial, =here co*e)en*antI< <tateAent< e$cul'ating *e)en*ant ha* @een 're<ente* to the
DurB an* ha* @een reDecte*. N.R.S. 17!.515G1; .See 'u@lication 2or*< an* &hra<e< )or other
"% S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Du*icial con<truction< an* *e)inition<.
>annon 6. State, !%5 &.2* %""
Ne6.,1982
Te<tiAonB @B *e)en*antI< girl )rien* in =hich <he a*Aitte* that <he ha* @een one =ho )urni<he*
AariDuana to @oB< *i* not con<titute ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence that entitle* *e)en*ant
to a ne= trial =here *e)en<e coun<el ha* @een gi6en thi< in)orAation on night o) )ir<t trial *aB
@ut =a< a<?e* Pnot to tellQ @ecau<e girl )rien* =a< a)rai* *e)en*ant =oul* @e angrB =ith her
)or her *i<clo<ure. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
3ilt 6. State, 5%1 &.2* !%5
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9"8 /n 9eneral
110?9"8G"; ?. #act< =ithin ?no=le*ge o) *e)en*ant.
Ne6.,1975
(e)en*ant =a< not entitle* to ne= trial on @a<i< o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence con<i<ting o)
<tateAent< Aa*e @B 'ro<ecution =itne<< again<t *e)en*ant, ina<Auch a< *e)en<e coun<el ha*
@een =ell a=are o) the )act< *uring trial an* <oAe o) the <tateAent< ha* @een Aa*e to *e)en*ant.
N.R.S. 17!.515 .
State 6. #ouFuette, 221 &.2* %0%
Ne6.,1950
Re)u<al o) court to grant ne= trial u'on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence =a< 'ro'er
=here <uch e6i*ence relate* to Aental an* 'hB<ical con*ition o) accu<e* long 'rior to Aur*er
=hich =a< ?no=n to accu<e* an* hi< coun<el @e)ore trial.
(I,go<tino 6. State, 915 &.2* 2!%
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9"9 (iligence
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110?9"9G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,199!
To Aerit ne= trial, ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence Au<t @e e6i*ence that coul* not ha6e @een *i<co6ere*
through rea<ona@le *iligence either @e)ore or *uring trial.
Callier 6. 2ar*en, Ne6a*a 2oAenI< Correctional Center, 901 &.2* !19
Ne6.,1995
/n a<<e<<ing ca<e< in6ol6ing 'o<<i@le 'erDurB at trial, =hether in conte$t o) ne= trial Aotion or
ha@ea< 'etition, trial court <houl* or*er ne= trial @a<e* on =itne<< recantation onlB i) the )ollo=ing
criteria are Aet: G1; court i< <ati<)ie* that trial te<tiAonB o) Aaterial =itne<<e< =a<
)al<e5 G2; e6i*ence <ho=ing that )al<e te<tiAonB =a< intro*uce* at trial i< ne=lB *i<co6ere*5
G"; e6i*ence coul* not ha6e @een *i<co6ere* an* 'ro*uce* )or trial e6en =ith e$erci<e o) rea<ona@le
*iligence5 an* G%; it i< 'ro@a@le that ha* )al<e te<tiAonB not @een a*Aitte*, *i))erent
re<ult =oul* ha6e occurre* at trial.
State 6. >cNeil, % &.2* 889
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9%0 ?. >aterialitB.
Ne6.,19"1
>ere a*Ai<<i@ilitB o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence i< not <u))icient to Du<ti)B ne= trial i) it *oe<
not a''ear that e6i*ence 'o<<e<<e< reFui<ite AaterialitB.
State 6. Soare<, 29! &. 1081
Ne6.,19"1
(e)en*ant hel* not entitle* to ne= trial )or ro@@erB on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence
to e))ect that 'ro<ecuting =itne<< @elie6e* *e)en*antI< a<<ociate ro@@e* =itne<< on <'ur o)
AoAent an* that *e)en*ant ha* nothing to *o =ith ro@@erB.
&acheco 6. State, %08 &.2* 715
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
"! S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 9%1 CuAulati6e 06i*ence
110?9%1G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,19!5
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence =hich i< cuAulati6e AaB not @e enough to =arrant another trial.
N.R.S. 175.5"5, <u@*. 7.
1I7riant 6. State, 295 &.2* "9!
Ne6.,195!
/n 'ro<ecution )or ar<on @a<e* on allege*lB incen*iarB origin o) )ire in rear rooA o) *e)en*antI<
<tore, *enial o) ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence that 'oli<hing cloth<
<tore* in rear rooA =ere <u@Dect to <'ontaneou< coA@u<tion =a< not a@u<e o) *i<cretion, <ince
<uch e6i*ence =a< AerelB cuAulati6e in 6ie= o) )act that DurB =a< =ell a=are that in)laAAa@le
an* coA@u<ti@le Aaterial< =ere 're<ent in rooA an* o) *e)en*antI< theorB that <uch Aaterial<
cau<e* )ire.
State 6. Ran*ol'h, 2%2 &. !97
Ne6.,192!
Ne= trial )or ne=lB *i<co6ere* cuAulati6e e6i*ence 'ro'erlB re)u<e*.
1INeill 6. State, 2008 2: !102001
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9%2 /A'eachAent o) 2itne<<
110?9%2G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,2008
(e)en*ant =a< not entitle* to ne= trial on charge< o) 'o<<e<<ion o) )orge* in<truAent< @a<e*
on allege* ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence concerning 'ro@ation o))icerI< )al<e re'ort o) recei't o)
negati6e urine <aA'le )roA *e)en*ant an* hi< <u@<eFuent )iring, a< e6i*ence =a< iA'eachAent
e6i*ence =hich coul* not )orA the @a<i< )or a ne= trial.
3ennie 6. State, 9!8 &.2* 7!1
Ne6.,1998
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* iA'eachAent e6i*ence AaB @e <u))icient to Du<ti)B granting a ne= trial i)
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
the =itne<< iA'eache* i< <o iA'ortant that iA'eachAent =oul* nece<<itate a *i))erent 6er*ict.
N.R.S. 17!.515 .
3ennie 6. State, 9!8 &.2* 7!1
Ne6.,1998
06i*ence that =itne<<e< =ho te<ti)ie* again<t *e)en*ant accu<e* o) @urglarB, gran* larcenB,
an* the)t, con<'ire* =ith each other to Aur*er =itne<<I e$=i)e an* that one =itne<< =a< <u@<tantiallB
in *e@t to the other, =a< not cuAulati6e @ut Du<ti)ie* a ne= trial5 *e)en*ant claiAe*
he =a< )raAe* @B =itne<<e<, *e)en*ant =a< largelB con6icte* @a<e* on the te<tiAonB o) the
=itne<<e<, DurB =a< un*er the Ai<ta?en iA're<<ion that =itne<<e< =ere neutral, an* ?no=le*ge
o) the con<'iracB =a< critical to *e)en*antI< *e)en<e. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
(I,go<tino 6. State, 915 &.2* 2!%
Ne6.,199!
(e)en*ant con6icte* o) )ir<t*egree Aur*er @a<e*, at lea<t in 'art, on te<tiAonB o) hi< e<trange*
=i)e =a< not entitle* to ne= trial @a<e* on e6i*ence =hich he *i<co6ere* a)ter trial a<
to <tateI< *i<Ai<<al o) criAinal charge< again<t =i)e5 Fue<tion o) =i)eI< allege* coo'eration
=ith <tate =a< e$'lore* in great *etail at *e)en*antI< trial, at =hich *e)en<e attorneB 'ointe*
out the 'en*encB o) criAinal charge< that =ere later *i<Ai<<e* an* Fue<tione* =i)e a< to her
recei't o) AoneB )roA <ecret =itne<< )un*, an* e6i*ence o) *e)en*antI< guilt =a< o6er=helAing.
(I,go<tino 6. State, 915 &.2* 2!%
Ne6.,199!
(e)en*ant cannot o@tain ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence =hich AerelB contra*ict<,
iA'eache< or *i<cre*it< =itne<< at *e)en*antI< trial, unle<< =itne<<I te<tiAonB =a< <o iA'ortant
that *i))erent re<ult =oul* @e rea<ona@lB 'ro@a@le.
8ing 6. State, 59! &.2* 501
Ne6.,1979
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* iA'eachAent e6i*ence AaB @e <u))icient to Du<ti)B granting a ne= trial i)
the =itne<< iA'eache* i< <o iA'ortant that iA'eachAent =oul* nece<<itate a *i))erent 6er*ict.
8ing 6. State, 59! &.2* 501
Ne6.,1979
2here re6ie= o) the e6i*ence at Aur*er trial re6eale* that te<tiAonB o) *e)en*antI<
15Bearol* <te'*aughter =a< not <o crucial that a *i))erent re<ult =oul* @e reFuire* i) the
<te'*aughter =ere iA'eache* an* =here, at hearing on *e)en*antI< Aotion )or a ne= trial
@a<e* on allege* ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence con<i<ting o) <te'*aughterI< <tateAent that <he
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
ha* lie* at the trial, the <te'*aughter a))irAe* her original trial te<tiAonB an* *enie* ha6ing
tol* a 'ri6ate in6e<tigator that <he ha* lie* at the trial, the *i<trict court *i* not a@u<e *i<cretion
in *enBing the ne= trial Aotion.
RileB 6. State, 5!7 &.2* %75
Ne6.,1977
Con6iction o@taine* @B ?no=ing u<e o) 'erDure* te<tiAonB i< )un*aAentallB un)air an* Au<t
@e <et a<i*e i) there i< anB rea<ona@le li?elihoo* that )al<e te<tiAonB coul* ha6e a))ecte* Du*gAent
o) DurB. ..S.C.,.Con<t. ,Aen*. 5 .
State 6. >cNeil, % &.2* 889
Ne6.,19"1
Ne= trial )or ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence iA'eaching in character hel* 'ro'erlB *enie*.
State 6. 2ill@erg, 200 &. %75
Ne6.,1921
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* iA'eaching e6i*ence i< not groun* )or ne= trial.
#unche< 6. State, 9%% &.2* 775
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9%2G2; ?. Contra*ictorB <tateAent< @B =itne<<.
Ne6.,1997
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence o) co*e)en*antI< <tateAent to Dailhou<e in)orAant< that co*e)en*ant
?ille* 6ictiA *i* not entitle *e)en*ant to ne= trial in 'ro<ecution )or )ir<t*egree Aur*er.
N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. 1.
Ne6.,1995
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ne6.,1995
#in*ing that trial te<tiAonB =a< in*ee* )al<e i< e<<ential in e6aluating =hether ne= trial
<houl* @e grante* in allege* 'erDurB ca<e<, an* trial court <houl* )ir<t a**re<< )al<itB i<<ue.
CleA 6. State, 7!0 &.2* 10"
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9%" ?. Con)licting or contra*icte* e6i*ence.
Ne6.,1988
06i*ence =hich contra*icte* =itne<<I 'rior te<tiAonB in criAinal trial =a< in<u))icient to <u''ort
grant o) ne= trial on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence groun*<, e<'eciallB =here the ne= e6i*ence,
a =itne<< =ho <tate* he =a< at <cene o) criAe, coul* no longer @e locate*.
8ing 6. State, 59! &.2* 501
Ne6.,1979
/n a@<ence o) anB 'roo) that *e)en*antI< 15Bearol* <te'*aughter coAAitte* 'erDurB at *e)en*antI<
Aur*er trial an* =here the <etting in =hich the recor*e* con6er<ation too? 'lace =a<
not <uch a< to en<ure truth)ulne<<, the )act that a *etecti6e =or?ing )or the *e)en<e ha*
<ecretlB recor*e* a con6er<ation =herein the <te'*aughter <tate* that <he lie* at the trial =a<
not <u))icient to create a *ue 'roce<< reFuireAent that *e)en*ant @e gi6en a ne= trial.
..S.C.,.Con<t. ,Aen*<. 5 , 1% .
>c:eAore 6. State, 577 &.2* 871
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9%% ?. Cre*i@ilitB.
Ne6.,1978
%0 S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
/n 6ie= o) lac? o) e6i*ence other than hear<aB to in*icate that @lac? Aan i*enti)ie* @B *e)en<e
in6e<tigator =a< in )act @lac? Aan i*enti)ie* @B @arten*er a< <econ* Aan =ho ro@@e* ta6ern
an* =ho =a< in 6ehicle =hen licen<e nuA@er =a< ta?en, )ailure o) @arten*er to i*enti)B <uch
in*i6i*ual )roA 'hotogra'hic lineu' =a< iAAaterial to her cre*i@ilitB in 'o<iti6elB i*enti)Bing
*e)en*ant a< ro@@er, an* in 6ie= o) )act that @arten*erI< te<tiAonB i*enti)Bing *e)en*ant =a<
not in anB =aB 'ut in *ou@t an* <ince clo<ing arguAent a))or*e* coun<el a''ro'riate Aean< to
a**re<< anB claiAe* =ea?ne<<e< in eBe=itne<< i*enti)ication, trial court on Aotion )or ne= trial
on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence 'ro'erlB re)u<e* to inter)ere =ith 'ro6ince o) DurB
in *eterAining cre*i@ilitB o) @arten*erI< te<tiAonB. N.R.S. 17!.515 , 19".1!5 , 200."80 .
Cu<toA (ige<t ! 3ea*note<
(I,go<tino 6. State, 915 &.2* 2!%
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9%5 Su))iciencB an* &ro@a@le 0))ect
110?9%5G1; ?. &ro@a@le e))ect o) ne= e6i*ence, in general.
Ne6.,199!
To Aerit ne= trial, ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence Au<t @e <uch a< to ren*er *i))erent re<ult 'ro@a@le
on retrial.
Ne6.,1995
,rA<trong 6. State, !05 &.2* 11%2
Ne6.,1980
/n 'ro<ecution )or in)aAou< criAe again<t nature )or coAAi<<ion o) an act o) <o*oAB again<t
a 17Bearol*, trial court, in con<i*ering *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial, 'ro'erlB conclu*e*
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
that la@oratorB re'ort =hich *e)en*ant inten*e* to u<e to iA'each 6ictiA @ut =hich State ha*
not Aa*e a6aila@le =oul* not ha6e a))ecte* the outcoAe e<'eciallB =here another re'ort con)irAe*
that an act o) <o*oAB ha* occurre*. N.R.S. 201.190 .
State 6. Croc?ett, %%% &.2* 89!
Ne6.,19!8
Cre*i@ilitB i< not te<t o) Aotion )or ne= trial an* trial Du*ge Au<t in<tea* re6ie= circuA<tance<
in their entire light an* then *eci*e =hether ne= e6i*ence =ill 'ro@a@lB change re<ult
o) trial.
&acheco 6. State, %08 &.2* 715
Ne6.,19!5
To =arrant ne= trial allege* ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence Au<t @e <uch a< to ren*er *i))erent
re<ult 'ro@a@le on retrial. N.R.S. 1!9.110, 175.5"5, <u@*. 7.
8ing 6. State, 2009 2: "189007
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9%5G2; ?. &articular e6i*ence or ca<e<.
Ne6.,2009
(e)en*ant con6icte* o) )ir<t*egree Aur*er @B Aean< o) chil* a@u<e =a< not entitle* to ne=
trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence in the )orA o) a @lan?et the in)ant 6ictiA =a<
=ra''e* in on the night o) hi< *eath, =hich @oth <i*e< ha* un<ucce<<)ullB atteA'te* to )in*
'rior to trial5 although *e)en*ant argue* that @lan?et corro@orate* hi< te<tiAonB that in)ant
*ie* )roA cho?ing on hi< o=n 6oAit rather than @lunt hea* trauAa, )oren<ic 'athologi<t, =ho
te<ti)ie* at trial that he coul* not *eterAine a cau<e o) *eath, <till coul* not e<ta@li<h a cau<e
o) *eath, e6en =ith the @lan?et, e6i*ence o) @loo* an* 6oAit on the @lan?et =oul* not nece<<arilB
iA'each =itne<<e< =ho <ai* theB *i* not <ee @loo* or 6oAit, an* auto'<B e6i*ence reAaine*
the @e<t e6i*ence in the ca<e.
1INeill 6. State, 2008 2: !102001
Ne6.,2008
,llege* ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence that <earch o) *e)en*ant =a< @a<e* on )a@ricate* e6i*ence
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
*i* not =arrant ne= trial on charge< o) 'o<<e<<ion o) )orge* in<truAent<, a< *e)en*ant *i* not
<ho= that a *i))erent re<ult =oul* @e 'ro@a@le on retrial.
2al?er 6. State, 9%% &.2* 7!2
Ne6.,1997
(e)en*ant con6icte* o) )ir<t*egree Aur*er =a< not entitle* to ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB
*i<co6ere* e6i*ence that he 'urcha<e* 'uregrain alcohol on *aB o) the Aur*er, <u''orting hi<
arguAent that he =a< too *run? to coAAit )ir<t*egree Aur*er, a< it =a< not rea<ona@lB 'ro@a@le
that the ne= e6i*ence =oul* ha6e le* to a *i))erent re<ult.
SiAAon< 6. State, 912 &.2* 217
Ne6.,199!
06en i) <u''re<<e* te<tiAonB o) Aur*er 6ictiAI< neigh@or that he ha* not hear* gun <hot< on
night o) Aur*er coul* @e categoriEe* a< ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence that Aight entitle *e)en*ant
to ne= trial, it =a< not o) <uch FualitB that, =hen con<i*ere* @B DurB, =oul* 'ro@a@lB re<ult
in *i))erent outcoAe i) ne= trial =ere 'erAitte* =here e6i*ence ha* @een 're<ente* to DurB
that neigh@or< hear* nothing unu<ual, an* 'hB<ical e6i*ence o6er=helAinglB in*icate* that
6ictiA =a< <hot in hi< re<i*ence, rather than @eing <hot <oAe=here el<e an* then ta?en to hi<
hoAe.
State 6. StanleB, % Ne6. 71
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9%8 ,''lication )or Ne= Trial
110 9%9 #orA an* ReFui<ite< in 9eneral
110?9%9G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,18!8
,n a''lication )or ne= trial, on the groun* that the DurB recei6e* e6i*ence out o) the trial, that
theB <e'arate* contrarB to in<truction<, or @ecau<e the 6er*ict =a< reache* @B ca<ting lot<, or
<oAe other un)air Aean<, AaB @e 're<ente* @B a))i*a6it, =ithout either <tateAent or @ill o)
e$ce'tion<.
:aBton 6. State, 510 &.2* 8!%
%" S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?950 ?. -uri<*iction.
Ne6.,197"
/t =a< neither nece<<arB nor 'ro'er to a''lB in )ir<t in<tance to Su'reAe Court )or lea6e to
Ao6e )or ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence5 rather, <uch a Aotion =a< reFuire* to
@e Aa*e in *i<trict court. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. ".
8ing 6. State, 2009 2: "%25!!1
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 951 TiAe )or >a?ing
110?951G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,2009
Trial court 'ro'erlB *i<Ai<<e* Aotion )or ne= trial that =a< not @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere*
e6i*ence an* =a< )ile* Aore than eight Bear< a)ter entrB o) the Du*gAent o) con6iction. 2e<tI<
NRS, 17!.515 G%;.
2att< 6. State, 2008 2: !12%788
Ne6.,2008
Trial court coul* *enB *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial a< untiAelB5 the Aotion =a< not @a<e*
u'on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence an* =a< not )ile* =ithin <e6en *aB< a)ter the DurBI< 6er*ict.
2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 G%;.
7ro=ning 6. State, 91 &."* "9
Ne6.,200%
(e)en*antI< Aotion )or a ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence =a< untiAelB, =here
the Aotion =a< Aa*e Aore than t=o Bear< a)ter hi< con6iction. 2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 , <u@*.
".
(I,go<tino 6. State, 915 &.2* 2!%
Ne6.,199!
>otion )or ne= trial that =a< not )ile* until Aore than t=o Bear< a)ter DurB returne* 6er*ict o)
%% S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
guiltB an* *e)en*ant =a< <entence* to *eath =a< not )ile* in tiAelB )a<hion, un*er Ne6a*a
<tatute 'ro6i*ing that =hene6er Aotion )or ne= trial i< @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence,
Aotion Au<t @e )ile* =ithin t=o Bear< a)ter 6er*ict or )in*ing o) guilt5 trial court 'ro'erlB reDecte*
*e)en*antI< contention that t=oBear =in*o= <houl* @egin to run, in ca'ital ca<e, onlB
a)ter conclu<ion o) all a''eal<. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. ".
(e&a<Fuale 6. State, 80" &.2* 218
Ne6.,1990
(i<trict court *i* not err in not hearing Aur*er *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial, )ile* one *aB
late. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. %.
Sno= 6. State, 779 &.2* 9!
Ne6.,1989
Statute reFuiring that Aotion< )or ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence @e @rought
=ithin t=o Bear< a)ter 6er*ict *i* not 6iolate eFual 'rotection clau<e o) #ourteenth ,Aen*Aent
on @a<i< o) *i<tingui<hing @et=een tho<e 'ri<oner< =ho @ring their Aotion< =ithin the
t=o Bear< an* tho<e =ho *o not, =here *e)en*ant ha< a6enue, through 'etition )or ha@ea< cor'u<,
@B =hich he AaB 're<ent hi< allege*lB e$cul'ating, ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence Aore than
t=o Bear< a)ter the 6er*ict. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. "5 ..S.C.,. Con<t.,Aen*. 1% .
Sno= 6. State, 779 &.2* 9!
Ne6.,1989
,lthough iA'ortant 'ri6ate intere<t e$i<t< in right not to @e e$ecute* erroneou<lB, t=oBear
<tatute o) liAitation< on Aotion )or ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence *i* not 6iolate
*eath 'enaltB *e)en*antI< *ue 'roce<< right<, =here *e)en*ant ha* o'tion o) 're<enting
ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence in 'etition )or =rit o) ha@ea< cor'u<. N.R.S. 17!.515 , <u@*. "5
..S.C.,. Con<t.,Aen*. 1% .
3argro6e 6. State, !8! &.2* 222
Ne6.,198%
7oth a Aotion )or a ne= trial an* a Aotion to =ith*ra= a guiltB 'lea AaB @e Aa*e a)ter con6iction.
N.R.S. 17!.1!5 , 17!.515 .
&acheco 6. State, %08 &.2* 715
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 95% StateAent o) 9roun*<
110?95%G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,19!5
Conclu<orB <tateAent in Ao6ing 'a'er< that ne= e6i*ence ha< @een *i<co6ere*, Aaterial to
*e)en<e, @B *e)en*ant, an* that it coul* not =ith rea<ona@le *iligence ha6e @een *i<co6ere*
an* 'rocure* at the trial =a< not <u))icient to =arrant granting o) ne= trial. N.R.S. 1!9.110,
175.5"5, <u@*. 7.
State 6. 7auer, 122 &. 7!
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 955 7ill o) 0$ce'tion< or StateAent o) Ca<e
110?955G1; ?. Nece<<itB )or @ill o) e$ce'tion<.
Ne6.,1912
2here a Aotion )or a ne= trial i< @a<e* on Aatter< tran<'iring @e)ore the court, it AaB @e
Aa*e =ithout a @ill o) e$ce'tion<.
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 95! ,))i*a6it< an* 1ther &roo)< in 9eneral
110?95!G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,2009
,< )ir<t o) three <te'< in6ol6e* on a non0ngli<h<'ea?ing *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial
@a<e* on allege* inaccuracie< o) hi< tran<late* trial te<tiAonB, each 'artB <houl* ha6e it< o=n
inter'reter re6ie= the tran<late* te<tiAonB )or *i<cre'ancie<5 i) *i<cre'ancie< e$i<t, the *e)en*ant
ha< the @ur*en o) *eAon<trating the inaccuracB o) the tran<late* te<tiAonB an* that it
)un*aAentallB altere* the <u@<tance o) hi< actual te<tiAonB. 2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 .
%! S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ne6.,2009
,< <econ* o) three <te'< in6ol6e* on a non0ngli<h<'ea?ing *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial
@a<e* on allege* inaccuracie< o) hi< tran<late* trial te<tiAonB, the *i<trict court <houl* a''oint
an in*e'en*ent an*, i) a6aila@le, certi)ie* court inter'reter to re6ie= the tran<lation<5 to *eterAine
=hether the *e)en*ant ha< Aet hi< @ur*en o) *eAon<trating the inaccuracB o) the
tran<late* te<tiAonB, the *i<trict court Au<t con<i*er the *i<'ute* 6er<ion< o) the te<tiAonB to
*eterAine =hether the allege* inaccuracie< or oAi<<ion< )un*aAentallB altere* the conte$t o)
the *e)en*antI< te<tiAonB an* =hether the inaccuracie< 'reDu*ice* the *e)en*ant <uch that a
ne= trial i< =arrante*. 2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 .
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
The 'ortion o) <heri))I< a))i*a6it relating to letter allege* to ha6e @een =ritten @B *e)en*ant
=hile in countB Dail to =oAan in .tah reFue<ting that hac?<a= @la*e< @e <ent hiA, although it
=oul* ha6e @een rele6ant at trial to <ho= con<ciou<ne<< o) guilt an* )ear o) con<eFuence<,
=a< not 'ro'er )or that 'ur'o<e a)ter the trial u'on Aotion )or ne= trial u'on groun* o) in<u))iciencB
o) e6i*ence to Du<ti)B the 6er*ict.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
No e6i*ence =oul* @e 'ro'er u'on a Aotion )or ne= trial that =a< 'ro'er, rele6ant, or Aaterial
to i<<ue< at the trial, in6ol6ing guilt or innocence o) *e)en*ant, an* not there intro*uce*.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
1nlB the e6i*ence a*Aitte* at trial, an* @e)ore ca<e =a< )inallB <u@Aitte* to DurB, can @e con<i*ere*
u'on a Aotion )or ne= trial in *eterAining <u))iciencB o) e6i*ence to Du<ti)B the 6er*ict.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
The 'ortion o) <heri))I< a))i*a6it narrating *e)en*antI< atteA'te* e<ca'e )roA countB Dail =hile
=aiting trial, =hen a*Aitte* u'on hearing o) *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial, =a< a*Ai<<i@le
onlB to <ho= criAinal an* *e<'erate character o) *e)en*ant )or 'ur'o<e o) <ho=ing rea<ona@le
nece<<itB )or ?ee'ing hiA han*cu))e* at tiAe o) the trial, an* )ailure to re<trict u<e o) a))i*a6it
)or <uch 'ur'o<e =a< erroneou<.
State 6. StanleB, % Ne6. 71
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ne6.,18!8
,n a''lication )or ne= trial on the groun* that *e)en*ant =a< not 're<ent *uring the trial AaB
@e 're<ente* <iA'lB @B a))i*a6it, =ithout either <tateAent or @ill o) e$ce'tion<.
State 6. Soren<on, "15 &.2* 508
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?95!G2; ?. Nece<<itB )or a))i*a6it< in general.
Ne6.,1957
Trial courtI< )ailure, in granting ne= trial a)ter con6iction, to reFuire coA'liance =ith <tatutorB
reFuireAent that Aotion )or ne= trial @a<e* on Ai<con*uct @e <u''orte* @B a))i*a6it
=oul* not @e *eterAine* erroneou< =here trial court grante* <ai* Aotion on a**itional groun*
=hich *i* not reFuire <u''ort @B a))i*a6it. N.R.S. 1!9.110.
/<@ell 6. State, !2! &.2* 127%
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?95!G10; ?. Su))iciencB o) 'roo)< a< to *i<Fuali)ication o) Duror<.
Ne6.,1981
06i*ence <u''orte* trial courtI< )in*ing that Duror ha* not Aaintaine* a @ia< again<t *e)en*ant
=hich <he ha* conceale* on 6oir *ire.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110?95!G11; ?. >i<con*uct o) or a))ecting Duror< in general.
Ne6.,200"
/n claiA< o) DurB Ai<con*uct @a<e* on intrin<ic in)luence< an* e$trin<ic Aaterial that *oe< not
generallB rai<e a 're<uA'tion o) 'reDu*ice, the *e)en*ant Au<t, through a*Ai<<i@le e6i*ence,
*eAon<trate the nature o) the Duror Ai<con*uct an* that there i< a rea<ona@le 'ro@a@ilitB that it
a))ecte* the 6er*ict.
&en*leton 6. State, 7"% &.2* !9"
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?95!G1"; ?. Su))iciencB o) 'roo)< a< to Ai<con*uct o) or a))ecting Duror<.
Ne6.,1987
,lthough 'roce*ure )or alleging Duror Ai<con*uct on Aotion )or ne= trial u<uallB in6ol6e*
<u@Ai<<ion o) a))i*a6it< o) Duror<, *etailing Ai<con*uct o) other Duror<, <o that *i<trict Du*ge
coul* then call hearing to Fue<tion a))iant a@out Aatter, un*er circuA<tance< o) ca<e, there
=a< no in)irAitB in 'roce*ure utiliEe* @B *e)en<e coun<el o) <u@Aitting hi< o=n a))i*a6it alleging
Duror Ai<con*uct.
:ittle 6. State, !25 &.2* 572
Ne6.,1981
Though a))i*a6it< =ere a*Aitte* )or liAite* 'ur'o<e o) <ho=ing concealAent o) actual @ia< on
'art o) Duror<, =here nothing in recor* coA'elle* a )in*ing o) intentional concealAent @B Duror<,
trial court acte* =ell =ithin it< *i<cretion in *eterAining that a ne= trial =a< not =arrante*.
&ar<on< 6. State, "29 &.2* 1070
Ne6.,1958
/n Aur*er 'ro<ecution, e6i*ence <u<taine* iA'lie* )in*ing that <e'aration< o) Duror< =ere not
'reDu*icial.
Cu<toA (ige<t 1% 3ea*note<
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 957 StateAent<, ,))i*a6it<, an* Te<tiAonB o) -uror<
110?957G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,200"
7ecau<e claiA< o) Duror Ai<con*uct @a<e* on intrin<ic in)luence< can rarelB @e 'ro6en =ithout
re<ort to ina*Ai<<i@le Duror a))i*a6it< that *el6e into the DurBI< *eli@erati6e 'roce<<, onlB in e$treAe
circuA<tance< =ill intrin<ic in)luence< Du<ti)B a ne= trial. 2e<tI< NRS, 50.0!5 .
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
The *i<trict court, )or 'ur'o<e< o) a claiA o) Duror Ai<con*uct, Au<t a''lB an o@Decti6e te<t in
e6aluating the iA'act o) the e$trin<ic Aaterial or intrin<ic Ai<con*uct on the 6er*ict an*
<houl* not in6e<tigate the <u@Decti6e e))ect< o) anB e$trin<ic e6i*ence or Ai<con*uct on the
Duror<.
Tinch 6. State, 9%! &.2* 10!1
Ne6.,1997
,< general rule, Duror< AaB not iA'each their o=n 6er*ict.
7u<hnell 6. State, 599 &.2* 10"8
Ne6.,1979
Ne6a*a la= allo=< Duror te<tiAonB regar*ing o@Decti6e )act< or o6ert con*uct con<tituting Duror
Ai<con*uct.
2al?er 6. State, 59% &.2* 710
Ne6.,1979
2here it i< claiAe* that a Duror ha< an<=ere* )al<elB on 6oir *ire a@out a Aatter o) 'otential
@ia< or 'reDu*ice, an e$ce'tion i< Aa*e to general rule that a DurorI< <tateAent< =ill not @e recei6e*
to iA'each the 6er*ict.
Coo? 6. State, "59 &.2* %8"
Ne6.,19!1
-uror< coul* not iA'each their o=n 6er*ict.
&inana 6. State, "52 &.2* 82%
Ne6.,19!0
&er<onal te<tiAonB o) Duror<, a< to a<<erte* Ai<con*uct, 'ro))ere* a< atteA't to ha6e Duror<
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
iA'each their o=n 6er*ict @B <ho=ing that theB ha* an<=ere* Fue<tion< on 6oir *ire e$aAination
iA'ro'erlB an* that theB ha* con<i*ere* )act< out<i*e recor* =a< 'ro'erlB re)u<e*.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
9enerallB, Duror< AaB te<ti)B to anB )act< <ho=ing the e$i<tence o) an out<i*e in)luence, @ut
theB cannot gi6e e6i*ence to the e))ect anB <uch out<i*e in)luence AaB ha6e ha* on their
Ain*< in arri6ing at a 6er*ict.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
9enerallB, a))i*a6it< or te<tiAonB o) Duror< are a*Ai<<i@le =hen o))ere* @B 'ro<ecution )or
'ur'o<e o) <u<taining the 6er*ict.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
,))i*a6it< @B Duror< that theB =ere not in)luence* @B rea*ing ne=<'a'er article<, or @B iA'ro'er
arguAent< o) 'ro<ecuting attorneB, or @B iA'ro'er e6i*ence or e$hi@it< intro*uce* in
the DurB rooA, or that theB *i* not 'aB anB attention to )act that in<truction *eli6ere* to theA
=a< Aar?e* Pre)u<e*Q, cannot @e con<i*ere*.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
,))i*a6it< o) Duror<, in =hich theB <tate* theB =ere not in)luence* @B )act that *e)en*ant =a<
<hac?le* *uring cour<e o) trial, =a< not coA'etent e6i*ence to <ho= a@<ence o) anB 'reDu*icial
in)luence u'on their Ain*< a< re<ult o) <hac?ling o) *e)en*ant, an* a*Ai<<ion o) <uch
e6i*ence on *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial =a< iA'ro'er.
State 6. :e=i<, 91 &.2* 820
Ne6.,19"9
Ver*ict< cannot @e iA'eache* @B Duror<I a))i*a6it<.
State 6. Ste=art, 9 Ne6. 120
Ne6.,187%
-urorI< a))i*a6it i< ina*Ai<<i@le to iA'each 6er*ict.
Re)erence<
/A'eachAent o) 6er*ict @B DurorI< e6i*ence that he =a< coerce* or intiAi*ate* @B )ello= Duror
"9 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th 800 G1985;
9 Norton 7an?ru'tcB :a= an* &ractice 2* #e*. R. 06i*. !0! G1998;
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Tinch 6. State, 9%! &.2* 10!1
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?957G2; ?. (enBing or e$'laining a<<ent to 6er*ict.
Ne6.,1997
-urorI< te<tiAonB, 'rior to 'enaltB 'ha<e o) Aur*er trial, to e))ect that <he ha* tol* @aili)) 'rior
to rea*ing o) 6er*ict that <he =ante* to change her 6er*ict an* that @aili)) ha* tol* her that <he
coul* not *o <o, *i* not reFuire *eclaration o) Ai<trial, =here Duror *i* not re'u*iate her 6er*ict
at tiAe DurB =a< 'olle* an* @aili))I< te<tiAonB a< to hi< con6er<ation =ith Duror con)licte*
=ith DurorI< te<tiAonB.
0cha6arria 6. State, 8"9 &.2* 589
Ne6.,1992
StateAent< o) Duror *uring 'o<ttrial inter6ie= that <he ha* 6ote* )or *eath 'enaltB onlB @ecau<e
<he thought that 6er*ict =oul* @e o6erturne* on a''eal =a< not a*Ai<<i@le to iA'each
DurBI< 6er*ict.
State 6. :e=i<, 91 &.2* 820
Ne6.,19"9
,))i*a6it< o) Duror< to <ho= Ai<con*uct o) DurB an* that 6er*ict =a< coerce* a< a re<ult o)
Ai<re're<entation an* *eceit o) )ello= Duror<, =ere 6aluele<< a< @eing contrarB to )act< <ho=n
@B recor* an* a< not *i<clo<ing the naAe o) anB Duror =ho Ai<re're<ente* anB )act<.
Cu<toA (ige<t 1" 3ea*note<
Val*eE 6. State, 19! &."* %!5
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?957G"; ?. >i<con*uct o) Duror<, in general.
Ne6.,2008
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1n a Aotion )or Ai<trial @a<e* on intrin<ic Duror Ai<con*uct, the *e)en*ant Au<t 'ro6e the
nature o) the DurB Ai<con*uct an* that there i< a rea<ona@le 'o<<i@ilitB that the Ai<con*uct a))ecte*
the 6er*ict5 the *e)en*ant AaB onlB 'ro6e the Ai<con*uct u<ing o@Decti6e )act< an* not
the <tate o) Ain* or *eli@erati6e 'roce<< o) the DurB.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
&roo) o) Duror Ai<con*uct Au<t @e @a<e* on o@Decti6e )act< an* not the <tate o) Ain* or *eli@erati6e
'roce<< o) the DurB. 2e<tI< NRS, 50.0!5 .
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
-uror a))i*a6it< that *el6e into a DurorI< thought 'roce<< cannot @e u<e* to iA'each a DurB 6er*ict
@a<e* on Ai<con*uct an* Au<t @e <tric?en. 2e<tI< NRS, 50.0!5 .
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
7e)ore a *e)en*ant can 're6ail on a Aotion )or a ne= trial @a<e* on a claiA o) Duror Ai<con*uct,
the *e)en*ant Au<t 're<ent a*Ai<<i@le e6i*ence <u))icient to e<ta@li<h: G1; the occurrence
o) Duror Ai<con*uct, an* G2; a <ho=ing that the Ai<con*uct =a< 'reDu*icial.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
,))i*a6it< or <tateAent< @B Duror< a@out the actual e))ect o) Duror Ai<con*uct on the *eli@eration<
or their in*i6i*ual *eci<ion< are not a*Ai<<i@le to *eterAine the iA'act o) the Ai<con*uct
u'on a 6er*ict. 2e<tI< NRS, 50.0!5 .
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
(i<trict court *i* not a@u<e it< *i<cretion, )or 'ur'o<e< o) claiA o) Duror Ai<con*uct @rought
@B <e$ual a<<ault *e)en*ant, in <tri?ing 'ortion o) Duror a))i*a6it< that inclu*e* re)erence< regar*ing
<i*e e))ect< o) 6ictiAI< ,ccutane Ae*ication, =hich ha* @een tol* to DurB @B Duror
=ho re<earche* the Ae*ication, an* re)erence< regar*ing the e))ect <entencing *i<cu<<ion< ha*
on Aental 'roce<< o) t=o o) the Duror<, e6en though *e)en*ant claiAe* e$clu*e* 'ortion< =ere
*eterAinati6e o) Ai<con*uct claiA, a< *e)en*ant allege* at trial that 'hB<ical Aar?< on 6ictiAI<
