1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
4185
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
HONORABLE LIDIA S. STIGLICH
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case Nos. CR12-2025 & CR13-0614
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Department No. 8
Defendant.
-------------------------/
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Status hearing
August 23, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For the State: Zachary Young
Deputy District Attorney
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada
For the Defendant: Pro per
Reported by: Isolde Zihn, CCR #87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
RENO, NEVADA, FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2013, 2:00 P.M.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
MR. COUGHLIN: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Have a seat.
We're here on two separate matters today.
I'd like to start with Coughlin versus State, case
number CR12-2025.
Mr. Young is present, on behalf of the State.
MR. YOUNG: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
Mr. Coughlin is representing himself here --
MR. COUGHLIN: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: -- as I understand it.
I had an opportunity to review the case -- review the
docket, rather. This is an appeal from a conviction in Reno
Justice Court. We've kind of referred to it here as an
iPhone case.
I had an opportunity to review the judge's orders
that were previously issued and the motions. And here's what
I see is still out there.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. COUGHLIN: May I just quickly interject, please?
THE COURT: Sure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't mean to belabor the point.
Maybe I can just make this a continuing request.
But may I record the proceedings?
THE COURT: You may not.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. And with all due respect, I'll
just indicate -- not indicating one way or another whether
I'm recording, unless you really want me to -- but under
RPC -- I think it's 3.5, an open refusal, to the extent that
I don't know that permission is even required. I know
Supreme Court Rule 229 speaks to requesting permission, but I
believe that applies to reporters.
I don't know that parties are -- I just don't know.
And, obviously, this has become a very salient issue in my
life, because one of the bases for continuing to disbar me
right now is Dorothy Nash Holmes has alleged that I lied to
her with respect to whether or not I was recording. And then
my -- I was arrested and summarily incarcerated. Then a day
later my property was retrieved from the jail by the
Municipal Court marshals. Not in a Diaz search incident to
arrest, but subsequent to that, but --
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, let me stop you for a
moment.
I understand your concerns. The woman who is sitting
in front of me is the court-certified court reporter. She is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
present to record these proceedings.
If it is necessary that you need a transcript of this
proceeding, you can make that request of the Court, and do so
at public expense. But she gets paid to do this. And if
everybody is just recording the proceedings, she's out of a
job. So that's one thing.
So she's the only authorized person in here right now
to record those proceedings. And her transcript is the one
that is the official transcript of proceeding. So any other
recording or whatever is not the official transcript.
So if there's concern to you about access of what is
said at this proceeding, I can alleviate that. So I
understand that you've requested to record it. And I'm going
to deny that request. If you determine, at the end of this
proceeding, that you'd like a transcript of this at public
expense, please remind me, make that request, and I'll look
at it as well.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, it's the word "request"
that I'm a bit hung up on.
I've become well-versed in the battle between what is
referred to as ER -- electronic recording -- and the role of
a certified court reporter is, whom I have great respect for.
In fact, in my disciplinary hearing, having the audio was not
sufficient. And, in fact, a certified court reporter very
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
much still had a job there, because those were not admitted
into evidence, despite the fact that I obtained -- sometimes
at my own expense, or at my mother's, through subterfuge,
upon my being denied such by the Municipal Court.
You said "request." If you deny my request, then --
and I don't even necessarily need a certified version. If I
just had the rough drafts or something, it would help me.
But to the extent that it's just some request, I would make
that request now.
THE COURT: Then your request is granted.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: So let's move forward.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Having gone through the case,
I've had a couple -- what I note as the pending motions.
One pending motion is a motion to strike RJC record
on appeal and transcripts, and motion to compel RJC to
release sealed portions of transcripts filed on May 6th.
That's one pending motion.
I would note that, earlier in this case -- and
perhaps this is the one you were referring to the other day,
Mr. Young -- earlier in this case, Judge Elliott granted a
motion by Mr. Coughlin to request preparation of transcripts
at public expense. See, that's an order that Judge Elliott
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
6
made.
Was that complied with? Do we know if the
transcripts were ever prepared, or what needs to happen on
that? I'm sorry. I don't have --
MR. YOUNG: No, that's fine. Personally, I don't
even know which transcripts he was referring to. We have
multiple cases, multiple hearings in each case. So,
candidly, I don't know.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COUGHLIN: I can speak to that.
THE COURT: Well, what I see here in the papers, I
see -- he made the order on January 9th, 2013. And that, in
your motion to strike, et al., you indicated that you wanted
transcripts from -- particularly, you listed May 7th, 2012;
July 16th, 2012; 8/27, 2012; 8/29, 2012; 9/5, 2012; 11/19,
2012 and 11/20, 2012. Those are the ones that you listed.
And then, subsequent to that, there is an order by
Judge Elliott granting transcripts at public expense. So I'm
not certain if -- it came after those -- if he was referring
to those or not.
Are those the hearings on this matter? Are those the
dates, Mr. Coughlin, you're requesting a transcript of?
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I was requesting every
hearing in this matter.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7
I believe the ones you just indicated did not
reference a hearing of 11/8 and 11/13.