@o*B =ere cau<e* @B a reaction to 6ictiAI< ,ccutane Ae*ication or )alling5 recor* re6eale*
that the <tric?en 'ortion< o) the Duror a))i*a6it< outline* the e))ect that the allege* Ai<con*uct
ha* u'on <oAe o) the Duror<, or ho= the DurB con*ucte* it< *eli@eration<. 2e<tI<
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
NRS, 50.0!5 .
:ittle 6. State, !25 &.2* 572
Ne6.,1981
2hen it i< claiAe* a Duror ha< an<=ere* )al<elB on 6oir *ire a@out a Aatter o) 'otential @ia< or
'reDu*ice, a))i*a6it< o) other Duror< re6ealing <uch iA'ro'er con*uct AaB @e recei6e* to iA'each
their 6er*ict.
7u<hnell 6. State, 599 &.2* 10"8
Ne6.,1979
-urorI< a))i*a6it to e))ect that DurB )oreAan Ai<<tate* to other Duror< the Du*geI< re<'on<e to
Duror<I Fue<tion< *uring *eli@eration =a< coA'etent e6i*ence iA'eaching 6er*ict, <ince it =a<
te<tiAonB regar*ing an o@Decti6e )act con<tituting Duror Ai<con*uct an* =a< a*Ai<<i@le.
N.R.S. %8.025 , 50.0!5 , <u@*. 2.
7ar?er 6. State, 59% &.2* 719
Ne6.,1979
2here court e$clu*e* )roA it< con<i*eration o) DurB Ai<con*uct tho<e 'ortion< o) a))i*a6it
=hich *i* *eal =ith Aental 'roce<<e< or e))ect u'on Duror< o) allege* Ai<con*uct, an* onlB relie*
u'on tho<e 'ortion< o) a))i*a6it< o) te<tiAonB *ealing =ith the con*uct an* the <tateAent<
to the DurB o) the )oreAan, the<e =ere o@Decti6e )act< o6er an* ca'a@le o) a<certainAent @B
anB o@<er6er an* the court, there)ore, 'rocee*e* 'ro'erlB un*er a''lica@le rule. N.R.S. 50.0!5
, <u@*. 2.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
Though Duror< AaB @e 'erAitte* to te<ti)B a< to =hether anB 'articular act allege* a< Ai<con*uct
on 'art o) Duror< occurre*, or a< to e$i<tence o) anB )act Ailitating again<t )air trial, theB
are not 'erAitte* to gi6e e6i*ence, either orallB or @B a))i*a6it, u'on Aotion )or ne= trial, a<
to e))ect <uch Ai<con*uct or 'reDu*icial act ha* u'on their Ain*<.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
The Duror< are coA'etent to re@ut allegation< o) @ia< an* Ai<con*uct, @ut, =here act o) Ai<con*uct
i< a*Aitte*, it cannot @e <ho=n @B Duror< that accu<e* <u))ere* no 'reDu*ice @B rea<on
thereo), <ince un*er <uch circuA<tance< the 're<uA'tion o) 'reDu*ice i< conclu<i6e.
State 6. CrutchleB, 12 &. 11"
Ne6.,188!
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
The a))i*a6it o) a trial Duror, in a trial )or Aur*er, 'ur'orting to gi6e a <tateAent Aa*e @B another
Duror a)ter the DurB ha< retire* to con<i*er their 6er*ict, i< not generallB e6i*ence o) Ai<con*uct
=hich the court can con<i*er in <u''ort o) a Aotion )or a ne= trial.
Re)erence<
&reDu*icial e))ect o) DurBI< 'rocureAent or u<e o) @oo? *uring *eli@eration< in criAinal ca<e<
"5 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th !2! G1985;
&ro'rietB o) DurorI< te<t< or e$'eriAent< in DurB rooA "1 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th 5!!
G198%;
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?957G5; ?. Con<i*eration @B DurB o) Aatter< not in e6i*ence.
Ne6.,200"
To *eterAine =hether there i< a rea<ona@le 'ro@a@ilitB that Duror Ai<con*uct a))ecte* a 6er*ict,
a court AaB con<i*er a nuA@er o) )actor<, =hich inclu*e ho= the e$traneou< in)orAation
=a< intro*uce* to the DurB, the length o) tiAe it =a< *i<cu<<e* @B the DurB, the tiAing o) it<
intro*uction,
=hether the in)orAation =a< aA@iguou<, 6ague, or <'eci)ic in content, =hether the
in)orAation =a< cuAulati6e o) other e6i*ence a**uce* at trial, =hether the in)orAation in6ol6e*
a Aaterial or collateral i<<ue, =hether the in)orAation in6ol6e* ina*Ai<<i@le e6i*ence,
an* in a**ition, the trial court Au<t Aa?e a con<i*eration o) the e$trin<ic in)luence in light o)
the trial a< a =hole an* the =eight o) the e6i*ence.
>eBer 6. State, 80 &."* %%7
Ne6.,200"
The *i<trict courtI< )actual inFuirB )or 'ur'o<e< o) a claiA o) Duror Ai<con*uct i< liAite* to
*eterAining
the e$tent to =hich Duror< =ere e$'o<e* to the e$trin<ic or intrin<ic e6i*ence.
&inana 6. State, "52 &.2* 82%
Ne6.,19!0
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
,))i*a6it< concerning hear<aB <tateAent< o) one o) the Duror<, an* aAounting to in*irect =aB
o) 'erAitting Duror to iA'each hi< o=n 6er*ict, =ere not entitle* to con<i*eration on Aotion
)or ne= trial.
&inana 6. State, "52 &.2* 82%
Ne6.,19!0
&er<onal te<tiAonB o) Duror<, a< to a<<erte* Ai<con*uct, 'ro))ere* a< atteA't to ha6e Duror<
iA'each their o=n 6er*ict @B <ho=ing that theB ha* an<=ere* Fue<tion< on 6oir *ire e$aAination
iA'ro'erlB an* that theB ha* con<i*ere* )act< out<i*e recor* =a< 'ro'erlB re)u<e*.
State 6. >c8aB, 1!5 &.2* "89
Ne6.,19%!
,))i*a6it< @B Duror< that theB =ere not in)luence* @B rea*ing ne=<'a'er article<, or @B iA
'ro'er arguAent< o) 'ro<ecuting attorneB, or @B iA'ro'er e6i*ence or e$hi@it< intro*uce* in
the DurB rooA, or that theB *i* not 'aB anB attention to )act that in<truction *eli6ere* to theA
=a< Aar?e* Pre)u<e*Q, cannot @e con<i*ere*.
Re)erence<
-urorI< rea*ing o) ne=<'a'er account o) trial in <tate criAinal ca<e *uring it< 'rogre<< a<
groun* )or Ai<trial, ne= trial, or re6er<al %! ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th 11 G198!;
&reDu*icial e))ect o) DurBI< 'rocureAent or u<e o) @oo? *uring *eli@eration< in criAinal ca<e<
"5 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th !2! G1985;
-urBI< *i<cu<<ion o) 'arole la= a< groun* )or re6er<al or ne= trial 21 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort<
%th %20 G198";
:e=i< 6. State, 59! &.2* 85%
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 958 ,))i*a6it< an* 06i*ence a< to Ne=lB (i<co6ere* 06i*ence
110?958G1; ?. /n general.
Ne6.,1979
Trial Court *i* not err in *enBing ne= trial in Aur*er 'ro<ecution on @a<i< o) allege*lB ne=lB
*i<co6ere* e6i*ence containe* in a))i*a6it e$ecute* @B co*e)en*ant e$cul'ating *e)en*ant
)roA anB 'artici'ation in the criAe.
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
:o'eE 6. State, 7!9 &.2* 127!
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?958G!; ?. Su))iciencB o) 'roo)< in general.
Ne6.,1989
Trial court *i* not err in re)u<ing Ai<trial in 'ro<ecution )or Aur*er @B torture @a<e* u'on allege*
'erDure* te<tiAonB o) ?eB =itne<< )or 'ro<ecution5 allege* 'erDurB, that =itne<< =a< in
)act @rother o) 6ictiAI< Aother, =a< not 'ro6e*.
&acheco 6. State, %08 &.2* 715
Ne6.,19!5
#act< @earing u'on rea<ona@le *iligence to 'rocure e6i*ence )or trial Au<t @e <ho=n @B @e<t
e6i*ence 'o<<i@le on Aotion )or ne= trial. N.R.S. 175.5"5, <u@*. 7.
:i@@B 6. State, 975 &.2* 8""
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?959 ?. 3earing an* rehearing in general.
Ne6.,1999
06i*entiarB hearing regar*ing claiA o) gen*er *i<criAination in DurB <election =a< not Aeaningle<<,
<o a< to =arrant a ne= trial, e6en though alAo<t eight Bear< ha* 'a<<e* <ince the DurB
<election5 =hile 'ro<ecutor =a< una@le to reAeA@er e6erB *etail, <uch a< each 'otential DurorI<
clothing or e$act *eAeanor, the *e)en<e ha* aA'le o''ortunitB to cro<<e$aAine the 'ro<ecutor
to challenge @oth hi< cre*i@ilitB an* hi< AeAorB, an* the *eterAination that he coul* <u))icientlB
recall an* articulate hi< rea<on< )or e$erci<ing hi< 'ereA'torB challenge< =a< not an
a@u<e o) *i<cretion.
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ru*in 6. State, 8! &."* 572
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9!1 ?. (eterAination.
Ne6.,200%
>ur*er *e)en*antI< na?e* allegation< that trial courtI< *eci<ion to *enB her Aotion )or ne= trial
=a< colore* @B @ia< or lac? o) iA'artialitB =ere in<u))icient to e<ta@li<h anB iA'ro'rietB5
*e)en*ant ha* @ur*en o) <etting )orth )act<, @ut )aile* to *o <o.
State 6. &urcell, 887 &.2* 27!
Ne6.,199%
(i<trict court =hich grante* ne= trial to *e)en*ant clearlB i*enti)ie* the con)lict in the e6i*ence
=hen it note* in it< o'inion that e6i*ence a< to *e)en*antI< guilt =a< con)licting an* then
<tate* it< general iA're<<ion =ith regar* to each count, a< =ell a< it< rea<on< )or *i<agreeing
=ith DurB 6er*ict. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
State 6. &urcell, 887 &.2* 27!
Ne6.,199%
,lthough *i<trict court terAe* e6i*ence Pin<u))icient,Q thorough rea*ing o) it< *eci<ion re6eale*
that *i<trict court *i* not )in* e6i*ence in<u))icient a< a Aatter o) la= to <u''ort 6er*ict,
@ut in<tea* )oun* that it =a< con)licting an* that 6er*ict =a< not @a<e* on <u@<tantial
e6i*ence an* thu<, *i<trict courtI< or*er granting ne= trial =a< 'ro'er. N.R.S. 17!.515 .
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9!% ?. 1r*er granting or re)u<ing ne= trial.
Ne6.,2009
,< )inal <te' in6ol6e* on a non0ngli<h<'ea?ing *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial @a<e* on
allege* inaccuracie< o) hi< tran<late* trial te<tiAonB, the *i<trict court <houl* 're<er6e co'ie<
o) tran<lation< )or the recor* on a''eal. 2e<tI< NRS, 17!.515 .
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
7ell 6. Coughlin, 820 #.Su''. 780
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 91" 9roun*< )or Ne= Trial in 9eneral
110?91"G1; ?. /n general.
S.(.N.4.,199"
&olice o))icerI< )al<e te<tiAonB concerning hi< ?no=le*ge o) @alli<tic< te<t< other than one to
=hich he te<ti)ie*, con*ition o) t=o o) <i$ @ullet< an* one o) <i$ cartri*ge <hell< )oun* at
criAe <cene, an* =hether he too? tho<e @ullet< an* <hell =ith hiA to con*uct @alli<tic< te<t<
*i* not reFuire ne= trial, not=ith<tan*ing *e)en*ant<I contention that *i<clo<ure o) o))icerI<
'erDurB =oul* ha6e @ol<tere* their arguAent at trial that <tate =oul* ha6e gone to anB length<
to con6ict *e)en*ant< o) Aur*er o) t=o 'olice o))icer< an* <ha?en DurBI< )aith in @alli<tic< re<ult<5
there =a< no e6i*ence that 'ro<ecutor< ?ne= that o))icerI< te<tiAonB =a< )al<e, )al<e
te<tiAonB *i* not un*ercut i*enti)ication o) gun in *e)en*ant<I 'o<<e<<ion a< Aur*er =ea'on
@a<e* on other <hell< an* @ullet<, an*, e6en =ithout gun i*enti)ication, 'ro<ecutionI< ca<e =a<
e$treAelB <trong.
SAitherAan 6. State, 521 So.2* 1050
,la.CriA.,''.,1987
#act that )orAer 'olice o))icer an* 'riAarB =itne<<, in <ale o) controlle* <u@<tance< trial, =a<
not onlB <ource o) incul'atorB e6i*ence )or State, Ao<t nota@lB *e)en*antI< <tateAent< u'on
arre<t, =a< <igni)icant in *eci*ing =hether *e)en*ant =a< entitle* to ne= trial, a)ter 'riAarB
=itne<&0T0NT &R/NC/&,:S, C1>&0T0NT T3/R( &,RT/0S, ,N( T30 :,2 1#
,90NC4 !1 /n*iana :a= -ournal 115 G198!;
..S. 6. >cCourtB, 5!2 #."* %58
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110?919G1; ?. /n general.
C.,.2.N.4.,2009
(enial o) *rug *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial =a< not a@u<e o) *i<cretion, not=ith<tan*ing
*e)en*antI< contention that te<ti)Bing 'olice o))icer< coAAitte* 'erDurB, ina<Auch a< it =a<
=ithin 'ur6ie= o) DurB to a<<e<< o))icer<I cre*i@ilitB, an* o))icer<I te<tiAonB =a< not <o 'atentlB
incre*i@le or *e)iant o) 'hB<ical realitie< a< to Du<ti)B intru<ion u'on DurBI< 6er*ict. CoA'rehen<i6e
(rug ,@u<e &re6ention an* Control ,ct o) 1970, N %01, 21 ..S.C.,. N 8%1 5
#e*.Rule< Cr.&roc.Rule "", 18 ..S.C., .
3arri< 6. ..S., 9 #.Su''.2* 2%!
S.(.N.4.,1998
:en*ing o))icerI< ci6il *e'o<ition< )aile* to e<ta@li<h 'erDurB @B her in te<ti)Bing )or go6ernAent
in 'ro<ecution o) @orro=er<I chie) e$ecuti6e o))icer GC01; )or *e)rau*ing len*er< in
connection =ith <'eculati6e oil tra*ing through another coA'anB o=ne* @B C01, )or 'ur'o<e<
o) C01I< entitleAent to ne= trial or correction o) <entence5 o))icer AerelB <tate* in *e'o<ition
that <he lac?e* in)orAation on coA'anBI< acti6itie<. 28 ..S.C.,. N 2255 5 #e*.Rule<
Ci6.&roc.Rule "", 28 ..S.C., .
3arri< 6. ..S., 9 #.Su''.2* 2%!
S.(.N.4.,1998
8no=le*ge or 'erce'tion< o) o))icer< o) @an?< other than @an? )or =hich go6ernAent =itne<<
=or?e* a< len*ing o))icer =a< not *irectlB 'ro@ati6e o) =itne<<I ?no=le*ge or 'erce'tion< an*
thu< =hether <he coAAitte* 'erDurB in te<ti)Bing again<t @orro=er<I chie) e$ecuti6e o))icer
GC01; in 'ro<ecution )or *e)rau*ing len*er<, )or 'ur'o<e< o) *eterAining C01I< entitleAent
to ne= trial or correction o) <entence. 28 ..S.C.,. N 2255 5 #e*.Rule< Ci6.&roc.Rule "", 28
..S.C., .
..S. 6. Chin, 910 #.Su''. 889
0.(.N.4.,1995
(e)en*ant )oun* guiltB o) @eing )elon in 'o<<e<<ion o) =ea'on =a< not entitle* to ne= trial,
e6en though *e)en*ant claiAe* that incon<i<tencie< @et=een earlier te<tiAonB o) 'olice o))icer
an* trial te<tiAonB =ere <o nuAerou< a< to in*icate 'erDurB rather than AeAorB la'<e<
or other non'erDuriou< cau<e< o) con)lict5 incon<i<tencie< relate* to cha<e o) *e)en*ant, an*
not hi< allege* *i<car*ing o) =ea'on a< he ran *o=n an alleB=aB, =hich =a< central to *e)en*antI<
theorB that 'olice P'lante*Q =ea'on.
..S. 6. &an*oEEi, 878 #.2* 152!
!0 S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
C.,.1.R./.,1989
#ailure to *i<clo<e <tate 'olice o))icerI< AeAoran*uA on inter6ie= =ith =itne<< *i* not =arrant
ne= trial on charge o) 'erDurB @e)ore gran* DurB =here *e)en*ant coul* ha6e o@taine*
<aAe in)orAation =ith rea<ona@le *iligence an* =here )ailure to *i<clo<e the AeAo =oul* not
ha6e Aa*e a *i))erence in the trialI< outcoAe.
CoA. 6. Corni<h, 5%7 N.0.2* 9%8
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?919G"; ?. /n arguAent in general.
>a<<.,''.,1989
Ne= trial =a< 'ro'erlB grante* *e)en*ant con6icte* on 'o<<e<<ion o) AariDuana an* tra))ic?ing
in cocaine *ue to Du*geI< concern< =ith tru<t=orthine<< o) e6i*ence, )airne<<, an* intere<t<
o) Du<tice5 e6i*ence 're<ente* <eriou< Fue<tion a< to =hether 'olice o))icer =ho =a< CoAAon=ealthI<
chie) =itne<< ha* coAAitte* 'erDurB, o))icer =a< iA'ro'erlB allo=e* to o))er
o'inion o) *e)en*antI< guilt, an* 'ro<ecutor iA'ro'erlB <ought in clo<ing to ha6e DurB *ra= in)erence
a*6er<e to *e)en*ant )or )ailing to call a< =itne<< co*e)en*ant =ho<e trial ha* @een
<e6ere*.
Re)erence<
Re'ort< 5th 700 G199";
CoA. 6. Corni<h, 5%7 N.0.2* 9%8
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?921 ?. Ruling< on e6i*ence.
>a<<.,''.,1989
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
<e6ere*.
CoA. 6. Corni<h, 5%7 N.0.2* 9%8
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9"5 Ver*ict ContrarB to 06i*ence
110?9"5G1; ?. 2eight an* <u))iciencB o) e6i*ence in general.
>a<<.,''.,1989
<e6ere*.
3arri< 6. ..S., 9 #.Su''.2* 2%!
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9"8 /n 9eneral
110?9"8G2; ?. 2hat con<titute< ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence in general.
S.(.N.4.,1998
Trial e$hi@it< or *ocuAent< rea*ilB acce<<i@le to @orro=er<I chie) e$ecuti6e o))icer GC01;
G@an? <tateAent<, @orro=ing @a<e re'ort<, an* *ailB acti6itB re'ort<; =ere not ne=lB *i<co6ere*
e6i*ence on Fue<tion =hether Aanager o) len*erI< coAAo*itie< *i6i<ion coAAitte*
'erDurB in te<ti)Bing )or go6ernAent in 'ro<ecution )or *e)rau*ing len*er< in connection =ith
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
<'eculati6e oil tra*ing, )or 'ur'o<e< o) *eterAining C01I< entitleAent to ne= trial or correction
o) <entence. 28 ..S.C.,. N 2255 5 #e*.Rule< Ci6.&roc.Rule "", 28 ..S.C., .
..S. 6. 3ar6eB, 5%0 #.2* 1"%5
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110 9"9 (iligence
110?9"9G1; ?. /n general.
C.,.8.,r?.,197!
CourtI< *enial o) *e)en*antI< 'o<ttrial Aotion<, on claiA that a #7/ "02 <tateAent to an agent
@B tele'hone coA'anB <ecuritB o))icer =a< Pne=lB *i<co6ere*Q e6i*ence o) 'erDurB @B <uch
<ecuritB o))icer that ha* @een ?no=inglB <u''re<<e* @B 'ro<ecution, =a< not error, <ince anB
incon<i<tencB @et=een te<tiAonB an* #7/ "02 re'ort o) <tateAent *uring in6e<tigation =a<
rea*ilB *i<co6era@le at tiAe o) trial an* there =a< no e6i*ence o) <u''re<<ion or ?no=ing u<e
o) 'erDure* te<tiAonB @B 9o6ernAent.
Cor<o 6. ..S., "89 #.Su''. !59
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9%0 ?. >aterialitB.
S.(.N.4.,197%
/n a@<ence o) anB 'ro<ecutorial Ai<con*uct an* )act that the )al<e te<tiAonB o) o))icer< =ith
re<'ect to their *enial o) ?no=le*ge o) e$i<tence o) illegal =ireta'< =a< not Aaterial to the i<<ue
o) guilt, there =a< no @a<i< to grant ne= trial @a<e* on go6ernAent =itne<<e/N,: :,2
!" S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110?9%2G1; ?. /n general.
C.,.".N.-.,2010
(i<trict court *i* not a@u<e it< *i<cretion in *enBing *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial in cocaine
iA'ortation 'ro<ecution, *e<'ite *e)en*antI< contention that go6ernAent =itne<<I< 'erDurB
a@out call< *e)en*ant Aa*e to Trini*a* coul* ha6e a))ecte* DurBI< Du*gAent, =here =itne<<I<
te<tiAonB regar*ing *e)en*antI< 'ur'orte* u<e o) 'hone to call Trini*a* =a< not in*i<'en<a@le
to hi< con6iction, an* *e)en*antI< con6iction =a< <u''orte* @B o6er=helAing e6i*ence
)roA other <ource<, inclu*ing te<tiAonB @B la= en)orceAent o))icer< an* *e)en*antI< cocon<'irator.
#e*.Rule< Cr.&roc.Rule "", 18 ..S.C., .
..S. 6. Vogel, 251 #e*.,''$. "99
C.,.9.Cal.,2007
Ca<ela= 'ro6i*ing )or ne= trial @a<e* on critical =itne<<I 'erDurB or coA'lete lac? o) relia@ilitB
*i* not =arrant ne= trial )or con<'iracB an* AoneB laun*ering in connection =ith *rug
acti6itB @a<e* on cocon<'iratorI< <u@<eFuent con6iction )or o@<truction o) o))icial 'rocee*ing
ari<ing )roA cocon<'iratorI< lie< to hi< 'ro@ation o))icer.
ConleB 6. ..S., 1!% #.Su''.2* 21!
(.>a<<.,2001
06i*ence *i<co6ere* *uring ci6il trial that 'ro<ecution =itne<< i*enti)ie* 'er<on< other than
*e)en*ant at 'hoto lineu' a< 'er<on< that he <a= near <cene o) 'olice o))icerI< @eating =arrante*
ne= trial )or *e)en*ant con6icte* o) 'erDurB an* o@<truction o) Du<tice @a<e* u'on hi<
gran* DurB te<tiAonB *uring in6e<tigation o) the a<<ault5 e6i*ence =a< not *i<clo<e* @B 'ro<ecutor<
*e<'ite *e)en*antI< <'eci)ic reFue<t, an* it =a< Aaterial <ince it coul* ha6e @een u<e*
to iA'each =itne<<I trial te<tiAonB that *e)en*ant =a< one o) the 'er<on< he <a= near <cene o)
a<<ault, =hich coul* ha6e re<ulte* in acFuittal. ..S.C.,. Con<t.,Aen*. 5 5 #e*.Rule<
Cr.&roc.Rule "", 18 ..S.C., .
..S. 6. Cu<ti<, 988 #.2* 1"55
C.,.%.>*.,199"
Su@<eFuent in*ictAent o) t=o 'olice o))icer =itne<<e< )or 'erDurB *i* not =arrant ne= trial5
in*ictAent in6ol6e* unrelate* ca<e =ith i<<ue< that ha* no @earing on *e)en*antI< trial,
charge< again<t o))icer< =ere Aere allegation<, in*ictAent< =ere *i<Ai<<e*, an* o))icer0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
an*, to <oAe e$tent, te<tiAonB o) *e)en*ant hiA<el).
..S. 6. 3ar6eB, 5%0 #.2* 1"%5
C.,.8.,r?.,197!
CourtI< *enial o) *e)en*antI< 'o<ttrial Aotion<, on claiA that a #7/ "02 <tateAent to an agent
@B tele'hone coA'anB <ecuritB o))icer =a< Pne=lB *i<co6ere*Q e6i*ence o) 'erDurB @B <uch
<ecuritB o))icer that ha* @een ?no=inglB <u''re<<e* @B 'ro<ecution, =a< not error, <ince anB
incon<i<tencB @et=een te<tiAonB an* #7/ "02 re'ort o) <tateAent *uring in6e<tigation =a<
rea*ilB *i<co6era@le at tiAe o) trial an* there =a< no e6i*ence o) <u''re<<ion or ?no=ing u<e
o) 'erDure* te<tiAonB @B 9o6ernAent.
TBler 6. State, 501 S.2.2* 189
>o.,''.,197"
>ere 6ariance @et=een the te<tiAonB o) 'olice o))icer< at *e)en*antI< criAinal trial an* ci6il
trial again<t the o))icer< to reco6er )or allege* @rutalitB =ere not <u))icient to =arrant 6acation
o) Du*gAent an* ne= trial on groun* o) 'erDurB. V.,.>.R. CriA. Rule 27.2!.
State 6. 7raEil, 50% &.2* 7!
,riE.,''.(i6.1,1972
2here incon<i<tencie< in te<tiAonB o) 'olice o))icer =itne<< =ere not o) <uch nature a< to
con6ince court that =itne<< =a< coAAitting or ha* coAAitte* 'erDurB, ne= trial =a< not reFuire*.
>artin 6. .. S., 15% #.2* 2!9
C.,.!.1hio,19%!
/n 'ro<ecution )or cau<ing a girl to @e tran<'orte* in inter<tate coAAerce =ith intent to in*uce
her to engage in iAAoral 'ractice< in 6iolation o) 2hite Sla6e ,ct, re)u<al o) Aotion )or ne=
trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, con<i<ting o) a))i*a6it< o) 'olice o))icer an* o)
)ather an* uncle o) girl allege*lB tran<'orte* in inter<tate coAAerce ten*ing to <ho= that girl
coAAitte* 'erDurB touching Aaterial )eature< o) her te<tiAonB, *i* not con<titute an a@u<e o)
*i<cretion. 2hite Sla6e ,ct N 2, 18 ..S.C.,. N 2%21 .
State 6. 9reco, 8!2 So.2* 1152
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110?9%2G2; ?. Contra*ictorB <tateAent< @B =itne<<.
:a.,''.%.Cir.,200"
State =itne<<e<I recantation te<tiAonB at 'o<tcon6iction hearing that theB =ere )orce* @B *etecti6e
an* *i<trict attorneBI< in6e<tigator to te<ti)B )al<elB at Aur*er trial that theB hear* *e)en*ant,
rather than accoA'lice, te<ti)B he =a< going to ProllQ 6ictiA, an* that theB =ere
threatene* =ith criAinal charge< i) theB <'o?e =ith *e)en<e coun<el or te<ti)ie* other=i<e,
<u''orte* )in*ing< that o))icer< <u@orne* 'erDurB an* that cre*i@ilitB o) *etecti6eI< an* in6e<tigatorI<
te<tiAonB regar*ing circuA<tance< o) ta?ing =itne<<e<I <tateAent< *e)en*antI<
con)e<<ion, in =hich *etecti6e a*Aitte* 'ara'hra<ing certain <tateAent< an* oAitting other<,
=a< <u))icientlB un*erAine* an* calle* into *ou@t 6ali*itB o) <tateAent< an* con)e<<ion, thu<
entitling *e)en*ant to ne= trial.
CoA. 6. 2ater<, 571 N.0.2* "99
>a<<.,1991
(enial o) *e)en*antI< Aotion )or ne= trial @a<e* on ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence o) 'olice o))icerI<
allege* ?no=inglB )al<e te<tiAonB at *e)en*antI< trial a< 'art o) o))icerI< allege* 'artici'ation
in unla=)ul 'olice 'rotection 'aBAent <cheAe, =a< not an a@u<e o) *i<cretion, *e<'ite
o))icerI< contrarB te<tiAonB at inter6ening 'erDurB trial o) o))icer =ho allege*lB acte* a<
Ai**leAan in 'rotection 'aBAent <cheAe, 'articularlB a< Aotion Du*ge =a< al<o trial Du*ge.
..S. 6. >ac?in, 5!1 #.2* 958
C.,.(.C.,1977
#act< that ?eB go6ernAent =itne<< tol* her 'ro@ation o))icer, =hen 'artiallB recanting her 'rior
te<tiAonB at Aur*er an* ro@@erB trial, that <he =ante* to Pget right =ith 9o*Q an* <he realiEe*
that <he ha* coAAitte* 'erDurB at trial, an* that =hen =itne<< tal?e* to her attorneB <he
?ne= <he =a< e$'o<ing her<el) to 'ro<ecution )or 'erDurB *i* not e<ta@li<h that =itne<< =a<
no= a cre*i@le =itne<< )or 'ur'o<e o) <ati<)Bing P:arri<on Q te<t )or ne= trial.
State 6. >orro=, 528 &.2* !12
,riE.,197%
Ne= trial =a< not reFuire* =here incon<i<tencie< in 'olice o))icerI< te<tiAonB in 'ro<ecution
)or ?i*na''ing an* le=* an* la<ci6iou< con*uct =ere not o) <uch a nature a< to con6ince court
that =itne<< =a< coAAitting or ha* coAAitte* 'erDurB.
,rnol* 6. State, %02 S.0.2* "12
!! S.&&:0>0NT,: T1 Notice o) ,''eal, >otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0,
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9%" ?. Con)licting or contra*icte* e6i*ence.
9a.,''.,1991
/ncon<i<tencie< in te<tiAonB o) 'olice o))icer< =ere not <ho=n to @e 'erDurB an* *i* not entitle
*e)en*ant to ne= trial5 recor* *i* not *i<clo<e that o))icer< ga6e =il)ullB an* ?no=inglB
)al<e te<tiAonB. 1.C.9.,. N 2%985 .
&eo'le 6. >arEe*, !1" N.4.S.2* 82!
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9%% ?. Cre*i@ilitB.
N.4.CitB.CriA.Ct.,199"
2ea'on 'o<<e<<ion *e)en*ant =a< entitle* to ne= trial on groun* o) ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence
that o))icer, =ho ha* @een &eo'leI< 'riAarB =itne<< at trial, ha* @een in*icte* )or 'erDurB
allege*lB coAAitte* in unrelate* criAinal 'ro<ecution5 e6i*ence that o))icer ha* lie* to
gran* DurB in another ca<e =oul* 'ro@a@lB ha6e change* 6er*ict at trial, =hich turne* on cre*i@ilitB
o) o))icer 6er<u< *e)en*ant. >c8inneBI< C&: N ""0."0, <u@*. " .
..S. 6. Cu<ti<, 78! #.Su''. 5""
(.>*.,1992
Ne= trial =a< nece<<itate*, in intere<t o) Du<tice, @B arre<ting o))icer<I in*ictAent< )or 'erDurB
in unrelate* ca<e<5 're<ence or a@<ence o) rea<ona@le *ou@t in Duror/N,: :,2
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110?9%5G2; ?. &articular e6i*ence or ca<e<.
C.,.2.N.4.,2002
(i<trict courtI< *enial o) ne= trial )ollo=ing 'olice o))icerI< con6iction )or 'erDurB =a< not
a@u<e o) *i<cretion, *e<'ite ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence that o))icer< o) citBI< anticriAe unit
ha* not engage* in Ai<con*uct, an* that go6ernAent *i* not ha6e <u))icient e6i*ence to 'ur<ue
action again<t anticriAe unit o))icer< un*er in6e<tigation5 <u@Dect Aatter o) o))icerI< trial
ha* @een liAite* to =hether or not he 'erDure* hiA<el) @e)ore gran* DurB in6e<tigating allege*
Ai<con*uct, an* go6ernAent ha* liAite* it<el) at trial to that i<<ue. #e*.Rule< Cr.&roc.Rule
"", 18 ..S.C., .
..S. 6. 3u**le<ton, 2" #.Su''.2* 72
(.>e.,1998
,<<uAing that a''ro'riate <tan*ar* )or *eterAining =hether ne= trial =a< =arrante* @B
ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence that go6ernAent =itne<<e<, un@e?no=n<t to 'ro<ecutor, 'erDure*
theA<el6e< =a< =hether there =a< rea<ona@le li?elihoo* that 6er*ict coul* ha6e @een *i))erent
=ith the ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, *e)en*ant =a< not entitle* to ne= trial @a<e* on go6ernAent
=itne<<e<I 'erDurB concerning their countrB o) origin in *rug trial in =hich *e)en*ant allege*
that he coo'erate* =ith =itne<<e< not to *i<tri@ute *rug< @ut to <et u' e$'ort @u<ine<<5
e6i*ence again<t *e)en*ant, inclu*ing incriAinating coAAent< he Aa*e to la= en)orceAent
o))icer< a)ter hi< arre<t, =a< o6er=helAing.
..S. 6. Cu<ti<, 78! #.Su''. 5""
(.>*.,1992
Ne= trial =a< nece<<itate*, in intere<t o) Du<tice, @B arre<ting o))icer<I in*ictAent< )or 'erDurB
in unrelate* ca<e<5 're<ence or a@<ence o) rea<ona@le *ou@t in Duror/N,: :,2
110 951 TiAe )or >a?ing
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
110?951G1; ?. /n general.
N.-.Su'er.,''.,199"
>otori<t =ho ha* @een con6icte* in >unici'al Court o) (2/ o))en<e @a<e* on te<tiAonB o)
'olice o))icer =ho later @egan to )al<i)B @reathalBEer rea*ing< )aile* to 're<ent clear, con6incing
an* <ati<)actorB e6i*ence o) anB 'erDurB @B o))icer in hi< ca<e, <uch a< Aight entitle Aotori<t
to ne= trial Aore than t=o Bear< a)ter he =a< con6icte*. R. 7:%7.
State 6. -o<e'h, 95 N.0.2* 771
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?957G!; ?. >i<con*uct o) other< a))ecting Duror<.
1hio.,''.2.(i<t.#ran?lin.Co.,1950
/n 'ro<ecution )or <u@ornation o) 'erDurB, =here Du*ge, Duror< an* o))icer< 'lace* in charge
o) DurB, a)ter <u@Ai<<ion o) ca<e @ut @e)ore *eli@eration, *ine* together, *e)en*ant ha* )ull
right to ta?e a))i*a6it< or te<tiAonB o) Duror< a< to =hat tran<'ire*, i) he @elie6e* that he =a<
'reDu*ice* @B action o) trial Du*ge, <ince rule that a))i*a6it< or te<tiAonB o) Duror< =ill not @e
recei6e* to iA'each their 6er*ict, unle<< e6i*ence aliun*e o) irregularitB in *eli@eration< o)
DurB or in return o) 6er*ict i< )ir<t <ho=n, ha< no a''lication =here <uch irregularitB i< *ue to
Ai<con*uct o) Du*ge or o))icer o) court. 9en.Co*e, N 1"%%81.
Re)erence<
CoAAunication @et=een court o))icial< or atten*ant< an* Duror< in criAinal trial a< groun* )or
Ai<trial or re6er<al'o<t&ar?er ca<e< "5 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th 890 G1985;
(i<ru'ti6e con*uct o) <'ectator< in 're<ence o) DurB *uring criAinal trial a< @a<i< )or re6er<al,
ne= trial, or Ai<trial 29 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th !59 G198%;
0Aotional Aani)e<tation< @B 6ictiA or )aAilB o) 6ictiA *uring criAinal trial a< groun* )or re6er<al,
ne= trial, or Ai<trial "1 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th 229 G198%;
&ro'rietB o) attorneBI< coAAunication =ith Duror< a)ter trial 19 ,Aerican :a= Re'ort< %th
1209 G198";
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
2il<on 6. State, !77 N.0.2* 58!
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?958G!; ?. Su))iciencB o) 'roo)< in general.
/n*.,''.,1997
Ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence, 'articularlB recantation @B 6ictiAI< )orAer @oB)rien* o) hi< te<tiAonB
that he ha* <een *e)en*ant 'oint )irearA at 6ictiA, =arrante* ne= trial on =ea'on<
charge<, *e<'ite claiA that ne= e6i*ence =a< AerelB iA'eaching, an* that @oB)rien*I< a))i*a6it
=a< not =orthB o) cre*it5 a))i*a6it =a< cre*i@le @ecau<e it e$'o<e* @oB)rien* to criAinal
con6iction )or 'erDurB, an* Aoreo6er, it =a< corro@orate* @B t=o other a))i*a6it< <tating that
@oB)rien* an* 6ictiA ha* Pe$'re<<e* <ur'ri<eQ that 'olice o))icerI< te<tiAonB ha* corro@orate*
their o=n.
&eo'le 6. 7o<<ert, 772 &.2* !18
Colo.,1989
>o6ant )aile* to e<ta@li<h that 'olice re'ort allege*lB contra*icting 'olice o))icerI< te<tiAonB
an* e<ta@li<hing 'erDurB @B o))icer =a< ne=lB *i<co6ere* e6i*ence5 Aotion *i* not <tate
=hen Ao6ant learne* o) re'ort or =hether it =a< *i<co6era@le @e)ore trial. Rule< CriA.&roc.,
Rule "5Gc;, Gc;G2;GV, V/; .
CoA. 6. 7ortner, 98 (au'h. 81
110 CR/>/N,: :,2
110?9!1 ?. (eterAination.
&a.CoA.&l.,197!
The court *enie* Aotion< )or a ne= trial an* in arre<t o) Du*gAent a)ter con6iction o) *e)en*ant<,
a 'olice o))icer an* to= truc? o=ner an* o'erator allege*lB in6ol6e* in Aa?ing ?ic?@ac?<
or 'aBo))< )roA to= truc? o'erator< )or the re)erral o) to=ing @u<ine<<, o) 'erDurB @e)ore
the &enn<Bl6ania CriAe CoAAi<<ion, a)ter )in*ing no Aerit to their 6ariou< contention<
inclu*ing tho<e relating to con<oli*ation o) in*ictAent< )or trial, lac? o) authoritB @B the CoAAi<<ion
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
to a*Aini<ter oath<, 6ariance @et=een the in*ictAent an* the e6i*ence a< to the 'ur'o<e
o) the 'aBAent<, a*Ai<<i@ilitB o) te<tiAonB o) *e)en*ant< gi6en @e)ore the CoAAi<<ion
an* *enial o) *e)en*antI< 'retrial a''lication )or *i<co6erB o) note< o) te<tiAonB o) all =itne<<e<
@e)ore the CoAAi<<ion.
CoA. 6. 2oo*, 20 Che<t. 158
&a.CoA.&l.,1972
(e)en*ant, )ollo=ing con6iction @B a DurB o) the criAe o) 'erDurB in concert =ith a co*e)en*ant
Galrea*B <entence*;, @B rea<on o) ha6ing )al<elB an* Aaliciou<lB charge* t=o 'olice
o))icer< =ith a criAinal o))en<e, Ao6e* )or a ne= trial an* in arre<t o) Du*gAent. (e)en<e
coun<el argue* that: the 6er*ict =a< not <u''orte* @B the la= or the e6i*ence, charge o) the
trial Du*ge ha* )aile* to *i<tingui<h @et=een cre*i@ilitB an* 'erDurB, the *e)en*ant <houl*
ha6e @een 'erAitte* to re@ut te<tiAonB a**uce* on cro<< e$aAination o) a coAAon=ealth
=itne<<, an* the content o) the ,<<i<tant (i<trict ,ttorneBI< clo<ing arguAent an* the )act o)
*ual re're<entation o) @oth *e)en*ant< @B the <aAe coun<el con<titute* <'eci)ic 6iolation< o)
*e)en*antI< con<titutional right<. The court care)ullB re6ie=e* the 'ertinent e6i*ence o) recor*
an* the charge o) the court G@oth <'eci)icallB an* rea* a< a =hole;, an*, a''lBing the rule< outline*
a@o6e, hel* that the *e)en*antI< Aotion< Au<t @e *enie*.
C1NC:.S/1N
(e)en*ant+,''elant Coughlin here@B re<'ect)ullB reFue<t< all 1r*er<, Con6iction<,
-u*gAent<, ConteA't #in*ing<, =hate6er, <teAAing )roA the No6eA@er "0
th
, 2011 Trial @e Vacate*
or Set ,<i*e or Recon<i*ere*..
,##/R>,T/1N &ur<uant to NRS 2"97.0"0
The un*er<igne* *oe< here@B a))irA that the 'rece*ing *ocuAent *oe< not contain
the <ocial <ecuritB nuA@er o) anB 'er<on.
(,T0( thi< 15
th
(aB o) (eceA@er, 2011
Zach Coughlin
R+<+ Zach Coughlin
(e)en*ant
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
&R11# 1# S0RV/C0
/, Zach Coughlin, *eclare:
1n (eceA@er 12, 2011, /, >r. Zach Coughlin <er6e* the )oregoing Notice o) ,''eal,
>otion to Vacate an* or Set ,<i*e, -CRC& 59, -CRC& !0, >otion )or Recon<i*eration5 >otion )or
Recu<al @B eAailing an* )a$ing an* or 'lacing in the Aail a true co'B thereo) to:
&aAela 9 Ro@ert< CoA'anB: Reno CitB ,ttorneBI< 1))ice CriAinal (i6i<on ,**re<<: &.1. 7o$
1900 Reno , NV 89505 &hone NuA@er: 775""%2050 #a$ nuA@er: 775""%2%20 0Aail:
ro@ert<'Sreno.go6
(,T0( T3/S15th *aB o) (eceA@er, 2011 74:
Zach Coughlin
(e)en*ant
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
/N(0C T1 0C3/7/TS:
1. 0C3/7/T 1.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Custo+ .ig"st & 4"a0not"s
B"rrB <. EquitaDl" >ol0 5in. Co., 91 ,. #37
8 @6.>5EN%
8V33 EntrB, !"cor0, an0 .ocE"ting
8E71 E. 2uthoritB to "nt"r.
N"<.,19$7
2 0"cr"" /or a -"r-"tual inFunction "nt"r"0 DB th" cl"rE Aas <oi0 on its /ac", Ah"r" it Aas unsu--ort"0
"ith"r DB th" <"r0ict r"n0"r"0 or DB an or0"r o/ th" Fu0g" 0ir"cting its "ntrB.