THE COURT: But I want to tell you, those are from
your motion, asking for transcripts from RJC hearings in this
case, and you say particularly these dates.
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, it's somewhat mute at this
point, because there have been a great deal of transcripts
prepared. If I can just quickly give sort of an outline of
what's going on here.
THE COURT: Please.
MR. COUGHLIN: Judge Elliott did grant that motion.
I mean, his order, that's a profound order. That's an
expensive order. That's a message -- if you ask me -- to a
lot of people.
Okay. After initially having my first case with
Judge Elliott, being one -- the second Washoe Legal Services
lawsuit, where I also sued CAAW, which runs the TPO office
for the Second Judicial District Court -- the same CAAW that
Judge Elliott sat as the president of their executive board
on -- unbeknownst to me -- throughout that litigation, which
is CV11-01955, which went on to appeal, 60317 -- he never
indicated to me he was on CAAW's board, didn't recuse
himself, dismissed my case for insufficient service of
process. Then he sanctioned me, alleging he got to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
8
merits of my Complaint, despite the fact that it was
dismissed without getting to the merits. It wasn't a 12 (b)
(6). It was a 12 (b), (3) or (4) that he granted.
That being said, on his final day in office, Judge
Elliott -- okay. That was a different order, on 3/8. But
that January 9th order, he did enter that.
To narrow it down and to stay focused, what you asked
me to address is the transcripts.
Regardless of what I asked to be prepared, regardless
of what he said should be prepared, what has been prepared is
a couple versions of that. One, the RJC -- speaking of ER
and the role of CRCs, in the RJC, it's my understanding, that
some of their own employees prepare quasi-transcripts.
And I've gotten very adept in the certification
thereon. They're by people with a first name; and sometimes
a last initial, sometimes not. "Transcript prepared by
Kathy."
It's like if you call T-Mobile, and you ask who you
were speaking with, the rep would say, "Well, this is Jan."
"Can I know which call center you're in?" "No, you can't."
Okay.
But these are people who work for courts that issue
convictions that take away law licenses. Or do worse. I
understand some perspective here. I understand there's some
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9
perspective here to be had in my case. And mine isn't life
or death.
THE COURT: Well, I think my question is: What
transcripts are you missing?
MR. COUGHLIN: They've been prepared.
THE COURT: They have been prepared.
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, at this point, the RJC has
prepared ones for, I believe, the 5/7 date, the 7/16 date
9/5, 11/19, 11/20. Whereas Sunshine Litigation has gone
and -- at this point, just one being filed yesterday -- in
fact, has prepared certified court reporter official
transcripts for 5/7, I believe, 7/16, 9/5/12, 10/22/12,
11/8/12, 11/13/12, and now, most recently, 11/19/12, with
only one day, I believe -- maybe more -- but at least the
last day of trial, 11/20/12, I believe they're finishing
right now.
THE COURT: What about 8/27 and 8/29?
MR. COUGHLIN: I was remiss. Those were prepared
both, I believe, by RJC and by Sunshine.
Now, Judge Pearson, Chief Judge Pearson at RJC,
indicated to me during one of my probation hearings incident
to this case, for which he's not releasing the audio even to
me -- which relates to another case, CR13-0552, which I
believe Mr. Young could be here on today, if that's a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
mandamus petition that Judge Sattler struck -- and it relates
to one of the other cases --
THE COURT: He's not on that matter today.
MR. COUGHLIN: We are on CR13-0614 today?
THE COURT: Yeah. But right now we're on CR12-2025.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: That's the one we're talking about.
MR. COUGHLIN: They kind of bled together a little
bit. But that's where the state of the transcripts are, at
this point.
THE COURT: Okay. So it sounds like -- with the
exception of one, it sounds like it's still being prepared;
you received the transcripts. All right.
Now, you had mentioned in this motion that there was
a sealed portion of a transcript filed on May 6th. What is
that?
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honor. I believe there's
several dates here. And these go into -- I think it's
Stankowicz and Marsden issues that relate to competency
issues.
MR. YOUNG: Can I get the citation for the Marsden
case?
MR. COUGHLIN: There are filings on file with -- I
think it's Marsden, or Marsten.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
THE COURT: Marsden: M-a-r-s-d-e-n.
MR. YOUNG: Is that a California case?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COUGHLIN: They interplay between ineffective
assistance of counsel, one seeking to be their own counsel,
competency orders, in which orders those are addressed. And
I believe Miss -- I don't want any of these sealed anymore,
particularly given the fact that what medications I take has
been made exceedingly public, given Judge Elliott's --
THE COURT: So you're asking --
MR. COUGHLIN: Not so much Elliott's, but Dogan's
saying it on the record.
THE COURT: So are you asking that the sealed
portions of the transcript that relate to your Marsden motion
or hearing, which is -- which the reason that's sealed is
because that relates to your relationship with your
counsel -- that be opened; understanding, then, that that
would be available equally to the prosecution?
And I wasn't at that motion, so I don't know what was
discussed. And, also, if there's a sealed portion that
relates to competency, if that's -- if that is unsealed,
then, again, that would be made available equally to
Mr. Young.
Is it your request that -- I don't have that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12
document --
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't want anything sealed, at all,
in any of my cases.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COUGHLIN: I want no sealing.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COUGHLIN: Just quickly, because I believe it's
related to that. Subsequently, in this very case that's
being appealed, I'm subject to a probation.
Now, I had moved for a stay of probation in this
appeal, which was stricken from the records for some reason
that I still don't understand -- something to do with WDCR
10, which is a civil rule. So that was a 3/8/13 Judge
Elliott struck my motions, which I would move, if I haven't
already, for those to be reinstated.
But to get back to the transcripts, RJC is
steadfastly refusing to release to me a key transcript in
this case that is from 2/5/13. That relates to: I was
arrested three times in 12 days in February.
THE COURT: But here's the thing: And whether or not
that proceeding, Mr. Coughlin, that 2/5/13 motion, has
anything to do with some other matter, you're appealing a
conviction that occurred on November 20th, 2012. So this
case number -- I'm not saying that 2/5/13 may not connect 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
13
some other matter that you have. But it's not on this case.
MR. COUGHLIN: Oh, I believe it has cellular
importance to this case.
THE COURT: To your appeal?
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
THE COURT: Or to the merits? What?
MR. COUGHLIN: To both.
THE COURT: How?
MR. COUGHLIN: Absolutely. What's going on with
respect to that: one, that audio that I'm requesting is in
the very case that's being appealed here.
THE COURT: Which case?
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, this is CR25. That's the appeal
of RCR 11-63341.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COUGHLIN: So it's the same case that's on
appeal. True, the chronology is that I'm requesting a
hearing from 2/5/13 and the convictions from 11/20/12, but I
believe that there's still -- it still bears great
significance to what is going on, this --
THE COURT: Well --
MR. COUGHLIN: -- obstruction by the RJC.
THE COURT: It bears no significance to what is going
on in your appeal of this conviction that occurred 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
14
November 20th, 2012. Because this Court is limited in what
it can review in front of an appeal. I don't understand how
the 2/5 hearing has any bearing --
MR. COUGHLIN: Irregularities in proceeding has
significance in the law, I believe. Not to say that it did,
but if I was walking down the street yesterday, and Judge
Pearson pistol-whipped me across the face, that would kind of
tend to cast a pall over previous rulings, I would think, by
him, even though they're subsequent to the one on appeal.
I'm not saying -- he didn't do that. But there's
been some significant irregularities that occurred in that
very case that I think absolutely have significance to this
case and are relevant.
THE COURT: You'd be asking me to take evidence on
your appeal. I'm not going to take evidence on your appeal.
I am going to review the record on appeal and have your legal
arguments about why it should be, you know, overturned or
not.
But with respect to the 2/5, I'm not saying it may
not have some relevance in another proceeding that you have.
I know you have multiple proceedings. But in this one, I'm
not going to order that transcript.
Sounds like the other ones have all been done.
MR. COUGHLIN: Not at public expense. But I'm just
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
saying the release of the audio to me, simply.
THE COURT: Well, here's the thing: You can always
go get an audio --
MR. COUGHLIN: No, I can't.
THE COURT: -- of a hearing and pay for it.
MR. COUGHLIN: No, I can't. Not that one. Judge
Pearson -- Judge Pearson and Judge Clifton are buckling down
on this, because it relates to extra-judicial, impermissible
communications on 2/5/13, wherein they violated the stay
under NRS 178.405, in conjunction with Mr. Young, who
candidly, at least, did mention the statute says "shall."
But Judge Clifton proceeded anyway.
If you give me 20 seconds to set this up. I was
arrested on 2/1. I bailed out. I had a trial on 2/5, before
Judge Pearson. Thirty minutes before that, I had a hearing
on the arrest for probation violation before Judge -- I mean,
before Judge Clifton. Judge Pearson hearing 30 minutes
before that. I got my order for competency stayed. I went.
It was delivered in writing to Judge Clifton, requiring
suspension of the trial.
THE COURT: Suspension of what trial?
MR. COUGHLIN: The one on appeal in 0614.
THE COURT: But I'm not on 0614.
MR. COUGHLIN: I know. But you're on 2025 --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
16
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. COUGHLIN: -- and that's the hearing where the
competency order issued was in the case that became 2025,
63341, before Judge Pearson.
And so I went to the hearing -- after getting the
competency order from Judge Pearson, I went to the trial
before Judge Clifton. And Zach Young objected to the stay,
and he was able to get Judge Pearson to come back on the
bench. Then I sua sponte essentially interrogated Judge
Pearson --
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this.
MR. COUGHLIN: -- "What was said to you in chambers?"
And he wouldn't answer me.
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. One moment.
Here's the thing: On the motion -- on that motion,
it appears that the transcript -- the order of Judge Elliott
granting transcripts at public expense was granted; that the
appropriate transcripts, pursuant to his order, were provided
or are in the process of being prepared. It sounds like one
maybe is not all the way complete.