Custo+ .ig"st & 3 4"a0not"s
Stat" ") r"l. N"Aitt <. (ourth @u0icial .ist. Court in an0 /or ElEo CountB, 11 ,.0 44
8 @6.>5EN%
8E7 E. %i+" /or "ntrB in g"n"ral.
N"<.,194
%h" -r"+atur" "ntrB o/ a Fu0g+"nt is not a Furis0ictional 0"/"ct an0 0o"s not a<oi0 th" Fu0g+"nt,
Dut at +ost +aE"s it Girr"gularH an0 G<oi0aDl"H.S"" -uDlication :or0s an0 ,hras"s /or
oth"r Fu0icial constructions an0 0"/initions.
SchultI <. :int"r, 7 N"<. 13$
N"<.,1871
2n or0"r +a0" in th" trial o/ an issu" at laA, i/ a /inal Fu0g+"nt, +aB D" "nt"r"0 in t"r+ or <acation;
Dut such an or0"r, +a0" in <acation, can ha<" no <italitB until, at l"ast, it is 0"li<"r"0
to th" cl"rE /or /iling.

5cClintocE <. 5cClintocE, 138 ,.30 #13
8 @6.>5EN%
8 73 EntrB Nunc ,ro %unc
8E73J1? E. 3n g"n"ral.
N"<.,$$'
.istrict court +aB not us" a nunc -ro tunc or0"r to chang" a Fu0g+"nt actuallB r"n0"r"0 to
on" Ahich th" court n"ith"r r"n0"r"0 nor int"n0"0 to r"n0"r.
S+ith <. E--"rson, 94 ,.0 3'
N"<.,19#'
8DF"ct an0 -ur-os" o/ nunc -ro tunc or0"r is to +aE" r"cor0 s-"aE truth conc"rning acts
alr"a0B 0on". !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur", rul" '$Ja, D?.
2ll"n <. 2ll"n, 7$ ,.0 '71
N"<.,19#4
Ku"stion Ah"th"r nunc -ro tunc or0"r shoul0 D" +a0" 0"-"n0s u-on circu+stanc"s o/ -articular
cas", an0 it is to D" grant"0 or r"/us"0 as Fustic" +aB r"quir".
(inl"B <. (inl"B, 189 ,.0 334
N"<.,1948
%h" oDF"ct o/ a Gnunc -ro tuncH or0"r is to +aE" a r"cor0 s-"aE th" truth conc"rning acts
0on", an0 such or0"r cannot D" +a0" us" o/ nor r"sort"0 to to su--lB o+itt"0 action.S"" -uDlication
:or0s an0 ,hras"s /or oth"r Fu0icial constructions an0 0"/initions.
(inl"B <. (inl"B, 189 ,.0 334
N"<.,1948
%h" -oA"r to or0"r "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nt nunc -ro tunc cannot D" us"0 to corr"ct Fu0icial "rrors
or o+issions, nor to chang" Fu0g+"nt actuallB r"n0"r"0 to on" Ahich th" court n"ith"r
r"n0"r"0 nor int"n0"0 to r"n0"r.
%alDot <. 5acE, 1'9 ,. #
N"<.,1917
%h" oDF"ct an0 -ur-os" o/ a nunc -ro tunc or0"r is to +aE" a r"cor0 s-"aE th" truth conc"rning
acts alr"a0B 0on", an0 not to su--lB an o+itt"0 action.

Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing ."a0lin"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EAing <. @"nnings, 1# N"<. 379
8 @6.>5EN%
8E73J? E. (ailur" to "nt"r Fu0g+"nt at ti+" o/ r"n0ition.
N"<.,188$
:h"r" a cl"rE /ails to "nt"r a Fu0g+"nt or0"r"0 DB th" court, it is Aithin th" -oA"r o/ th" court
to or0"r th" Fu0g+"nt to D" "nt"r"0 nunc -ro tunc.

(inl"B <. (inl"B, 189 ,.0 334
8 @6.>5EN%
8E73J3? E. Errors or irr"gulariti"s in -r"<ious "ntrB.
N"<.,1948
Court, in "nt"ring a Fu0g+"nt nunc -ro tunc, +aB in its 0iscr"tion r"lB on its +"+orB as to
Ahat Aas actuallB 0on" an0 +aB r"/r"sh its +"+orB /ro+ anB sourc" it 0""+s r"liaDl".

EAing <. @"nnings, 1# N"<. 379
8 @6.>5EN%
8E73J4? E. E)ist"nc" o/ -r"<ious Fu0g+"nt or or0"r.
N"<.,188$
2 Fu0g+"nt roll containing th" agr""+"nt an0 or0"r /or Fu0g+"nt an0 th" +inut"s o/ th" court
is co+-"t"nt "<i0"nc", t"n0ing to "staDlish th" /acts n"c"ssarB to authoriI" th" court to "nt"r a
Fu0g+"nt nunc -ro tunc.

CulinarB an0 4ot"l S"r<ic" :orE"rs 6nion, 7ocal No. ' <. 4aug"n, 3#7 ,.0 113
8 @6.>5EN%
8E7' E. ,roc""0ings /or "ntrB.
N"<.,19'$
.istrict court rul" Aas "ntitl"0 to "ncourag"+"nt o/ Su-r"+" Court; Dut corr"ction o/ notic"
o/ "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nt, DB lining out G2-rilH Aith tB-"Arit"r an0 ins"rting G5aBH, 0i0 not 0"stroB
"//"cti<"n"ss o/ notic", "<"n i/ such corr"ction constitut"0 an Gint"rlin"ationH in <iolation
o/ 0istrict court rul". .istrict Court !ul"s, rul"s , suD0. ', 19; Su-r"+" Court !ul"s, rul" ,
suD0. 8; N!C, 'JD?.

(irst Nat. BanE <. 2D"l, 41 ,.0 1$'1
8 @6.>5EN%
8 77 @u0g+"nt !oll or !"cor0
8E79 E. 5att"rs inclu0"0.
N"<.,193#
Co-B o/ Fu0g+"nt, striEing a+"n0"0 co+-laint an0 0is+issing action, /il"0 DB th" cl"rE D"ca+"
-art o/ GFu0g+"nt rollH. Co+-.7aAs 199, L 889.S"" -uDlication :or0s an0 ,hras"s
/or oth"r Fu0icial constructions an0 0"/initions.
>locE <. Elg"s, 1#9 ,. '9
N"<.,191'
@u0g+"nt roll inclu0"s -l"a0ings an0 Fu0g+"nt.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BurDanE <. !i<"rs, 18 ,. 7#3
8 @6.>5EN%
8E8' E. ."/"cts an0 oDF"ctions.
N"<.,1888
:h"r" th" cl"rE, in "nt"ring an or0"r o<"rruling 0"/"n0antCs +otion /or a n"A trial, "nt"rs 0"/"n0antCs
na+" as G4"nrB !i<"sH an0 G4"nrB !i<"rs,H inst"a0 o/ G(ranE !i<"rs,H 0"/"n0ant is
Doun0 to taE" notic" that th" or0"r Aas +"ant /or his cas".

Blas0"l <. ="an, 8 N"<. 3$#
8 @6.>5EN%
8E87 E. E//"ct o/ "ntrB an0 r"cor0 as D"tA""n -arti"s in g"n"ral.
N"<.,1873
(in0ing an0 r"cital o/ a l"gal s"r<ic" o/ su++ons in a Fu0g+"nt is as +uch a -art o/ th" r"cor0,
an0 "ntitl"0 to th" sa+" cr"0"nc", as th" /il" +arEs o/ th" cl"rE ant"rior to such s"r<ic".

Custo+ .ig"st & ' 4"a0not"s
BoA"rs <. E0Aar0s, 38# ,.0 783
8 @6.>5EN%
8E89 E. Con/lict in r"cor0.
N"<.,19'3
:h"r" th"r" is con/lict D"tA""n +inut" or0"r an0 Fu0g+"nt, th" Fu0g+"nt -r"<ails.
Bushar0 <. :asho" CountB, 9 ,.0 1#'
N"<.,19#1
:h"r" +inut" or0"r o/ 0"cision o/ trial court is at <arianc" Aith /or+al Fu0g+"nt /il"0 th"r"a/t"r,
th" /or+al Fu0g+"nt +ust -r"<ail.
5orti+"r <. ,aci/ic Stat"s Sa<. M 7oan Co., 14# ,.0 733
N"<.,1944
:h"r" th"r" is con/lict D"tA""n a +inut" or0"r an0 a Fu0g+"nt, th" latt"r -r"<ails.
5orti+"r <. ,aci/ic Stat"s Sa<. M 7oan Co., 14# ,.0 733
N"<.,1944
2 /or+al Aritt"n or0"r alloAing /""s to a r"c"i<"rCs attorn"B an0 r"s"r<ing to trial court th"
right to consi0"r anB a00itional alloAanc" Aas not a+Diguous so as to D" go<"rn"0 DB +inut"
or0"r alloAing /""s /or th" cal"n0ar B"ar an0 r"s"r<ing to trial court th" right to /i) /utur" /""s
/or /utur" s"r<ic"s.
Blas0"l <. ="an, 8 N"<. 3$#
N"<.,1873
E<"rB l"gal int"n0+"nt is in /a<or o/ th" <ali0itB o/ a Fu0g+"nt, Ah"r" th"r" is a con/lict in
th" r"cor0 as to 0u" s"r<ic" o/ su++ons.

2+"rican @uris-ru0"nc", S"con0 E0ition
.ataDas" u-0at"0 No<"+D"r $11
@u0g+"nts
Christina J6ranIa? Cri+i, @...; 7aura 4unt"r .i"tI, @...; %racB (arr"ll, @...; 2lan @. @acoDs,
@...; !ach"l =an", @...; :illia+ 7in0sl"B, @...; @"// @. Sha+-o, @...; Eric Sur"tt", @...; an0
SuIann" 7. Bail"B, @..., %ho+as @. CI"lusta, @..., an0 @ohn !. ="nn"l, @... o/ th" National
7"gal !"s"arch >rou-, 3nc.
33. !"n0ition
2. >"n"ral Consi0"rations
1. 3n >"n"ral
%o-ic Su++arB Corr"lation %aDl" !"/"r"nc"s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L #9. 5ann"r o/ -ronounc"+"nt
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, ("0"ral Ci<il ,roc"0ur" '1
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, @u0g+"nt 191, 1#
2 r"n0ition o/ Fu0g+"nt can occur in +or" than on" +ann"r.N1O 3n so+" Furis0ictions,
r"n0ition o/ Fu0g+"nt is th" courtCs -ronounc"+"nt DB s-oE"n Aor0 in o-"n court or DB Aritt"n
or0"r /il"0 Aith th" cl"rE o/ its 0"cision u-on th" +att"r suD+itt"0 to it /or a0Fu0ication.N
O 3t is also sai0 that r"n0ition o/ Fu0g+"nt occurs Ah"n th" court +aE"s an oral -ronounc"+"nt
in o-"n court an0 acco+-ani"s that -ronounc"+"nt Aith a notation on th" trial 0ocE"t or, in
th" alt"rnati<", Ah"n so+" Aritt"n notation o/ th" Fu0g+"nt is /il"0 in th" r"cor0s o/ th"
court.N3O 2ccor0inglB, in so+" Furis0ictions an oral +ani/"station o/ th" 0"cision is r"gar0"0
as su//ici"nt /or a Fu0g+"nt at laA to D"co+" o-"rati<".N4O (or th" trial court to "//"cti<"lB
r"n0"r Fu0g+"nt in o-"n court, it +ust 0o so in s-oE"n Aor0, not in +"r" cognition,N#O an0 th"
trial courtCs oral -ronounc"+"nt +ust cl"arlB in0icat" th" int"nt to r"n0"r Fu0g+"nt at th" ti+"
th" Aor0s ar" ")-r"ss"0.N'O :h"r" oral r"n0ition o/ a Fu0g+"nt is -ro-"r, i/ th" trial court
signs a Fu0g+"nt on an issu" Aithout /irst +aEing an oral -ronounc"+"nt in o-"n court, th"
act o/ signing th" Fu0g+"nt is th" o//icial act o/ r"n0"ring Fu0g+"nt.N7O :h"n a trial court orallB
r"n0"rs a Fu0g+"nt that 0is-os"s o/ so+" o/ th" issu"s in a -artBCs -l"a0ing, Dut is sil"nt
on oth"rs, a lat"r sign"0 Fu0g+"nt that 0is-os"s o/ an a00itional issu", Ahil" onlB a PAritt"n
+"+oran0u+P o/ th" oral Fu0g+"nt, is a r"n0ition o/ Fu0g+"nt on th" issu" a00r"ss"0 /or th"
/irst ti+" in th" Aritt"n Fu0g+"nt.N8O
Caution:
2n announc"+"nt o/ Fu0g+"nt in o-"n court +"r"lB constitut"s a r"n0"ring o/ th" Fu0g+"nt,
not an "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nt.N9O
4' 2+. @ur. 0 @u0g+"nts L #9
3n oth"r Furis0ictions, hoA"<"r, +"r" oral -ronounc"+"nt DB th" court o/ its 0"cision is not
th" r"n0ition o/ a Fu0g+"nt,N1$O an0 it has D""n sai0 that a trial courtCs oral -ronounc"+"nt is
not a Fu0g+"nt until it is -ut in Ariting an0 "nt"r"0 as th" Fu0g+"nt,N11O that a Fu0g" 0o"s not
r"n0"r th" Fu0g+"nt until h" or sh" signs a Aritt"n notation o/ th" r"li"/ grant"0 or 0"ni"0,N1O
an0 that a Fu0g+"nt is not r"n0"r"0 until it is sign"0.N13O 2+ong th" r"asons stat"0 /or not r"cogniIing
an oral -ronounc"+"nt DB th" court as th" r"n0ition o/ Fu0g+"nt ar" that: J1? th"r"
is no -ractical +ann"r in Ahich to ")"cut" an oral Fu0g+"nt; J? an oral Fu0g+"nt cannot D"
/il"0 in th" court o/ anoth"r countB or stat"; an0 J3? th"r" is no +"chanis+ DB Ahich an oral
Fu0g+"nt can D"co+" a li"n on th" -ro-"rtB o/ th" Fu0g+"nt 0"Dtor.N14O
8Ds"r<ation:
,rior to th" "ntrB o/ a /inal Fu0g+"nt, a court r"+ains /r"" to r"consi0"r an0 issu" a Aritt"n
Fu0g+"nt 0i//"r"nt /ro+ its oral -ronounc"+"nt.N1#O
C65672%3VE S6,,7E5EN%
Cas"s:
%h" +"r" oral announc"+"nt o/ a Fu0g+"nt Aithout an "ntrB on th" trial 0ocE"t is not th"
r"n0ition o/ a Fu0g+"nt, /or th" -ur-os"s o/ a--"al; /or a /inal Fu0g+"nt to ")ist, th"r" +ust D"
an or0"r that is Doth sign"0 DB th" court an0 /il"0 sta+-"0 an0 0at"0 DB th" cl"rE o/ th" court.
=ilgor" <. N"DrasEa ."-t. o/ 4"alth an0 4u+an S"r<ic"s, 77 N"D. 4#', 7'3 N.:.0 77
J$$9?.
NEN. 8( S6,,7E5EN%O
N(N1O 4ornig <. 5art"l 7i/t SBst"+s, 3nc., #8 N"D. 7'4, '$' N.:.0 7'4 J$$$?.
N(NO @on"s <. 4uDDar0, 3#' 50. #13, 74$ 2.0 1$$4 J1999?; Barton <. >ill"s-i",
$$# :7 1#4$1#' J%"). 2--. 4ouston 1st .ist. $$#?.
N(N3O 4ornig <. 5art"l 7i/t SBst"+s, 3nc., #8 N"D. 7'4, '$' N.:.0 7'4 J$$$?.
2lthough a Fu0g+"nt is r"n0"r"0 an0 ")ists as such Ah"n it is orallB announc"0 /ro+
th" D"nch, an0 D"/or" it has D""n r"0uc"0 to Ariting an0 "nt"r"0 DB th" cl"rE, as a g"n"ral
rul" a Fu0g+"nt +ust D" r"0uc"0 to Ariting. Bau+an <. 5a-l" Vall"B Co++unitB
School .ist., '49 N.:.0 9 J3oAa $$?.
N(N4O 6.S. <. 4unt, #13 (.0 19 J1$th Cir. 197#?; >or0on <. >or0on, 39$ S.:.0
#83 J5o. Ct. 2--. 19'#?; :ittau <. Stori", 14# S.:.30 73 J%"). 2--. (ort :orth
$$4?.
# Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing ."a0lin"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N(N#O @a+"s <. 4uDDar0, 1 S.:.30 ##8 J%"). 2--. San 2ntonio $$$?.
N(N'O 3n r" 2.B., 1# S.:.30 7'9 J%"). 2--. %")arEana $$3?, r"<i"A 0"ni"0, J5ar.
19, $$4?.
N(N7O :ittau <. Stori", 14# S.:.30 73 J%"). 2--. (ort :orth $$4?.
N(N8O :ittau <. Stori", 14# S.:.30 73 J%"). 2--. (ort :orth $$4?.
N(N9O Santana <. Santana, '14 S.E.0 438 JN.C. Ct. 2--. $$#?.
2s to "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nt 0istinguish"0, s"" L '$.
N(N1$O !ust <. ClarE CountB School .ist., 1$3 N"<. '8', 747 ,.0 138$, 44 E0. 7aA
!"-. 73' J1987?; 5ontano <. Encinias, 1$3 N.5. #1#, 7$9 ,.0 1$4 J198#?; S-arEl"
7aun0rB M Cl"an"rs, 3nc. <. ="lton, #9# S.:.0 88, 8 6.C.C. !"-. S"r<. 1#31 J%"nn.
Ct. 2--. 1979?.
N(N11O StoE"r <. B"ll"+"a0", 77C, 7 >a. 2--. 817, '1# S.E.0 1 J$$#?, c"rt.
0"ni"0, JS"-t. 19, $$#?.
N(N1O 5u+in <. 4art, 9 N"D. 2--. 4$4, '1 N.:.0 '1 J$$$?.
N(N13O Stat" ") r"l. 2.S.=., 77# So. 0 11$1 J7a. Ct. 2--. 4th Cir. $$$?.
N(N14O 5c2t""r <. St"Aart, '9' ,.0 7 J:Bo. 198#?.
2s to Fu0g+"nt li"ns, s"" LL 34 to 384.
N(N1#O !ust <. ClarE CountB School .ist., 1$3 N"<. '8', 747 ,.0 138$, 44 E0. 7aA
!"-. 73' J1987?.
Q $11 %ho+son !"ut"rs. 33&34B Q $11 %ho+son !"ut"rs1!32. No Clai+ to 8rig. 6.S.
>o<t. :orEs. 2ll rights r"s"r<"0.
25@6! @6.>5EN%S L #9

2+"rican @uris-ru0"nc", S"con0 E0ition
.ataDas" u-0at"0 No<"+D"r $11
N"A %rial
@ohn !. ="nn"l, @..., o/ th" sta// o/ th" National 7"gal !"s"arch >rou-, 3nc.
V. ,roc"0ur"
B. %i+" /or 5aEing 2--lication
3. 6n0"r ("0"ral !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur"
%o-ic Su++arB Corr"lation %aDl" !"/"r"nc"s
L 379. Co++"nc"+"nt o/ -"rio0
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, N"A %rial 11'.
2.7.!. 7iDrarB
5otions /or n"A trial:ti+" li+itations un0"r !ul" #9JD? o/ ("0"ral !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur",
4# 2.7.!. ("0. 1$4
%h" 1$&0aB -"rio0 un0"r th" -ro<ision o/ th" ("0"ral !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur" -"rtaining
to th" ti+" /or +aEing n"A trial +otionsN1O co++"nc"s to run /ro+ th" "ntrB o/ a /inal Fu0g+"nt,N
O not /ro+ th" r"n0ition o/ an int"rlocutorB Fu0g+"nt.N3O
,ractic" >ui0":
%h" 1$&0aB -"rio0 is to D" co+-ut"0 in accor0anc" Aith th" -ro<ision o/ th" ("0"ral !ul"s o/
Ci<il ,roc"0ur" go<"rning th" co+-utation o/ ti+" g"n"rallB.N4O
2n a+"n0"0 Fu0g+"nt su-"rs"0"s a -rior Fu0g+"nt, so that th" 1$&0aB -"rio0 D"gins to
run an"A a/t"r "ntrB o/ th" a+"n0"0 Fu0g+"nt.N#O
N(N1O ("0. !. Ci<. ,. #9JD?.
N(NO SaAB"r <. 2tlantic .iscount Cor-., 44 (.0 349 J4th Cir. 1971?; 3shiEaAa <.
2ch"son, 9$ (. Su--. 713 J.. 4aA. 19#$?.
%h" 1$&0aB -"rio0 /or th" s"r<ing o/ a +otion /or a n"A trial D"gan to run u-on "ntrB
or 0ocE"ting o/ th" Fu0g+"nt, rath"r than /ro+ th" /iling o/ th" Fu0g+"nt. %iF"rina <.
,l"ntl, 984 (.0 148, 4 ("0. !. S"r<. 30 189 J#th Cir. 1993?.
#8 2+. @ur. 0 N"A %rial L 379
N(N3O :arn"r <. !ossignol, #13 (.0 '78 J1st Cir. 197#?; 5anos <. %rans :orl0 2irlin"s,
3nc., 34 (. Su--. 47$ JN... 3ll. 1971?.
N(N4O ("0. !. Ci<. ,. 'Ja?.
N(N#O Cornist <. !ichlan0 ,arish School B0., 479 (.0 37 J#th Cir. 1973?.
' Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing ."a0lin"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Q $11 %ho+son !"ut"rs. 33&34B Q $11 %ho+son !"ut"rs1!32. No Clai+ to 8rig. 6.S.
>o<t. :orEs. 2ll rights r"s"r<"0.
25@6! NE:%!327 L 379

Cor-us @uris S"cun0u+
.ataDas" u-0at"0 ."c"+D"r $11
@u0g+"nts
(rancis C. 2+"n0ola, @..., ,aul 5. Colto//, @..., @ohn >l"nn, @..., @anic" 4olD"n, @..., @ohn
!. ="nn"l, @..., o/ th" sta// o/ th" National 7"gal !"s"arch >rou-, 3nc., Eric 7arsson, @...,
St"-h"n 7"as", @..., @acE =. 7"<in, @..., :illia+ 7in0sl"B, @..., 7ucas 5artin, @..., Eric
5aB"r, @..., %o+ 5usEus, @..., =arl 8aE"s, @..., Eric C. Sur"tt", @..., 2lan :ass"rstro+,
@..., 2lan :"inst"in, @...
V33. !"n0ition, EntrB, !"cor0, an0 .ocE"ting
B. EntrB o/ @u0g+"nt
%o-ic Su++arB !"/"r"nc"s Corr"lation %aDl"
L 144. N"c"ssitB
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, @u0g+"nt 7$
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, @u0g+"nt 93
2lthough as D"tA""n th" -arti"s a 0ulB r"n0"r"0 Fu0g+"nt +aB D" <ali0 an0 "//"cti<"
Aithout "ntrB, an0 its "n/orc"+"nt 0o"s not alAaBs 0"-"n0 on its "ntrB, /or +anB -ur-os"s
Fu0g+"nts ar" not co+-l"t", -"r/"ct, an0 "//"cti<" until th"B ar" "nt"r"0.
2s a g"n"ral rul", th" 0"cisions o/ all courts +ust D" -r"s"r<"0 in Ariting in so+" r"cor0
-ro<i0"0 /or that -ur-os".N1O
2s D"tA""n th" -arti"s, a Fu0g+"nt 0ulB r"n0"r"0 +aB D" <ali0 an0 "//"cti<", although not
"nt"r"0, that is, th" cl"rECs n"gl"ct or /ailur" to +aE" a -ro-"r "ntrB o/ th" Fu0g+"nt, or 0"/"cti<"
or inaccurat" "ntrB o/ it, at l"ast in th" aDs"nc" o/ statut" to th" contrarB, Aill not 0"-ri<" it
o/ th" /orc" o/ a Fu0icial 0"cision.NO %h" "n/orc"+"nt o/ a Fu0g+"nt 0o"s not 0"-"n0 on its
"ntrB.N3O
4oA"<"r, /or +anB -ur-os"s a Fu0g+"nt is not co+-l"t", -"r/"ct, an0 "//"cti<" until it has
D""n 0ulB "nt"r"0.N4O %hus, it has D""n Droa0lB h"l0 that Fu0g+"nts taE" "//"ct onlB /ro+ th"
0at" o/ "ntrBN#O an0 that th"r" is no Fu0g+"nt until it is "nt"r"0 o/ r"cor0.N'O
2 rul" go<"rning r"n0ition an0 "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nts an0 or0"rs oDlit"rat"s anB 0istinction
D"tA""n th" +inist"rial act o/ "ntrB an0 th" Fu0icial act o/ r"n0ition o/ Fu0g+"nt an0 +aE"s
th" o-"rati<" "<"nt th" act o/ th" Fu0g".N7O
EntrB o/ a Fu0g+"nt +aB D" r"quir"0 Aithin Ahich th" Fu0g+"nt +aB D" "n/orc"0, as consi0"r"0N
8O or /or th" cr"ation o/ a Fu0g+"nt li"n.N9O
49 C.@.S. @u0g+"nts L 144
2 Fu0g+"nt is not /inal, in th" s"ns" that it cannot D" Aith0raAn or chang"0 DB th" court,
until it has D""n "nt"r"0.N1$O 8n "ntrB, a Fu0g+"nt -ass"s D"Bon0 control o/ th" court, ")c"-t
to <acat" or +o0i/B it in accor0anc" Aith th" usual rul"s.N11O
3n or0"r that a Fu0g+"nt +aB D" a0+itt"0 as "<i0"nc" in anoth"r action, it is n"c"ssarB that
it shoul0 /irst ha<" D""n "nt"r"0 o/ r"cor0.N1O
N(N1O (la.R5agnant <. ,"acocE, 1#' (la. '88, 4 So. 0 314 J194#?.
=B.RNational 7i/" M 2cc. 3ns. Co. <. 4"0g"s, 33 =B. 84$, 7 S.:.0 4 J193$?.
5iss.RE<ans <. Stat", 144 5iss. 1, 1$8 So. 7# J19'?.
N.@.R 7BcIaE <. 5arguli"s, 8 N.@. 5isc. #49, 1#1 2. '4 JSu-. Ct. 193$?, a//C0, 1$9
N.@.7. 3#, 1' 2. #9$ JN.@. Ct. Err. M 2--. 193?.
2s to n"c"ssitB /or "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nts DB con/"ssion, s"" L 18.
2s to n"c"ssitB /or Ariting, s"" L 1$'.
N(NO >a.R."cE <. ."cE, 193 >a. 739, $ S.E.0 1 J194?.
3ll.RCirro :r"cEing Co. <. !o--olo, 1#3 3ll. 0 ', 178 3ll. ."c. 7#$, '$# N.E.0 #44
J199?.
3n0.R%ancos <. 2.:., 3nc., #$ N.E.0 1$9 J3n0. Ct. 2--. 198'?.
5o.R5ars0"n <. Ni--, 3# 5o. 8, 3$ S.:.0 77 J193$?.
8hioR 4oA"r Cor-. <. Vanc", 144 8hio St. 443, 3$ 8hio 8-. 38, #9 N.E.0 377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J194#?.
8Ela.R."-uB <. 4o"+", 1989 8= 4, 77# ,.0 1339 J8Ela. 1989?.
%").R5aB/i"l0 <. San @acinto Sa<. 2ssCn, 788 S.:.0 119 J%"). 2--. 4ouston 14th
.ist. 199$?, Arit 0"ni"0, J@ulB 3, 199$?.
N(N3O Conn.R.C2n0r"a <. !"n0", 13 Conn. 377, 19# 2. 741 J1937?.
=an.R>at"s <. >at"s, 1'$ =an. 48, 1'3 ,.0 39# J194#?.
N(N4O 6.S.R3n r" Bunt, 1'# B.!. 894 JBanEr. E... 2rE. 1994?R3n r" Ci+arron Nursing
C"nt"r, 143 B.!. #78, 18 6.C.C. !"-. S"r<. 0 9'# JBanEr. :... 8Ela. 199?.
2rE.R =o"lI"r <. Bagl"B, 13 2rE. 2--. 48, '8$ S.:.0 111, E0. 7aA !"-. #74
J1984?.
Cal.R3n r" 5arriag" o/ 5icaliIio, 199 Cal. 2--. 30 '', 4# Cal. !-tr. '73 J4th .ist.
1988?.
(la.RCincinnati EquitaDl" 3ns. Co. <. 4aAit, 933 So. 0 133 J(la. .ist. Ct. 2--. 30
.ist. $$'?.
>a.RZ"it+an <. 5cBraB"r, $1 >a. 2--. 7'7, 41 S.E.0 87 J1991?.
3ll.R8C>ra0B <. CooE CountB Sh"ri//Cs 5"rit B0., $4 3ll. 2--. 30 #8, 149 3ll. ."c.
#3$, #'1 N.E.0 1' J1st .ist. 199$?.
=an.R5att"r o/ 5arriag" o/ :ilson, 13 =an. 2--. 0 91, 7'8 ,.0 83# J1989?, Fu0g+"nt
a//C0, 4# =an. 178, 777 ,.0 773 J1989?.
8hioR7a+ar <. 5arDurB, '9 8hio St. 0 74, 3 8hio 8-. 30 '9, 431 N.E.0 1$8
J198?.
%").R!ani"r <. BroAn, '3 S.:.0 '8 J%"). Ci<. 2--. 4ouston 1st .ist. 1981?.
N(N#O 2riI.RSouthA"st"rn (r"ight 7in"s <. Sha/"r, #7 2riI. 111, 111 ,.0 '# J1941?
.
Cal.R7in0 <. BaE"r, 48 Cal. 2--. 0 34, 119 ,.0 8$' J4th .ist. 1941?.
N.5.RStat" <. Ca-ital CitB BanE, 31 N.5. 43$, 4' ,. 899 J19'?.
2s to 0at" o/ Fu0g+"nt, s"" L 149.
N(N'O 2lasEaR:allac" <. %urn"r, $$4 :7 1#88# J2lasEa $$4?.
(la.R5agnant <. ,"acocE, 1#' (la. '88, 4 So. 0 314 J194#?.
>a.R%it"l+an <. St"0+an, 77 >a. 4'$, #91 S.E.0 774 J$$3?.
3ll.R3n 3nt"r"st o/ =.S., #$ 3ll. 2--. 30 8', 189 3ll. ."c. #3$, '$ N.E.0 498 J4th
.ist. 1993?.
=B.RBatts <. 3llinois C"nt. !. Co., 17 S.:.30 881 J=B. Ct. 2--. $$7?.
50.R%i"rco 5arBlan0, 3nc. <. :illia+s, 381 50. 378, 849 2.0 #$4 J$$4?.
5iss.RS+ith <. ,arE"rson 7u+D"r, 3nc., 89$ So. 0 83 J5iss. $$3?.
N.C.R4illiar0 <. 4illiar0, 14' N.C. 2--. 7$9, ##4 S.E.0 374 J$$1?.
N"D.R!os"n 2uto 7"asing, 3nc. <. @or0an, 1# N"D. 2--. 1, 7$ N.:.0 911 J$$'?.
N.5.RKuintana <. Vigil, 4' N.5. $$, 1# ,.0 711 J194? Jo<"rrul"0 DB, E<ans (inancial
Cor-. <. Strass"r, 99 N.5. 788, ''4 ,.0 98' J1983??.
8hioR 4oA"r Cor-. <. Vanc", 144 8hio St. 443, 3$ 8hio 8-. 38, #9 N.E.0 377
J194#?.
8r.R,atricE <. 8tt"+an, 1#8 8r. 2--. 17#, 974 ,.0 17 J1999?.
,a.RClinton <. >il"s, 719 2.0 314 J,a. Su-"r. Ct. 1998?.
%"nn.RBlacEDurn <. BlacEDurn, 7$ S.:.30 4 J%"nn. $$8?.
%").R3n r" Bill 4"ar0 Ch"<rol"t, 7t0., $9 S.:.30 311 J%"). 2--. 4ouston 1st .ist.
$$'?.
:.Va.R Stat" ") r"l. :"st Virginia ."-t. 8/ 4"alth 2n0 4u+an !"sourc"s, Chil0
Su--ort En/orc"+"nt .i<ision <. Varn"B, 1 :. Va. #17, '## S.E.0 #39 J$$7?.
E//"ct o/ /ailur"
%h" rul" go<"rning -ro-os"0 or0"rs or Fu0g+"nts suD+itt"0 /or th" courtCs signatur",
an0 -ro<i0ing that a /ailur" to suD+it a Fu0g+"nt ti+"lB is 0""+"0 aDan0on+"nt,
s-"aEs to th" -"rio0 Aithin Ahich a -ro-os"0 or0"r or Fu0g+"nt r"/l"cting th" 0is-osition
o/ a +otion or +att"r +ust D" 0raAn DB a -artB, an0 0o"s not a--lB to s"r<ic" o/
th" Fu0g+"nt Aith notic" o/ "ntrB u-on an o--osing -artB.
N.9.RCo) <. CitB 8/ Niagara (alls, 89 2...0 978, 734 N.9.S.0 8$ J4th ."-Ct
$$1?.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N(N7O 2la.RS+ith <. @acEson, 77$ So. 0 1$'8 J2la. $$$?.
N(N8O LL 1'#, 13'9, 137$.
N(N9O L 77'.
N(N1$O Cal.R3n r" 5arriag" o/ 5icaliIio, 199 Cal. 2--. 30 '', 4# Cal. !-tr. '73
J4th .ist. 1988?.
3ll.R3n r" 5arriag" o/ .Aan, 1$8 3ll. 2--. 30 8$8, '4 3ll. ."c. 34$, 439 N.E.0 1$$#
J1st .ist. 198?.
N"<.R!ust <. ClarE CountB School .ist., 1$3 N"<. '8', 747 ,.0 138$, 44 E0. 7aA
!"-. 73' J1987?.
N.5.RKuintana <. Vigil, 4' N.5. $$, 1# ,.0 711 J194? Jo<"rrul"0 DB, E<ans (inancial
Cor-. <. Strass"r, 99 N.5. 788, ''4 ,.0 98' J1983??.
8hioR2tEinson <. >ru++an 8hio Cor-., 37 8hio St. 30 8$, #3 N.E.0 8#1 J1988?.
8Ela.R."-uB <. 4o"+", 1989 8= 4, 77# ,.0 1339 J8Ela. 1989?.
N(N11O 8Ela.R."-uB <. 4o"+", 1989 8= 4, 77# ,.0 1339 J8Ela. 1989?.
%"nn.R Broa0AaB 5otor Co. <. ,uDlic (ir" 3ns. Co., 1 %"nn. 2--. 78, 193$ :7
1'9' J193$?.
N(N1O 2la.R5t. V"rnon&:oo0D"rrB 5ills <. 6nion S-rings >uano Co., 9 2la. 91,
1## So. 71' J1934?.
N"D.R7uiEart <. Br"0thau"r, 13 N"D. ', 71 N.:. 1'# J1937?.
8Ela.R."-uB <. 4o"+", 1989 8= 4, 77# ,.0 1339 J8Ela. 1989?.
:"stlaA. Q $11 %ho+son !"ut"rs. No Clai+ to 8rig. 6.S. >o<t. :orEs.
C@S @6.>5EN%S L 144

2--"al an0 Error
,aul 5. Colto//, @..., @ohn >l"nn, @..., >l"n0a =. 4arna0, @... o/ th" sta// o/ th" National
7"gal !"s"arch >rou-, 3nc., @ohn !. ="nn"l, @..., o/ th" sta// o/ th" National 7"gal !"s"arch
>rou-, 3nc., 5ich"l" 4ugh"s, @..., 2nn" =nicE"rDocE"r, @..., @acE =. 7"<in, @..., %ho+as
5usEus, @..., =i+D"rlB C. Si++ons, @..., Eric C. Sur"tt", @..., BarDara Van 2rs0al", @...,
EliIaD"th :illia+s, @...
V333. !"quisit"s an0 ,roc""0ings /or %rans/"r o/ Caus"
>. EntrB or .ocE"ting
L #$$. >"n"rallB
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, 2--"al an0 Error 431
6n0"r so+" statut"s or rul"s o/ court, th" a--"al or Arit o/ "rror +ust D" -ro-"rlB "nt"r"0,
r"cor0"0, or 0ocE"t"0 in or0"r to -"r/"ct th" a--"llat" -roc""0ings.
6n0"r so+" statut"s or rul"s, "ntrB, r"cor0ing, or 0ocE"ting in th" a--"llat" court is n"c"ssarB
to -"r/"ct th" a--"al.N1O
%h" r"quir"+"nt o/ 0ocE"ting is not Furis0ictionalNO an0 Ah"r" an a--"llant has 0on" all
that is r"quir"0 o/ hi+ or h"r to -rocur" an "ntrB o/ th" a--"al, th" cl"rECs /ailur" to "nt"r it
Aill not caus" a 0is+issal or oth"rAis" a//"ct th" a--"llantCs rights.N3O
2n a--"ll"" +aB Aai<" th" r"quir"0 0ilig"nc" in "nt"ring or 0ocE"ting th" a--"al.N4O
:ai<"r o/ an insu//ici"nt "ntrB, or o/ 0"laB in "nt"ring or 0ocE"ting +aB D" i+-li"0 /ro+ suDs"qu"nt
action on th" a--"ll""Cs -art inconsist"nt Aith an int"ntion to taE" a0<antag" o/ th" insu//ici"ncB
or 0"laB.N#O 2n "sto--"l to clai+ an insu//ici"nt "ntrB +aB D" "staDlish"0 DB such
Aor0s or acts on th" -art o/ a--"ll"" as Aill r"asonaDlB Fusti/B th" a--"llant, through r"lianc"
on th" Aor0s or acts, in r"/raining /ro+ "nt"ring his or h"r a--"al.N'O
N(N1O (la.RBrooEs <. 5ia+i BanE M %rust Co., 11# (la. 141, 1## So. 1#7 J1934?.
7a.RKu""n 3ns. Co. o/ 2+"rica <. Blo+"nsti"l, 1'$ So. 1'9 J7a. Ct. 2--. 1st Cir.
193#?.
5ass.R5arshall <. Stratus ,har+ac"uticals, 3nc., #1 5ass. 2--. Ct. ''7, 749 N.E.0
4 C.@.S. 2--"al an0 Error L #$$
'98 J$$1?.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(iling
5".R,"rsson <. ."-art+"nt o/ 4u+an S"r<ic"s, $$1 5E 14, 77# 2.0 3'3 J5".
$$1?.
N(NO 2la.R4.C. Sch+i"0ing ,ro0uc" Co., 3nc. <. Cagl", #9 So. 0 43, 7 6.C.C.
!"-. S"r<. 0 '7' J2la. 1988?.
N(N3O Colo.R,"o-l" ") r"l. ."n<"r Engin""rsC Su--lB Co. <. .istrict Court o/ CitB
an0 CountB o/ ."n<"r, 33 Colo. 41', 8$ ,. 1$'9 J19$#?.
N.C.RSi++ons <. 2llison, 119 N.C. ##', ' S.E. 171 J189'?.
N(N4O (la.R>arrison <. ,arsons, 41 (la. 143, # So. 33' J1899?.
N(N#O 5inn.R3n r" Bra0BCs Estat", 7$ 5inn. 437, 73 N.:. 14# J1897?.
N(N'O 5inn.R3n r" Bra0BCs Estat", 7$ 5inn. 437, 73 N.:. 14# J1897?.
8hioR=ing <. ,"nn, 43 8hio St. #7, 1 N.E. 84 J188#?.
C@S 2,,E27E!! L #$$