The Court is going to decline to provide any further
transcripts after the date of conviction, which is November
20th, 2012 --
MR. COUGHLIN: But, Your Honor --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
THE COURT: -- at this time.
Yes.
MR. COUGHLIN: With respect to what that order says
specifically, it's a short order, but it -- for my purposes,
it's very important to know exactly what it says.
It says, "Any necessary pleading, process or paper
involved," I think, in the issuance. I don't necessarily --
THE COURT: Well, I've made a determination at this
time that this is not one of those papers -- one of those
items. Therefore, at this time, I'm denying that request.
I am going to grant your other request in that motion
for a 60-day extension to file your opening brief. That's
from today's date.
Therefore, the emergency ex-parte motion for
extension of time to file opening brief that was filed on May
10th, that request is now moot. However -- and your request
to exceed pay limitations is denied.
You have a petition for extraordinary writ or motion
for extension of time, filed on July 31st, 2013. Request
extension of time to file opening brief. That's moot.
It requests a waiver of E-flex filing fees. I'm
going to grant that motion.
It has a request regarding publication of transcripts
at public expense. That is moot, in light of the Court'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
18
rulings so far.
MR. COUGHLIN: Just to be clear, Your Honor, that was
requested -- some of these -- Your Honor, some of these
petitions for writ are getting -- from my point of view --
summarily ruled on as mute or -- but these are seeking a lot
of different things, and what they're -- and I think a lot of
these things are not unripe, they're not mute. I was
requesting transcripts in other matters.
Further, that's a 7/31 petition for writ. That was
subsequent to the 7/22/13 petition for writ, which this Court
has continued to not file.
I don't have a copy of -- the Court said it would
give me a copy of that when it was left that day, the one
that had the disk on it.
THE COURT: You asked me to make a copy of it. I
did. The original is back there somewhere.
MR. COUGHLIN: I'll be afforded a copy of that?
THE COURT: You can have it back, yes.
MR. COUGHLIN: And the Court is retaining a copy of
the disk, as well?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: The motion and petition/writ requiring
second JD and/or E-flex's viability to E-file and access all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
of his cases is granted in part and denied in part.
It's granted to the extent that you're granted
E-filing privileges in this case.
It's denied as to all of your cases. So only in the
cases in which the Court makes a specific order and we file
the paperwork and do have access.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COUGHLIN: -- can we address that --
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. COUGHLIN: -- to the extent that Mr. Young is
here, on any cases in which the District Attorney's office
criminal matters is a party, wherein I'm a party. That would
include CR13-0552, CR12-2025, CR13-0614 and CR13-1332.
THE COURT: At this time, I'm just going to handle
them case by case.
So today, in CR12-2025, I'm going to grant the
E-filing, and basically waive the fees for E-filing. I'll
give you the order that you need to effectuate that. We'll
take it up in our cases as it arises.
MR. COUGHLIN: I appreciate that, Your Honor.
The last note I'll make on that is that Judge
Elliott's order essentially requiring thousands and thousands
of dollars or transcript was entered on 1/9/13. It's now
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
20
been over eight months that this Court has denied me
electronic access -- even in that very case -- to those
materials, which I believe his order required. I believe my
reading of that order required for myself to be afforded
E-flex access. And it's been a great prejudice to me -- in
this matter particularly -- that I have not been able to file
and/or access materials there.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Coughlin.
Then there's an emergency motion for issuance of a
writ; or, in the alternative, order to show cause, that was
filed on July 31st, 2013. And, again, these are kind of my
shorthand to kind of see what the issues are. It's a request
for order requiring Julie Wise to obey SCR 110 and WDCR 18.
I'm not sure what you're asking the Court to do.
Miss Wise, in the filing office, has an obligation to
follow the rules. I don't have any indication that they're
not. So I just don't know that this is ripe for me to deal
with. If you can bring me a specific instance in this case
in which there's problem, we'll deal with it.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. But so in -- I'm not getting
real specific rulings here on what is being denied. I'm just
getting everything wholesale is being denied.
THE COURT: Actually, no. I granted your 60-day
extension of time to file an opening brief.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
21
MR. COUGHLIN: That's true.
THE COURT: Even though Judge Elliott had previously
granted you a 60-day extension of time to file a brief, and
you failed to file a brief within that 60 days. Nonetheless,
I have granted you an extension from today of 60 days date --
of 60 days from today's date.
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm speaking more to the petitions for
writ, rather than the motions -- which I do appreciate what
you've granted so far, Your Honor. I don't mean to --
THE COURT: One petition for writ was for extension
of time. I've granted that. And/or E-flex. I've granted
that. Publication of transcripts, that's previously been
granted. Another writ for access to E-flex, I've granted
that.
And now we're talking an emergency motion for
issuance of a writ. That in the absence of some specific --
you're asking me to do something. Now you're asking me to do
this -- direct court employees to follow the law. I expect
court employees to follow the law. If you are directing me
to a specific instance in this case that I -- which I have
jurisdiction over, where some misfeasance, malfeasance, or
otherwise has been committed by the filing office, then that
would be something that I can do something about. But that's
not what I have here. In essence, I'm saying that it's kind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
22
of vague, kind of a vague request: Ask Julie to do what
she's supposed to do. And I can tell you, with respect to
Miss Wise, I have done that.
MR. COUGHLIN: Absolutely. Okay. If I may have
leave to --
THE COURT: Please.
MR. COUGHLIN: -- to get this Court something much
more organized, much more specific, shorter. Some of the
exigencies of being arrested 20 times since August, '11 have
resulted in kind of kitchen sink petitions for writ, which I
can understand.
But to the extent -- what I'm afraid of is having --
if I now file a very tailored, specific writ, having somebody
say, "You already moved for that, so you can't," I'd seek
leave of court to get the Court something with respect to
these writs that's more appropriately formed, and specific
and tailored, and not have -- a motion once made cannot be
made, any type of application be made thereto.
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, you are representing
yourself. I'm giving you E-flex access. You have the
ability to file whatever motions you think are appropriate.
And I'd urge you, however, as you've indicated, that you will
make every effort to try to make them concise, less kitchen
sink. I think it's clear we're trying give you the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
opportunity on all of these cases, if you can get organized.
You don't need to do a kitchen sink. Be specific as to each
case about what the issue in that case is, so we can deal
with it, as soon as we have the right lawyer on the other
side to deal with it. If there's a problem on something
particular in one case, we can handle it. That's what I'm
here for.
There's no caps on what you can and can't file. You
can have any access that any litigant has to this proceeding.
I've ruled on these motions. They don't preclude you
from filing other motions.
Does that make sense?
MR. COUGHLIN: I understand, Your Honor. But, just
briefly, from my perspective, district attorney Young files a
Complaint in this matter. That's on appeal, CR12-2025. He
alleges receiving stolen property. He doesn't allege from
who. He doesn't allege how the defendant would know that the
property he allegedly received from somebody else -- I'm
talking about Shep v. State and Staub -- so he submits --
we're talking about my kitchen sink approach, allegedly.
Well, his Complaint had a very kitchen sink approach. Even
at the end of the trial he still didn't understand Staub and
Shep v. State, in the fact that it's receiving -- a thief
can't receive the fruit of his own larceny.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
So where he -- where they're alleging I stole an item
from the owner directly, it's settled law in Nevada -- Staub
v. State, Shep -- that a thief cannot receive the fruit of
his own larceny. I was convicted there.
But I just wish to make that point: that I believe
it kind of goes both ways, where he's throwing out the
kitchen sink. As overly long as mine are, his are overly
short, and unsupported by the facts.
THE COURT: When you file your opening appellate
brief, I'm sure you are going to raise all the issues that
will need to be raised; then Mr. Young will have an
opportunity to address them; and I can have more informed
conversations with both parties.
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion to proceed in forma pauperis
was previously granted by Judge Elliott, so that is moot.
The final motion that I see -- again, this is a
status hearing -- is a motion for order to show cause holding
Mr. Young in contempt for suborning perjury.
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. If I can, just
quickly.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't mean to interrupt. But we've
had several -- the Court has issued several of these motions
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
to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The problem, from
my perspective, is when I -- when I'm interacting with the
filing office, there is a default stance that the filing
office takes that such an order only means your filing fee is
waived, period.
Now, I've recently delved deeply in the body of case
law as to what indigent criminal defendants and criminal
appellants are able to get at public expense.
For instance, I would request co-counsel here to
assist me. I've been denied that co-counsel, it seems, in
every instance.
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, I can appoint you counsel
at any time. But I cannot appoint you co-counsel.
MR. COUGHLIN: Is there some mandatory authority that
says that; or is it --
THE COURT: Let me correct that. I'm not going to
appoint you co-counsel. I will appoint you counsel, if you
desire counsel. Otherwise, you're representing yourself,
which you have a right to do.
MR. COUGHLIN: And I just submit that under Welby and
Leighton this Court has discretion to so appoint me
co-counsel. In the interest of judicial economy, I believe
that might be well-indicated to do so here. Particularly
where you have someone like me -- granted, a suspended
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
attorney in Nevada -- but someone who has no criminal law
background whatsoever.
THE COURT: If you have no criminal law background,
it might behoove you to have experienced criminal counsel
being your lawyer, don't you think?
MR. COUGHLIN: There's a certain domestic violence
aspect to how these courts have approached this co-counsel
argument. It's all or nothing. It's very powering control.
It's no way; no way. You can't have co-counsel and benefit
from that. It's either this guy, Jim Leslie, runs the ship
completely, to the point where he can malevolently attempt to
purposefully establish some exception to 171.136 in his
cross-examination of Goble; or you get to go on your own,
alone, with absolutely no assistance from anybody. I don't
understand that approach.
Welby and Leighton certainly provide this Court with
discretion to allow for such. It's not a case where I
automatically have a malpractice suit, if things don't go my
way, against co-counsel. That's far from the case. In fact,
it seems more the case that the same immunity accorded to the
judiciary and the prosecution is now commonly accorded to the
public defenders.