E)"cutions
>l"n0a =. 4arna0, @..., o/ th" sta// o/ th" National 7"gal !"s"arch >rou-, 3nc., 2lan @. @acoDs,
@..., Eric 5aB"r, %o+ 5usEus, @..., =arl 8aE"s, @..., @"//r"B @. Sha+-o, @...
3. 3n >"n"ral
B. @u0g+"nt, ."cr"", or 8r0"r as Basis o/ :rit
L . !"n0ition an0 "ntrB o/ 0ocE"ting
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, E)"cution 9
:hil" in so+" Furis0ictions an o//icial "ntrB or 0ocE"ting is a con0ition -r"c"0"nt to th"
right to th" Arit, in oth"rs such "ntrB or 0ocE"ting is not "ss"ntial to "naDl" a -artB to issu" an
")"cution on a Fu0g+"nt that has D""n 0ulB r"n0"r"0.
:hil" th" "ntrB or 0ocE"ting o/ a Fu0g+"nt is n"c"ssarB to cr"at" a li"n,N1O at co++on laA
an ")"cution is issuaDl" on th" signing o/ a /inal Fu0g+"nt an0 D"/or" its "ntrB o/ r"cor0,
-ro<i0ing th"r" is no Arit o/ "rror -"n0ing or agr""+"nt to th" contrarB,NO an0, in +anB Furis0ictions,
such "ntrB or 0ocE"ting is not "ss"ntial to "naDl" a -artB to issu" an ")"cution th"r"on
i/ th" Fu0g+"nt oth"rAis" has D""n 0ulB r"n0"r"0.N3O 5or"o<"r, th" /ailur" o/ th" cl"rE to
"nt"r o/ r"cor0 th" Fu0g+"nt r"n0"r"0 Aithin anB -articular ti+" 0o"s not r"n0"r in<ali0 an
")"cution <ali0 Ah"n issu"0.N4O :h"r" statut"s so -ro<i0", "ntrB o/ th" <"r0ict in th" +inut"s
Aill sustain an ")"cution issu"0 D"/or" "ntrB o/ th" Fu0g+"nt.N#O
3n so+" Furis0ictions, on th" oth"r han0, DB <irtu" o/ statut"s or oth"rAis", an o//icial
"ntrB or 0ocE"ting is a con0ition -r"c"0"nt to th" right to th" Arit,N'O "s-"ciallB Ah"r" th"
Fu0g+"nt is DB con/"ssion.N7O Statut"s r"quiring "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nt as a con0ition -r"c"0"nt 0o
not, hoA"<"r, inclu0" +aEing u- th" Fu0g+"nt roll,N8O an0 th" g"n"ral rul" is that ")"cution
+aB issu" D"/or" /iling or +aEing u- th" Fu0g+"nt roll,N9O Dut such a r"quir"+"nt is not uni<"rsal.N
1$O 3/ th" statut" +"r"lB r"quir"s an "ntrB o/ th" Fu0g+"nt, it has D""n /oun0 that it
n""0 not D" 0ocE"t"0.N11O
%i+" o/ "ntrB an0 "//"ct o/ /ailur" to "nt"r.
%h" ti+" Ah"n th" Fu0g+"nt +ust D" "nt"r"0, Ah"r" n"c"ssarB, is g"n"rallB r"gulat"0 DB
statutorB -ro<isions, an0 /iling Aithin such ti+" Aill -"r+it issuanc" o/ ")"cution.N1O 2n
"ntrB nunc -ro tunc is su//ici"nt to su--ort an0 <ali0at" an ")"cution, an0 th" irr"gularitB o/
issuing ")"cution D"/or" "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nt g"n"rallB +aB D" cur"0 DB suDs"qu"nt "ntrB o/ th"
Fu0g+"nt.N13O 3n a00ition, /or th" -ur-os" o/ th" <ali0itB o/ an ")"cution, a Fu0g+"nt "nt"r"0
33 C.@.S. E)"cutions L
in t"r+ ti+" Aill D" -r"su+"0 to ha<" D""n "nt"r"0 0uring th" actual s"ssion o/ th" court,N14O
an0 a /ailur" to +aE" /or+al "ntrB is an irr"gularitB that +aB D" Aai<"0 DB /ailing to +aE" a
+otion to <acat" until s"<"ral +onths a/t"r th" ")"cution has D""n issu"0.N1#O >"n"rallB, th"
/ailur" /or+allB to "nt"r or 0ocE"t th" Fu0g+"nt D"/or" issuing ")"cution r"n0"rs th" ")"cution
<oi0aDl" onlB,N1'O although Ah"r" th" "ntrB is "ss"ntial to th" ")ist"nc" o/ a <ali0 Fu0g+"nt,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an ")"cution issu"0 -rior th"r"to is <oi0.N17O
."/"cti<" "ntrB.
:h"r" th" a+ount o/ th" Fu0g+"nt ina0<"rt"ntlB is o+itt"0 /ro+ th" Fu0g+"nt "ntrB, a
corr"ction nunc -ro tunc <ali0at"s an ")"cution -r"<iouslB issu"0.N18O
!"gist"r"0 Fu0g+"nt.
:h"r" a Fu0g+"nt is r"gist"r"0 /or th" -ur-os" o/ cr"ating a li"n, th" ")"cution is n"<"rth"l"ss
issu"0 on th" original Fu0g+"nt.N19O
N(N1O C.@.S., @u0g+"nts L #'.
N(NO N.5.R>onIal"I <. >onIal"I, 1$3 N.5. 1#7, 7$3 ,.0 934 JCt. 2--. 198#?.
N(N3O 7a.R5ont"l"-r", 3nc. <. ,/ist"r, 3## So. 0 '#4 J7a. Ct. 2--. 4th Cir. 1978?.
5o.R(i"l0"r <. (i"l0"r, '71 S.:.0 4$8 J5o. Ct. 2--. E... 1984?.
N(N4O 3ll.R,"o-l" ") r"l. 4olDrooE <. ,"tit, '' 3ll. '8, 1$7 N.E. 83$ J191#?.
N(N#O N.@.RE--s <. BoA"n, 118 N.@.7. #$, 191 2. 11$ JN.@. Su-. Ct. 1937?.
N(N'O 6.S.R4"nrB <. (irst Nat. BanE o/ ClarEs0al", #9# (.0 91 J#th Cir. 1979?.
3oAaR2rDi" 5in"ral (""0 Co., 3nc. <. (ar+ Bur"au 5ut. 3ns. Co., 4' N.:.0 '77
J3oAa 199$?.
N(N7O 3ll.R=nights <. 5artin, 1## 3ll. 48', 4$ N.E. 3#8 J189#?.
N(N8O 5ont.RBurton <. =i--, 3$ 5ont. 7#, 7' ,. #'3 J19$4?.
N(N9O Cal.RShar- <. 7u+l"B, 34 Cal. '11, 18'8 :7 73' J18'8?.
N(N1$O N.9.RBlash/i"l0 <. S+ith, 7 4un 114 JN.9. >"n. %"r+ 188?.
N(N11O :is.R4B+an <. 7an0rB, 13# :is. #98, 11' N.:. 3' J19$8?.
N(N1O 6.S.R3n r" Bhatti, 1' B.!. 9 JBanEr. :... Va. 1991?.
2la.R@"//"rson CountB Sa<. BanE <. 5ill"r, 14# 2la. 37, 4$ So. #13 J19$'?.
N(N13O 3oAaR.oughtB <. 5""E, 1$# 3oAa 1', 74 N.:. 744 J1898?.
N(N14O 3ll.R4ans"n <. Schl"sing"r, 1# 3ll. 3$, 17 N.E. 718 J1888?.
N(N1#O N.9.RBoA+an <. %all+an, 19 2DD. ,r. 84, ' N.9. Su-"r. Ct. '33, 8 4oA.
,r. 48, 18'4 :7 373$ J18'4?.
N(N1'O S.C.R 5ason M !isch Vocalion Co. <. =illough 5usic Co., 4# S.C. 11,
S.E. 7## J189#?.
N(N17O 3ll.R=nights <. 5artin, 1## 3ll. 48', 4$ N.E. 3#8 J189#?.
N(N18O 3oAaRBrooEs <. 8A"n, $$ 3oAa 11#1, $ N.:. #$# J19#?, o-inion +o0i/i"0
on oth"r groun0s on 0"nial o/ r"hCg, BrooEs <. 8A"n., $' N.:. 149 J3oAa 19#?.
5"+oran0u+ o/ Fu0g+"nt in<ali0
2 +"+oran0u+ o/ Fu0g+"nt /il"0 DB th" assign"" o/ th" Fu0g+"nt cr"0itor Aas in<ali0,
an0 coul0 not D" us"0 as th" Dasis /or a l"<B sal" o/ th" Fu0g+"nt 0"DtorCs -ro-"rtB
on a Fu0g+"nt li"n, Ah"r" th" +"+oran0u+ contain"0 an inaccurat" Fu0g+"nt a+ount
in that it /ail"0 to a--lB th" S7,$$$ Fu0g+"nt th" 0"Dtor -ai0 on th" Fu0g+"nt.
3ll.RNorthA"st .i<"rsi/i"0, 3nc. <. ."sai, 3#3 3ll. 2--. 30 378, 88 3ll. ."c. 818, 818
N.E.0 7#3 J1st .ist. $$4?.
3nt"r"st on Fu0g+"nt
%h" cl"rECs /ailur" to co+-ut" int"r"st oAing on th" Fu0g+"nt, an0 to "nt"r it on th"
co-B o/ a Fu0g+"nt h" r"c"i<"0 /ro+ th" court, Aas a +"r" cl"rical "rror that 0i0 not
i+-air th" Fu0g+"nt or -r"<"nt th" Fu0g+"nt cr"0itor /ro+ ")"cuting th"r"on /olloAing
an a+"n0+"nt to corr"ct th" cl"rECs o+ission.
N.9.R 2"tna Cas. M Sur. Co. <. :hit"ston" >"n"ral 4os-., 14 5isc. 0 '7, #3'
N.9.S.0 373 JSu- 1988?.
N(N19O 2la.R@"//"rson CountB Sa<. BanE <. 5ill"r, 14# 2la. 37, 4$ So. #13 J19$'?.
C@S ETEC6%38NS L

@u0g+"nts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
@..., 2lan :"inst"in, @...
T3V. Collat"ral 2ttacE
.. >roun0s
3. Errors an0 3rr"gulariti"s
L 737. ."/"cts in "ntrB or cont"nts o/ Fu0g+"nt
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, @u0g+"nt #$4J3?
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, @u0g+"nt #$4J4?
:"stCs ="B Nu+D"r .ig"st, @u0g+"nt #$#
5"r" irr"gulariti"s in th" r"n0ition or "ntrB o/ Fu0g+"nts, inclu0ing Fu0g+"nts DB con/"ssion
or cons"nt, ar" not groun0s /or collat"ral attacE.
2 0"cr"" r"n0"r"0 in a0<anc" o/ th" -"rio0 at Ahich th" court +aB laA/ullB acquir" Furis0iction
o<"r th" 0"/"n0ant is suDF"ct to collat"ral attacE.N1O 4oA"<"r, Ah"r" no qu"stion o/
Furis0iction is rais"0, a Fu0g+"nt or 0"cr"" cannot D" collat"rallB i+-"ach"0 D"caus" it Aas
-r"+atur"lB r"n0"r"0,NO or not r"n0"r"0 Aithin th" ti+" r"quir"0 DB statut",N3O or D"caus" it
Aas Das"0 on 0"/"cti<" /in0ings DB th" court, or gi<"n Aithout anB /in0ings at allN4O or is inconsist"nt
Aith th" /in0ings or conclusions o/ laA.N#O 5or"o<"r, a Fu0g+"nt +aB not D" attacE"0
collat"rallB D"caus" it a--"ars /ro+ th" r"cor0 or th" o-inion o/ th" court that th"r"
Aas a +istaE", an0 that th" Fu0g+"nt shoul0 ha<" D""n 0i//"r"nt /ro+ that actuallB r"n0"r"0,N'
O or D"caus" o/ anB irr"gularitB in th" "ntrB, r"cor0, or 0ocE"ting o/ th" Fu0g+"nt,N7O or /or
anB in/or+alitB or inco+-l"t"n"ss in th" Fu0g+"nt its"l/, -ro<i0"0 its 0"/"cts or o+issions ar"
not such as to r"n0"r it aDsolut"lB unint"lligiDl" an0 th"r"/or" <oi0 /or unc"rtaintB.N8O
%h" all"g"0 nonco+-lianc" o/ a Fu0g+"nt Aith a s"ttl"+"nt agr""+"nt 0o"s not r"n0"r it
suDF"ct to collat"ral attacE.N9O
@u0g+"nt D"Bon0 -l"a0ings an0 issu"s.
2ccor0ing to so+" authoritB, Ah"r" th" court go"s D"Bon0 an0 outsi0" th" -l"a0ings an0
issu"s an0 assu+"s to a0Fu0icat" a +att"r not Aithin th" issu"s +a0" u- in th" -l"a0ings, an0
#$ C.@.S. @u0g+"nts L 737
th" Fu0g+"nt is to that ")t"nt <oi0, th" Fu0g+"nt +aB D" attacE"0 collat"rallB.N1$O
E)c"ssi<" r"co<"rB or r"li"/.
:h"r" a Fu0g+"nt is +"r"lB "rron"ous D"caus" it is ")c"ssi<",N11O "ith"r as D"ing gr"at"r
than th" a+ount 0"+an0"0,N1O gr"at"r than th" /acts or th" "<i0"nc" Aoul0 Fusti/B,N13O or as
i+-ro-"rlB inclu0ing int"r"st,N14O -"nalti"s,N1#O costs,N1'O or couns"l /""s,N17O or as alloAing
")c"ssi<" int"r"stN18O or costs,N19O it +aB not D" i+-"ach"0 in a collat"ral -roc""0ing.
N(N1O ..C.R5ors" <. 6.S., 9 2--. ..C. 433, 19$7 :7 197#8 J2--. ..C. 19$7?.
N(NO Colo.RN"tlan0 <. Baugh+an, 114 Colo. 148, 1' ,.0 '$1 J194#?.
8r.RBooth <. 4"D"rli", 137 8r. 3#4, ,.0 11$8 J1931?.
%"nn.R.a<is <. 5itch"ll, 7 %"nn. 2--. 18, 178 S.:.0 889 J1943?.
2s to th" /or+, cont"nts, r"n0ition, "ntrB, r"cor0, an0 0ocE"ting o/ Fu0g+"nt, s"" LL
1$4 to 13$, 13' to 1'9.
@u0g+"nt "rron"ouslB or irr"gularlB "nt"r"0
2 -artB to a -roc""0ing Aill D" Doun0 DB th" Fu0g+"nt in th" cas" Ah"n collat"rallB attacEing
it, "<"n though th" Fu0g+"nt Aas irr"gularlB or "rron"ouslB "nt"r"0.
N"D.RStat" <. 4"a0, 7' N"D. 3#4, 7#4 N.:.0 '1 J$$8?.
Voi0aDl" Fu0g+"nt
2 G<oi0aDl" Fu0g+"ntH is on" "nt"r"0 "rron"ouslB DB a court ha<ing Furis0iction, an0
is not suDF"ct to collat"ral attacE.
3ll.R 3n r" 5arriag" o/ 5itch"ll, 181 3ll. 0 1'9, 9 3ll. ."c. #$8, '9 N.E.0 81
J1998?.
N(N3O S...R4arE"r <. CoAi", 4 S... 1#9, 173 N.:. 7 J1919?.
N(N4O 2rE.RBrooEs <. BaE"r, $8 2rE. '#4, 187 S.:.0 1'9 J194#?.
N.9.RShaul <. (i0"litB M ."-osit Co. o/ 5arBlan0, 131 5isc. 4$1, 7 N.9.S. 1'3
JSu- 198?, a//C0, 4 2... 773, 3$ N.9.S. 91$ J30 ."-Ct 198?.
8r.R>licE+an <. Solo+on, 14$ 8r. 3#8, 1 ,.0 1$17 J193?.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Collat"ral attacE on /in0ing
:h"r" th" court ha0 Furis0iction in a /or"closur" suit, its /in0ing as to th" lan0 co<"r"0
DB th" +ortgag" coul0 not D" collat"rallB attacE"0.
%").R S"0"rhol+ <. CitB o/ ,ort 2rthur, 3 S.:.0 9# J%"). Ci<. 2--. B"au+ont
198?, Arit grant"0, J8ct. 17, 198? an0 a//C0, 13 S.:.0 '87 J%"). Co++Cn 2--.
199? an0 a//C0, 13 S.:.0 '8# J%"). Co++Cn 2--. 199?.
N(N#O 2rE.RBrooEs <. BaE"r, $8 2rE. '#4, 187 S.:.0 1'9 J194#?.
Cal.R:"llDorn <. :"llDorn, ## Cal. 2--. 0 #1', 131 ,.0 48 J1st .ist. 194?.
%").R ,"r+ian 8il Co. <. S+ith, 19 %"). 413, 73 S.:.0 49$, 111 2.7.!.11#
J1934?.
N(N'O 6.S.R3s"lin <. 7a Cost", 147 (.0 791 JC.C.2. #th Cir. 194#?.
Cal.R5c2llist"r <. Su-"rior Court in an0 /or 2la+"0a CountB, 8 Cal. 2--. 0 1'$,
8 ,.0 4' J1st .ist. 1938?.
5iss.R5c3ntosh <. 5unson !oa0 5achin"rB Co., 1'7 5iss. #4', 14# So. 731 J1933?.
N(N7O (la.RStat" ") r"l. 5c>uir" <. 5aBo, 18 (la. '99, 17# So. 73 J1937?.
N"D.RStat" ") r"l. !itthal"r <. =no), 17 N"D. 7'', 3#1 N.:.0 77, 18 E0. 7aA !"-.
434 J1984?.
%"nn.R:hitson <. @ohnson, %"nn. 2--. 47, 13 S.:.0 11$4 J1937?.
6tahR3nt"r+ill <. Nash, 94 6tah 71, 7# ,.0 1#7 J1938?.
8r0"r "nt"r"0 out o/ s"ssion
%hat an or0"r ta)ing th" -lainti// Aith th" 0"/"n0antCs costs Aas sign"0 an0 "nt"r"0 out
o/ s"ssion 0i0 not +aE" th" or0"r <oi0, so as to alloA th" -lainti// to collat"rallB attacE
it, Ah"r" th" trial Fu0g" a0"quat"lB +a0" an0 announc"0 a 0"cision to ta) th" -lainti//
in th" 0istrict 0uring th" s"ssion in Ahich +otion Aas +a0", an0 0"t"r+in"0 an0 announc"0
at a h"aring th" natur" o/ th" -"naltB to D" ass"ss"0 against th" -lainti//.
N.C.R.ani"ls <. 5ontgo+"rB 5ut. 3ns. Co., 3$ N.C. ''9, 3'$ S.E.0 77 J1987?.
N(N8O 6.S.R,richar0 <. N"lson, 137 (.0 31 JC.C.2. 4th Cir. 1943?.
(la.RStat" ") r"l. :arr"n <. CitB o/ 5ia+i, 1#3 (la. '44, 1# So. 0 449 J1943?.
%").RBri0g+an <. 5oor", 143 %"). #$, 183 S.:.0 7$# J1944?.
Vic"s /or Ahich Fu0g+"nt can D" annull"0
Vic"s as to th" /or+ o/ a Fu0g+"nt /or Ahich th" Fu0g+"nt can D" annull"0 ar"
GaDsolut" nulliti"sH an0 can D" ass"rt"0 at anB ti+", in a collat"ral -roc""0ing, an0 D"/or"
anB court.
7a.R Cha+-agn" an0 !o0g"rs !"altB Co., 3nc. <. 4"nning, 947 So. 0 39 J7a. Ct.
2--. #th Cir. $$'?, Arit 0"ni"0, 949 So. 0 44$ J7a. $$7?.
N(N9O %").R >r"in"r <. @a+"son, 8'# S.:.0 493 J%"). 2--. .allas 1993?, Arit
0"ni"0, J5ar. 3, 1994?.
N(N1$O 5o.R:"ath"r/or0 <. S-iritual Christian 6nion Church, 1'3 S.:.0 91' J5o.
194?.
N.9.RCol"s <. Carroll, 73 N.9. 8', ' N.E.0 1$7 J1937?.
8hioRBinns <. 3saD"l, 39 8hio 7. 2Ds. #, 1 8hio Su--. 113 JC.,. 194?, a//C0, 7
8hio 2--. , 7 8hio 8-. 87, 39 8hio 7. 2Ds. 37, #1 N.E.0 #$1 J0 .ist. (ranElin
CountB 1943?.
N(N11O 8r.R7inn CountB <. !oI"ll", 177 8r. 4#, 1' ,.0 1#$ J194#?.
N(N1O Cal.R:allac" <. :allac", 111 Cal. 2--. #$$, 9# ,. 1$'1 J4th .ist. 1931?.
>a.R4ar0in <. .o00, 17' >a. 119, 1'7 S.E. 77 J193?.
8r.R7inn CountB <. !oI"ll", 177 8r. 4#, 1' ,.0 1#$ J194#?.
N(N13O 3ll.R ,"o-l" ") r"l. 2n0"rson <. Villag" o/ Bra0l"B, 3'7 3ll. 3$1, 11 N.E.0
41# J1937?.
5ich.R5orris <. BarE"r, #3 5ich. 334, 3# N.:. 174 J1931?.
N(N14O 6.S.R4u00l"ston <. .AB"r, 14# (.0 311 JC.C.2. 1$th Cir. 1944?.
Cal.R :"lls (argo M Co. <. CitB an0 CountB o/ San (rancisco, # Cal. 0 37, 1#
,.0 '# J1944?.
N(N1#O 6.S.R4u00l"ston <. .AB"r, 14# (.0 311 JC.C.2. 1$th Cir. 1944?.
N(N1'O Cal.R:"lls (argo M Co. <. CitB an0 CountB o/ San (rancisco, # Cal. 0 37,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1# ,.0 '# J1944?.
N(N17O 6tahR5arB @an" St"<"ns Co. <. (ol"B, '7 6tah #78, 48 ,. 81# J19'?.
N(N18O =an.R.icEson <. ,att"rson, 1$' =an. 794, 189 ,. 91 J19$?.
N(N19O 8r.RNational Sur"tB Cor-. <. S+ith, 1'8 8r. '#, 13 ,.0 $3 J194?.
C@S @6.>5EN%S L 737

@u0g+"nts
@..., 2lan :"inst"in, @...
V33. !"n0ition, EntrB, !"cor0, an0 .ocE"ting
2. !"n0ition
L 13'. >"n"rallB
%h" r"n0ition o/ a Fu0g+"nt is th" Fu0icial act o/ th" court in -ronouncing th" s"nt"nc" o/
th" laA on th" /acts in contro<"rsB as asc"rtain"0 DB th" -l"a0ings an0 <"r0ict or /in0ings, as
0istinguish"0 /ro+ th" +inist"rial act o/ "nt"ring th" Fu0g+"nt.
%h" r"n0ition o/ a Fu0g+"nt is th" Fu0icial act o/ th" courtN1O in -ronouncing th" s"nt"nc"
o/ th" laA on th" /acts in contro<"rsB as asc"rtain"0 DB th" -l"a0ings an0 <"r0ict or /in0ings,N
O as 0istinguish"0 /ro+ th" o//icial "ntrB o/ th" Fu0g+"nt.N3O
G!"n0itionH o/ Fu0g+"nt is th" act DB Ahich th" court 0"clar"s th" 0"cision o/ th" laA
u-on th" +att"rs at issu"N4O an0 it is th" suDstanc" an0 "//"ct o/ an a0Fu0ication that is 0"t"r+inati<"
o/ Ah"th"r it is a Fu0g+"nt, not th" /or+ o/ th" 0"cr"".N#O
8n its r"n0ition, an0 Aithout "ntrB, a Fu0g+"nt is /inal, <ali0, an0 "n/orc"aDl" as D"tA""n
th" -arti"sN'O in th" aDs"nc" o/ a statut" to th" contrarB.N7O
6n0"r so+" authoritB, th" courtCs -ractic" 0o"s not /a<or th" t"r+ination o/ -roc""0ings
Aithout a 0"t"r+ination o/ th" +"rits o/ th" contro<"rsB Ah"r" that can D" Drought aDout Aith
0u" r"gar0 to n"c"ssarB rul"s o/ -roc"0ur".N8O
2ccor0inglB, th" laA 0o"s not /a<or th" t"r+ination o/ -roc""0ings Aithout a 0"t"r+ination
o/ th" +"rits o/ th" contro<"rsB Ah"n that can D" Drought aDout Aith 0u" r"gar0 to n"c"ssarB
rul"s o/ -roc"0ur", an0 /or that r"ason, th" trial court shoul0 +aE" "<"rB "//ort to a0Fu0icat"
th" suDstanti<" contro<"rsB D"/or" it an0, Ah"n -racticaDl", shoul0 0"ci0" a -roc"0ural
49 C.@.S. @u0g+"nts L 13'
issu" so as not to -r"clu0" h"aring th" +"rits o/ an a--"al.N9O
N(N1O 2la.RS+ith <. @acEson, 77$ So. 0 1$'8 J2la. $$$?.
Cal.R,"o-l" <. (ronti"r ,aci/ic 3ns. Co., 83 Cal. 2--. 4th 189, 1$$ Cal. !-tr. 0 433
J30 .ist. $$$?.
50.R.a<is <. .a<is, 33# 50. '99, '4' 2.0 3'# J1994?.
5o.RCoIart <. 5aI0a .istriDutors J>ul/?, 3nc., 8'1 S.:.0 347 J5o. Ct. 2--. S...
1993?.
N"D.RNational 2ccount SBst"+s o/ 8+aha, 3nc. <. 5c3ntBr", N"D. 2--. 884, #18
N.:.0 1#8 J1994?.
8Ela.R ,"o-l"s El"c. Co&o-. <. Broughton, 194 8= 33, 191 8Ela. 9, 17 ,.0
8#$ J194?.
N(NO 50.R.a<is <. .a<is, 33# 50. '99, '4' 2.0 3'# J1994?.
N"D.RNational 2ccount SBst"+s o/ 8+aha, 3nc. <. 5c3ntBr", N"D. 2--. 884, #18
N.:.0 1#8 J1994?.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8Ela.R ,r"sDBt"rian 4os-., 3nc. <. Boar0 o/ %a)&!oll Corr"ctions o/ 8Elaho+a
CountB, 1984 8= 93, '93 ,.0 '11 J8Ela. 1984?.
%"nn.RChristo-h"r <. S-oon"r, '4$ S.:.0 833 J%"nn. Ct. 2--. 198?.
%").R2rriaga <. Ca<aIos, 88$ S.:.0 83$ J%"). 2--. San 2ntonio 1994?.
:.Va.REchar0 <. CitB o/ ,arE"rsDurg, 187 :. Va. 3#$, 419 S.E.0 14 J199?.
."cision or /in0ings DB court, g"n"rallB, s"" C.@.S., %rial LL '$ to '$', '$9 to '1.
V"r0ict or /in0ings DB FurB, g"n"rallB, s"" C.@.S., %rial L 48#.
N(N3O 2riI.R 2+"rican Sur. Co. o/ N.9. <. 5osh"r, 48 2riI. ##, '4 ,.0 1$#
J193'?.
5o.R3n r" 5arriag" o/ 4u"B, 71' S.:.0 479 J5o. Ct. 2--. S... 198'?.
%"nn.RChristo-h"r <. S-oon"r, '4$ S.:.0 833 J%"nn. Ct. 2--. 198?.
%").RBaEali <. BaEali, 83$ S.:.0 #1 J%"). 2--. .allas 199?.
:.Va.REchar0 <. CitB o/ ,arE"rsDurg, 187 :. Va. 3#$, 419 S.E.0 14 J199?.
2s to "ntrB, g"n"rallB, s"" L 143.
N(N4O %").RStallAorth <. StallAorth, $1 S.:.30 338 J%"). 2--. .allas $$'?.
Va.R@"//"rson <. Co+., '9 Va. 13', '$7 S.E.0 1$7 J$$#?.
N(N#O Cal.R 8taB !i<"r Constructors <. San .i"go E)-r"ssAaB, 1#8 Cal. 2--. 4th
79', 7$ Cal. !-tr. 30 434 J4th .ist. $$8?.
N(N'O 2la.R.u ,r"" <. 4art, 4 2la. '9$, 8 So. 0 183 J194?.
Cal.RBanE 8n" %")as <. ,ollacE, 4 Cal. 2--. 4th 973, 9 Cal. !-tr. 0 #1$ J0 .ist.
1994?.
3ll.R:icEis"r <. ,oA"rs, 34 3ll. 2--. 13$, #7 N.E.0 # J30 .ist. 1944?.
N"D.R,ontiac 3+-. Co. <. 7"isB, 144 N"D. 7$#, 14 N.:.0 384 J1944?.
2s to ")"cution D"/or" "ntrB s"" C.@.S., E)"cutions L 13.
2s to n"c"ssitB o/ "ntrB, s"" L 144.
N(N7O 2rE.R5cConn"ll <. Bourlan0, 17# 2rE. #3, 99 S.:. 44 J197?.
."l.R4aIIar0 <. 2l")an0"r, 3' ."l. #1, 178 2. 873 JSu-"r. Ct. 193#?.
8r.R4aD"rlB <. (ar+"rsC 5ut. (ir" !"li"/ 2ssCn, 13# 8r. 3, 87 ,. J193$?.
N(N8O Conn.R!occo <. >arrison, '8 Conn. #41, 848 2.0 3# J$$4?;
,i"traroia <. North"ast 6tiliti"s, #4 Conn. '$, 7#' 2.0 84# J$$$?.
N(N9O Conn.R ("0us <. ,lanning an0 Zoning Co+Cn, 78 Conn. 7#1, 9$$ 2.0 1
J$$'?; 8lB+-ia 5ortg. Cor-. <. =l"in, '1 Conn. 2--. 3$#, 7'3 2.0 1$## J$$1?.
C@S @6.>5EN%S L 13'

,83N%S 2N. 26%48!3%3ES
%h" <i0"o ,a+ !oD"rts -ro<i0"0 in h"r .isco<"rB cl"arlB shoAs :al&5arts (rontino -"rha-s
+aEing, Dut 0"/init"lB han0ing a c0 to !S3C 8//ic"rs BraunAorth an0 CraA/or0 at th" conclusion o/
th" arr"st in qu"stion. 4oA"<"r, 3 D"li"<" all thr"" +"n t"sti/i"0 that no oth"r <i0"o ")ist"0 r"l"<ant
to th" accusation or arr"st oth"r than th" int"rrogation roo+ <i0"o, Ahich Aas still /il+ing th"
")chang" o/ th" c0 D"tA""n (rontino an0 th" !S3C 8//ic"rs. (urth"r, !S3C 8//ic"r CraA/or0 can
cl"arlB D" s""n in th" int"rrogation roo+ <i0"os r"c"i<ing a 0ri<"rs lic"ns" /ro+ Coughlin an0 calling
it in on his ra0io, 0"s-it" CraA/or0, t"sti/Bing, un0"r oath, at trial, that Coughlin Aas arr"st"0, in larg"
-art, D"caus" h" 0i0 not -ro0uc" a -hBsical 0ri<"rCs lic"ns" an0 th" in/or+ation Ahich Aoul0 D"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contain"0 th"r"on an0 n"c"ssarB to Arit" a citation. CraA/or0 t"sti/i"0 that this lacE o/ -ro0ucing a
0ri<"rs lic"ns" Jan0 th" 0is-atch r"cor0s can cl"arlB shoA th" running o/ CoughlinCs 0ri<"rs lic"ns"
nu+D"r, Ahich Coughlin h"r"DB 0"clar"s un0"r -"naltB o/ -"rFurB h" has n"<"r co++itt"0 to +"+orB
in his "ntir" li/"?. (urth"r, in 0ir"ct contra0iction to th" sAorn t"sti+onB o/ Doth (rontino an0
CraA/or0, th" 6,C /or th" cough 0ro-s 0o"s a--"ar on Doth th" all"g"0lB stol"n it"+s S14.$$ r"c"i-t
an0 th" S8$.$$ r"c"i-t o/ it"+s -urchas"0 i++"0at"lB -rior to th" arr"st. Both (rontino an0
CraA/or0 sAor" that th" 6,C 0i0 not a--"ar on Doth.
2N279S3S
:inston ,ro0ucts <. ."Bo"r, 1 N"<. 20<.8-. 48, 134 ,. 3r0 7' J$$'?;G3n r"sol<ing this +otion,
A" r"<isit th" +"tho0 us"0 to co+-ut" th" ti+" /or /iling +otions /or Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA an0
/or a n"A trial an0 th" tolling -"rio0 to /il" a notic" o/ a--"al Ah"n th"s" +otions ar" s"r<"0 DB +ail
or "l"ctronic +"ans. U %h" N"<a0a !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur" JN!C,? r"quir" th"s" so&call"0 tolling
+otions to D" /il"0 Aithin 1$ 0aBs /ro+ th" 0at" a Fu0g+"nt is /il"0 an0 s"r<"0. U 4oA"<"r, th" $$4
a+"n0+"nts to th" N!C, chang"0 th" co+-utation o/ ti+" Ah"r" th" -r"scriD"0 -"rio0 is l"ss than
11 0aBs to ")clu0" Satur0aBs, Sun0aBs an0 nonFu0icial 0aBs. U :h"r", as h"r", th" ti+" to /il" a
tolling +otion is 1$ 0aBs, A" conclu0" that th" G-"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0H in N!C, 'Ja? 0o"s not
inclu0" th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or s"r<ic" DB +ail un0"r N!C, 'J"?. U %h"r"/or", th" /iling -"rio0 /or a
tolling +otion is co+-ut"0 /irst un0"r N!C, 'Ja?, an0 th"n 3 a00itional 0aBs ar" a00"0 un0"r N!C,
'J"? Ah"n s"r<ic" Aas +a0" DB +ail or "l"ctronic +"ans. U 6sing this co+-utation +"tho0, A"
conclu0" that a--"llantCs tolling +otions A"r" ti+"lB /il"0 in th" 0istrict court. U 2ccor0inglB, A"
0"nB r"s-on0"ntCs +otion to 0is+iss this a--"al. U (urth"r, although this issu" Aas not a00r"ss"0 DB
th" -arti"s, A" conclu0" that th" tolling +otions also toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ th" -ost&Fu0g+"nt
or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2C%S
%h" /inal Fu0g+"nt a/t"r a FurB <"r0ict in /a<or o/ r"s-on0"nt Aas /il"0 on 2-ril 18, $$#. U
!"s-on0"nt s"r<"0 a--"llant Aith notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" 0istrict courtCs /inal Fu0g+"nt <ia /acsi+il"
an0 +ail on 2-ril 1, $$#. U (i/t""n 0aBs lat"r, on 5aB ', $$#, a--"llant +o<"0 th" 0istrict court
/or Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA un0"r N!C, #$JD? or /or a n"A trial -ursuant to N!C, #9. U
!"s-on0"nt o--os"0 a--"llantCs +otions in th" 0istrict court, arguing, in -art, that th"B A"r" not
ti+"lB /il"0.
B"/or" r"sol<ing th" +otions, on @un" 9, $$#, th" 0istrict court "nt"r"0 a -ost&Fu0g+"nt or0"r
aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs in /a<or o/ r"s-on0"nt. U Notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" or0"r Aas s"r<"0 on
a--"llant on @un" 1$, $$#. U 8n @un" 7, $$#, th" 0istrict court "nt"r"0 its or0"r 0"nBing
a--"llantCs +otion /or Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA or /or a n"A trial. U %h" 0istrict court 0"t"r+in"0
that a--"llantCs +otions ha0 D""n ti+"lB /il"0 Dut conclu0"0 that a--"llant Aas not "ntitl"0 to anB
r"li"/. U 8n @ulB 9, $$#, Aithin 3$ 0aBs a/t"r s"r<ic" o/ notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" @un" 7 or0"r
r"sol<ing th" +otions, a--"llant /il"0 a notic" o/ a--"al /ro+ that or0"r, th" /inal Fu0g+"nt, an0 th"
-ost&Fu0g+"nt or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs.
!"s-on0"nt has /il"0 a +otion to 0is+iss th" a--"al, all"ging that a--"llantCs +otions /or Fu0g+"nt as
a +att"r o/ laA an0 /or a n"A trial A"r" not ti+"lB an0 th"r"/or" 0i0 not toll th" ti+" to a--"al. U
2--"llant o--os"s th" +otion.
DISCUSSION
V%his court lacEs Furis0iction to consi0"r an a--"al that is /il"0 D"Bon0 th" ti+" alloA"0 un0"r
N!2, 4Ja?.
1
U2 ti+"lB /il"0 +otion /or Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA un0"r N!C, #$JD? or /or a n"A
trial un0"r N!C, #9 tolls th" ti+" /or /iling an a--"al until no lat"r than 3$ 0aBs a/t"r a -artB s"r<"s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Aritt"n notic" that th" or0"r r"sol<ing such +otions has D""n "nt"r"0.
U2 tolling +otion un0"r

N!C, #$JD? or N!C, #9 is ti+"lB i/ it is /il"0 Aithin 1$ 0aBs a/t"r a -artB s"r<"s Aritt"n notic" that a
Fu0g+"nt has D""n "nt"r"0.
3
U%hr"" a00itional 0aBs ar" a00"0 to this /iling 0"a0lin" Ah"n s"r<ic"
Aas +a0" DB +ail or "l"ctronic +"ans.
4

3n th" +otion to 0is+iss, r"s-on0"nt argu"s that our -rior cas" laA r"quir"s that th" 3&0aB alloAanc"
/or +ailing D" a00"0 0ir"ctlB to th" 1$&0aB -"rio0 to /il" tolling +otions D"/or" co+-uting th" /iling
0"a0lin" un0"r N!C, 'Ja?. U E+-loBing this rational" suDF"cts th"s" tolling +otions to a 13&0aB ti+"
-"rio0. U 6n0"r N!C, 'Ja?, int"r+"0iat" Satur0aBs, Sun0aBs an0 nonFu0icial 0aBs Aoul0 D" inclu0"0
in th" co+-utation o/ th" 13&0aB -"rio0. U 2--lBing this a--roach to this cas" r"sults in th" thirt""nth
0aB /ro+ s"r<ic" o/ notic" o/ "ntrB /alling on 5aB 4, $$#. U 3n this sc"nario, D"caus" a--"llantCs
+otions A"r" not /il"0 until 5aB ', $$#, th"B Aoul0 D" unti+"lB an0 Aoul0 not "//"cti<"lB toll th"
ti+" to a--"al.
2--"llant "ncourag"s us to a0o-t th" o--osit" a--roach to that sugg"st"0 DB r"s-on0"nt. U 3nst"a0 o/
/irst a00ing th" 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail to r"ach a 13&0aB ti+" -"rio0, a--"llant cont"n0s that
soun0 Fu0icial -olicB /a<ors a00ing th" 3&0aB alloAanc" onlB a/t"r co+-uting th" 1$&0aB /iling -"rio0
an0 ")clu0ing int"r+"0iat" nonFu0icial 0aBs un0"r N!C, 'Ja?. U 2--"llant argu"s that this +"tho0 o/
co+-uting th" ti+" -"rio0 is consist"nt Aith /"0"ral court int"r-r"tation o/ th" analogous /"0"ral rul",
(!C, ', an0 /urth"rs th" int"nt o/ N!C, 'J"? DB alloAing /or +or" ti+" Ah"n s"r<ic" is +a0" DB
+ail. U 6sing this +"tho0 in this cas", a--"llant argu"s that its +otions /or Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/
laA an0 /or a n"A trial A"r" ti+"lB /il"0 an0 "//"cti<"lB toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al.
!ul" 'Vo/ th" N"<a0a !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur" go<"rns ti+":
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ja?UCo+-utation. 3n co+-uting anB -"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0 or alloA"0 DB th"s" rul"s, DB th" local
rul"s o/ anB 0istrict court, DB or0"r o/ court, or DB anB a--licaDl" statut", th" 0aB o/ th" act, "<"nt, or
0"/ault /ro+ Ahich th" 0"signat"0 -"rio0 o/ ti+" D"gins to run shall not D" inclu0"0. U %h" last 0aB
o/ th" -"rio0 so co+-ut"0 shall D" inclu0"0, unl"ss it is a Satur0aB, a Sun0aB, or a nonFu0icial 0aB, in
Ahich "<"nt th" -"rio0 runs until th" "n0 o/ th" n")t 0aB Ahich is not a Satur0aB, a Sun0aB, or a
nonFu0icial 0aB, or, Ah"n th" act to D" 0on" is th" /iling o/ a -a-"r in court, a 0aB on Ahich A"ath"r
or oth"r con0itions ha<" +a0" th" o//ic" o/ th" cl"rE o/ th" 0istrict court inacc"ssiDl", in Ahich "<"nt
th" -"rio0 runs until th" "n0 o/ th" n")t 0aB Ahich is not on" o/ th" a/or"+"ntion"0 0aBs. U :h"n th"
-"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0 or alloA"0 is l"ss than 11 0aBs, int"r+"0iat" Satur0aBs, Sun0aBs, an0
nonFu0icial 0aBs shall D" ")clu0"0 in th" co+-utation ")c"-t /or thos" -roc""0ings /il"0 un0"r %itl"s
1 or 13 o/ th" N"<a0a !"<is"0 Statut"s.
J"?U200itional %i+" 2/t"r S"r<ic" DB 5ail or El"ctronic +"ans. U :h"n"<"r a -artB has th" right or
is r"quir"0 to 0o so+" act or taE" so+" -roc""0ings Aithin a -r"scriD"0 -"rio0 a/t"r th" s"r<ic" o/ a
notic" or oth"r -a-"r, oth"r than -roc"ss, u-on th" -artB an0 th" notic" or -a-"r is s"r<"0 u-on th"
-artB DB +ail or DB "l"ctronic +"ans, 3 0aBs shall D" a00"0 to th" -r"scriD"0 -"rio0.
JE+-has"s a00"0.? U %his court has -r"<iouslB consi0"r"0 in tAo cas"s th" issu" o/ co+-uting ti+"
-"rio0s un0"r N!C, ' Ah"n s"r<ic" Aas +a0" DB +ail. U 3n !oss <. >iaco+o, this court conclu0"0
that in calculating th" ti+" to /il" a tolling +otion, th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or s"r<ic" DB +ail is a00"0
0ir"ctlB to th" 1$&0aB -"rio0&r"sulting in a 13&0aB /iling -"rio0.
#
U5or" r"c"ntlB, in Custo+ CaDin"t
(actorB o/ N"A 9orE <. .istrict Court, a $$3 cas" in<ol<ing th" 3$&0aB ti+" -"rio0 to /il" a r"qu"st
/or trial 0" no<o a/t"r arDitration, A" a//ir+"0 th" co+-utation +"tho0 "+-loB"0 in !oss an0 h"l0
that th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or s"r<ic" DB +ail Gshoul0 D" a00"0 to th" ti+" allott"0 DB statut" or rul"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/irstH an0 th"n th" ti+" -"rio0 shoul0 D" co+-ut"0 un0"r N!C, 'Ja?.
'
U:" r"ason"0 that th"
alt"rnati<" +"tho0 o/ co+-uting ti+" un0"r !ul" 'Ja? o/ a00ing th" 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail a/t"r
co+-uting th" /iling 0"a0lin" GAoul0 -ot"ntiallB r"sult in an a00itional /i<" to s"<"n 0aBs to /il"
+otionsH Ahich Aas Gco+-licat"0 an0 aDsur0.HW
7
U3nst"a0, A" D"li"<"0 at th" ti+" that using th"
+"tho0 o/ /irst a00ing th" 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail to th" ti+" allott"0 DB statut" or rul" an0 th"n
co+-uting th" ti+" -"rio0, Aas a si+-l"r an0 s-""0i"r co+-utation sch"+".
8