I just don't understand the blanket refusal to allow
me co-counsel in all the settings in which I've requested 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
27
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, may I?
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Coughlin.
MR. YOUNG: If I can respond to that aspect of it.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. YOUNG: There is case law -- and I know you made
your ruling -- but there is case law which says that a
defendant is not entitled to a hybrid representation.
And if I could just read one quote from the Wheby --
W-h-e-b-y -- that's 95 Nevada 567. It's a 1979 case.
Overruled on other grounds, but good on this point.
It says that, "The Nevada Supreme Court has" --
quote -- "previously determined that, although a criminal
defendant may have both the right of self-representation and
a right to assistance of counsel, this does not mean that a
defendant is entitled to have his case presented in court
both by himself and by counsel acting at the same time, or,
alternatively, at the defendant's pleasure."
We have addressed this matter extensively at the
Justice Court level. I just want to raise the same
objection. You've already ruled on it. But let the State's
objection know that we would oppose any sort of co-counsel.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Young.
Okay. So, in this case, we're left with the motion
for order to show cause regarding attorney Young in contempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
for suborning perjury, filed August 14th, 2013.
And with all due respect, Mr. Coughlin, the motion,
at least from my perspective -- I'm kind of the reader that
matters on it -- was unintelligible. I'm not able to discern
what your allegations are, what you're asking.
At this time, I'm going to strike that motion under
NRCP 12 (f), without prejudice. You can refile it, if you
can clarify and give me something that I can understand. So
to the extent that those are -- some of those are my
deficiencies, I apologize. But they are reality. I can't
understand what it is you're asking or what you're alleging.
Okay.
So with respect to CR12-2025, that's the order of the
Court.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. YOUNG: Again, I understand the Court has made
its ruling with respect to this last motion. If I could just
briefly --
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. YOUNG: -- put on the record the State's
position.
I also received the motion that you just referenced,
asking to hold myself in contempt for suborning perjury.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
My review of what is attached to the -- in the title
that you have read is essentially all that's listed on the
front page. What is attached by Mr. Coughlin is a 72-page
motion, which he had previously -- it appears -- either
printed or filed in Reno Municipal Court -- which I, myself,
and my office have absolutely no dealings with.
And so the State's concern, Your Honor, is that
Mr. Coughlin files this with a pretty heavy accusation of
suborning perjury. It's obviously something that myself and
my office doesn't take lightly. With absolutely zero support
for. I flipped through. I didn't even see my name listed in
here once. I have never had any dealings with Municipal
Court. I deal with Justice Court of Reno and Washoe County
District Court. So I want the record just complete here.
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. YOUNG: That while you've already struck this, I
certainly oppose and object to it. I, frankly, was going to
ask the Court to consider sanctions against Mr. Coughlin for
such a belligerent accusation, with zero supporting
documentation. But since you've already struck it, I'll
leave it at that.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
All right. With respect to case number CR13-0614,
there's a petition for extraordinary writ or motion for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
extension of time that's filed on July 31st, 2013. I think
it also comes under the category of one of the omnibus-type
motions, Mr. Coughlin, that you have filed in other cases.
The difference about this one as it relates to this
case number is, I cannot ascertain what this relates to. I
don't have any idea, just based upon my read of it, what case
you're appealing from. It's entitled, "Coughlin versus
State." But I'm unclear what particular case you're
appealing from.
There is an 858-page document that you filed,
entitled, "Justice Court criminal appeal proceedings." I
believe it's what initiated the case. But that document
itself has proceedings from a number of different Reno
Justice Court cases.
So it's my -- it was my intention to strike this
pleading and close this case. That's my intent.
MR. COUGHLIN: On the appeal?
THE COURT: I don't even know what you're appealing,
Mr. Coughlin. I can't understand what this case is.
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, it shouldn't be up to me -- I
mean, this Court shouldn't be only able to tell what is being
appealed from what I indicated. I would think that's the
function of the Justice Court transmitting a record on
appeal.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
31
You're saying CR13-0614?
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. COUGHLIN: My appeal of SCR 111, a serious
offense conviction that could per se result in a disbarment.
THE COURT: I'm listening. We're paper-free. So if
I haven't printed a paper, I have to go get a thing. So
please continue to talk. I can do both at the same time.
MR. COUGHLIN: That's an appeal of a conviction from
4/2/13, for resisting a public officer, which, I believe,
under Staub authority, is considered a serious offense. SCR
111 is the rule that says attorneys convicted of crimes have
to report it. And then bar counsel, if it's a serious -- has
to file a petition. If it contains certain elements of the
crime, it's considered a serious offense resulting in, I
believe, a mandatory suspension, and then referral for
disciplinary proceedings.
So this case is one where I strongly believe
publication of transcript at public expense is indicated.
Where the State is seeking -- the State -- the State
originally -- I accepted a plea agreement here.
MR. YOUNG: I object to that.
MR. COUGHLIN: Then the State specifically pled the
charge down to take advantage of SCR 111, (6) where they
originally charged misusing 911.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
This case, absolutely, from my point of view, must
be -- the transcript at public expense must be prepared. And
I'd ask that this, over any other case or request on my part,
be granted.
And that, further, in this case -- now, this goes
back to that 2/5/13 date, where there was some interplay
between Judge Clifton and Judge Pearson, in these two cases
that we're addressing today, or the appeals thereof, with
respect to extra-judicial, impermissible communications
between the two, resulting in further violation of the
competency order stay.
But it's my -- I can't understand how this case would
be closed.
THE COURT: Well --
MR. COUGHLIN: The briefs haven't even been filed.
THE COURT: There's nothing filed here that is -- I
can't tell what that is. No, that's not a filing issue. The
issue is: I can't tell what it is; I can't tell what it
relates to.
MR. COUGHLIN: What case are we referring to?
THE COURT: I don't see a notice of appeal. I have
no idea -- now, look. I've gone through every one of these.
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't know what case number we are
talking about.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
33
THE COURT: We are talking about CR13-0614. And
here's the entire document. It's listed -- one document is
dead. I can't pull it up. Do you know which one I'm
referring to?
MR. COUGHLIN: I believe --
THE COURT: 0614.
MR. COUGHLIN: I believe it's the appeal of RCR
12-65630, a conviction -- the docket should -- the first
filing in the docket should be something -- the Justice Court
appeal from RJC, somewhere around 4/10, 4/6, I'd imagine.
THE COURT: Do you have a copy of it?
MR. COUGHLIN: Of the docket?
THE COURT: Of the Justice Court appeal.
MR. COUGHLIN: No. That's been a huge issue, is --
THE COURT: Well, let --
MR. COUGHLIN: -- being an E-filer, he gets a digital
copy.
THE COURT: Let me back up. Do you have a copy of
your notice of appeal? How did you initiate this case?
MR. COUGHLIN: I filed a notice of appeal within 10
days.
THE COURT: I don't see a notice of appeal in the
docket. Okay. So that's -- with respect to there being a
case number, I see that there's an appeal from Justice Court,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
34
criminal appeal proceedings. There's an inmate request form.
An inmate request form. There's a notice to stay -- motion
to stay briefing schedule, motion for publication, CR13-0614.
MR. COUGHLIN: This is the misuse of 911 case that
was turned into obstructing and resisting public officer
before Judge Clifton.
One day in this trial, I cross-examined four
different police officers, who had arrested me. The RJC
refused to release that audio for months. They are still
refusing to release both portions of the trial on 2/5/13,
which relate intimately to the judicial conduct on CR13-0552.
I believe a lot of these kitchen sink -- so-called -- filings
by me highlight strongly Canon 2, Rule 2005 issues,
requiring, some might say, reporting to appropriate authority
or taking appropriate action, where this Court has been made
aware of misconduct by other members of the judiciary.
THE COURT: Mr. Young, do you know anything about
this case?
MR. YOUNG: I don't recall having those appeals in my
file. I'm not saying there wasn't one. But I don't recall
seeing one.
The majority of the documents that I received from
Mr. Coughlin are similar to what you're looking at on your
screen, that are borderline unreadable and unintelligible.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
35
So most of the documents I get that are typically
lengthy documents, I throw into one of my two boxes, and
don't have an opportunity to respond to them.
Likewise, I don't, one, understand what they're
saying; and, two, can't even read part of them.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I don't believe -- to
compare this to the other case, if you're looking for an
entry in the docket that says "Notice of appeal," you won't
find that in any appeal from Justice Court proceeding, I
don't believe. What you'll find is "Appeal from Justice
Court proceedings" will be the first entry. That will
typically be what I would refer to as an ROA. The start of
it would be a document that's essentially an index, which
would say "Appeal receipt," unless the document is included
therein.
Now, in both of these cases there's huge problems
with the record on appeal, highlighting clerk misconduct.
It's just patent from the review thereof. But I'm submitting
my own records on appeal.
But to the extent this Court seems to be taking issue
with whether or not there's a notice of appeal, one, I don't
know why a case would be opened if there wasn't -- this
case -- if there wasn't a notice of appeal.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
36
Two, there absolutely was one filed by me. Now,
whether or not they faithfully kept records of it and
transmitted might be another issue. But I've been not
afforded access to this.
This is really upsetting to me, the fact that this
Court, I'm -- I'm a suspended attorney appealing SCR 1/11/6
convictions. This Court has for months -- I'm not -- I'm not
referring to Department 8 specifically anymore. In general.
But I'm not -- it just seems like, no question, I
should be accorded electronic access to these files. You
know, as an E-file -- and this is some of the issues with --
E-filers, district attorney Young being an E-filer throughout
this, he had a digital copy of that ROA in this case, which
is long. It's like 600 pages.
Now, Michelle Purdy, in the filing office, they tell
everyone: Criminal defendants get one copy for free of any
filing in any of their cases.