4oA"<"r, in $$4, a/t"r our 0"cisions in !oss an0 Custo+ CaDin"t, A" a+"n0"0 N!C, ' to D"
consist"nt Aith th" 198# a+"n0+"nts to th" /"0"ral rul".
9
U%hat a+"n0+"nt +a0" th" ")clusion o/
int"r+"0iat" Satur0aBs, Sun0aBs, an0 nonFu0icial 0aBs a--licaDl" in co+-uting ti+" -"rio0s o/ l"ss
than 11 0aBs.
1$
UB"/or" th" $$4 a+"n0+"nt, N!C, 'Ja? onlB ")clu0"0 int"r+"0iat" nonFu0icial
0aBs in co+-uting -"rio0s o/ l"ss than 7 0aBs. U S"<"ral /"0"ral courts ha<" consi0"r"0 th" int"nt
D"hin0 (!C, 'J"?Cs 3&0aB +ailing alloAanc" in int"r-r"ting th" 198# a+"n0+"nt to th" co+-utation
-ro<ision o/ (!C, 'Ja?.
11
U3n co+-uting ti+" -"rio0s in thos" cas"s, th" /"0"ral 0"cisions ha<"
/ocus"0 on th" G-"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0H an0 0"t"r+in"0 that it 0o"s not inclu0" th" 3 a00itional
0aBs /or +ailing un0"r !ul" 'J"?. U %hos" /"0"ral courts ha<" th"r"/or" /oun0 that th" l"ss&than&11&
0aB -ro<ision o/ !ul" 'Ja? is a--licaDl" to 1$&0aB -"rio0s "<"n Ah"n s"r<ic" is +a0" DB +ail.
3n th" /irst s"+inal cas" a/t"r th" 198# a+"n0+"nt to (!C, ', a /"0"ral 0istrict court in NaltB <.
NaltB %r"" (ar+ r"cogniI"0 that th" a+"n0+"nt GAas int"n0"0 to ")t"n0 th" r"s-ons" ti+" alloA"0
un0"r <arious rul"s -r"scriDing t"n 0aB li+its.HW
1
U%h" NaltB court oDs"r<"0, hoA"<"r, that a00ing
a00itional ti+" /or +ailing un0"r !ul" 'J"? to cr"at" a 13&0aB ti+" -"rio0 ulti+at"lB r"sult"0 in th"
sa+" a+ount o/ ti+" that Aas alloA"0 D"/or" th" 198# a+"n0+"nt D"caus" at that ti+", nonFu0icial
0aBs A"r" not ")clu0"0 /ro+ th" co+-utation o/ 1$&0aB -"rio0s.
13
U%h" court 0"t"r+in"0 that
$ Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GNsOuch a r"sult cannot D" consist"nt Aith th" oD<ious int"ntions o/ th" a0<isorB co++itt""H an0
0"clar"0 that GNtOh" +ailing rul" shoul0 -ro<i0" thr"" ")tra 0aBs, in a00ition to Ahat"<"r -"rio0 th"
-artB Aoul0 oth"rAis" ha<", to r"/l"ct th" -r"su+"0 la-s" in notic" D"caus" o/ s"r<ic" DB +ail.HW
14
U
%h" NaltB court thus h"l0 that th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or +ailing shoul0 D" a00"0 onlB a/t"r co+-uting
th" ti+" -"rio0 un0"r !ul" 'Ja?.
1#

7iE"Ais", in 7"rro <. KuaE"r 8ats Co.,
1'
th" S"<"nth Circuit Court o/ 2--"als a00r"ss"0 this sa+"
issu" in th" cont")t o/ an oDF"ction to a +agistrat" Fu0g"Cs r"-ort an0 conclu0"0 that Gth" -"rio0 o/
ti+"H in !ul" 'Ja? Aas not th" su+ o/ all alloAaDl" -"rio0s. U %h" court not"0 that !ul" 'J"? is
G0"sign"0 to gi<" a litigant a--ro)i+at"lB th" sa+" "//"cti<" ti+" to r"s-on0 Ah"th"r -a-"rs ar"
s"r<"0 DB han0 or DB +ail.HW
17
U2n0 th" court r"ason"0 that GNtOh" onlB AaB to carrB out !ul" 'J"?Cs
/unction o/ a00ing ti+" to co+-"nsat" /or 0"laBs in +ail 0"li<"rB is to "+-loB !ul" 'Ja? /irst.HW
18

3n %ushn"r <. 6nit"0 Stat"s .istrict Court /or C"ntral .istrict o/ Cali/ornia, th" Ninth Circuit Court
o/ 2--"als conclu0"0 that th" 1$&0aB -"rio0 -r"scriD"0 /or /iling a FurB 0"+an0 0i0 not D"co+" a 13&
0aB -"rio0 /or -ur-os"s o/ !ul" 'Ja? as a r"sult o/ th" s"r<ic"&DB&+ail -ro<ision o/ !ul" 'J"?.
19
U%h"
court stat"0 that !ul" 'J"? shoul0 not D" Gconstru"0 to r"n0"r -r"scriD"0 -"rio0s o/ l"ss than "l"<"n
0aBs in"ligiDl" /or D"n"/icial tr"at+"nt un0"r !ul" 'Ja?H an0 conclu0"0 that it GAoul0 D" ano+alous
to int"r-r"t th" rul"s so that a litigant s"r<"0 DB +ail Aoul0 ha<" l"ss ti+" /or action than a litigant
s"r<"0 -"rsonallB.HW
$
U3nst"a0, th" court h"l0 that GNtOh" -"rio0 is calculat"0 /irst DB a--lBing th"
l"ss&than&"l"<"n&0aB -ro<ision o/ !ul" 'Ja?, th"r"DB ")clu0ing anB int"r<"ning A""E"n0s an0 l"gal
holi0aBs. U 2/t"r this co+-utation, thr"" a00itional 0aBs ar" a00"0 /or +ail s"r<ic" un0"r !ul" 'J"?.HW
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2s A" not"0 in Custo+ CaDin"t, /"0"ral 0"cisions ar" not Din0ing on this court.
U4oA"<"r, GNAO"
ha<" -r"<iouslB r"cogniI"0 that /"0"ral 0"cisions in<ol<ing th" ("0"ral !ul"s o/ Ci<il ,roc"0ur"
-ro<i0" -"rsuasi<" authoritB Ah"n this court ")a+in"s its rul"s.HW
3
U8n th" -articular issu" o/
co+-uting ti+" un0"r N!C, ', th" /"0"ral 0"cisions 0iscuss"0 aDo<" in r"gar0 to th" /"0"ral rul" ar"
logicallB co+-"lling.
8ur 0"cisions in Custo+ CaDin"t an0 !oss r"/l"ct th" courtCs 0"sir" to +aintain a si+-l", "//ici"nt
an0 uni/or+ sBst"+ /or co+-uting ti+" -"rio0s un0"r N!C, '.
4
4oA"<"r, n"ith"r o/ thos" cas"s
consi0"r"0 th" i+-act that th"ir co+-utation sch"+" Aoul0 ha<" on /iling -"rio0s suDF"ct to th"
-ro<ision in N!C, 'Ja? /or th" ")clusion o/ int"r+"0iat" nonFu0icial 0aBs. U 3n light o/ our r"c"nt
a+"n0+"nt to N!C, 'Ja?, Ahich +a0" th" nonFu0icial&0aB ")clusion a--licaDl" to long"r ti+"
-"rio0s, A" can no long"r r"concil" th" utilitB o/ !oss an0 Custo+ CaDin"t Aith th" sti/ling "//"ct
that th"B ha<" on th" int"nt D"hin0 !ul" 'J"?. U!ul" 'J"? is int"n0"0 to -ro<i0" litigants Aith
a00itional ti+" Ah"n s"r<ic" is +a0" DB +ail. U %h" co+-utation +"tho0 A" "+-loB"0 in Custo+
CaDin"t an0 !oss AorEs contrarB to that int"nt. U 6sing th" +"tho0 "+-loB"0 in thos" cas"s a/t"r th"
a+"n0+"nt to !ul" 'Ja?, Ah"n a 1$&0aB ti+" -"rio0 is in<ol<"0, th" -artB -"rsonallB s"r<"0 Aoul0
alAaBs ha<" +or" ti+" to act than a -artB s"r<"0 DB +ail.
(or ")a+-l", N!C, #9JD? -ro<i0"s that GNaO +otion /or a n"A trial shall D" /il"0 no lat"r than 1$ 0aBs
a/t"r s"r<ic" o/ Aritt"n notic" o/ th" "ntrB o/ th" Fu0g+"nt.H U 3/ a -artB is -"rsonallB s"r<"0 Aith
notic" o/ "ntrB, that -artB has 14 cal"n0ar 0aBs to /il" a +otion D"caus" un0"r N!C, 'Ja?, th"
int"r+"0iat" nonFu0icial 0aBs Aoul0 D" ")clu0"0 /ro+ th" co+-utation. U But un0"r th" !oss an0
Custo+ CaDin"t co+-utation sch"+", i/ that -artB ha0 D""n s"r<"0 DB +ail, that -artB Aoul0 onlB
ha<" 13 cal"n0ar 0aBs to /il" th" sa+" +otion D"caus" th" int"r+"0iat" nonFu0icial 0aBs Aoul0 D"
inclu0"0 in th" co+-utation. U 2n0 a/t"r taEing into account th" actual ti+" /or 0"li<"rB o/ +ail, a
Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-artB s"r<"0 DB +ail Aoul0 c"rtainlB ha<" "<"n l"ss than 13 cal"n0ar 0aBs to act. U %his r"sult 0"/"ats
th" -ur-os" o/ !ul" 'J"? an0 "ss"ntiallB +aE"s th" a+"n0+"nt to !ul" 'Ja? a nullitB DB con<"rting
1$&0aB ti+" -"rio0s into 13&0aB -"rio0s that 0o not garn"r th" D"n"/it o/ th" a+"n0+"nt. U 2s th"
S"<"nth Circuit oDs"r<"0 in 7"rro, GNiOnt"ractions Aithin a co+-l") s"t o/ rul"s so+"ti+"s can ha<"
un")-"ct"0 an0 unA"lco+" "//"cts, Dut A" shoul0 not cr"at" th"+ Ah"n th" t")t r"a0ilB can D"ar
anoth"r +"aning.HW
#
U:" shoul0 not 0o so h"r" in int"r-r"ting N!C, '.
V:" th"r"/or" r"<"rs" our 0"cisions in Custo+ CaDin"t an0 !oss to th" ")t"nt that th"B r"quir" that
/iling -"rio0s D" co+-ut"0 DB a00ing th" 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail un0"r N!C, 'J"? to th"
-r"scriD"0 -"rio0 D"/or" a--lBing N!C, 'Ja?. U Consist"nt Aith th" co+-"lling /"0"ral cas"s
0iscuss"0 aDo<", A" hol0 that th" 1$&0aB ti+" -"rio0 /or /iling +otions /or Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/
laA an0 /or a n"A trial shoul0 D" calculat"0 /irst un0"r N!C, 'Ja?, ")clu0ing int"r+"0iat" Satur0aBs,
Sun0aBs an0 nonFu0icial 0aBs. U 3/ s"r<ic" Aas +a0" DB +ail or "l"ctronic +"ans, 3 0aBs shoul0
th"r"a/t"r D" a00"0 -ursuant to N!C, 'J"?.
3n this cas", notic" o/ th" Fu0g+"ntCs "ntrB Aas s"r<"0 DB +ail on %hurs0aB, 2-ril 1, $$#. U
Co+-uting th" 1$&0aB ti+" -"rio0 /ro+ this 0at" an0 ")clu0ing int"r+"0iat" nonFu0icial 0aBs un0"r
N!C, 'Ja?, ")t"n0"0 th" 0"a0lin" /or tolling +otions to %hurs0aB, 5aB #, $$#. U 200ing 3 0aBs at
that -oint /or s"r<ic" DB +ail +a0" 5on0aB, 5aB 9, $$#, th" /inal 0"a0lin" to /il" +otions /or
Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA or /or a n"A trial. U 2--"llantCs +otions A"r" /il"0 D"/or" that 0at", an0
th"r"/or" th"B A"r" ti+"lB /il"0 an0 "//"cti<"lB toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al. U %h"r"a/t"r, a--"llant
ti+"lB /il"0 a notic" o/ a--"al Aithin 3$ 0aBs a/t"r s"r<ic" o/ Aritt"n notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" or0"r
r"sol<ing th" tolling +otions.
'

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V(inallB, although th" +otion to 0is+iss an0 o--osition 0i0 not a00r"ss Ah"th"r a--"llantCs tolling
+otions toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ th" -ost&Fu0g+"nt or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s, D"caus" o/ th"
a+Diguous natur" o/ this ar"a o/ laA an0 th" -ot"ntial -it/all that it +aB -r"s"nt to -ractition"rs, A"
"l"ct to a00r"ss it sua s-ont".
7
U%h" -r"cis" issu" is Ah"th"r a tolling +otion 0ir"ct"0 at th" /inal
Fu0g+"nt also tolls th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ a s-"cial or0"r a/t"r /inal Fu0g+"nt. U %his is an issu" o/
/irst i+-r"ssion in N"<a0a.
V2n or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs is suDstanti<"lB a--"alaDl" as a s-"cial or0"r a/t"r /inal
Fu0g+"nt.
8
US-"cial or0"rs a/t"r /inal Fu0g+"nt ar" a--"alaDl" D"caus" th"B a//"ct th" rights o/ a
-artB groAing out o/ th" /inal Fu0g+"nt.
9
U7iE" an a--"al /ro+ a /inal Fu0g+"nt, an a--"al /ro+ an
or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs +ust D" /il"0 no +or" than 3$ 0aBs /ro+ th" 0at" that notic"
o/ th" or0"rCs "ntrB is s"r<"0.
3$

4"r", notic" o/ "ntrB o/ th" or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs Aas s"r<"0 on a--"llant on @un"
1$, $$#. U 4oA"<"r, a--"llant 0i0 not /il" its notic" o/ a--"al until @ulB 9, $$#&A"ll D"Bon0 th"
3$&0aB ti+" li+it alloA"0 un0"r N!2, 4Ja?J1?. U 2ccor0inglB, this court onlB has Furis0iction to
consi0"r issu"s r"lating to th" attorn"B /""s an0 costs or0"r i/ th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ that or0"r Aas
toll"0 DB a--"llantCs +otions /or Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA an0 /or a n"A trial.
N!2, 4Ja?J4? -ro<i0"s that Ah"n a tolling +otion is /il"0, Gth" ti+" to /il" a notic" o/ a--"al runs /or
all -arti"s /ro+ "ntrB o/ an or0"r 0is-osing o/ th" last such r"+aining +otion.H U %his courtCs
0"cisions ha<" "<aluat"0 tolling +otions in th" cont")t o/ a--"als /ro+ /inal Fu0g+"nts.
31
U4oA"<"r,
D"caus" N!2, 4Ja?J4? 0o"s not s-"ci/B /ro+ Ahich or0"rs th" ti+" to a--"al +aB D" toll"0, its
a--licaDilitB to -ost&Fu0g+"nt or0"rs aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs is uncl"ar.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3n this cas", th" or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s to r"s-on0"nt Aas -r"0icat"0 on th" /inal Fu0g+"nt in
r"s-on0"ntCs /a<or. U %h"r" is thus a clos" conn"ction D"tA""n th" /inal Fu0g+"nt an0 th" s-"cial
or0"r a/t"r /inal Fu0g+"nt in that a chang" to th" /inal Fu0g+"nt Aoul0 liE"lB r"sult in a chang" to th"
s-"cial or0"r a/t"r /inal Fu0g+"nt. U BB 0"/inition, anB s-"cial or0"r a/t"r /inal Fu0g+"nt +ust D"
clos"lB r"lat"0 to th" Fu0g+"nt. U %his clos" conn"ction l"a0s us to conclu0" that th" tolling +otions
"nu+"rat"0 in N!2, 4Ja?J4? a--lB to Doth tB-"s o/ or0"rs. U 2nB oth"r int"r-r"tation o/ N!2, 4Ja?
J4? Aoul0 r"sult in th" a--"al o/ a -ost&Fu0g+"nt or0"r -roc""0ing in this court Ahil" th" un0"rlBing
Fu0g+"nt Aas still suDF"ct to chang" 0uring th" -"n0"ncB o/ tolling +otions in th" 0istrict court. U
Such an "//"ct Aoul0 not onlB i+-"0" Fu0icial "cono+B an0 r"sult in -i"c"+"al litigation,
3
Dut it
Aoul0 also liE"lB D" count"rintuiti<" to +anB l"gal -ractition"rs an0 cr"at" signi/icant con/usion o<"r
th" ti+" /or /iling a--"als /ro+ s-"cial or0"rs a/t"r /inal Fu0g+"nt. U 2s A" ha<" -r"<iouslB
")-lain"0, GNtOh" /iling o/ a si+-l" notic" o/ a--"al Aas int"n0"0 to taE" th" -lac" o/ +or"
co+-licat"0 -roc"0ur"s to oDtain r"<i"A, an0 th" notic" shoul0 not D" us"0 as a t"chnical tra- /or th"
unAarB 0ra/ts+an.HW
33
U8ur int"r-r"tation o/ N!2, 4Ja?J4? tolling +otions shoul0 r"/l"ct our int"nt
to -r"s"r<" a si+-l" an0 "//ici"nt -roc"0ur" /or /iling a notic" o/ a--"al.
V:" th"r"/or" hol0 that a ti+"lB /il"0 tolling +otion un0"r N!2, 4Ja?J4? tolls th" ti+" to a--"al
/ro+ Doth /inal Fu0g+"nt an0 s-"cial or0"rs "nt"r"0 a/t"r /inal Fu0g+"nt. U 2ccor0inglB, this court
has Furis0iction to consi0"r th" +"rits o/ anB issu"s rais"0 in this a--"al r"lating to th" aAar0 o/
attorn"B /""s an0 costs in th" 0istrict courtCs @un" 9, $$#, or0"r.
C8NC76S38N
:" r"<"rs" our 0"cisions in Custo+ CaDin"t an0 !oss to th" ")t"nt that th"B r"quir" that /iling
-"rio0s D" co+-ut"0 DB a00ing 3 0aBs /or s"r<ic" DB +ail un0"r N!C, 'J"? to th" -r"scriD"0 ti+"
# Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-"rio0 D"/or" a--lBing N!C, 'Ja?. U (urth"r, A" hol0 that th" G-"rio0 o/ ti+" -r"scriD"0H 0o"s not
inclu0" th" 3&0aB alloAanc" /or s"r<ic" DB +ail un0"r N!C, 'J"? an0 that ti+" -"rio0s shoul0 D"
calculat"0 /irst un0"r N!C, 'Ja? D"/or" a00ing ti+" un0"r N!C, 'J"?. U 6sing this +"tho0 o/
co+-utation, A" conclu0" that a--"llantCs +otions /or Fu0g+"nt as a +att"r o/ laA an0 /or n"A trial
A"r" ti+"lB /il"0 an0 thus "//"cti<"lB toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al. U 2s a r"sult, a--"llantCs notic" o/
a--"al Aas ti+"lB /il"0. U 2ccor0inglB, A" 0"nB r"s-on0"ntCs +otion to 0is+iss.
:" /urth"r hol0 that ti+"lB +otions list"0 un0"r N!2, 4Ja?J4? toll Doth th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ th"
/inal Fu0g+"nt an0 th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ a s-"cial or0"r "nt"r"0 a/t"r /inal Fu0g+"nt. U
2ccor0inglB, this court also has Furis0iction to consi0"r th" +"rits o/ a--"llantCs a--"al /ro+ th"
0istrict courtCs or0"r aAar0ing attorn"B /""s an0 costs in /a<or o/ r"s-on0"nt.
(88%N8%ES
1. VS"" N!2, 3Ja?; W2l<is <. Stat", >a+ing Control B0., 99 N"<. 184, ''$ ,.0 98$ J1983?.
. VN!2, 4Ja?J4?.
3. VN!C, #$JD?; WN!C, #9JD?.
4. VN!C, 'J"?.
#. V97 N"<. ##$, ##3 nn. 1 M , '3# ,.0 98, 3$$ nn. 1 M J1981?.
'. V119 N"<. #1, #4&##, ' ,.30 741, 743 J$$3?.
7. V30. at #4, ' ,.30 at 74&43.
8. V30.
9. VS"" N!C, ' 0ra/t"rCs not" J$$4?.
1$. V30.
' Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; 8--osition CitB o/ !"noCs Notic" o/ ."nial o/ S"r<ic"; !"qu"st /or Clari/ication !"gar0ing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11. VS"", ".g., NaltB <. NaltB %r"" (ar+, '#4 (.Su--. 131# JS...2la.1987?; W%ushn"r <. 6.S. .ist.
Court /or C"nt. .ist. o/ Cal., 89 (.0 8#3 J9th Cir.1987?; W7"rro <. KuaE"r 8ats Co., 84 (.30 39
J7th Cir.199'?.
1. V'#4 (.Su--. at 1317.
13. V30.
14. V30.
1#. V30. at 1317&18.
1'. V84 (.30 39, 4.
17. V30.
18. V30.
19. V89 (.0 at 8##&#'.
$. V30. Jciting NaltB, '#4 (.Su--. at 1317?.
1. V30. at 8##&#'.
. V119 N"<. at #4, ' ,.30 at 74&43.
3. VN"lson <. 4""r, 11 N"<. 83, 1 ,.30 1#, 1#3 J$$#?.
4. VCusto+ CaDin"t, 119 N"<. at ##, ' ,.30 at 743.
#. V84 (.30 at 4.
'. VN!2, 4Ja?J4?.
7. VS"" 2lDios <. 4oriIon Co++uniti"s, 3nc., 1 N"<. 4$9, 13 ,.30 1$ J$$'?; W5cNair <.
!i<"ra, 11$ N"<. 4'3, 4'8 n. ', 874 ,.0 14$, 144 n. ' J1994?; WBra0l"B <. !o+"o, 1$ N"<. 1$3,
1$#, 71' ,.0 7, 8 J198'?; W:"st"rn 3n0us., 3nc. <. >"n"ral 3ns. Co., 91 N"<. , 9&3$, #33
,.0 473, 478 J197#?.
8. VS+ith <. CroAn (inancial S"r<ic"s, 111 N"<. 77, 89 n. , 89$ ,.0 7'9, 771 n. J199#?.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. VS"" >u++ <. 5ainor, 118 N"<. 91, #9 ,.30 1$ J$$?.
3$. VN!2, 4Ja?J1?.
31. VS"", ".g., 5att"r o/ 2--lication o/ .uong, 118 N"<. 9$, 9&3, #9 ,.30 11$, 11 J$$?
Jconclu0ing that a ti+"lB /il"0 +otion to a+"n0 or +aE" a00itional /in0ings o/ /act toll"0 th" ti+" to
a--"al /ro+ a /inal Fu0g+"nt 0"nBing a -"tition to s"al cri+inal r"cor0s?; WCha-+an 3n0ustri"s <.
6nit"0 3nsuranc", 11$ N"<. 4#4, 4#7, 874 ,.0 739, 741 J1994? Jconclu0ing that ti+"lB /il"0 tolling
+otions toll"0 th" ti+" to a--"al /ro+ th" /inal Fu0g+"nt?; W2Dl" El"ctric, 3nc. <. =au/+an, 1$4 N"<.
9, 31&3, 7# ,.0 18, $ J1988? Jconclu0ing that a +otion to alt"r or a+"n0 toll"0 th" ti+" to
a--"al /ro+ th" /inal Fu0g+"nt?.
3. VS"", ".g., 4allicra/t"rs Co. <. 5oor", 1$ N"<. #', 78 ,.0 441 J198'?.
33. V(or+an <. Eagl" %hri/tB .rugs M 5arE"ts, 89 N"<. #33, #3', #1' ,.0 134, 13# J1973?,
o<"rrul"0 on oth"r groun0s DB >ar<in <. .ist. Ct., 118 N"<. 749, 7#1, #9 ,.30 118$, 1181 J$$?.H
:inston ,ro0ucts <. ."Bo"r, 1 N"<. 20<.8-. 48, 134 ,. 3r0 7' J$$'?;
%h" aDo<", a0+itt"0lB ")t"n0"0 citation, a--li"s to this issu"s at han0. :h"r"/or", th"
u0n"rsign"0 s""Es a co-B o/ th" 8r0"r /ro+ th" 11 3$ , $11 %rial, inclu0ing anB Cont"+-t 8r0"r,
Ahich +ust s"t /or th" Aith s-"ci/icitB -ursuant to 4ouston <. Eight @u0icial .istirct Court Ah"n
@u0g" ,o+"ranI" -ut 4ouston in cu//s /or aDout 3$ +inut"s, a cas" 3 a+ so+"Ahat aAar" o/:
Coughlin 5an0a+us:
htt-:11cas"in/o.n<su-r"+"court.us1-uDlic1cas"Vi"A.0oXcs33.Y74'
4ouston 5an0a+us:
htt-:11cas"in/o.n<su-r"+"court.us1-uDlic1cas"Vi"A.0oXcs33.Y14$#
.2%E. this ."c"+D"r 1'th, $11
Z1s1 Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
."/"n0ant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGHIN
1. 3 a+ th" ."/"n0ant in this action.
. 3 a+ not sur" ")actlB Ahat @u0g" 4oAar0 8r0"r"0 at th" conclusion o/ th" No<"+D"r $
th
,
$ll %rial
3. 3 ha<" not D""n "ntir"lB sur" Ahat th" 0i//"r"nc" is D"tA""n "+ails an0 /a)"s, as +anB -"o-l"
s"n0 /a)"s /ro+ th"ir co+-ut"rs, liE" "+ail, an0 it is +B un0"rstan0ing that all "l"ctronic
trans+issions, Ah"th"r t")t, soun0, <i0"o, Ahat"<"r, ar" ulti+at"lB Fust con<"rt"0 to s"ri"s o/
1Cs an0 $Cs....Non"th"l"ss, 3 ha<" r"a0 th" !5C! !ul" # on s"r<ic" o/ +otions DB /asci+il"
an0 +a0" r"asonaDl" att"+-ts to co+-lB Aith 5s. !oD"rts r"qu"st that 3 int"r-r"t that rul" to
+"an a trans+ission o/ 1Cs an0 $Cs that is not G"+ailH Das"0. 2s such, 3 /a) h"r /ro+ a /a)
nu+D"r o/ +in", 949&''7&74$ an0 ha<" /a)"0 h"r th" ."c"+D"r 13
th
5otion /or a N"A %rial,
"tc. to 5s. !oD"rts at h"r /a) nu+D"r. 3 EnoA o/ EnoA rul" that alloAs 5s. !oD"rts, a -uDlic
"+-loB"", to all th" su00"n 0"clar" a citiI"n is not alloA"0 to "+ail h"r, +uch l"ss o--osing
couns"l in a cas".
4. 2ttorn"Bs in -ri<at" -ractic", as /ar as 3 EnoA, +anag" to o-"n attach+"nts, us" S-BDot,
5alAar"DBt"s, Su-"r2ntiS-BAar", Ahat"<"r....th"B +aE" it ha--"n Aithout a su-"r Dloat"0
go<"rn+"ntal salarB an0 0onCt clai+ a G/"ar o/ <irus"sH shoul0 0ictat" "<"rBthing, in +B
o-inion.
#. 2t th" conclusion o/ th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial, in0""0, s"<"ral hours -rior to its
conclusion "<"n, 3 Aas ")tr"+"lB /aint an0 it Aas <"rB 0i//icult to /unction at th" l"<"l
n"c"ssarB to -ut on a 0"/"ns". 3 0o not Aish to go into th" AhBCs an0 Ah"r"/or"s o/ this, it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
+aB in<ol<"0 2.21-ri<acB issu"s1+"0ical issu"s, Dut, su//ic" to saB, 3 in no AaB coul0 ha<"
i+agin"0 that th" !5C Aoul0 s"" /it to hol0 "<"rBon" th"r", +anB g"tting -ai0 quit" a Dit o/
o<"rti+", in so+" incr"0iDl" "//ort to +aE" sur" this on" littl" ol0 -"tit larc"nB trial got 0on"
su-"r, su-"r /ast. 3 coul0 ha<" n"<"r i+agin"0 that th" %rial Aoul0 continu" until al+ost 9 -+
at night, AhB, in +B ")-"ri"nc", go<"rn+"nt "+-loB""s g"n"rallB l"a<" th"ir o//ic" Duil0ings
as soon a/t"r # -+ as hu+anlB -ossiDl". 2s such, 3 Aas in no AaB -r"-ar"0,
-hBsicallB1+"ntallB1+"0icallB, "tc. to continu" on that lat" into th" "<"ning.
'. 2--ar"ntlB, at th" clos" o/ %rial, @u0g" 4oAar0 +a0" a ruling. 3 ha<" r"c"i<"0 con/licting
r"-orts as to Ah"th"r th" !5C is ass"rting that 3 "nt"r"0 a guiltB -l"a J3 0o not D"li"<" that
ass"rtion co+-orts Aith r"alitB in anB AaB? or Ah"th"r @u0g" 4oAar0 +a0" a /in0ing o/
Cont"+-t co++itt"0 in th" -r"s"nc" o/ th" Court .$3$ an0 su++arilB s"nt"nc"0 +" to
thr"" 0aBs in Fail, Aith no -ossiDilitB o/ staB or a--"llat" r"<i"A, 0"s-it" @u0g" 4oAar0 ha<ing
0"ni"0 +" +B Si)th 2+"n0+"nt !ight %o Couns"l, assuring +" h" Aoul0 not or0"r anB
incarc"ration. 3 outlin"0 to @u0g" 4oAar0 Ahat a 0"<astating "//"ct his ruling +ight ha<" on
+B cli"nts cas"s to th" ")t"nt h" Aas not a//or0ing +" anB o--ortunitB to h"l- th"+ +aE"
oth"r arrang"+"nts to a<oi0 -r"Fu0icing th"ir cas"s, an0 @u0g" 4oAar0 agr""0 that h" Aas sa0
aDout that th"n angrilB l"/t th" D"nch a/t"r ")clai+ing so+"thing liE" GA" ar" o// th" r"cor0H.
7. 2t that -oint @u0g" 4oAar0Cs t"a+ o/ 5arshalls J3 thinE aDout /our o/ th" 5arshalls, at l"ast
A"r" AorEing at o<"rti+" Aag"s at that -oint in th" night to insur" that th" :al&5art cl"rE
Aoul0 not D" Dur0"n"0 DB ha<ing to r"turn to court 0uring nor+al Dusin"ss hours shoul0 a
continuanc" ha<" D""n grant"0? stor+"0 u- to +" an0 0"+an0"0 3 assu+" a han0cu//"0
-osition, 0"s-it" +B -assionat" -l"as that 3 n""0"0 to D" aDl" to hit th" Gsa<"H Dutton on +B
not"s /ro+ th" trial on +B n"tDooE co+-ut"r. %h" 5arshals tol0 +" that Aas not alloA"0 to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hit th" Gsa<"H Dutton an0 that th"B 0i0nCt car" aDout +B not"s D"ing lost. 3ts r"allB Aas quit"
r"+arEaDl" th" ")t"nt to Ahich th"s" 5arshals tr"at"0 +" liE" 3 Fust EnocE"0 o// a liquor stor"
Aith a /ir"ar+, -istol Ahi--"0 th" cashi"r, th"n ha--"n"0 u-on th"+ in th" -arEing lot a/t"r
th"B Aitn"ss"0 th" "ntir" "<"nt.
8. 3 Aas taE"n DacE to a hol0ing c"ll /or s"<"ral +inut"s, Ah"r"u-on 3 Aas su++on"0 DacE into
th" court roo+ an0 @u0g" 4oAar0s -r"s"nc" Ah"r" h" talE"0 so+" +or". 2s 3 r"call, @u0g"
4oAar0 +"ntion"0 a 1$ 0aB li+itations -"rio0 or 0"a0lin" that Aoul0 D" running /ro+ th"
notic" o/ "ntrB o/ his V"r0ict an0 Cont"+-t (in0ing. @u0g" 4oAar0 +"ntion"0 that, gi<"n
that h" Aas incarc"rating +" /or th" n")t 3 0aBs, h" Aas going to ")t"n0 all 0"a0lin"s Ahich
+ight a--lB to anB notic"s o/ a--"al or +otions s""Eing a n"A trial, to s"t asi0" th" Fu0g+"nt,
<acat", "tc an a00itional thr"" 0aBs a/t"r th" nor+al ti+" on Ahich thos" li+itations -"rio0s
Aoul0 run. @u0g" 4oAar0 s""+"0 to ")-lain that this Aoul0 ha<" th" "//"ct o/ gi<ing +"
+or" ti+" to un0"rtaE" to /il" th"s" -l"a0ings, +otions, an0 notic"s i/ 3 so choos" so that th"
su++arB incarc"ration JAhich @u0g" 4oAar0 Aas sur" to -oint out Aoul0 not D" DailaDl" or
oth"rAis" circu+<"nt"0 DB anB att"+-ts to acc"ss Fustic"? Aoul0 not -r"Fu0ic" +B aDilitB to
0o so. 2s 3 un0"rstoo0 it this +"ant l"ngth"ning th" ti+" 3 ha0 to /il" such -a-"rs, not
short"ning it, an0 @u0g" 4oAar0 s""+"0 to in0icat" that th" -"rio0 to /il" such things Aoul0
still D" a0Fu0g"0 to D" Aithin th" 11 0aBs or l"ss cit"0 in N!C, 'Ja?, an0, as such, non
Fu0icial 0aBs Aoul0 not count toAar0s th" 1$ 0aBs Aithin Ahich 3 +ust /il" th" <arious -ost
V"r0ict -a-"rs 3 +ight Aant to /il". @u0g" 4oAar0 s""+"0 to in0icat" that th" thr"" a00itional
0aBs h" Aas granting +" Aoul0 D" a00"0 on a/t"r th" ")-iration o/ thos" 1$ non Fu0icial 0aBs
/ro+ notic" o/ "ntrB o/ @u0g" 4oAar0Cs 8r0"r Aas /il"0 Aith th" !5C an0 s"r<"0 u-on +".
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. 3t is +B r"coll"ction that @u0g" 4oAar0 th"n l"/t th" courtroo+ an0 3 Aas l"/t alon" Aith
aDout 4 5arshals, all coll"cting o<"rti+". 2t that -oint th" got a Dit rough Aith +" an0
start"0 s-"aEing in <"rB hostil", o+inous ton"s, sho<ing so+" -a-"rs in /ront o/ +B /ac", Dut
not long "nough /or +" to D" aDl" to r"a0 th"+ or 0isc"rn Ahat th"B r"lat"0 to. %h" 5arshals
D"gan 0"+an0ing that 3 sign th"s" -a-"rs. 3 asE"0 th"+ i/ th"B A"r" +ortgag" 0ocu+"nts or
-"rha-s so+" stu0"nt loan agr""+"nts or oth"r sorts o/ 0ocu+"nts /or Ahich anB r"asonaDl"
-"rson Aoul0 Aant an o--ortunitB to r"<i"A -rior to signing. %his +a0" th" 5arshals "<"n
+or" angrB than th"B nor+allB s""+, an0 th"B tB-icallB s""+ <"rB, <"rB angrB +ost o/ th"
ti+", to +" at l"ast. 3n /act, 5arshal 5"ntI"l, at 5B 8ctoD"r 11
th
, $11 arraign+"nt ha0
D"co+" "nrag"0 Aith +" /or asEign qu"stions aDout +B Si)th 2+"n0+"nt !ight to Couns"l. 3
r"-ort"0 this to th" court an0 "<"n +a0" a notation aDout it, 3 D"li"<", on th" 0ocu+"nt
5arshal 5"ntI"l 0"+an0"0 3 sign on that 0aB. %hat sa+" 0aB 5arshal 5"ntI"l criticiI"0 +"
to +B /ac" a/t"r 3 a--"ar"0 D"/or" @u0g" >ar0n"r /or th" arraign+"nt. 5"ntI"l tol0 +" 3 ha0
asE"0 @u0g" >ar0n"r stu-i0 qu"stions, an0 3 D"li"<" h" +a0" so+" oth"r insulting an0
thr"at"ning r"+arEs to +" at that ti+", Dut 3 a+ a Dit a/rai0 to g"t into h"r" in +uch 0"tail.
1$. So, on No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11, a/t"r @u0g" 4oAar0 l"/t th" courtroo+ th" 5arshals Aoul0 not
l"t +" r"a0 th" -a-"rs th"B Aant"0 +" to sign /or +or" than a s"con0 or tAo D"/or" th"B
D"gan houn0ing +" to sign th"+ in angrB an0 thr"at"ning ton"s. 3 Aas so 0istraught /ro+ th"
<arious irr"gulariti"s 3 -"rc"i<"0 in th" %rial, an0 that Aas onlB co+-oun0"0 DB th" thuggish
D"ha<ior o/ th" 5arshals, Aho quicElB in/or+"0 +" that th"B 0i0nCt ha<" ti+" /or +" to r"a0
anBthing an0 0ragg"0 +" aAaB to th" 3 0aBs o/ incarc"ration 3 /ac"0, Ahil" +B car Aas sur"
to g"t toA"0 J"s-"ciallB consi0"ring th" ."-ut""s at th" :asho" CountB @ail saA /it to r"/us"
to alloA +" to +aE" +or" than, 3 D"li"<", a singl" -hon" call, shortlB a/t"r arri<ing at th" Fail,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ah"r"u-on th"B A"nt into th"ir usual routin" o/ r"taliating against on" Aho r"/us"s to 0i<ulg"
th"ir r"ligious -r"/"r"nc" or on" Aho cannot ansA"r all o/ th"ir highlB in<asi<" qu"stions Aith
th" ")act 0"gr"" o/ s-"ci/icitB th"B 0"+an0. %his r"taliation, in +B cas", inclu0"0 /orcing +"
into so+" sort o/ -osition on +B En""s ")tr"+"lB clos" to th" crotch"s o/ s"<"ral :CS8
."-ut""s in so+" sort o/ sa0istic /orc"0 si+ulation o/ +B -"r/or+ing oral s") u-on th"+, at
l"ast /ro+ +B -oint o/ <i"A. 3 Aas -lac"0 in a /r""Iing col0 roo+, Aith a c"+"nt /loor, DB
+Bs"l/, in r"taliaton /or /ailing to 0isclos" +B r"ligious -r"/"r"nc" an0 in0icating that 3 Aas
not ")actlB sur" hoA +uch +on"B 3 +a0" "ach +onth gi<"n th" <ariaDl" natur" o/ +B
co+-"nsation. 3 Aas -lac" alon" in a hol0ing c"ll Aith nothing Dut a Aoo0"n D"nch, an0 th"
ic" col0 c"+"nt /loor 0u" to th" c"ll D"ing s"qu"st"r"0 aAaB /ro+ th" Duil0ings h"at sourc"s,
inclu0ing oth"r -"o-l". 5B 0og Aas l"/t to /"n0 /or its"l/. 5B 0og Aas /"atur" in this
."c"+D"rCs N"<a0a 7aAB"r +agaIin", @acEson ,aAlucE, a 3 B"ar ol0 ,"Eingn"s".
11. 3 .aBs lat"r Ah"n 3 Aas r"l"as" /ro+ Fail, th" -"rsonal -ro-"rtB r"turn"0 to +" 0i0 not
inclu0"0 anB V"r0ict or Cont"+-t (in0ing18r0"r r"lat"0 to th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial in
!5C 11 C! 17'. 3 call"0 s"<"ral ti+"s in th" 0aBs /olloAing +B r"l"as" an0 s-oE" Aith
V"ronica 7o-"I Jthough it tooE s"<"ral 0aBs to asc"rtain h"r last na+" gi<"n that n"ith"r sh"
nor anBon" associat"0 Aith th" !5C Aoul0 0i<ulg" it to +"? Aho+ in/or+"0 +" that 3 ha0
D""n s"r<"0 @u0g" 4oAar0Cs 8r0"r at th" conclusion o/ th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial. 5s.
7o-"I i++"0iat"lB tooE a DullBing, hostil", aggr"ssi<" ton" Aith +" that s""+ co+-l"t"lB out
o/ -lac" co+ing /ro+ h"r gi<"n th" -osition o/ authoritB th" -uDlic has "ntrust"0 h"r Aith an0
Ahat 3 /""l is a 0utB on h"r -art to att"+-t to co+" across as GFu0icialH rath"r than tBrannical.
1. 3 in/or+"0 5s. 7o-"I that 3 0i0 not /""l 3 ha0 D""n s"r<"0 at all, an0 that 3 Aas not at all sur"
Ahat sh" Aas r"/"rring to, Dut that 3 Aoul0 0"/init"lB liE" to g"t a co-B o/ anB 8r0"r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i++"0iat"lB, as A"ll as a co-B o/ th" au0io o/ th" %rial. 3 D"li"<" 5s. 7o-"I in/or+"0 +"
that 3 Aoul0 not D" alloA"0 a co-B o/ th" au0io, Dut that 3 Aoul0 n""0 to -aB /or a transcri-t to
D" +a0". 3 a+ sur", hoA"<"r, that a /"+al" !5C /iling o//ic" count"r "+-loB"" tol0 +" on
or aDout th" sa+" 0aB that 3 Aoul0 not "<"r D" -ro<i0"0 a co-B o/ th" au0io r"cor0ing o/ th"
trial Dut that 3 Aoul0 n""0 to -aB to ha<" a transcri-t +a0", an0 that 3 coul0 onlB us" ,a+
7ongoni, th" !5CCs 8//icial %ranscri-tist.
13. 3 call"0 5s. 7ongoni an0 Ah"n 3 /inallB got ahol0 o/ h"r sh" in/or+"0 +" that sh" Aoul0 n""0
th" !5C to alloA h"r acc"ss to th" au0io J0"s-it" h"r D"ing GlinE"0H to th" !5CCs sBst"+s?,
an0 that until that Aas 0on", sh" coul0 not quot" +" an "sti+at" /or th" transcri-t cost, nor
coul0 sh" acc"-t anB -aB+"nt /or+ +". 3 D"li"<" 5s. 7ongoni /urth"r in0icat"0 to +" that 3
Aoul0 not D" aDl" to g"t a co-B o/ th" actual au0io r"cor0ing "ith"r
14. 3 ha<" s"nt s"<"ral Aritt"n co++unications an0 ha0 s"<"ral <"rDal co++unications Aith ..
Ballar0 an0 oth"r !5C -"rsonn"l ")-r"ssing +B ")ig"nt 0"sir" to g"t a co-B o/ th" au0io o/
th" %rial, an0 hoA n"c"ssarB it Aas to -r"-aring /ilings1+otions1-l"a0ings /or Ahich 3 ha0 a
<"rB li+it"0 -"rio0 o/ ti+" to cra/t.
1#. B"/or", Ahil", an0 a/t"r s-"aEing Aith 5s. Ballar0, a g"ntl"+an Ahos" na+" "sca-"s +" Dut
Aho is a /iling count"r cl"rE at th" !5C tol0 +" 3 Aoul0 n""0 to g"t a suD-o"na to g"t a co-B
o/ th" !5C 0ocE"t in +B cas", an0 that h" coul0nCt gi<" +" co-i"s o/ anBthing in +B cas",
c"rtainlB not th" 8r0"r st"++ing /ro+ th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial, that h" 0i0 not ha<"
acc"ss to such, an0 "<"n i/ h" 0i0, Aoul0 not -ro<i0" it, an0 that his sBst"+ 0i0 not shoA
"ntrB o/ anBthing in conn"ction Aith th" No<"+D"r 3$
th
, $11 %rial. 4" /urth"r <"ri/i"0 that
th"r" ha0 not D""n anB "ntrB in his G0ocE"tH /or !5C 11 C!17' 3 an0 that no Notic" o/
EntrB o/ 8r0"r or EntrB o/ 8r0"r ")ist"0 in his sBt"+ or co+-ut"r /or that +att"r /olloAing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
th" %rial. 4" 0i0 in0icat" that Gth"BH sai0 th" 5otion /or N"A %rial that 3 ha0 r"c"ntlB /il"0
Aas ti+"lB, an0 3 D"li"<" h" sai0 Gth"BH sai0 th" 0aB h" an0 3 A"r" curr"ntlB s-"aEing Aas
Gth" last 0aB th"B ga<" Bou to /il"H, Ahich 3 D"li"<" %u"s0aB, ."c"+D"r 13
th
, an0 gi<"n th"
Ga00itional 3 0aBsH languag" that 3 r"call @u0g" 4oAar0 +"ntioning h" Aas a00ing on to
alloA +" +or" ti+" to /il", Aoul0 +"an that Gth"BH J3 tooE Gth"BH to D" GV"ronicaH, Aho+
th" g"ntl"+an cl"rE st"a0/astlB r"/us"0 to i0"nti/B DB last na+" an0 /or Ahich th" -hon"
nu+D"r h" Arot" 0oAn /or +" in his oAn han0Ariting Aith GV"ronicaH Aritt"n out turn"0 out
to D" a 0isconn"ct"0 nu+D"r? ha0 assu+"0 s"r<ic" Aas a--ro-riat"lB -"r/or+"0 at th"
conclusion o/ th" %rial, an0 that 13 0aBs D"gan running on th" /olloAing 0aB, that th" hal/ a
0aB th" !5C is o-"n on (ri0aBs Aoul0 count as a /ull Fu0icial 0aB, an0 that non Fu0icial 0aBs
Aoul0 D" inclu0"0 in counting toAar0s this 13 0aBs gi<"n th" AaB Gth"BH or GV"ronicaH ha0
int"r-r"t"0 @u0g" 4oAar0Cs 8r0"r, a--ar"ntlB in a AaB that +a0" th" ti+" 3 ha0 to /il" th"s"
<arious -a-"rs short"r than it Aoul0 ha<" D""n ha0 @u0g" 4oAar0 si+-lB not grant"0 an
a00itional thr"" 0aBs gi<"n th" 0ictat"s o/ not counting non Fu0icial 0aBs in N!C, 'J"?. 3t is
+B un0"rstan0ing, hoA"<"r, th" 3 ha<" not "<"n D""n s"r<"0 this V"r0ict18r0"r, an0 that anB
li+itations -"rio0 +ust not "<"n D"gin running until 3 a+ a--ro-riat"lB s"r<"0. V"ronica
a0+itt"0 to +" on th" -hon", 3 D"li"<" on 5on0aB or %u"s0aB Ah"n 3 call"0 h"r /ro+ th"
/r"" -hon" in th" :asho" CountB 7aA liDrarB Aith laA liDarian "+-loB"" 7in0a BlaE"l"B
sitting Aithin "arshot, that th" !5C /"lt it ha0 a--ro-riat"lB s"r<"0 +" th" 8r0"r at th"
conlcusion o/ th" trial an0 ha0 /ail"0 to oth"rAis" s"n0 +" a co-B in th" +ail or DB /a). 3
asE"0 5s. 7o-"I i/ 3 coul0 g"t a co-B o/ th" 8r0"r, as A"ll as anB oth"r 8r0"rs that ha0 D""n
issu"0 in th" cas". Sh" agr"" to /a) +" onlB th" 8r0"r /ro+ th" conclusion o/ th" No<"+D"r
3$
th
, $11 %rial, r"/using to -ro<i0" anB oth"r 8r0"rs. 2s o/ B"t, 0"s-it" r"a0ing DacE to h"r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
+B /a) nu+D"r at l"ast tAic", 3 ha<" B"t to r"c"i<" a /a) containing anBthing /ro+ th" !5C,
+uch l"ss th" 8r0"r /olloAing th" No<"+D"r 3$, $11 %rial. 2lso, th" Cont"+-t 8r0"r is not
su//ici"ntlB s-"ci/ic, an0 @u0g" 4oAar0s lacE th" Furis0iction to -r"<"nt a citiI"n /ro+
contacting anB !5C "+-loB"" D" "+ail /or GanBH r"ason. 3t is that sort o/ "<i0"nt
i+-artialitB an0 Gnot <"rB Fu0icialH D"ha<ior that augurs toAar0 s"tting asi0" this V"r0ict, in
a00ition to @u0g" 4oAar0Cs "staDlish"0 -att"rn o/ 0"nBing +otions D"/or" th" ti+" /or th"
CitB 2ttB to "<"n r"s-on0 has Dar"lB "<"n D"gun. %h" CitB attB Aas /a)"0 th" 1 13 11
+otion. (urth"r %o+, o/ th" !5C /iling 0"sE tol0 Coughlin to "+ail his s-"ci/ic qu"stion to
@u0g" 4oAar0 an0 th" !5C a0+inistrati<" assistant.
2,,73C2%38N (8! .E(E!!27 8! :23VE! 8( C86!% (EES 2N. C8S%
%his is an 2--lication /or ."/"rral o/ Court (""s an0 Costs.
S%2%E5EN%S 52.E %8 %4E C86!% 6N.E! 82%4. 3 sA"ar or a//ir+ that th" in/or+ation in this a--lication is
tru" an0 corr"ct. 3 +aE" this stat"+"nt un0"r th" -"naltB o/ -ros"cution /or -"rFurB i/ it is 0"t"r+in"0 that 3 0i0 not t"ll th"
truth.
3 a+ r"qu"sting a 0"/"rral or Aai<"r o/ th" /olloAing /""s an0 costs in +B cas":
ZZZ)ZZZ2nB or all o/ th" /olloAing: 2ll /iling /""s; /""s /or th" issuanc" o/ "ith"r a su++ons an0 suD-o"na;
ZZZ)ZZZ(""s /or oDtaining on" c"rti/i"0 co-B o/ a t"+-orarB or0"r in a 0o+"stic r"lations cas" or a /inal or0"r, Fu0g+"nt
or 0"cr"" in all cri+inal -roc""0ings.
ZZZ)ZZZ(""s /or s"r<ic" o/ -roc"ss DB a sh"ri//, +arshal, constaDl" or laA "n/orc"+"nt. (""s /or s"r<ic" DB -uDlication.
ZZZTZZZ(iling /""s an0 -hotoco-B /""s /or th" -r"-aration o/ th" r"cor0 on a--"al.
ZZZTZZZCourt r"-ort"r[s /""s o/ r"-ort"rs or transcriD"rs "+-loB"0 DB th" court /or th" -r"-aration o/ th" transcri-t.
%h" Dasis /or th" r"qu"st is:
1. :23VE!: 3 a+ -"r+an"ntlB unaDl" to -aB. 5B inco+" an0 liqui0 ass"ts ar" insu//ici"nt or Dar"lB su//ici"nt to +""t
th" 0ailB "ss"ntials o/ li/" an0 unliE"lB to chang" in th" /or"s""aDl" /utur".
. .E(E!!27:
a. 5B inco+" is insu//ici"nt or is Dar"lB su//ici"nt to +""t th" 0ailB "ss"ntials o/ li/", an0 inclu0"s no allot+"nt that coul0
D" Du0g"t"0 /or th" /""s an0 costs that ar" r"quir"0 to gain acc"ss to th" court.
D. 3 0o not ha<" th" +on"B to -aB th" court /""s an0 costs noA. 3 0o not EnoA i/ 3 can -aB th" /""s an0 costs at a lat"r
0at".
2((3!52%38N ,ursuant to N!S 39B.$3$
%h" un0"rsign"0 0o"s h"r"DB a//ir+ that th" -r"c"0ing 0ocu+"nt 0o"s not contain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
th" social s"curitB nu+D"r o/ anB -"rson.
,ursuant to N!S #3.$4#, 3 0"clar" un0"r -"naltB o/ -"rFurB that th" /or"going is tru" an0 corr"ct. E)"cut"0 on ."c"+D"r
1', $11
.2%E. this ."c"+D"r 19th, $11
Z1s1 Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
."/"n0ant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,!88( 8( SE!V3CE
3, Zach Coughlin, 0"clar":
8n ."c"+D"r 19, $11, 3, 5r. Zach Coughlin s"r<"0 th" /or"going 0ocu+"nt DB an0 /a)ing a
tru" co-B th"r"o/ to:
,a+"la > !oD"rts, Esq.
!"no CitB 2ttorn"BCs 8//ic" & Cri+inal .i<ison
2,.8. Bo) 19$$ !"no , NV 89#$#
,hon" Nu+D"r: 77#&334&$#$
(a) nu+D"r: 77#&334&4$
E+ail: roD"rts-*r"no.go<
an0 "+ailing to th" !5C an0 /a)ing to th" !5C J.. Ballar0 a--ro<"0 "+ail /iling?.
!"no 5unici-al Court
r"no+unir"cor0s*r"no.go<
Cl"rE120+inistrator
!"no 5unici-al Court
8n" South Si"rra Str""t
!"no, N"<a0a 89#$1
(a): 77# 3' #1$#
.2%E. %43S19th 0aB o/ ."c"+D"r, $11 B9:
\ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Zach Coughlin
."/"n0ant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in0") to ")hDits:
1. coll"ction o/ -a-"rs r"l"<ant to s"tting asi0", inclu0ing, in<"ntorB o/ -ro-"rtB r"turn"0 to
Coughlin u-on r"l"as" /ro+ 3 0aBs Failing on 11111, uninitilia"0, B"t /il"0 sta+-"0 11 3$ 11
8r0"r, no signatur" o/ Coughlin on 8r0"r, inconclusi<" Ah"th"r Gr"/us"0H on signatur" +"ans
r"/us"0 to sign, r"/us"0 to hol0, "tc. 5arshals E"-t or0"r or oth"rAis" 0i0 not alloA Coughlin
to 0o anBthing, liE" sa<" co+-ut"r not"s /or+ trial, +uch l"ss -ut a -a-"r in his Dag....!5C
Gr"cC0 0at" sta+-"0 0isco<"rB that !5C tol0 Coughlin it 0i0 not ha<" 0"s-it" nu+"rous
Aritt"n r"qu"sts /ro+ Coughlin /or it. 8 J"ight? -ag"s
. Sa+-l" o/ CoughlinCs r"c"nt AorE as an attorn"B, /or Ahich h" has D""n -ai0 a gran0 total o/
S#$ so /ar Car-"nti"r <. 2a+"s CV$8&17$9,
3. 2noth"r sa+-l" o/ CoughlinCs AorE, /or Ahich h" Aas -ai0 S#$: Ca0l" V ="ll"r 2, in B=
EXHIBIT 1

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE
Nevada is one of the Western States of the US that are Non-Judicial States. In these
states, foreclosures are governed by State Civil Code. These homeoners have it the
toughest being in a non-!udicial state, "enders need not #rove anything. They can sim#ly
notify the homeoner of the default, then after a certain number of days, as defined
under State Civil Code, the #ro#erty then #roceeds to a Trustee sale at a #ublic auction.
The only o#tion available to you if you are a Non-Judicial State resident is for you to
file a civil action against your lender to com#el them to #rovide #roof of claim, and
therefore standing. The other o#tion is to declare ban$ru#tcy. In ban$ru#tcy, generally
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE %
&
'ach Coughlin, (s).
*%+ N. ,irginia St. -.
/eno, N, *012%
Tele3 ++1-..0-4+5+
6a73 080-44+-+82.
'achCoughlin9hotmail.com
:ttorney for Joni and James Car#entier
J:;(S C:/<(NTI(/, (T :",
<laintiff
v.
::;(S 6UN=IN> C?/< (T:",
=efendant

Case No3 C,2*-2%+20
=e#t No3 +
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET
ASIDE; MOTION FOR SANTIONS
IN T@( S(C?N= JU=ICI:" =IST/ICT C?U/T ?6 T@(
ST:T( ?6 N(,:=: IN :N= 6?/
T@( C?UNTA ?6 W:S@?(
s#ea$ing, you have to o#tions, Cha#ter + Bno assetC or a Cha#ter %5 BassetC. What some
homeoners do is to declare Cha#ter + and list their #ro#erty as an unsecured asset and
ait for the lender to ob!ect. This then #uts the burden of #roof on the lender. If your
loan as closed ith lender : and is being foreclosed on by "ender D or C ... there must
be Bby laC a valid chain of assignment to sho that "ender C is the real and beneficial
#arty of interest. Decause of the #roblem of securitiEation, this is never done. This
creates a real #roblem for the "ender Bho is fran$ly doing this fraudulently anyay,
allegedlyC. 6or those ith a lot of assets Bsuch as e)uity in their homesC, they can do a
Cha#ter %5. Under a Cha#ter %5 ban$ru#tcy, you can file an :dversary <roceeding
here you sue your lender to com#el them to #roduce valid #roof of claim. The beauty
ith Dan$ru#tcy Court is that you have the la on your side. /ule 522% BdC of the
6ederal Code of Dan$ru#tcy re)uires that your lender #rovide evidence of F#erfected
title.F If you choose to file a civil action against your lender, you better have #roof. The
best #roof you can bring is a securitiEation audit to #rove that your loan has been
securitiEed. Then, or$ ith your layer to build an argument around the #oints
outlined in this boo$. Unfortunately, this ill set you bac$ at the minimum &1222, and
more li$ely closer to &%2,222 to &.1,222. :nother o#tion you could do is to do a F)uic$
reconveyance methodF as discussed in Cha#ter 8. This can be very effective in sto##ing
your servicerGs ability to foreclose because it closes out the =eed of TrustH;ortgage.
This method is only a##licable hen you have clear evidence of movement or
securitiEation. Aou can find out more about this method on our ebsite under the
<roducts tab. :lternatively, if you cannot afford a layer, you could try to do this
yourself. >reat #laces to start are "iving"ies.com and sto#foreclosurefraud.com. These
are blogs ith lots of articles, sam#le #leadings and lots of other resources I used during
my research. :nother o#tion is to !oin our foreclosure defense membershi# #rogram.
We realiEed that there are S? ;:NA homeoners needing hel#. That is hy e
develo#ed a coaching membershi# #rogram ith s#ecific information and resources to
hel# homeoners ith their foreclosure defense. ?ur membershi# #rogram has sam#le
#leadings, sam#le res#onses, forms and #rocedures others have used in their foreclosure
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE .
defense. Aou ill also be able to netor$ ith other homeoners local to you ... meet
ith them to have coffee, and su##ort each other. 6or more information about this
#rogram, come to our ebsite at3 htt#3HH.consumerdefense#rograms.com : good
#lace to start, if you are in a Non-Judicial State, is to start riting to your lender to
demand that they #roduce valid #roof of claim. Aou can find a cou#le of sam#le letters
on our site. This ill be a good #lace to get started.
C?;( N?W, <laintiffs J:;(S S. C:/<(NTI(/ and J?:N (.
C:/<(NTI(/, by and through their attorney, 'ach Coughlin, (s), as and for their
claims for relief and hereby alleges and avers as follos. ?n July %1, .2%% a Notice
of (ntry of ?rder as entered in the courtGs doc$et shoing an ?rder granting
/(SI=(NTI:" C/(=IT S?"UTI?NS INC, :N= IU:"ITA "?:N S(/,IC(
C?/<?/:TI?NGS ;?TI?N 6?/ SU;;:/A JU=>;(NT. Counsel Coughlin
admits at the outset that this motion is somehat thron together in a rush.
@oever, Coughlin only !ust became counsel of record in this case ith a very
limited number of hours to file this motion. To that e7tent, Coughlin has herein cited
to 6ederal authority for basic things, such as the standard for a ;otion for
/econsideration Band barely, if any tolling authority to get #ast the .2 day
re)uirement of W=C/ %5B+C and /ule %. is included herein, hoever, Coughlin
commits to curing such deficiencies in short order and to ma$e great efforts not to
#re!udice o##osing counsel ith unsu##orted argument or allegations hilst still
Eealously #rotecting his clients rights. This is easier said than done given the the
inordinately ve7atious conduct the undersigned has been sub!ected to lately incident
to a rongful eviction stemming from a Commercial "ease here non-#ayment of
rent as not alleged, yet a Summary (viction <roceeding too$ #lace anyay, and to
to# it off, a rent escro de#osit as forced u#on the undersigned to the tune of
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 5
&.,.+4 in the middle of the Summary (viction <roceeding, in direct violation of N/S
82..15B4C, and JC/C< *5. I in #re#aring this filing and in relation to the date of the
TrusteeGs sale, set for =ecember .%, .2%% Bo##osing counsel Schuler-@intE did send
an email to the undersigned late in the night of =ecember %*, .2%%, asserting that the
Trustee Sale has been #ost#oned again to early 6ebruary, .2%., and, not to im#ugn
;s. Schuler-@intE credibility, but there does seem to be authority to suggest to
Trustee Sales and the attendant scheduling changes, es#ecially those not reduced to a
ritten sti#ulation, are a very hard thing to #in donC. This is the second time the
undersigned has sent o##osing counsel some eleventh hour corres#ondence, only to
me told, basically, Joh, the sale as moved a cou#le days agoK des#ite the fact that
neither the undersigned or either of his clients Bthe timing of hose divorce
dovetailed )uite nicely ith this foreclosure matterC as (,(/ informed of either of
these #ost#onements of the scheduled TrusteeGs Sales and here the undersigned has
no reason to believe that these sales are being #ost#oned for any reason other than the
undersignedGs s)ua$ing, and here o##osing counsel has continually failed to
#rovide any #roof that these #ost#onements occurred #rior to said s)ua$ing Bthe
undersigned does recogniEe that it is #ossible that such #ost#onements are a matter of
the #ublic record and that such a hunch by the undersigned might be !ust #lain
rongC.
The undersigned hereby re)uires the trustee to verify a com#rehensive list of
issues related to the legal nature of the foreclosure #roceedings enacted by the lender,
hich as a by#roduct, Car#entier as homeoner still retains full onershi# of the
#ro#erty and lives there. The Trustee assumes the liability in auctioning the #ro#erty,
and should not foreclose on the #ro#erty if there is a #otential violation #ointed out
to them #rior to the :uction Sale =ate as they could face sanctions and ultimately
lose their license. To that end, the undersigned see$s a definite e7tension of time to
verify these matters Band the overcome the deleterious effect rought on the
undersigned life and la #ractice by the rongful eviction and alleged a##lication of
an unlaful rent distraint and other bad faith conduct by the defendant and his
counsel in /eno Justice Court case /ev.2%%-22%+2*. While Trustees are incredibly
busy and generating huge #rofits and often continually #ost#one the sale date to
#rovide themselves ade)uate time to research and res#ond to the issues raised by the
undersigned to #rotect themselves, such has not been reduced to a ritten sti#ulation,
as such this filing is necessary.
FACTS
%. :t all times mentioned herein, <laintiffs James S. Car#entier and Joan (.
Car#entier, hereinafter collectively referred to as JC:/<(NTI(/,K are husband and
ife residing in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada.
.. =efendants, =?(S I through LL are fictitious namesM that <laintiffs are
ignorant of the true names of the individuals, cor#orations, co-#artnershi#s, and
associations so designated by said fictitious names, and hen the true names are
discovered, <laintiffs ill see$ leave to amend this Com#laint and #roceedings
herein to substitute the true name of said =efendants. <laintiffs believe that each of
the =efendants designated herein as =?( is negligent or res#onsible in some manner
for the events herein referred to and negligently, carelessly, rec$lessly and in a
manner that as grossly negligent and illful and anton, caused damages
#ro7imately thereby to the <laintiffs as herein alleged.
5. :t all times mentioned herein, C:/<(NTI(/ is the oner of certain real
#ro#erty commonly $non as .*+5 Sunny Slo#e =rive, S#ar$s Nevada *0858,
Washoe County :ssessors <arcel Number 252-20%-%., hereinafter referred to as the
J</?<(/TA,K and more #articularly described as follo3
"?T 4 ?6 "(WIS @?;(S-S<:/NS N?. 1-:, :CC?/=IN> T? T@( ;:<
T@(/(?6, 6I"(= IN T@( ?66IC( ?6 T@( C?UNTA /(C?/=(/ ?6
W:S@?( C?UNTA, ST:T( ?6 N(,:=: ?N JU"A%0, %0+4, :S 6I"( N?.
8%+5%0 :N= :S T/:CT ;:< N?. %1*+.
8. ?n or about ;ay 8, .221, C:/<(NTI(/ had an e7isting mortgage
against the </?<(/TA in the a##ro7imate #rinci#al amount of &%12,222.22
1. ?n or about ;ay 8, .221, C:/<(NTI(/ as in default and in financial
trouble ith regard to the e7isting first =eed of Trust in that James S. Car#entier
became in!ured, as unable to or$, as receiving only or$manOs com#ensation
#ayments, and Joan (. Car#entier at that time as unem#loyed.
4. ?n or about ;ay 8, .221, C:/<(NTI(/ as unable to meet their
current obligations under the first Note and =eed of Trust.
+. C:/<(NTI(/ received a mail solicitation to refinance their #ro#erty
from =efendant :ames 6unding Cor#oration dba :ames @ome "oan, hereinafter
referred to as J::;(S.K
*. C:/<(NTI(/ contacted =efendant ::;(S, ::;(S did re#resent to
them that ::;(S could cure their financial troubles by refinancing the e7isting first
obligation on the </?<(/A, that they ould )ualify for such a loan, and that they
ould generate sufficient funds to meet their obligations even though Joan (.
Car#entier as unem#loyed and James S. Car#entier received only disability income.
0. In furtherance of the refinance, =efendant ::;(S as re)uired to ma$e
a loan a##lication. Said loan a##lication as filled out by the re#resentatives by
=efendant ::;(S and intentionally misstated the income of C:/<(NTI(/ to be
in e7cess of &4,222.22 #er month.
%2. The true fact as C:/<(NTI(/ received only &.822.22 #er month, and
the true fact as $non to =efendant ::;(S.
%%. =efendant ::;(S made a loan to C:/<(NTI(/ in the amount of
&%+2,*22.22.
%.. The loan made by =efendant ::;(S as an ad!ustable rate hich
ould re)uire #ayments in e7cess of &%822.22 #er month.
%5. :t the time of ma$ing the loan and filling out the loan a##lication by
=efendant ::;(S, =efendant ::;(S made the loan ithout determining or using
any commercially reasonable means or mechanism to determine C:/<(NTI(/Os
ability to re#ay the loan and in fact $ne or should have $non that C:/<(NTI(/
did not have the ability to re#ay the loan.
%8. The &%+2,*22.22 loan closed on or about ;ay 8, .221, and, on or about
that date, C:/<(NTI(/ did ma$e, e7ecute and deliver a =eed of Trust securing
re#ayment of the ne loan. Said =eed of Trust having been given to =efendant
Windsor ;anagement Co., a California cor#oration, as Trustee by James S.
Car#entier and Joan (. Car#entier, husband and ife as !oint tenants, as Trustors in
favor of =efendant :ames 6unding Cor#oration dba :ames @ome "oan, as
Deneficiary. Said =eed of Trust as recorded ;ay 8, .221 as =ocument No.
5.2*41%, ?fficial /ecords of Washoe County.
%1. Since the recordation of said =eed of Trust, C:/<(NTI(/ has been
unable to ma$e all #ayments called for under the terms and conditions of the =eed of
Trust and <romissory Note hich it secures and have made $non their inability to
#ay to =efendant ::;(S.
%4. =efendant ::;(S has assigned the right to collect under the terms and
conditions of the <romissory Note and the =eed of Trust to =efendant /esidential
Credit Solutions, Inc., hereinafter referred to as J/(SI=(NTI:",K as of ;ay 5%,
.22+.
%+. C:/<(NTI(/ has contacted =efendants ::;(S and /(SI=(NTI:"
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE +
in an attem#t to again refinance but informed =efendants ::;(S and
/(SI=(NTI:" of their inability to )ualify, and =efendants ::;(S andHor
/(SI=(NTI:" offered to #rovide them ith false and fraudulent W. 6orms in order
to meet financial re)uirements. C:/<(NTI(/ declined to #artici#ate in this loan
fraud.
%*. :s a direct result of C:/<(NTI(/Os inability to ma$e #ayments called
for under the refinanced loan, Iuality "oan Service Cor# on behalf of =efendant
/(SI=(NTI:" and on further behalf of =efendant ::;(S did record a Notice of
Dreach and =efault and of (lection to Cause Sale of /eal <ro#erty Under =eed of
Trust on ;arch %., .22* as =ocument No. 54.0+8%, ?fficial /ecords of Washoe
County.
%0. Subse)uent to the recordation of the Notice of Dreach and =efault,
=efendant ::;(S has recorded a Notice of TrusteeOs Sale scheduling sale on the
</?<(/TA for July 0, .22* at the hour of %%322am at the County Court @ouse
located at ,irginia Street and Court Street in the City of /eno. The Notice of
TrusteeOs Sale as recorded June %0, .22* as =ocument No. 544%80+, ?fficial
/ecords of Washoe County.
.2. The actions of =efendant ::;(S in failing to ma$e a determination of
C:/<(NTI(/Os ability to re#ay the loan and inducing them to enter into said loan
constitutes an unfair lending #ractice #ursuant to the #rovisions of N/S 10*=.%22.
.%. C:/<(NTI(/ has been damaged as a direct and #ro7imate result of
unfair lending #ractices of =efendants ::;(S and /(SI=(NTI:", and
C:/<(NTI(/ is entitled to damages and treble damages #ursuant to the #rovisions
of N/S 10*=.%%2.
... C:/<(NTI(/ is entitled to their attorney fees #ursuant to the #rovisions
of N/S 10*=.%%2B.CBbC.
.5. C:/<(NTI(/ is further entitled to an offset against all sums oed under
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE *
the <romissory Note secured by the =eed of Trust as herein alleged #ursuant to the
#rovisions of N/S 10*=.%%2B5C.
.8. C:/<(NTI(/ is further entitled to have this court cure any e7isting
default of the home loan and cancel the #ending foreclosure and TrusteeOs Sale
#ursuant to the #rovisions of N/S 10*=.%%2B5C.
.1. %<laintiffs incor#orate herein by this reference all #a#ers and #leadings on
file in this action.
.4. :s a direct and #ro7imate result of the actions of =efendants ::;(S
and /(SI=(NTI:", C:/<(NTI(/ is in danger of loosing their interest in uni)ue
real #ro#erty by virtue of the foreclosure sale.
.+. C:/<(NTI(/ is entitled to a tem#orary restraining order, #reliminary
in!unction and #ermanent in!unction #recluding =efendants from conducting a
foreclosure sale of the </?<(/TA.
.*. C:/<(NTI(/ lac$s ade)uate remedy of la due to the uni)ue character
of their interest in real estate.
.0. C:/<(NTI(/ received a Notice of Sale indicating that their lender ould
sel% their home at auction on ?ctober .%, .2%%, folloing their default in their
mortgage #ayments. The home remains occu#ied by the title oner. The Notice of
Sale did not give Joni or James Car#entier the re)uisite notice of the date of the
foreclosure sale. <ursuant to N/S %2+.2*2, the foreclosure trustee must record a
Notice of Sale and give notice of the time and #lace of the sale by B%C #ersonally
serving or mailing the notice by registered or certified mail to homeoner and others
Fentitled to noticeFM B.C #osting the notice in a #ublic #lace here the #ro#erty is
located for .2 successive daysM B5C #ublishing a co#y of the notice 5 times Bonce a
ee$ for three ee$sCM :N= B8C #osting the notice on the #ro#erty %1 days before the
sale date. The Notice of Sale as recorded on ?ctober 5 ith a sale date of ?ctober
.%. This is only an %* day notice #eriod. This fails to com#ly ith at least section B.C
above, and #erha#s section B8C should they fail to #ost the notice on the #ro#erty on
or before ?ctober 4, de#ending u#on hether section B8C re)uires that action to occur
ithin 02 days or to occur only after the #assing of 02 days.
52. The substitution of Iuality "oan Servicing as the foreclosure trustee as not
recorded. Under the =eed of Trust /ecorded on :#ril %*, .221, Windsor
;anagement Co. as named as the Trustee. No document could be found ith the
/ecorderGs ?ffice indicating any entity substituted Iuality "oan Servicing as the
foreclosure trustee under the =eed of Trust.
5%. =efendantGs have substantially de#arted from the notice, manner of service,
and #rocess re)uirements of various la, including, but not limited to N/S %2+.2*2.
When in)uiry as made ith =efendantGs as to the basis, reasoning, and !ustifications
for the de#artures, <laintiffGs ere told that Jits your ord against oursK and
otherise res#onded to in a hostile, aggressive, and dece#tive manner. ;ore
discovery is in order in this regard.
5.. @oever, as ;r. 'imbelman #rovided, the :#ril .220 Dan$ru#tcy filing in =elaare
by 'imbelmanGs client listed, in the Creditor ;atri7, a JCreditor Notice NameK of Walsh,
Da$er, P /osevear, the Car#entiers then former attorney, as James WalshGs ;otion to
Withdra as Counsel had been granted by this court ?n January .., .220, ith Walsh
filing a Notice of (ntry of that ?rder on January .4, .220, in #lenty of time for
'imbelmanGs client to u#date the JCreditor Notice NameK and address to reflect the fact that
Walsh as not attorney of record fro the Car#entiers anymore, and that those notices should
have been sent directly to the Car#entiers.
55. Indeed, ;r. 'imbelmanGs C(/TI6IC:T( ?6 S(/,IC( <ursuant to N/C< 1BbC, for
his ;ay %0, .220 filing of N?TIC( ?6 D:NN/U<TCA 6I"IN> :N= :UT?;:TIC
ST:A reads3 JI certify that I am an em#loyee of <((" D/I;"(A ""< and that on this
%0th day of ;ay, .220 I caused the above and foregoing document entitled N?TIC( ?6
D:NN/U<TCA 6I"IN> :N= :UT?;:TIC ST:A to be served as follos3 7 by #lacing
same to be de#osited for mailing in the United States ;ail, in a sealed envelo#e u#on hich
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE %2
first class #ostage as #re#aid in "as ,egas, NevadaM andHor 7 to be sent via facsimileM to
the #artyBiesC andHor attorneyBsC listed belo at the address andHor facsimile number
indicated belo3
James ;. Walsh, (s).
Walsh, Da$er P /osevear, <.C .
084* =ouble / Dlvd. Suite :
/eno, Nevada *01.%
:ttorneys for James S. Car#entier and Joan (. Car#entier
58. 6urther, ;s. Schuler-@intE failed to res#ond a##ro#riately to the ?rder >ranting
WalshGs Withdraal as :ttorney of /ecord, and the subse)uent Notice of (ntry of that
?rder on January .4, .220. @intEG ;otion to =ismiss or in the :lternative 6or Summary
Judgment listed Walsh for the <roof of Service as ell3 J I hereby certify that on the 8th day
of June a true and correct co#y of =(6(N=:NTGs /(SI=(NTI:" C/(=IT S?"UTI?NS,
INC., :N= IU:"ITA "?:N S(/,IC( C?/<?/:TI?NGS ;?TI?N T? =IS;ISS ?/
IN T@( :"T(/N:TI,( 6?/ SU;;:/A JU=>;(NT as forarded by US ;ail ith
#ostage #re#aid to the addresses listed belo3
James ;. Walsh
Walsh, Da$er P /osevear
084* =ouble / Dlvd. Suite :
/eno, Nevada *01.% :ttorney for <laintiff
6urther, the ca#tion on ;s. @intE ;otion indicates the case is in =e#artment 8, des#ite
the fact that #m 6ebruary %%, .220, a Case :ssignment Notification (ntry as entered in
the doc$et for this case C,2*-2%+20, indicating this C:S( /(:SSI>N(= T?
=(<:/T;(NT + 6/?; =(<:/T;(NT 8 <(/ :=;INIST/:TI,( ?/=(/.
51. Then, for some reason that is not )uite clear, des#ite his co counsel Schuler-@intE
having filed a ;otion for Summary Judgment on June 8
th
, .220 in the Second Judicial
=istrict Court for Washoe County in this action, C,2*-2%+20, Christo#er @unter, (s).
6iled a somehat similar ;otion for Summary Judgment in C,09-01709, Bbold em#hasis
addedC in a ;otion hich bears a front #age heading, above the ca#tion, that reads3
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE %%
J=IST/ICT C?U/T
C":/N C?UNTA, N(,:=:K
6urther, the ca#tion on ;r. @unterGs June .5
rd
, .2%2, ;otion 6or Summary Judgment
indicates the case is in =e#artment 8, des#ite the fact that 6ebruary %%, .220, a Case
:ssignment Notification (ntry as entered in the doc$et for this case C,2*-2%+20 Bmuch
less the fugitive or fictitious case C,20-2%+20 that ;r. @unter listed in the Ca#tion, in a
Clar$ County =istrict Court case filed in Washoe CountyC, indicating this C:S(
/(:SSI>N(= T? =(<:/T;(NT + 6/?; =(<:/T;(NT 8 <(/
:=;INIST/:TI,( ?/=(/. So, the Car#entiers ere burdened ith both attorneys
sending im#ortant #leadings to one ho as no longer :ttorney of /ecord for the
Car#entiers, des#ite a Notice of (ntry of that ?rder >ranting Withdraal of James Walsh,
(s)., in addition to ;r. @unter #utting the rong court and the rong case number on a
;otion for Summary Judgment that ould have nonetheless
54. :gain, in his :ugust 1, .220 Certificate of Service for his ;otion for Summary
Judgment, ;r. @unter #uts in the ca#tion the rong case number and the rong =e#artment
number, listing C,20-2%+20 and =e#artment 8 here C,2*-2%+20 and =e#artment +
should be. 6urther, the June 0, .220 Notice of "odgement as sent to only 'imbelman.
6urther in her Certificate of Service for that Notice of "odgement, filed se#arately on
:ugust 1, .220, ;s. @intE #uts in the ca#tion the rong case number and the rong
=e#artment number, listing C,20-2%+20 and =e#artment 8 here C,2*-2%+20 and
=e#artment + should be. Interestingly, (7hibit 4 to @unterGs June .5, .2%2 ;otion for
Summary Judgment, hile containing the te7t of the =elaare CourtGs ?rder removing the
stay, doesnGt contain the =elaare Dan$ru#tcy CourtGs <roof of Service for that ?rder u#on
the Car#entiers....
5+. Ne7t, on July %.
th
, .2%2 /(IU(ST 6?/ SUD;ISSI?N ?6 =(6(N=:NTSO
/(SI=(NTI:" C/(=IT S?"UTI?NS , INC. :N= IU:"ITA "?:N S(/,IC(
C?/<?/:TI?NOS ;?TI?N 6?/ SU;;:/A JU=>;(NT, @unter again #uts
=e#artment 8 in the case ca#tion here =e#artment + should be.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE %.
5*. 6inally, on July %1, .2%% this Court granted =istrict Court /ule %5 B5C #rovides,
F6ailure of the o##osing #arty to serve and file his ritten o##osition may be construed as
an admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the same.F Thus, in
this case, the court construes <laintiffsG, J:;(S S. C:/<(NTI(/ and J?:N (.
C:/<(NTI(/, and =efendantsG, ::;(S 6UN=IN> C?/<?/:TI?N and WIN=S?/
;:N:>(;(NT C?;<:NAGS failure to o##ose =efendantsG /CS and I"SGs ;otionHor
Summary Judgment as admission that the ;otion is meritorious.K
50. The July %1, .2%2 Notice of (ntry of ?rder incorrectly list =e#artment 8 instead of
=e#artment + in the ca#tion.
82. The Washoe County /ecorderGs eb site does not list a Notice of Trustee
Sale for the alleged Trustee sale that as set to ta$e #lace on =ecember .%
st
, .22%
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
I. The Order Gr!"#!$ S%&&r' J%d$&e!" E!"ered A$#!(" )*#!"#++
Sh,%*d -e Se" A(#de ,r ./"ed D%e ", #" -e#!$ .,#d F,r L/0 ,+ J%r#(d#/"#,!
G#1e! "he N%&-er,%( De+#/#e!/#e( #! Ser1#/e ,+ E((e!"#* )*ed#!$( !d N,"#/e(
U2,! "he )*#!"#++(3 E4/%(-*e Ne$*e/"3 Fr%d ,! The C,%r"3 ! I!"er1e!#!$
De/#(#,! ,+ "he Ne1d S%2re&e C,%r"3 T5, ,+ "he&3 +r,& J%*' 73 60113 !d
The O1er*' L,!$ )((#!$ ,+ T#&e 7e"5ee! N,5 !d "he Gr!"#!$ ,+ "he
S%&&r' J%d$&e!" Order.
The e7cusable neglect argument is )uite strong given @itnE and 'imblemanGs
continual failure to a##ro#riately address their <roofGs of Service for very, very
im#ortant documents. ;ight be a voidness basis for Setting :side the ?rder :s
Well. 6urther, the ?rder granting Summary Judgment is void given the lac$ of
!urisdiction #ossessed by this Court here so many essential deficiencies e7ists in
this matter related to the most #ertinent filings and notices #ossible.
J:ccordingly, hen this court issues an intervening decision that constitutes a
change in controlling la, courts may de#art from the decided la of the case and
a##ly the ne rule of la.K @su v. County of Clar$. See, e.g., @o#$ins v. =yer, %28
?hio St.5d 84%, *.2 N.(..d 5.0, 555 B.228C Bholding that an intervening o#inion
issued by the ?hio Su#reme Court constituted a change in controlling la
necessitating de#arture from the la of the case doctrineCM =edge v. State, *5. So..d
*51, *54 B6la.=ist.Ct.:##..22.C Bnoting that a decision by the 6lorida Su#reme
Court to enact a ne #rocedural rule constituted a change in controlling laC.
JDecause e determine that the change in controlling la e7ce#tion to the la of the
case doctrine a##lies, e do not consider hether this court should also formally
ado#t the Jsubstantial ne evidenceK or Jclear error resulting in manifest in!usticeK
e7ce#tions to the la of the case doctrine. Q @oever, e observe that, des#ite the
landonersG contentions, discovery of a relatively minor factual error in our order in
@su I suggesting that the landonersG had obtained a 12-foot height variance for
construction of a billboard on their #ro#erty does not constitute Jsubstantial ne
evidenceK that !ustifies de#arture from the la of the case doctrine. Q ?ur
determination in @su I that the landoners had not demonstrated the futility of
e7hausting their administrative remedies rested on several #ieces of evidence besides
the erroneous Jbillboard variance,K indicating that this Jne evidenceK ould have
little bearing on our #revious decision. Q See Suel v. Secretary of @ealth and @uman
Services, %0. 6.5d 0*%, 0*4 B6ed.Cir.%000C Bstating that Jthe ne evidence relied
u#on to override RtheS la of the case must be substantial, even conclusive, before it
is a##ro#riate to reo#en a !udgment on hich subse)uent #hases of the case have
been decidedK Bciting %* Charles :lan Wright, et al., 6ederal <ractice and <rocedure
TQ88+*, at *22 B.d ed.%0*%CCC. Q We li$eise re!ect the #ro#osition that our decision
in @su I as based on clear error such that adherence to the decision ould or$ a
manifest in!ustice. Q See In re City of <hiladel#hia "itigation, %1* 6.5d +%%, +.2 B5d
Cir.%00*C Bnoting that if a decision is not clearly erroneous, enforcement of that
decision ill not generally or$ a manifest in!usticeC.:s this a##eal and our decision
in @su I are #art of a single continuous suit, e also re!ect the CountyGs assertion that
the doctrine of res !udicata #rohibits this court from revisiting the merits of the
landonersG ta$ings claim. Q See 6lorida =e#t. of Trans#. v. Juliano, *2% So..d %2%,
%21 B6la..22%C BJWhere successive a##eals are ta$en in the same case there is no
)uestion of res !udicata, because the same suit, and not a ne and different one, is
involved. Q Under these circumstances, the doctrine of the la of the case a##lies.K
Bcitation omittedCC.K
?n motion and u#on such terms as are !ust, the court may relieve a #arty or a
#artyGs legal re#resentative from a final !udgment, order, or #roceeding for the
folloing reasons3 B%C mista$e, inadvertence, sur#rise, or e7cusable neglectM B.C
nely discovered evidence hich by due diligence could not have been discovered in
time to move for a ne trial under /ule 10BbCM B5C fraud Bhether heretofore
denominated intrinsic or e7trinsicC, misre#resentation or other misconduct of an
adverse #artyM B8C the !udgment is voidM or, B1C the !udgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged, or a #rior !udgment u#on hich it is based has been reversed
or otherise vacated, or it is no longer e)uitable that an in!unction should have
#ros#ective a##lication. The motion shall be made ithin a reasonable time, and for
reasons B%C, B.C, and B5C not more than 4 months after the #roceeding as ta$en or the
date that ritten notice of entry of the !udgment or order as served. In some
instances JtollingK may be a##licable to the 4 month limitations #eriod.
The Nevada Su#reme Court recently addressed a critical issue involving the
6oreclosure ;ediation /ules in the case of "eyva v. National =efault Servicing
Cor#., :##. No. 11.%4, :##eal from the Clar$ Co. =istrict Court, :-%2-422-41%,
%.+Nev. UUU, UUU <.5d UUU B:dv. ?#. No. 82, July +, .2%%C. The issue relates to the
obligation of the lender to bring documents to the mediation that reveal ho is the
oner of the deed of trust and mortgage note. The CourtOs ruling in this case ill
immediately arm homeoners ith a serious ea#on against the big ban$s and their
servicers. Used in the correct ay, many foreclosures may be sto##ed because of this
recent o#inion.
The State of Nevada 6oreclosure ;ediation <rogram as created in .220. 6acing
foreclosure, the homeoner may re)uest mediation through hich a modification to
home loan may be achieved. ?nce the homeoner re)uests mediation, no further
action may be ta$en to e7ercise the #oer of sale until the com#letion of the
mediation. The Nevada Su#reme Court created the 6oreclosure ;ediation /ules
BJ6;/KC to govern those mediations.
The "eyva case #resented the Nevada Su#reme Court ith an o##ortunity to
inter#ret a critical #ortion of the mediation #rogram re)uirements. N/S %2+.2*4B8C
and 6;/ 1 B*C BaC both #rovide3 JIn addition to the documents re)uired by /ule *
herein, the beneficiary Rusually the lending ban$S must bring to the mediation
#rogram the original or a certified co#y of the deed of trust, the mortgage note and
each assignment of the deed of trust and the mortgage note.K N/S %2+.2*8B1C
#rovides that JRiSf the beneficiary of the deed of trust or the re#resentative fails to
attend the mediation, fails to #artici#ate in the mediation in good faith or does not
bring to the mediation each document re)uired by section 8 or does not have
authority or access to #erson ith authority re)uired by section 8, the mediator shall
#re#are and submit to the ;ediation :dministrator a #etition and recommendation
concerning im#osition of sanctions against the beneficiary of the deed of trust or the
re#resentative, as the court deems a##ro#riate, including, ithout limitation,
re)uiring a loan modification in the manner determined #ro#er by the court.K
The Nevada Su#reme Court faced the issue of hether the lenderOs failure to
bring the re)uired assignments and other documents as re)uired by N/S %2+.2*4B8C
constituted bad faith under N/S %2+.2*4B1C. The anser to the )uestion is not clear
from the language of the statute or the 6;/.
:t the mediation in "eyva, the lender failed to deliver the assignments of the
deed of trust and the mortgage note. @oever, the mediator did not find that the
lenderOs failure to #rovide the documents or other actions constituted a bad faith.
"eyva disagreed and a##ealed the decision of the mediator to the Clar$ County
=istrict Court, Judge =onald ;osely. Ultimately, Judge ;osely agreed ith the
lender and entered an order finding that Jthere is a lac$ of shoing of bad faithVK
"eyva a##ealed the decision of Judge ;osely to the Nevada Su#reme Court. The
Nevada Su#reme Court issued its ruling on July +, .2%% and re!ected the lenderOs
arguments that it had #artici#ated in the mediation in good faith. The Nevada
Su#reme Court determined that since the statute used the ord JshallK in reference to
the obligation to bring certain documents to the mediation, strict com#liance, not
substantial com#liance, as re)uired. The Su#reme Court ent on the rite JThe
legislative intent behind re)uiring a #arty to #roduce the assignments of the deed of
trust and mortgage note is to ensure that hoever is foreclosing Wactually ons the
noteO and has the authority to modify the loan.K
The Su#reme Court did not sto# there. It felt com#elled to then discuss hat
constitutes a valid assignment of deeds of trust and mortgage notes. Dy reaching this
issue, the Su#reme Court set the obligations for each lender ith regards to their
obligation to #roduce documents at mediation.
The Su#reme Court then discussed the la regarding the assignment of a deed of
trust. Since an assignment of an interest in land must be in riting, the Su#reme
Court concluded that Jto #rove that ;ortgageIt #ro#erly assigned its interest in land
via the deed of trust to Wells 6argo, Wells 6argo needed to #rovide a signed riting
from ;ortageIt demonstrating that transfer of interest.K
The Su#reme Court then analyEed the method by hich the interest in a mortgage
note may be transferred and loo$ed to NevadaOs Uniform Commercial Code X
Negotiable Instruments. The Su#reme Court rote JRtShe obligor on the note has the
right to $no the identity of the entity that is Jentitled to enforceK the mortgage note
under :rticle 5, see N/S %28.552%, JRoStherise, the RhomeonerS may #ay funds to
a stranger in the case.K BCitation omitted.C
The Su#reme Court re!ected the arguments of Wells 6argo that mere #ossession
of the mortgage note as sufficient. JRWSe conclude that :rticle 5 clearly re)uires
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE %+
Wells 6argo to demonstrate more than mere #ossession of the original note to be able
to enforce a negotiable instrument under the facts of this case.K To meet its
obligation under the Uniform Commercial Code, Wells 6argo had to sho both
endorsement of the mortgage note to it by the original lender and #ossession of the
note.
:lternatively, Wells 6argo could have also demonstrated a transfer of the note to
it. To demonstrate a transfer, Wells 6argo as obligated to #rove that it as given
the mortgage note for the #ur#ose of enforcing it.
The Su#reme Court then concluded that since Wells 6argo had failed to #roduced
documents to demonstrate either a valid endorsement or transfer, Wells 6argo had
neither demonstrated that it as entitled to foreclose on the #ro#erty nor that it had
authority to mediate ith regards to the note. The Su#reme Court, relying on its other
o#inion issued the same day, <asillas v. @SDC Dan$, %.+Nev. UU, UU <.5d UU, :dv.
?#. 50, July +, .2%%C, ruled that the failure of Wells 6argo to bring the re)uired
documents Jis a sanctionable offense under N/S %2+.2*4 and the 6;/s.K The
Su#reme Court then remanded the case to the district court for determination of the
a##ro#riate sanction.
This o#inion seems to indicate that the Jtoo big to failK ban$s have met their
match ith the Nevada Su#reme Court. The ramifications of this o#inion ill ma$e
the huge ban$s thin$ tice before they allo the Nevada Su#reme Court to hear any
other issues concerning their foreclosure #rocesses. This o#inion arms homeoners,
and es#ecially their counsel, and creates an o##ortunity to sto# the ban$s and their
servicers from moving forard ith a foreclosure ith less that the full
documentation #roving their onershi# of the mortgage note, and the authority to
foreclose under the terms of the deed of trust.
The true sco#e and im#act of the "eyva and <asilla o#inions on the foreclosure
and mediation #rocess in Washoe County ill not be revealed any time soon. The
ban$s ill li$ely ta$e any ste#s necessary avoid sanction as ell as #revent the
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE %*
Nevada Su#reme Court issuing any other o#inions regarding the foreclosure #rocess
or the mediation #rogram.
the Su#reme Court of Nevada issued to o#inions on July +, .2%% hich finally
com#el foreclosing #arties in Nevada to #roduce material documentation as to chain
of title to the Note and =eed of Trust in order to be #ermitted to continue ith a
foreclosure action hen mediation is re)uested. in "eyva v. National =efault
Servicing et al., No. 11.%4, %.+ Nev. :dvance ?#inion 82, the Su#reme Court held
that strict com#liance is re)uired ith Nevada statutes governing the #roduction of
certain documents including any assignment of the =eed of TrustM that a foreclosing
#artyOs failure to do so Jis a sanctionable offenseM and the district court is #rohibited
from alloing the foreclosure #rocess to #roceedK. Wells 6argo as also the cul#rit
in this case.
Significantly, in discussing the transfer of the Note, the Su#reme Court of
Nevada cited to the recent In /e ,eal decision from the 0th Circuit Dan$ru#tcy
:##eals <anel Bhich as #reviously discussed on this ebsiteC, holding that the
borroer Jhas the right to $no the identity of the entity that is Wentitled to enforceO
the mortgage note under :rticle 5 Bof the Uniform Commercial CodeC.K The Court
concluded that :rticle 5 Jclearly re)uires Wells 6argo to demonstrate more than mere
#ossession of the original note to be able to enforce a negotiable instrumentK. The
court found that there as no endorsement and no assignment, and reversed the
=istrict Court.
The o#inion in "eyva cited to the CourtOs o#inion in <asillas v. @SDC Dan$ as
Trustee, No. 14505, %.+ Nev. :dvance ?#inion 50 Balso decided July +, .2%%C,
hich also reversed the =istrict Court and also cited to ,eal , setting forth the
re)uirements for #roduction of evidence of chain of title to the note and =eed of
Trust in a foreclosure.
The multi#le citations to ,eal, hich is a 6ederal Dan$ru#tcy a##ellate court
o#inion, by the state Su#reme Court of Nevada, is more than im#ortant. It
demonstrates that sim#ly because a foreclosure issue is decided by a Dan$ru#tcy
court does not mean that it is not a##licable to a non-Dan$ru#tcy Bor non-6ederalC
foreclosure case. Time and again, hen e argue that an issue in a state foreclosure
case has already been decided by a Dan$ru#tcy court in the foreclosure conte7t,
attorneys re#resenting foreclosing JlendersK and servicers argue JWell, Judge, that
as a Dan$ru#tcy case, and e are not in Dan$ru#tcy CourtK. "eyva and <asillas
have no #ut that argument to bed. If a 6ederal Dan$ru#tcy decision is good enough