I go up there, and I want my one copy of the first
filing in this case, which is hundreds of pages, and she
says, "No." Subsequently, she says, "I'm not giving you a
free copy of anything." Even despite, in 2025, Judge
Elliott's order essentially requiring such.
THE COURT: Not in this case.
MR. COUGHLIN: Yeah. But the office's policy is,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
37
criminal defendants get one free copy of anything in any of
their cases.
THE COURT: But you filed this. You filed an
858-page Justice Court criminal appeal proceeding. Did you
keep a copy of what you filed?
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't believe I filed that.
THE COURT: You filed it.
MR. COUGHLIN: What date are you referring to?
THE COURT: I'm referring to CR13-0614. I don't have
anything from the Reno Justice Court on this case.
MR. COUGHLIN: The filing of what date?
THE COURT: April 16th, 2013.
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, the conviction was for 4/2.
They might have reduced it to writing on 4/3. Therefore,
under 189.010, the notice of appeal would have needed to be
submitted, I believe, on about the 12th or 13th.
I believe that filing you're referring to is from the
RJC. That's from the RJC.
THE COURT: I'll tell you what.
MR. COUGHLIN: That's the ROA.
THE COURT: I'll tell you what I will do with this
case. With respect to CR13-0614, I have a binder docket up
here. It's not the actual docket. And, one, the initial
document here -- at least in my binder -- is corrupted. And
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
38
that's the one entitled, "Appeal from Justice Court, Justice
Court criminal appeal proceedings."
Because I can't paw through it right now to find it,
I'm not going to take action on this case today. I'm going
to take another look at it. And then I'll issue a status
order when I'm ready to talk about it. Okay.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: So I think those are the only two matters
we have today; is that correct, Mr. Young?
MR. YOUNG: That's my understanding.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Coughlin.
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, Your Honor, just to get an idea
of what cases Mr. Young is listed as attorney of record on,
wherein I'm a party, I believe we addressed one of them on
Monday.
THE COURT: We did.
MR. COUGHLIN: What's that?
THE COURT: We did.
MR. COUGHLIN: We did. 0376, which originally was
the case number given to a case where I was charged with a
gross misdemeanor. Public defender Dogan moved for
competency under the rules transmitted up to District Court,
and that's how it got the case number originally in February
of 2012.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
39
Now, why the Justice Court or this Court chose to
take a contempt order that was issued a whole year later and
put it -- the appeal thereof into this case, I'm not quite
sure. I don't know why it wouldn't have gone more
appropriately in 0614, be given its own new case number.
So there's three where Mr. Young is listed as
attorney of record. I don't know who for the State -- I
believe it might be Terrence McCarthy, for the County,
State -- might be Terrence McCarthy, who is listed in
CR13-0552. But that's Coughlin v. State again.
MR. YOUNG: I can -- it came from a misdemeanor
Justice Court level. It would -- I wish it was Mr. McCarthy,
but it's not. So Mr. McCarthy, to my knowledge, has no
dealings with any of Mr. Coughlin's cases. I'm not aware of
what CR13-0552 is, off the top of my head.
MR. COUGHLIN: That was the petition for writ of
mandamus, filed the day of the 4/2 trial, where I got a note
from my psychiatrist saying, "Stop this trial, please.
Second Judicial, please enforce the law, require these
Justice Court judges to obey 178.405, and cease violating the
mandatory stays, with competency orders, until resolved by a
medical professional." And that was stricken.
THE COURT: That matter is not on today. We have the
two matters that were on today. We've got rulings on those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
40
matters. We have a briefing schedule. So I'd encourage you
to focus on that.
I know you have a few briefing schedules from the
past few days. So let's move them forward.
Is there anything further on these two matters?
MR. COUGHLIN: Can I just clarify? 0614, I have been
given E-flex access on that?
THE COURT: No.
MR. COUGHLIN: That's really troubling to me, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't understand why that wouldn't
be the case. But it seems as though you're essentially
wanting to take a longer look at that.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COUGHLIN: All right.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Counsel, is there anything further?
MR. YOUNG: Not from the State, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Young.
Mr. Coughlin?
MR. COUGHLIN: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
41
THE COURT: Everybody have a good weekend.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
42
STATE OF NEVADA )
COUNTY OF WASHOE )
I, ISOLDE ZIHN, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the
Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and
for the County of Washoe, do hereby certify:
That I was present in Department 8 of the
above-entitled court on Friday, August 23, 2013 at the hour
of 2:00 p.m. of said day, and took verbatim stenotype notes
of the proceedings had upon the matter of THE STATE OF
NEVADA, Plaintiff, versus ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Defendant, Case
Nos. CR12-2025 & CR13-0614, and thereafter reduced to writing
by means of computer-assisted transcription as herein
appears;
That the foregoing transcript, consisting of pages 1
through 42, all inclusive, contains a full, true and complete
transcript of my said stenotype notes, and is a full, true
and correct record of the proceedings had at said time and
place.
Dated at Reno, Nevada, this 2nd day of October, 2013.
/s/ Isolde Zihn _
Isolde Zihn, CCR #87