for the Su#reme Court of Nevada in to se#arate o#inions, it should be good enough
for any state court.
A"",r!e' M#(/,!d%/" M' S%22,r" Se""#!$ A(#de "he Order3 F,r G,,d
F#"h 7(#( +,r Ch!$#!$ "he L5 M' A%$er T,5rd 8,*d#!$ O22,(#!$
C,%!(e*9( F#*%r ", W#"hdr5 "he M,"#,! +,r S%&&r' J%d$&e!" ,r O"her5#(e
A*er" "he C,%r" ( ", "he L#0e*' E++e/" ,+ .er' )r,4#&"e T#&e Re*e(e ,+ "5,
M!d",r' !d C,!"r,**#!$ Ne1d S%2re&e C,%r" De/#(#,!( I((%ed O!e Wee0
7e+,re Th#( C,%r"9( Order M' R#(e ", ),(#"#1e M#(/,!d%/" G#1e! "he )r#&/'
,+ "he S%-:e/" M""er ,+ Th#( L#"#$"#,! ", "he(e3 A" Th" T#&e3 )r, Se
L#"#$!"(.
In Staschel v. Weaver Drothers, "td., 0* Nev. 110, 411 <..d 1%* B%0*.C,
the Nevada Su#reme Court held that attorney neglect amounting to misconduct is not
#ro#erly im#uted to the client in determining hether a default !udgment should be
set aside. BFTo characteriEe Rthe attorneyGsS failure to re#resent his client as
Gine7cusable neglectG ould be charitable but hardly candid. @is dereliction of the
#rofessional obligations oed a##ellant constituted actual misconduct.FC. See
generally, S. Dernstein, :nnotation, :ttorneyGs Inaction as (7cuse for 6ailure to
Timely <rosecute :ction, %1 :."./.5d 4+8 B%04*C. California ac$noledged this
#roblem in the %042s, and concluded that inaction and sloth by an attorney should not
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE .2
be grounds for a circuit court to inflict suffering u#on an innocent client of the
attorney, by dismissing the clientGs case. In =avey v. County of Dutte, ..+
Cal.:##..d 5*2, 5* Cal./#tr. 405 B%048C, an intermediate court of a##eals e7amined
a situation here the =efendantGs layer filed a lasuit, and then dadled for nearly
to years, only s#oradically doing discovery or filing #leadings. When the
=efendantGs layer failed to sho u# for several scheduled court hearings, the circuit
court dismissed the =efendantGs com#laint due to inactivity. The court recogniEed the
general rule - similar to that in this State that the Fgeneral doctrine charges the client
ith the neglect of his attorney but gives him redress against the latter.F ..+
Cal.:##..d at 50%, 5* Cal. /#tr. at +22. @oever, the court ent on to alter this
harsh rule, holding that Fthere are e7ce#tional cases in hich the client, relativel free
from #ersonal neglect, ill be relieved of a default or dismissal attributable to the
inaction or #rocrastination of his counsel. F Id. The court found that the =efendantGs
attorneyGs neglect as ine7cusable and e7treme, amounting to #ositive misconduct.
RThe attorneyGsS consistent and long continued inaction as so visibly and inevitably
disastrous, that his client as effectually and un$noingly de#rived of
re#resentation. Dy his refusal to get on ith the lasuit or get out of it, Rthe
=efendantGs RattorneyS inflicted severe damage on his clientGs case. She had legal
re#resentation only in a nominal and technical sense.
Under these unusual circumstances, here the client as un$noingly
de#rived of effective re#resentation, she ill not be charged ith res#onsibility for
the misconduct of her nominal counsel of record. ..+ Cal.:##..d at 50%-0., 5*
Cal./#tr. at +22. The court then stated the rule - $non as the F#ositive misconductF
rule - that here an attorneyGs inaction rises to a level of active, #ositive misconduct,
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE .%
the FattorneyGs authority to bind his client does not #ermit him to im#air or destroy
the clientGs cause of action.F ..+ Cal.:##..d at 50%, 5* Cal. /#tr. at +22. The
reasoning for such a rule is obvious3 Clients should not be forced to act as ha$ li$e
in)uisitors of their counsel, sus#icious of every ste# and )uic$ to sitch layers.
The #rofession $nos no orse headache than the client ho mistrusts their
attorney. The lay litigant enters a tem#le of mysteries hose ceremonies dar$,
com#le7 and unfathomable. <retrial #rocedures are cabalistic rituals of the layers
and !udges ho serve as #riests and high #riests. $nos nothing of their tactical
significance.
@e $nos only that his case remains in limbo hile the #riests and high
#riests chant their lengthy an arcane #retrial rites. @e does $no this much3 that
several years fre)uently ela#se beteen the commencement and trial of lasuits.
Since the la im#ose this state of #uEEled #atience on the litigant, it should #ermit
him to si bac$ in #eace and confidence ithout sus#icious in)uiries and incessant
chec$ing on counsel. ..+ Cal.:##..d at 50%-0., 5* Cal./#tr. at +22-+2%. The
California Su#reme Court ado#ted the #ositive misconduct rule stated in =aYey in
CarroYY v. :bbott "aboratories, Inc., 418 <..d ++1 B%0*.C. The court stated the
general rule that a client is charged ith the neglect of his counsel, and that the
clientGs usual redress for that neglect is an action for mal#ractice. @oever, an
e7ce#tion to this general rule has develo#ed. (7ce#ted from this rule are those
instances here the attorneyGs neglect is of that e7treme degree amounting to #ositive
misconduct, and the #erson see$ing relief is relatively free from negligence. The
e7ce#tion is #remised u#on the conce#t the attorneyGs conduct, in effect, obliterates
the e7istence of the attorney-client relationshi#, and for this reason his negligence
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE ..
should not be im#uted to th client. 418 <..d at ++* Bem#hasis in originalC. The court
ent on to state that FRtShe issue, therefore, becomes hether counselGs conduct
amounted to G#ositive misconductG by hich =efendant as Geffectually and
un$noingly de#rived of re#resentation.GF Id.
In accord, "ords v. Neman, 4** <..d .02, .08-01 B;ont. %0*8C Bholding
that hen case is dismissed due to attorney negligence, Fno great abuse of discretion
need be shon to arrant reversalF because the Ycourt has been hesitant to im#ute
the neglect of an attorney to his clientM and has been loathe to #ermit this neglect to
bar a hearing on the merits.FCM Staschel v. Weaver Dros. "td., 411 <..d 1%*, 1%0
BNev. %0*.C BFTo characteriEe Rthe attorneyGsS failure to re#resent his client as
Gine7cusable neglectG ould be charitable but hardly candid. @is dereliction of the
#rofessional obligations oed a##ellant constituted actual misconduct.FC. See
generally, S. Dernstein, :nnotation, :ttorneyGs Inaction as (7cuse for 6ailure to
Timely <rosecute :ction, %1 :."./.5d 4+8 B%04*C. BJames ;iYton Covington and
JeraYdine I. Covington v. ;ichael John Smith, Walter "ee 6orbis, /yder Truc$
/ental, Inc. and =.T.6. Truc$ing, Inc. BCase 52+58, Su#. Ct of :##eals, West
,irginia July, %%, .225C . order andHor !udgement that as clearly erroneous and
contrary to la on the 42BbC motion hich <laintiffs submitted to this court to set
aside !udgement andHor order of the 42BbC motion for e7cusable neglect #redicated on
multi#le medical issues and the #recedent setting case of <ioneer Investment Services
v. Drunsic$ :ssociates "imited <artnershi# et.al. 12+ U.S. 5*23 %%5 S.Ct. %8*0M
%.5 ". (d .d +8M%005 U.S. "(LIS .82.M 4% U.S.".W. 8.45M .1 6ed /.Serv. 5d
BCallaghanC 82%M Dan$r. ". /e#. BCC@C <+1, %1+:M .* Collier Dan$r.Cas. .d B;DC
.4+M.8 Dan$r Ct =ec.45M 05 Cal =aily ?# Service .204M 05 =:/ 5+21M + 6": ".
Wee$ly 6ed. S %2%.
The #articular facts and circumstances of the Car#entierGs case deserve closer
consternation, #articularly in light of the fact that "eyva and <asilla actually ere
issued #rior to this CourtGs July %1, .2%% ?rder granting Summary Judgment, the
manifest in!ustice that results from leaving the ?rder as it is and alloing the
TrusteeGs Sale to go forard. 6urther, <ursuant to N/S %2+.2*2, the re)uisite
statutory .2 days notice is, on its face, not #resent in the notice to the Car#entiers.
6urther, the assignments have arguably not been #roduced or attested to in the
manner re)uired by la, and the bald face arrogance of the lenderGs and trusteeGs
street level em#loyees in telling the Car#entierGs that, basically, they are in a fight
ith a big ugly bully and its Jour ord against yoursK you little #uny #athetic so to be
no longer homeoners.
C:/<(NTI(/ received a Notice of Sale indicating that their lender
ould sel% their home at auction on ?ctober .%, .2%%, folloing their default in their
mortgage #ayments. The home remains occu#ied by the title oner. The Notice of
Sale did not give Joni or James Car#entier the re)uisite notice of the date of the
foreclosure sale. <ursuant to N/S %2+.2*2, the foreclosure trustee must record a
Notice of Sale and give notice of the time and #lace of the sale by B%C #ersonally
serving or mailing the notice by registered or certified mail to homeoner and others
Fentitled to noticeFM B.C #osting the notice in a #ublic #lace here the #ro#erty is
located for .2 successive daysM B5C #ublishing a co#y of the notice 5 times Bonce a
ee$ for three ee$sCM :N= B8C #osting the notice on the #ro#erty %1 days before the
sale date. The Notice of Sale as recorded on ?ctober 5 ith a sale date of ?ctober
.%. This is only an %* day notice #eriod. This fails to com#ly ith at least section B.C
above, and #erha#s section B8C should they fail to #ost the notice on the #ro#erty on
or before ?ctober 4, de#ending u#on hether section B8C re)uires that action to occur
ithin 02 days or to occur only after the #assing of 02 days.
The substitution of Iuality "oan Servicing as the foreclosure trustee as
not recorded. Under the =eed of Trust /ecorded on :#ril %*, .221, Windsor
;anagement Co. as named as the Trustee. No document could be found ith the
/ecorderGs ?ffice indicating any entity substituted Iuality "oan Servicing as the
foreclosure trustee under the =eed of Trust.
=efendantGs have substantially de#arted from the notice, manner of service, and
#rocess re)uirements of various la, including, but not limited to N/S %2+.2*2.
When in)uiry as made ith =efendantGs as to the basis, reasoning, and !ustifications
for the de#artures, <laintiffGs ere told that Jits your ord against oursK and
otherise res#onded to in a hostile, aggressive, and dece#tive manner. ;ore
discovery is in order in this regard. This #leading is further filed ith an eye toards
asserting a N/C< 10 basis for challenging the July %1, .2%% order Bsomeho a
tolling argument ill need to be made to overcome the %2 day re)uirement for such a
motion, and the same could be said for ma$ing a ;otion for /econsideration here
more than .2 days have #ast since
C,!/*%(#,!
W@(/(6?/(, <laintiffs res#ectfully re)uest this Court order as follos3
%. 6or damages in e7cess of &%2,222M
.. 6or treble damagesM and any sanctions a##ro#riate under any a##licable la,
including the to recent Nevada Su#reme Court decisions of July +, .2%%, <assila and
"eyva.
5. 6or tem#orary restraining order, #reliminary in!unction and #ermanent in!unction
barring foreclosure of the =eed of Trust recorded in favor of =efendant ::;(S and any
succesor in interest.
8. 6or tem#orary restraining order, #reliminary in!unction and #ermanent in!unction
barring the contem#lated and scheduled TrusteeGs Sale set for ?ctober .%, .2%%.
1. 6or costs of suit herein incurredM and for attorneys feeM
4. 6or such other and further relief as this court may deem #ro#er.
AFFIRMATION )%r(%!" ", NRS 6;97.0;0
=:T(= this %0
th
day of =ecember, .2%%3
HsH 'ach Coughlin
'ach Coughlin, (s).
:ttorney for <laintiffs Joni and James Car#entier
)ROOF OF SER.ICE
I, 'ach Coughlin, declare, that on =ecember %0, .2%%, I caused the forgoing to
be deliver to all named =efendantGs in this action, but electronic filing to3
Nristin :. Schuler-@intE, (s).
;cCarthy P @olthus, ""<
01%2 W. Sahara :ve., Suite %%2
"as ,egas , N, *0%%+
<hone3 +2.-4*1-25.0
6a73 *44-550-140%
$hintE9mccarthyholthus.com
:tty for =(6TGS /(SI=(NTI:" C/(=IT S?"UTI?NS INC, :N= IU:"ITA
"?:N S(/,IC( C?/<?/:TI?NGS
:nd via delivering to their attorneyGs of record by fa7, email and de#ositing a true
and correct co#y of this document in the US mail on this date addressed to3
(ric D. 'imbelman, (s).
<eel Drimley, ""<
.2%8 (. ;adison, Suite %22
Seattle , W: 0*%..
<hone3 .24-++2-5550
6a73 .24-++2-5802
eEimbelman9#eelbrimley.com
:tty for =(6TGSWIN=S?/ ;:N:>(;(TN C?. :N= :CC/(=IT(=
@?;( "(NN=(/S, INC. :S SUCC(SS?/ IN INT(/(ST T? ::;(S
6UN=IN> C?/<?/:TI?N =D: ::;(S @?;( "?:N
=:T(= this %0
th
day of =ecember, .2%%3
HsH 'ach Coughlin
'ach Coughlin, (s).
:ttorney for <laintiffs Joni and James Car#entier
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE .+
INDE< TO E<8I7ITS=
%.
..
5.
8.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE .*
EXHIBIT 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
121 River Roc !".
Reno, N# $9%&1
'ele: 77%(33$($11$
)a*: 949(++7(74&2
,""orne- .or /e.endan" Ro0er" 1eller
2N3'E/ !','E! B,N1R24'C5 C62R'
/3!'R3C' 6) NE#,/,
3n Re:
R6BER' 1E77ER
/e0"or.
'8E C,/7E C694,N5,
4lain"i..,
v.
R6BER' 1E77ER,
/e.endan".
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No.: B1 1&(%2+39(g;<
Cha="er 7
,dversar- 4roceeding
No. 1&(&%1&4(g;<
6446!3'36N '6 96'36N '6 ,9EN/
C6947,3N' 3N ,/#ER!,R5
4R6CEE/3N>
8earing /a"e: 12?7?1&
8earing 'i@e: 1&:&& ,9
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
'his 9o"ion is 0ased on "he .ollo;ing 9e@orandu@ o. 4oin"s and ,u"hori"ies as ;ell
as Rule 7&1% )ed. R. Banr. 4. and Rule 1%A2: )ed. R. Civ. 4.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3.
!','E9EN' 6) 2N/3!42'E/ ),C'!
6n Bul- 2, 2&1&, /e0"or?/e.endan" R6BER' 1E77ER Ahereina."er C1ellerD or C/e.endan"D:
.iled a #olun"ar- 4e"i"ion .or Relie. under Cha="er 7 o. 'i"le 11, 2.!.C. 'he 341 9ee"ing ;as held
on ,ugus" 12, 2&1& and 4lain"i.. .iled i"s adversar- co@=lain" agains" /e.endan" 1eller on 6c"o0er
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12, 2&1& ;i"h causes o. ac"ion .or nondischargea0ili"- under 11 2.!.C. EE %23Aa:A2:A,:, %23Aa:A4:
and res Fudica"a. ,."er "horoughl- .ailing "o even 0egin co@=le"el- li"iga"ing "he issues Aso @uch so
"ha" no !"i=ula"ed )indings o. )ac" is "o 0e .ound an-;here: and ;i"hou" a second o. "rial "aing
=lace, @an- assurances 0eing @ade 0- "he 'e*as =rosecu"ors Bi""ing e" al "o 1eller and 1ellerGs "hen
a""orne- Ches"er Bro;n A;ho died suddenl- in 199$ and le." his ;ido; "o a""e@=" "he "as o.
dis=ensing his @assive collec"ion o. .iles held onl- in hard co=- .or@a" "o Bro;nGs clien"s, including
1eller, in a ver- ha=ha<ard ;a-: "ha" "he !"a"e o. 'e*as did no" in"end "o collec" on or e*ecu"e "he
Budge@en" agains" 1eller. 'his is evinced 0- "he lac o. an- language in "he Budg@en" =ur=or"ing "o
incor=ora"e 0- re.erence an-"hing in "he Co@=lain" and 0- "he lac o. an- language =ur=or"ing "o
.ind .raudulen" conduc" on 1ellerGs =ar" o. "ha" 1eller ;as adFudged "o 0e ei"her a .iduciar- or in a
C"rus"D rela"ionshi= ;i"h an- o. "he involved =ar"ies or individuals. 1eller sen" "he /e.endan" 1eller
consen"ed "o "he en"r- o. Fudg@en" in "he a@oun" o. H%&&,&&&.&& Ain 9a-, 199%:, and "he Fudg@en"
en"ered is ver- shor", con"aining no @en"ion o. incor=ora"ing 0- re.erence an-"hing in "he "-=icall-
overcharged Co@=lain", no ci"a"ion "o an- !"i=ula"ed )indings o. )ac", no language s=eaing "o an-
ad@ission o. ;rongdoing or .raudulen" conduc" o. an- ind, nor an- language =ur=or"ing "o es"a0lish
ei"her a .iduciar- or "rus" rela"ionshi= 0e";een 1eller and an-one. )ur"her, "he Fudge@en" lacs an-
language .inding 1eller an o..icer or direc"or o. ei"her en"i"-. 3" is reall- no" a" all clear ho;
o==osing counsel 6GRoure can sign a declara"ion "ha" =ur=or"s "o have non(hearsa-, .irs" hand
no;ledge, as required 0- 7R 9&14AC:, "ha" s;ears, under =enal"- o. =erFur-, "ha": C+. ,."er
"horoughl- li"iga"ing "he issues 0u" =rior "o "rial, /e.endan" 1eller consen"ed "o "he en"r- o. Fudg@en"
in "he a@oun" o. H%&&,&&&.&& Ain 9a-, 199%: 0ased on causes o. ac"ion .or: .raud in real es"a"e
"ransac"ions, co@@on la; .raud, a 'e*as 3nsurance Code viola"ion .or "he i@=ro=er =ledge or
h-=o"heca"ion o. ,>273CIs asse"s, cor=ora"e al"er ego, 'e*as /ece="ive 'rade 4rac"ices J
- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Consu@er 4ro"ec"ion ,c" viola"ions, .raudulen" conve-ance, cons=irac- "o .raudulen"l- conve-, and
viola"ions o. 1$ 2.!.C. E 19+2 ARace"eering 3n.luenced and Corru=" 6rgani<a"ions ,c":.D 8o; in
"he ;orld ;ould o==osing counsel 6GRoure, all "he ;a- u= "here in !ea""le, re=resen"ing so@e 6hio
cor=ora"ion "ha" 0ough" a Budg@en" .ro@ a Receiver in 'e*as da"ing 0ac al@os" 17 -ears, involving
an o==osing =ar"- ;hose a""orne- died in 199$, =ossi0l- 0e a0le "o sign a declara"ion "ha" s"a"es, ;i"h
an- credi0ili"-, "ha" C,."er "horoughl- li"iga"ing "he issues 0u" =rior "o "rial, /e.endan" 1eller
consen"ed "o "he en"r- o. Fudg@en" in "he a@oun" o. H%&&,&&&.&& Ain 9a-, 199%: 0ased on causes o.
ac"ion .or....DK Cer"ainl-, o==osing counsel 6GRoure isnG" .inding a 0asis .or declaring ;he"her "he
issues ;ere C"horoughl- li"iga"edD and u=on ;ha" an- consen" "o en"r- o. Fudg@en" 0- 1eller ;as
C0ased onD 0- an-"hing in "he Budg@en", as i" is 0liss.ull- shor" and s;ee" and devoid o. an-
ad@ission o. .raud or @isconduc" 0- 1eller, an- incor=ora"ing language .or o"her docu@en"s, such as
"he Co@=lain", an- !"i=ula"ed )indings o. )ac", e"c... ,ll "he Budg@en" con"ains, =re""- @uch, is a
sen"ence sa-ing 1eller agreed "o 0e adFudged o;ing "he Receive da@ages o. H%&&,&&&. 'ha" is lie
sa-ing a cri@inal de.endan" charged ;i"h "reason, s@uggling nuclear ;ea=ons, serial @urder, and
Fa-;aling "horoughl- li"iga"ed "he issues and canno" la"er sa- he never ad@i""ed "o nor ;as .ound
guil"- o. "he charges o"her "han Fa-;aling ;here he signed a !"i=ula"ed Budg@en" .inding hi@ guil"-
.or "he Fa-;aling .ine....Re@e@0er, over H2&,&&&,&&& ;or"h o. equi"- ;as curiouls- con.isca"ed 0-
"he 'e*as Receiver, des=i"e a==ro*i@a"el- 9%L o. "he lia0ili"- 0eing alloca"ed "o a
@egaconglo@era"e reinsurer. 8o; ,>7 and ,>237, ;ere Cinsolven"D ;hen "he- had H2& @illion
.or "he 'e*as Receiver "o con.isca"e is =re""- unclear, 0u" i"s no" an-;here near as unclear as "he
con"en"ion "ha" "he issues o. 1ellerGs 0eing a .iduciar- or in a "rus" rela"ionshi= or have a de0"
involving .raudulen" conduc" adFudged agains" hi@ had 0een C"horoughl- li"iga"edD. )ur"her,
con"rar- "o CadleGs asser"ions, i" is no" clear "ha" /e.endan" .ailed "o lis" or schedule or o"her;ise add
- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0- a@end@en" "he non(dischargea0le 2ni"ed 8eal"hcare de0" s"e@@ing .ro@ 199& in "he @ore recen"
Cha="er 7 .iling, or even "ha" he had a du"- "o, and 0ringing "his u= is undul- =reFudicial "o;ards
1eller and sa-s @ore a0ou" CadleGs "ac"ics "han an-"hing.
, .e; da-s 0e.ore "he .iling o. "he adversar- =roceeding, 4lain"i.. conduc"ed an
e*a@ina"ion o. /e.endan" =ursuan" "o Rule 2&&4 ).R. Banr. 4. 4lain"i.. .inall- go" around "o
conduc"ing a du0iousl- 0rough" e*a@ina"ion o. /e.endan"Is ;i.e, !a@an"ha 8all, on ,=ril 1$, 2&11.
4lain"i.. has @ade no" a""e@=" "o e*=lain ;h- i" is a si@=le search o. 4acer or cour" records ;ould no"
have revealed "he incredi0l- eas- "o discover .ac" "ha" 1eller .iled a Cha="er 7 0anru="c- =e"i"ion in
199&. 4lain"i.. in no ;a- s=eci.ies in an- de"ailing ;ha"soever s=eci.icall- ho;, a" C0o"h
e*a@ina"ions, 4lain"i.. learned addi"ional .ac"s "o su==or" "he novel cause o. ac"ion con"ained in i"s
,@ended Co@=lain".D Mha" .ac"sK 8o; do "he- su==or" "he ne; cause o. ac"ion in "he ,@ended
Co@=lain"K 4lain"i.. =rovides no su==or" .or an argu@en" "ha" such C.ac"sD ;ere no" easil-
discovera0le "hrough a reasona0l- diligen" inquir- 0- 4lain"i.., such as checing cour"s records or
4acer "o see i. a =revious 0anru="c- had 0een .iled 0- 1eller. 3" does no" "ae a grea" 0ig 0illing
even" lie de=osing 1eller and his ;i.e "o .ind "ha" ou", and .ur"her, 4lain"i..Gs .ailure "o do so is no"
e*cused @erel- 0- "he .ac" "ha" 4lain"i.. @a- have su0sequen"l- 0eco@e a;are o. "he 199& .iling via
"he de=osi"ions. 'he =oin" is, a reasona0l- diligen" inquir- 0- 4lain"i.. ;ould have revealed "he 199&
.iling, and 4lain"i.. has @ade no a""e@=" "o es"a0lish "ha" "he de=osi"ions o. 1eller and his ;i.e -ield
an- Cs=ecialD in.or@a"ion "ha" ;ould e*cuse 4lain"i..Gs earlier lac o. diligence or "he undue 0urden
and e*=ense is has caused 1eller. Mha" is clear is "ha" 1eller can =roduce a cover le""er and )edE*
0illing o. lading "ha" ;ere @ailed along ;i"h "he !"i=ula"ed Budg@en" on "he eve o. "rial on "ha"
s=eci.icall- re.er "o "he "als and docu@en"s involved in incor=ora"ing in"o "he !"i=ula"ed Budg@en"
"he !e""le@en" ,gree@en" 1eller can =roduce Ai. no" @ore, de=ending u=on ;ha" is recovera0le .ro@
- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bi""ing and Bro;nGs dus"- .iles: da"ed ,=ril 1&, 199%, "ha" @ore clearl- se"s .or "he .ac" "ha" 1eller
did no" s"i=ula"e "o an- .raudulen" conduc" or a .idicuar- or "rus" rela"ionshi= in connec"ion ;i"h "he
Budg@en" en"ered in 9a- 199%. Cer"ainl-, even i. so@e"hing isnG" .ound in Bi""ing A"he ReceiverGs
a""orne-: or 1ellerGs old counsel Bro;nGs .iles, "he ,=ril 1&, 199% !e""le@en" ,gree@en" and "he
cover le""er and )edE* 0ill o. lading 1eller can =roduce and ;hich ;ere @ailed along ;i"h 1ellerGs
signed !"i=ula"ed Budg@en" on 9arch 23 or "herea0ou"s, =laced "he onus on Bi""ing and "he Receiver
"o @ae so@e a..ir@a"ive ac"ion "o disavo; "he con"en"ions @ade 0- 1eller "herein ;i"h res=ec" "o
"he e*cu=la"or- na"ure o. "he discussions and docu@en"s connec"ed "o "he Budg@en" en"ered in 9a-
199%.
33.
LEGAL ANAYLSIS
,@end@en" o. co@=lain" , =ar"- @a- a@end "he =ar"-Gs =leading once as a @a""er o. course a"
an- "i@e 0e.ore res=onsive =leading is served or, i. "he =leading is one "o ;hich no res=onsive
=leading is =er@i""ed and "he ac"ion has no" 0een =laced u=on "he "rial calendar, "he =ar"- @a- so
a@end i" a" an- "i@e ;i"hin 2& da-s a."er i" is servedN o"her;ise a =ar"- @a- a@end "he =ar"-Gs
=leading onl- 0- leave o. cour" or 0- ;ri""en consen" o. "he adverse =ar"-, and leave @us" 0e .reel-
given ;hen Fus"ice so requires. )ed. R. Civ. 4. 1%Aa:, @ade a==lica0le in adversar- =roceedings 0-
)ed. R. Banr. 4. 7&1%. 'his rule is a==lica0le "o co@=lain"s o0Fec"ing "o discharge. )our"h Circui" 3n
re 'es"er, %+ B.R. 2&$ AM./. #a. 19$%:. %B )ed. 4roc., 7. Ed. E 9:17%&, 0anru="c- cour" lacs
au"hori"- "o gran" an un"i@el- @o"ion "o a@end an adversar- co@=lain" "o s"a"e ne; causes o. ac"ion
o0Fec"ing "o discharge ;here such @o"ion is no" .iled un"il a."er "he deadline .or o0Fec"ing "o
discharge. Eigh"h Circui" 3n re Bo<e@an, 219 B.R. 2%3 ABanr. M./. ,r. 199$:, a..Gd, 22+ B.R.
+27, 42 )ed. R. !erv. 3d 41+ AB.,.4. $"h Cir. 199$:. Mhenever "he clai@ or de.ense asser"ed in "he
a@ended =leading arose ou" o. "he conduc", "ransac"ion, or occurrence se" .or"h or a""e@="ed "o 0e se"
- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.or"h in "he original =leading, "he a@end@en" rela"es 0ac "o "he da"e o. "he original =leading. )ed. R.
Civ. 4. 1%Ac:A2:, @ade a==lica0le in adversar- =roceedings 0- )ed. R. Banr. 4. 7&1%. 'hus, a
=ro=osed a@end@en" "o a co@=lain" o0Fec"ing "o discharge @a- rela"e 0ac "o "he "i@e o. "he .iling o.
"he original co@=lain". )our"h Circui" 3n re 'es"er, %+ B.R. 2&$ AM./. #a. 19$%:
)ed. R. Civ. 4. 1%Aa:, as a@ended and e..ec"ive /ece@0er 1, 2&&9, =rovides "ha" A1: a =ar"-
@a- a@end i"s =leading once as a @a""er o. course ;i"hin: A,: 21 da-s a."er serving i", or AB: i. "he
=leading is one "o ;hich a res=onsive =leading is required, 21 da-s a."er service o. a res=onsive
=leading or 21 da-s a."er service o. a @o"ion under Rule 12A0:, AeA, or A.:, ;hichever is earlier. )ed.
R. Civ. 4. 1%Ac:A2: ;as redesigna"ed as )ed. R. Civ. 4. 1%Ac:A1:AB: in 2&&7. ,ddi"ional discover-
"ha" de.endan" ;ould have "o conduc" i. =os"con.ir@a"ion "rus" es"a0lished under de0"orGs con.ir@ed
Cha="er 11 =lan ;ere allo;ed "o a@end i"s "urnover co@=lain" "o allege "ha" .unds re"ained 0-
de.endan" rela"ed, no" "o de0"orGs =re=e"i"ion shi=@en"s o. goods, 0u" "o goods =rovided =os"=e"i"ion,
and "ha" de.endan"Gs re"en"ion o. .unds "hus viola"ed au"o@a"ic s"a-, did no" rise "o level o. Oundue
=reFudiceO o. ind ;arran"ing denial o. @o"ion .or leave "o a@endN "rus" ;as no" asser"ing ne; coun"
;i"h unrela"ed .ac"s "ha" ;ould re( quire =ar"ies "o s"ar" discover- ane;, and de.endan" could no" 0e
sur=rised "ha" "rus" ;as no; a""e@="ing "o a@end i"s co@=lain" "o con.or@ "o "he One;GG .ac"s recen"l-
asser"ed 0- de.endan" regarding =re( or =os"=e"i"ion na"ure o. .unds i" ;as ;i"hholding. 3n re )le@ing
Co@=anies, 3nc., 323 B.R. 144, +1 )ed. R. !erv. 3d 29+ ABanr. /. /el. 2&&%:. ,ddi"ional clai@s "ha"
Cha="er 11 "rus"ee sough" "o asser", in his a@ended co@=lain", agains" 0an "ha" .inanced "he
leveraged 0u-ou" A7B6: "ha" he challenged as ac"uall- and cons"ruc"ivel- .raudulen" "rans.er, .or
0anGs alleged i@=roviden" lending and aiding in 0reach o. .iduciar- du"-, ;ere no" "i@e(0arred, 0u"
rela"ed 0ac "o his original "i@el- co@=lain", ;here "hese addi"ional clai@s arose ou" o. "he sa@e
.ac"s as "hose "ha" .or@ed 0asis o. "rus"eeGs ori( ginal clai@s agains" 0an. 3n re 66/C, 77C, 321
- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B.R. 12$ ABanr. /. /el. 2&&%:. O2ndue =reFudiceGG "o =ar"- o==osing @o"ion .or leave "o a@end
co@=lain" is @ore "han @ere inconvenienceN i" is .ound onl- ;here "he =ar"- @us" overhaul i"s en"ire
li"iga"ion s"ra"eg-. 3n re )le@ing Co@=anies, 3nc., 319 B.R. 3%9 ABanr. /. /el. 2&&%:. Cha="er 11
de0"orsG @o"ion "o a@end "heir a@ended adversar- co@=lain" ;ould 0e denied as un"i@el- ;here,
al"hough @o"ion ;as @ade ;i"hin e*"ended =eriod .or @aing =re"rial @o"ions, de0"ors .ailed "o
Fus"i.- "heir e*"ended and undue dela- in ;ai"ing un"il ;ell over a -ear a."er "he =ar"ies had agreed
"ha" "he =leadings ;ere Ose""ledO "o reques" .ur"her a@end@en", and "o allo; de0"ors "o add ne;
causes o. ac"ion and change "he .ocus o. "he li"iga"ion a."er discover- had 0een co@=le"ed, and a."er
de.endan"s had inves"ed signi.ican" "i@e and @one- in =re=aring and =resen"ing su@@ar- Fudg@en"
@o"ions on "he =leadings, ;ould have 0een =reFudicial "o de.endan"s. 3n re 'horian, 3$7 B.R. %&
ABanr. /. 3daho 2&&$:.
4lain"i.. has @ade no" a""e@=" "o e*=lain ;h- i" is a si@=le search o. 4acer or cour" records
;ould no" have revealed "he incredi0l- eas- "o discover .ac" "ha" 1eller .iled a Cha="er 7 0anru="c-
=e"i"ion in 199&. 4lain"i.. in no ;a- s=eci.ies in an- de"ailing ;ha"soever s=eci.icall- ho;, a" C0o"h
e*a@ina"ions, 4lain"i.. learned addi"ional .ac"s "o su==or" "he novel cause o. ac"ion con"ained in i"s
,@ended Co@=lain".D Mha" .ac"sK 8o; do "he- su==or" "he ne; cause o. ac"ion in "he ,@ended
Co@=lain"K 4lain"i.. =rovides no su==or" .or an argu@en" "ha" such C.ac"sD ;ere no" easil-
discovera0le "hrough a reasona0l- diligen" inquir- 0- 4lain"i.., such as checing cour"s records or
4acer "o see i. a =revious 0anru="c- had 0een .iled 0- 1eller. 3" does no" "ae a grea" 0ig 0illing
even" lie de=osing 1eller and his ;i.e "o .ind "ha" ou", and .ur"her, 4lain"i..Gs .ailure "o do so is no"
e*cused @erel- 0- "he .ac" "ha" 4lain"i.. @a- have su0sequen"l- 0eco@e a;are o. "he 199& .iling via
"he de=osi"ions. 'he =oin" is, a reasona0l- diligen" inquir- 0- 4lain"i.. ;ould have revealed "he 199&
.iling, and 4lain"i.. has @ade no a""e@=" "o es"a0lish "ha" "he de=osi"ions o. 1eller and his ;i.e -ield
- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an- Cs=ecialD in.or@a"ion "ha" ;ould e*cuse 4lain"i..Gs earlier lac o. diligence or "he undue 0urden
and e*=ense is has caused 1eller. Mha" is clear is "ha" 1eller can =roduce a cover le""er and )edE*
0illing o. lading "ha" ;ere @ailed along ;i"h "he !"i=ula"ed Budg@en" on "he eve o. "rial on "ha"
s=eci.icall- re.er "o "he "als and docu@en"s involved in incor=ora"ing in"o "he !"i=ula"ed Budg@en"
"he !e""le@en" ,gree@en" 1eller can =roduce Ai. no" @ore, de=ending u=on ;ha" is recovera0le .ro@
Bi""ing and Bro;nGs dus"- .iles: da"ed ,=ril 1&, 199%, "ha" @ore clearl- se"s .or "he .ac" "ha" 1eller
did no" s"i=ula"e "o an- .raudulen" conduc" or a .idicuar- or "rus" rela"ionshi= in connec"ion ;i"h "he
Budg@en" en"ered in 9a- 199%. Cer"ainl-, even i. so@e"hing isnG" .ound in Bi""ing A"he ReceiverGs
a""orne-: or 1ellerGs old counsel Bro;nGs .iles, "he ,=ril 1&, 199% !e""el@en" ,gree@en" and "he
cover le""er and )edE* 0ill o. lading 1eller can =roduce and ;hich ;ere @ailed along ;i"h 1ellerGs
signed !"i=ula"ed Budg@en" on 9arch 23 or "herea0ou"s, =laced "he onus on Bi""ing and "he Receiver
"o @ae so@e a..ir@a"ive ac"ion "o disavo; "he con"en"ions @ade 0- 1eller "herein ;i"h res=ec" "o
"he e*cu=la"or- na"ure o. "he discussions and docu@en"s connec"ed "o "he Budg@en" en"ered in 9a-
199%.
,llo;ing Cadle "o a@end here cer"ainl- ;ould a@oun" "o undue =reFudice "o 1eller. ,lread-,
Fus" "o .ile "his 6==osi"ion, 1eller has 0een .orced "o =rocure "he services o. "he undersigned, and
a0sen" "ha", 1eller ;ould 0e =a-ing a ;eeend =lu@0erGs e@ergenc- ranso@ "o address a si"ua"ion
caused 0- 6GRoureGs .ailure "o run a na@e search .or 1eller "o discover- =revious 0anru="c-Gs and
"he doce"s "here.ro@. 6GRoure should surel- 0e a;are o. and a0le "o use 4acer. )ur"her,
6GRoure, ;hose aggresive li"iga"ing is having a dele"erious e..ec" on 1eller .or sure, doesnG" even
0o"her "o ci"e a single case in su==or" o. his Ores Fudica"aO argu@en" A;ouldnG" "ha" argu@en" ;or "he
o"her ;a- "oo, i.e, since "here ;as no language s=eci.icall- incor=ora"ing 0- re.erence "he allega"ions
- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o. "he Co@=lain" in "he Budg@en", "he issue "ha" 1eller co@@i""ed no .raud is 0arred 0- issue or clai@
=reclusionK:
P;es" Co@@unica"ions 3n"ern., 3nc. v. ,' Q ' Cor=., 114 !.M.3d 1% 'e*.,==.,us"in,2&&3
Cour" rendering agreed Fudg@en" @us" do so in s"ric" or li"eral co@=liance ;i"h se""le@en" agree@en".
#ernonGs ,nn.'e*as Rules Civ.4roc., Rule 11. 3ssues o. .raud or ;ill.ul evasion o. "a*es ;ere never
ac"uall- li"iga"ed or ad@i""ed as "o de0"or 19$4 "a* lia0ili"ies in li"iga"ion 0e.ore 'a* Cour", and "hus,
de0"or ;as no" colla"erall- es"o==ed "o den- nondischargea0ili"- o. 19$4 "a* de0" 0ased on his
consen" "o decision 0- 2ni"ed !"a"es 'a* Cour" o. decision i@=osing .raud =enal"ies, ;here no
ad@issions, .ac"ual .indings, or in"en"ion o. =ar"ies concerning .raud issue or ;ill.ul evasion .or 19$4
"a*es ;ere incor=ora"ed in"o 'a* Cour" decision, govern@en" ad@i""ed in i"s ans;er "ha" .raud
=enal"ies, ;hich ;ere onl- discerni0le reason .ro@ .ace o. 'a* Cour" decision .or den-ing
dischargea0( ili"- o. 19$4 "a* lia0ili"-, ;ere dischargea0le, and s"i=ula"ed en"r- o. decision ;as 0are
o. an- .ac"ual su==or". Banr.Code, 11 2.!.C.,. E %23Aa:A1:AC:. 3n re >o.., 1$& B.R. 193, Banr. 7.
Re=. ACC8: 4 7+497, 7% ,.).'.R.2d 9%(2%31 ABanr. M./. 'enn. 199%:.
1% ,.7.R. )ed. 2d 337 A6riginall- =u0lished in 2&&+: !ee =age 149 "hru 1+& s=eci.ic "o
insurance indus"r-. OMhere "he 3nsurance Co@@issioner o. "he !"a"e o. Mes" #irginia
ACo@@issioner: ;as a=( =oin"ed "he receiver and liquida"or o. an insolven" li.e insurance co@=an-,
and "he Co@@is( sioner sued "he .or@er direc"ors o. "he li.e insurance co@=an-, "he cour" in 3n re
Mil0ur, 1997 M7 37%+$7 ABanr. 9./. )la. 1997:, .ound "ha" "he Co@@issioner .ailed "o =resen"
evidence "ha" a de0"or .or@er direc"or co@@i""ed .raud ;hile ac"ing in a .iduciar- ca=aci"-, since "he
s"a"e cour"Gs holdings regarding "he de0"orGs .iduciar- role did no" sa"is.- "he require@en"s o. "he
discharge e*ce="ion .or .raud or de.alca"ion ;hile ac"ing in a .iduciar- ca=aci"- under 11 2.!.C.,. E
%23Aa:A4:. )lorida /e=ar"@en" o. 3nsurance, in i"s ca=aci"- as "he receiver o. insolven" insurance
- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
co@=anies, 0rough" adversar- =roceedings agains" a 0anru=" .or@er o..icer and direc"or "o recover
.or "he .or@er o..icerGs alleged usur=a"ion and 0reach o. .iduciar- du"- and "o e*ce=" "his
inde0"edness .ro@ discharge, and on "he de0"or o..icerGs @o"ion .or su@@ar- Fudg@en", "he cour" in
3n re Blac0urn, 2&9 B.R. 4 ABanr. 9./. )la. 1997:, concluded "ha" "he general .iduciar- du"ies
o;ed "o a )lorida cor=ora"ion 0- i"s o..icers and direc"ors ;ere insu..icien", 0- "he@selves, "o su==or"
"he clai@ "ha" "he o..icers and direc"ors s"ood in a O.iduciar- ca=a( ci"-O "o "he cor=ora"ion .or de0"
dischargea0ili"- =ur=oses under 11 2.!.C.,. E %23Aa:A4:N 1% ,.7.R. )ed. 2d 337 4age 1+& 1% ,.7.R.
)ed. 2d 337 A6riginall- =u0lished in 2&&+:. O'he cour" 3n re Nords"ro@, $ )ed. ,==*. $23 A9"h Cir.
2&&1:, held "ha" no .iduciar- rela( "ionshi=, .or "he =ur=oses o. "he .iduciar- .raud or de.alca"ion
discharge e*ce="ion o. 11 2.!.C.,. E %23Aa:A4:, e*is"ed 0e";een "he Fudg@en"(credi"or and "he
individual de0"or as o;ner and o=era"or o. ";o rela"ed cor=ora"ions engaged in "he sale o. insurance
;here "he credi"or could no" sho; "he requisi"e e*=ress or "echnical "rus" 0e";een "he =ar"ies. 'he
credi"( or had 0een inFured in an au"o@o0ile acciden" and o0"ained a de.aul" Fudg@en" agains" "he o"h(
er driver, ;ho ;as insured 0- an insolven" co@=an- "ha" sold insurance "hrough "he de0"orGs
cor=ora"ion. 'he credi"or "hen .iled a s"a"e cour" ac"ion agains" "he de0"or, individuall- and "hrough
his co@=anies, alleging "ha" he had in"en"ionall- engaged in a .raudulen" sche@e "o sell under.unded
insurance =olicies in viola"ion o. Cali.ornia la;, and o0"ained Fudg@en" agains" "he de0"or
co@=anies.O
Rule 7&1% )ed. R. Banr. 4., incor=ora"ing Rule 1% )ed. R. Civ. 4., =rovides a s"andard .or
"he a@end@en" o. =leadings. ,."er, ;here, as here, /e.endan" has alread- .iled a res=onsive
=leading, leave "o a@end should 0e gran"ed unless a@end@en" ;ould cause =reFudice "o "he o==osing
=ar"-, is sough" in 0ad .ai"h, is .u"ile, or crea"es undue dela-. Bohnson v. 9a@@o"h Recrea"ions, 97%
).2d +&4, +&7 A9"h Cir. 1992:. 3n "his case, 4lain"i.. should no" 0e accorded leave "o a@end i"s
- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
adversar- co@=lain" on all "hose accoun"s, and .ur"her, as 4lain"i.. and i"s counsel "horoughl- .ails "o
s=eci.- in an- de"ail ;ha"soever ;ha" addi"ional in.or@a"ion regarding /e.endan"Is ac"ions and "he
underl-ing Fudg@en" ca@e "o ligh" a."er "he .iling o. "he ini"ial adversar- =roceeding "ha" a si@=le
na@e search .or 1eller on 4acer or "he 0anru="c- doce"s or an- o"her a""e@="s a" @aing a
reasona0l- diligen" inquir- vis a vis Rule 9&11 ;ould have revealed. !=eaing o. 9&11, o==osing
counsel .ails "o ci"e "o a single case su==or"ing his "rul- crea"ive res Fudica"a argu@en", and "he sa@e
can 0e said, ;i"h ever @ore vigor a0ou" 4lain"i..Gs .ailure "o =rovide an- legal su==or" .or ;ha" see@s
"o 0e "heir con"en"ion "ha" 1eller ;as under so@e legal du"- "o 0eco@e a =s-chic and no; "ha" 3
-ears a."er "he close o. "he 0anru="c- 1eller .iled in 199& "ha" 1eller ;ould have a Fudg@en" agains"
hi@ in 'e*as in 199%, "hough 6GRoure @aes conclusor- asser"ions in his =leadings "ha" 1ellerGs
Olia0ili"- ;as clearO 0- "he "i@e "he 199& Ch. 7 .iling ;as ending Ano" clear enough, a==aren"l-, "o
=reven" over "hree @ore -ears "i@e =assing 0e.ore an- Fudg@en" ;as rendered agains" 1eller in
'e*as, "hough:, ho;ever, 6GRoure .ails "o ci"e even one case "ha" ;ould su==or" his argu@en" under
"hose circu@s"ances, even i. "he- could 0e =roven. 6GRoure .ailed "o ci"e a case .or ;ha" see@s "o
0e his argu@en" "ha" i. 1ellerGs lia0ili"- ;as clear vis a vis "he 'e*as @a""er, i" should have 0een
scheduled in "he 199& ,ri<ona 0anru="c- .iling 0- "he "i@e "ha" ended so@e"i@e in 1992, and "ha",
1ellerGs .ailure "o do so no; su0Fec"s hi@ "o "he cause o. ac"ion "ha" "he Cadle Co@=anno; sees "o
add 0- a@ending i"s original Co@=lain" in "his adversar- =roceeding. 4lain"i..Is a@end@en" ;ill
cer"ainl- dela- "he =roceedings even .ur"her since each cause o. ac"ion does no" su0s"an"iall- overla=
or rela"es 0ac "o "he original co@=lain". ,c"uall-, 6GRoure has no" even es"a0lished "ha" "his ne;
cause o. ac"ion does rela"e 0ac "o !69E'39E BE)6RE "he .iling o. "he original Co@=lain" in
'e*as Aagain, Cadle requiring 1eller "o 0e a =s-chic, a==aren"l-:. Pui"e si@=l-, "he de0" "ha"
- 11 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/e.endan" o;es 4lain"i.. could no" have =ossi0l- 0een lis"ed or scheduled 0- "he de0"or in his earlier
case in "he 2ni"ed !"a"es Banru="c- Cour" o. "he /is"ric" o. ,ri<ona and i" is
"here.ore dischargea0le under 11 2.!.C. E %23Aa:A1&:, ;hich reads "ha": OA1&: "ha" ;as or could have
0een lis"ed or scheduled 0- "he de0"or in a =rior case concerning "he de0"or under "his "i"le or under
"he Banru="c- ,c" in ;hich "he de0"or ;aived discharge, or ;as denied a discharge under sec"ion
727Aa:A2:, A3:, A4:, A%:, A+:, or A7: o. "his "i"le, or under sec"ion 14cA1:, A2:, A3:, A4:, A+:, or A7: o. such
,c"O.
Bid =ro"es"or ;ould 0e gran"ed leave "o .ile second a@ended co@=lain" a."er i" learned "ha"
con"rac" had 0een @odi.ied "hree "i@es a."er re(a;ard, no";i"hs"anding de.endan"sG o0Fec"ion "ha"
a@end@en" ;ould 0e .u"ile 0ecause Furisdic"ion ;as lacing over ne; clai@s ;hich alleged .ac"s
;hich occurred a."er con"rac" a;ard, as ne; clai@s alleged O@a"erialO =os"(a;ard changes "o "he
con"rac", allo;ing re"en"ion o. Furisdic"ion =ursuan" "o "he Co@=e"i"ion in Con"rac"ing ,c" AC3C,:.
3n.or@a"ion !ciences Cor=. v. 2.!., $& )ed. Cl. +4$ A2&&$:. , @o"ion "o a@end @a- 0e dee@ed .u"ile
i. a clai@ added 0- "he a@end@en" ;ould no" ;i"hs"and a @o"ion "o dis@iss. !hoshone 3ndian 'ri0e
o. "he Mind River Reserva"ion, M-o@ing v. 2.!., 71 )ed. Cl. 172 A2&&+:. , =lain"i.. ;ould no" 0e
allo;ed "o a@end a co@=lain" ;here a =lain"i..Gs clai@s ;ere 0arred 0- res Fudica"a or colla"eral
es"o==el and o"her;ise did no" co@e ;i"hin "he Furisdic"ion o. "he Cour" o. )ederal Clai@s, and "hus
.ur"her a@end@en" ;as .u"ile. !aladino v. 2.!., +2 )ed. Cl. 7$2 A2&&4:.
)inall-, de.endan" ;ill "horoughl- 0e =reFudiced as a grea" deal o. invasive discover- has
"aen =lace "o da"e alread- and Cadle has 0een =rovided conclusive =roo. "ha" 1ellerGs ;i.e should
no" 0e 0o"hered 0- "his li"iga"ion, @uch less 0e su0Fec" "o even @ore invasive ve*a"ion even 0e-ond
"he Rule 2&&4 e*a@ina"ion she has alread- 0een .orced "o su0@i" "o. !ince so ver- @uch "i@e has
no; =assed since "he .iling o. "his ,dversar- 4roceeding, no" "o @en"ion "he cou=le o. decades "ha"
- 12 -
To: B4599J51-JOle-4bdb-9Jac-65cJ1ba From: zachcoughlln 11-19-11 5:14pm p. 91 of 91

1 have passed since Keller's 1990 Arizona bankrutpcy filing, much less tha complete ad utter absence
2
of a nexus between that fling ad the 1995 Judgment in Texas, to say nothing of the reputation the
3
Cadle Compay have developed in State and beyond for scurrilous, vexatious litigation, the standards
4
of Rule 15 should yield an Order denying Plaintits Motion to Amend their Complaint.
5
6
III.
CONCLUSION
7
F or the reasons cited above, Defendant respectlly requests that this
C
ourt enter a Order
8
9
denying The Cadle Company's Motion to amend its Adversary Complaint and perhaps consider
10 whether Keller is due something for his trouble in opposing a motion that didn't bother to cite to
11
much in the way of legal authority in support of its contentions.
12
DA TED this 23rd day of November, 2011.
13
14
15
16
lsi Zachary Barker Coughlin
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.
17 Attorney for Defendant
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 13 -
OPPOSITION TO MTION TO A COMLINT IN ARA PROCEING
To. B4599357-307e-4bdh-93ac-65c32ba From, zachcouqh11n

12-19-11 5,24pm p. 91 of 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AD MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 23" 2011 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed
i hard copy with the Clerk of Cour i compliance with LR 5005, as the undersigned is not yet
registered to efile on the CM/ECF system. I filed and deposited i the U.S. Mail a true copy of the
within: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMLAINT IN ADVERSARY
PROCEDING to:
MICHAEL P. O'ROURKE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6764
O'ROURKE LAW GROUP, PC
800 Fifh Avenue, Suite 4100
Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone: (206) 477-1475
Facsimile: (206) 470-1150
orourkelawgrougail.com
BRIAN J. SMITH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11279
Of Counsel to O'ROURKE LAW
GROUP, PC
700 South Third Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: (702) 380-8248
Facsimile: (702) 382-7595
Attorneys fOI' Plaintif
Dated this 23th day of Noverber, 2011
- 14 -
/s/ Zach Cou
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Attorey for Defendant Keller
OPPOSITION TO MTION TO A CLNT IN AVR PROCEEING

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CASE NO.: 11 CR22176
DEPT. NO.: 4

' -1-
'
7
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO,
ClTY OF RENO
Plaintiff,
vs.
Defendant.
OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR NEW TRlAL
14 1
1
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The City of Reno, by and through John Kadlic, Reno City Attorey and Pamela Roberts,
Deputy City Attorey, opposes what appears to be Defendant Zachery Barker Coughlin's Motion
for New Trial. This Opposition is made pursuant to Reno Municipal Court Rule 4 and based on
the following Points and Authorities.
I. FACTS
POINTS AND AUTHORlTIES
On December IS, 2011 at approximately 3:4 6 PM, the City received a two page fax
(hereinafer "First Fax") from Defendant Zachary Barker Coughlin (hereinafer "Defendant").
See Declaration of Pamela Roberts. It appears to be a copy of an email Defendant sent to Deputy
24
25
26
27
28
City Attorey Chris Hazlett-Stevens, Deputy City Attorey Pamela Roberts and City Attorey
John Kadlic on Monday, December 12, 2011 at 9:52 PM. Id At the top of the First Fax is the
heading "Here is service of the Motion for a New Trial, Set Aside, Va [ sic]." Id at Exhibit A-I
and A- 2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On December 15, 2011 at approximately 4:01 PM, the City received a three page fax
(hereinafer "Second Fax") from Defendant. Id This Second Fax has a one page "FAX COVER
SHEET" which indicates "R: City of reno [sic] v Coughlin RMC 11 CR 22176 21 Motion for
New Trial." Id at Exhibit 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3. The second and third pages of the Second Fax are
virtually identical to the First Fax received at approximately 3:46 PM. Id
On December 19,2011 at approximately 5:21 PM, the City received a 92-page fax fom
Defendant. Id The frst page thereof has a court and cause of this case and is entitled "Notice of
Denial of Service; Opposition City of Reno's Notice of Denial of Service; Request for
Clarification Regarding Deadline for Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc.;
APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COST" (hereinafer
"Notice-Opposition-Request-Application"). Id The City presumes this has been filed with the
Court.
Contained therein is a "DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGHLIN" which contains two
references to a "Motion for a New Trial" and a "Motion for New Trial." See Notice-Opposition
Request-Application at "DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGHLIN" 3 and 15.
At 3, Defendant writes "I ... have faxed [Ms. Roberts] the December 13
th
Motion for a
New Trial, etc. to Ms. Roberts at her fax number." Id The City did not receive such a fax or
Motion for a New Tria. See Declaration of Pamela Roberts.
At 15, Defendant writes "He did indicate that 'they' said the Motion for New Trial that I
had recently filed was timely, . . " See Notice-Opposition-Request-Application at
"DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGHLIN" at 1 5. The City has not received proper service of
any filed Motion for New Trial. See Declaration of Pamela Roberts.
II. ARGUMENT
A.
The City Was Not Served With Any Motion for New Trial via the First Fax.
The First Fax is merely a copy of an alleged email. See Declaration of Pamela Roberts
and Exhibits A-I and A-2 thereto. There is no Motion for New Trial attached thereto. Id There
is no afidavit or affidavits and no points and authorities a is required by R.M.C.R. 4. Id
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B.
1

The City Was Not Served With Any Motion for New Trial via the Second
Fax.
The Second Fax has a Fax Cover Sheet and then is merely a copy of an alleged email. Id
There is no Motion for New Trial attached thereto. Id There is no afidavit or afidavits and no
points and authorities as is required by R.M.C.R. 4. Id
c. The City Has Not Been Properly Served - Indeed Has Not Received - Any
Motion For New Trial.
Defendant alleges in his Notice-Opposition-Request-Application tat he filed with the
Court and served via fax a Motion for New Trial upon Deputy City Attorey Roberts and the
City. The City is unawae if Defendant has in fact fled a Motion for New Trial with the Court.
The City denies it was served via fax and denies that it was served at all with any Motion for
New Trial fled on or about December 13 or 15,2011.
II. CONCLUSION
Any Moton for New Trial fled by Defendant on or about December 13 or IS, 2011
should be denied for failure to serve the City.
Respectfully submitted this 10f day of December, 2011.
JOHN 1. KADLIC
Reno City Attorey
By -- -
PAMELA ROBERTS
Deputy City Attorey
Reno City Attorey's Ofce
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
(775) 334-2050
1 DECLARATION OF PAMELA ROBERTS
2
STATE OF NEVADA
)
)
)
3
4
5
:ss
COUNTY OF WASHOE
I, Pamela Robers, declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to NRS 53.045 that
the following it true and correct:
6
7
8
1.
9 2.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 3.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I am the Deputy City Attorney for the City of Reno and the Reno City Attorney's
Office.
On December 15, 2011 at approximately 3:46 PM
1
, the City received a two page
fax (hereinafer "First Fax") from Defendant Zachary Barker Coughlin (hereinafer
"Defendant"). An accurate copy thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and A-
2. It appears to be a copy of an email Defendant sent to Deputy City Attorney
Chris Hazlett-Stevens, Deputy City Atorney Pamela Roberts and Cit Attorney
John Kadlic on Monday, December 12, 2011 at 9:52 PM. At the top of the First
Fax is the heading "Here is service of the Motion for a New Trial, Set Aside, Va
[sic]." See Exhibit A-1 and A-2 hereto.
On December 15, 2011 at approximately 4:01 PM
2
, the City received a three
page fax (hereinafer "Second Fax"
)
from Defendant. An accurate copy thereof is
attached hereto as Exhibit 81, B-2 and B-3. This Second Fax has a one page
"FAX COVER SHEET" which indicates "RE: City of reno [SiC] v Coughlin RMC 11
CR 22176 21 Motion for New Trial." See Exhibit 8-1. The second and third
pages of the Second Fax are virually identical to the First Fax received at
approximately 3:46 PM. See Exhibit B-2 and B-3.
1 The RECEIVED TIME stamp indicates 4:46 PM. However, on December 19,2011 at 2:45 PM, it was discovered
26
that the time stamp on the fax machine was off by one hour i.e., it stamped 3:45 PM when the time was actually 2:45
PM. Apparently, when Daylight Savings Time reverted to Standard Time on November 6, 2011, the time function
was not changed to reflect the reversion t Standard Time. The time stamp feature was corrected on December 19,
28
2011 at approximately 3:35 PM.
2 See Footnote 1 above.
27
1 4.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
5.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
e)

On December 19, 2011 at approximately 5:21 PM, the City received a 92-page
fax from Defendant. The first page thereof has a cour and cause of this case
and is entitled "Notice of Denial of Service; Opposition City of Reno's Notice of
Denial of Service; Request for Clarification Regarding Deadline for Filing Motion
For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc.; APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OR
WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COST' (hereinafer "Notice-Opposition
Request-Application"). The City presumes this has been filed with the Cour.
Contained therein is a "DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGHLIN" which contains
two references to a "Motion for a New Trial" and a "Motion for New Trial." See
Notice-Opposition-Request-Application at "DECLARATION OF ZACH
COUGHLIN" 13 and 115.
At 13, Defendant writes "I .. . have faxed [Ms. Roberts] the December
13th
Motion for a New Trial, etc. to Ms. Roberts at her fax number." The City did not
receive such a fax or Motion for a New Trial.
At 115, Defendant writes "He did indicate that 'they' said the Motion for New Trial
that I had recently filed was timely, .. . " See Notice-Opposition-Request
Application at "DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGHLIN" at 115. The City has not
received proper service of any filed Motion for New Trial.
Pursuant to NRS 53.045, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on December 20, 2011.
PAMELA ROBERTS
..... ........
: Hotail Print Message
from: zachcoughlin

..... .... p. 1 of 1
Page lof2
Here is service of the Motion for a New Trial, Set Aside,
Va
Frm: Zath Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.coml
Sent Mon 12/12/11 9:52 PM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
Is it about tme for you to get that CDJDVD tat Walmar'ts AP guy
Faustino handed the two Reno Sparks Indian Colony officers when tey
were leading te suspect away in cuffs ... not the video you gave me of
sling blade badgering the lawyer I got those two videos you gave me
which just te badgering in the interrogation room. I a talking about
te cd/dvd that Walmart's guy gave tem as they were walking
out.. .. Doesn't it seem like you really need to get tat now, to stay on the
rigt side of Nifong? You remember Nifong, don't you. Walma ap
guy sit tere on the stand, under penalty of perjuy and testif that no
video was collected in any way related t me or this case aside fom the
2 interrogation room videos you provided (with a highly suspect 14mb
"codec" program required t view te videos .... ca you indicate why
tat is necessary to watch a simple old .avi file?).
why did you subor the peIury of bot the walmart guy and the
ofcers regarding no oter video existing? I can't fgure that one out.
Ms. Roberts, don't you practice in RMC quite a bit? Maybe I a
confused, but doesn't te RMC rules permit serving a goverent
attorey such as yourself via email? What do you have against email?
It is economical for tose of use who don't have such public largesse to
work with. Here is service of te Motion for a New Trial, Set Aside,
Vacate, etc., etc:
httpsJskydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid-43084638f32f!f28&resid43084638F321!f28!1031&parid=root
Its only something like 1,000 pages.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia st #2
Reno, N 89501
tel: 775338 8118
fax: 9496677402
Licellsed il Nevada and USPO
** Notice'1 This message and accompanying document. are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy
Act 18 U S C. 2510-2521. and may contain confidential infonnaton intended for the specified individual (5)
only. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for dehvenng it to the Intended reciplent, you are
hereby notified that you have receIved this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the
taking of any action based on the contents of thIS mformation IS strictly prohibited This message ;s confidential,
intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privilesed, attorney work
EXHIBIT A-1
htt
p
:/
/
bjR(CE 1 V E 0 YE1
a
iO EC, 15. n '4: 4'6 'PM'in
t
Messages.aspx?cpids=8e4f3346-2207-426... 12115
/
2011
To: 4a777Jd6-eJa4-4e47-9478-J46a591
Hotal Prin
t
Message
f,om: zachcoughlln

1Z-15-11 3:49pm p. at l
Page 2 0[2
product or enmpt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are
notified that any disclosure, copylns, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or
are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and
destroy any copies in any form imediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(.) is not a
waiver of any attorey-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
Date: Mon,
EXHIBIT A-2
h
tt
p
:
/
/
bYR(eElVED 'fIMeai6 EC. 15. I
'
4: 4
'
6
Pin
t
Messages.aspx?cpids8e4D346-2207-426... 12
/
15
/
2011
Flom: zachcough!!n
zci
817 N. Virginia st #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fa: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Ba No: 9473
DATE: December 14, 211
TO; .PU Rbtrt, Rno City Altomey, 775 334 2420
FA NO: 775 334 2420
Numbr of pag indudg cover sheet 3
Oga wlnD follow.
HE:. Cit of reno v Coughlin RC 11 CR2176 21
ld N'
1
/
3
RECEIVED TIME DEC. 15. 5:01PM
FA CO SE

12-15-11 4:04pm p. 1 of]
EXHIBIT
B-1
To, 4a??73d6-e3a4-4e41-9418-346.91
December 15th, 2011
Dear Ms. Roberts,
From' lachcoughlln
Zch Coug. Esq.
817 N. Viga St #2
Rn, N 89501
Tel: please only comuncate i wb
fa 949667 74Q2
Lcensed i Nevada, N Ba No: 973

12-15-11 4,04pm p. 2 of J
Here is service 0 f the Motion for aNew Trial, Set
Aside,
Va
Frm: Zach Coughin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 9:52 PM
To: hazlett-stevel'sc@rel'o.gov; robertsp@rel'o.gov; kadlicj@rel'o.gov
Is it about time for you to get that CDIDVD that Walmar'ts AP guy
Faustino handed the two Reno Sparks Indian Colony ofcers when they
were leading the suspect away in cufs ... not te video you gave me of
sling blade badgering the lawyer I got tose two videos you gave me
which just te badgering in te iterrogation room. I am talking about
the cd/dvd that Walmart's guy gave them as they were walking
out.. .. Doesn't it seem like you really need to get that now, to stay on te
right side of Nifong? You remember Nifong, don't you. Walmart ap
guy sit there on the stand, under penalty of peIury and testif that no
video was collected in any way related to me or this case aside from the
2 interogation room videos you provided (with a highly suspect 14mb
"codec" program required to view the videos .... can you indicate why
that is necessary to watch a simple old .avi fle?).
why did you subor the peIjury of both the walmart guy and the
oficers regarding no other video existing? I can't figure that one out.
Ms. Roberts, don't you practice in RMC quite a bit? Maybe I am
confused, but doesn't the RMC rules perlit serving a goverment
2/3
EXHIBIT i-2
RECEIVED TIME DEC. 15. 5:01PM
To: 4.1113d6-eJ.4-4e41-9418-J46.591 From: zachcoughlln
11-15-11 4:04pm p. J of J
)

attorey such as yourself via email? Wat do you have against email?
It is economical for those of use who don't have such public largesse to
work with. Here is service of the Motion for a New Trial, Set Aside,
Vacate, etc., etc:
h ttps:! /skydrive *live#c mired ir.aspx? cid =43084638 f32f5 f28&resid =43084638 F32 FS F28! 1031&pa rid = roo t
Its only something like 1,000 pages.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 8 9501
tel: 775338 8118
fax: 949667 7402
* Notice* This message and accompnying documents are covered by the electroruc Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U S.c. 2510-2521, and may contain canidentialmfonnatlOn intended for the speclfied mdividual (s)
only. If you are not the intended reciplent or an agent responsible for deliveri ng it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you have received this document m error and that any review, dlsseminal1on, copying, or the
takg of any action based on the contents of this information i strictly prohibIted. This message is confdental,
intended only for the named recpient(s) and may contin informaton that is privileged, attorney
work
Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 2
product or exempt fom discosure under applicble law. If you are not the intended recpient(s),
you are
notifed that any disclosure, copying, distribution ar any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on
the content of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this mesage in
eror, or
are not the named recipient(s), please notif te sender, delete this e-mail fom your computer,
and
destoy any cpies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other tan the named redpient(s)
is not a
waiver of any attorney-cient work product or other applicable privilege.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
3/3
RECEIVED TlME DEC. 15. 5:01PM
EXHIBIT B-3
.)

1
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify I am an employee of the Reno City Attorey's ofce,
3
and on this date, I placed a copy of the foregoing OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR NEW
4
TRIAL in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing in the United States Mail at Reno,
5
Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary business practices addressed to:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St., #2
Reno, Nevada 89501
DATED this day of December, 2011.

Or/G/Nal: Zachary Barker Coughlin, Appellant, vs. Case No. Dept

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Or/G/Nal: Zachary Barker Coughlin, Appellant, vs. Case No. Dept

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

,,

P!Lb/NPKbHPLb PHL PLL LL\KJ bP

'"' <i '

KALLb PHL LL LKLLL KLKPN

of Reno on this date, a true and correct copy and further

DECLARATION OF PAMELA G. ROBERTS

! ccOlLcNl OlbcIV0c L OtON C Ol

' "ae eeram1etet.steviaeamhetDiseevetye|e+t|ysaewsVa|-Mat.sPtea.iaee:aas

J2 tolling +otion un0"r

U2 tolling +otion un0"r

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi