You are on page 1of 996

J

1J
2
J
+
13
Jb
J
J
JV
2
2J
22
2
2+
23
2b
2
2
Lu06 1
`
`
\
.
1Mt btLLD JLLAL b1HL1 LLLH1 L 1Mt b1A1t DtYAA

AD LH 1Mt LLLD1Y L AbMLt

V
l !
l
'
ZACBARY BARR C0U3BL|N,
Appc||sat,
vs.
C|TY 0| RN0,
RcspcaJcat.
l Cssc Nc.
~
'
'
'
Dcpt.
: |
' '
AtAL HLLttDLb HL% %LDLAL'b LLLH1
| '
| |

l
l

|

' '
l
'
I'
!
|'
_
''
.
i
I

l

001

1
1
_
U
?
14
_
!

1 LUCumcBl LU0c Io3
bcBU N0BIC8l LU0tl
? .L. UX 1V
bcBU,cV808 V33
J JJ3 oo-..V
4

l
.
``'c''/.
D 1Mt btLLD JLLA b1HL1 LLLH1 L 1Mt b1A1t L DtYAA
D AD LH 1Mt LLLD1Y L AbMLt

ZALMAHY AHtH LLLLMD,
7
AtAAD1,
3
V. H%L LRS6 Do. JJLb221!0

L1Y L HtDL, 6gl. Do.+
HtbLDtD1.
l1
LtH1t LLY L LLt1
l?
b6gl6m06I 14, 70i1: \tImIB8l LUm8JBl Hc0 CB8tgBg LccB08Bl WIlB cll
lJ
1
8tCcBy.
b6gl6mb6I i4,70i1: /tfc8l bcUfl 8B0 LcC!8t8lIUB U tUU8U!c L808c
L0lo06I 10,7011: UlICc U bcllIBg JcBCB JtI8! 08lc U UVcmUct J+, .11.
l7
L0lo06I 18,7011: UlICc U /V8I!8UI!Ily U LI8CUVcfy 8B0 bcg0c8l UI bcCItUC8!
l3
L8CUVcfy.
1
L0lob6I7b, 7011: /!IC8lIUB 8B0 /D08Vl Ut /UIBlmcBl U |cg8! LccB0ct.
L0lob6I7b, 7011: NUlIUB lU LUBlIB0c UVcmUct 1+, 211, UI8l 08lc.
?1
L0lob6I77, 70i1: Lf0ct LcBy)Bg /UIBlmcBl U cg8! LccB0ct.
__
L0lob6I77,70i1: LI0ct LcByIBg NUlIUB lU LUBlIB0c UVcmUcI 1+, 211, ltI8! 08lc.
?J
DoY6m06I 3, 7011: NUlIUB Ut bcCUB8I0ct8lUB, NUlIUB lU `8C8lc Ut bcl /8I0c
?4
[uB0ct b0!c 3V 8B0 Ut 0} LI0cI LcBy)Bg bIgBl lU LU0B8c! 8B0 NUlIUB lU LI8mI88.
DoY6m06I 15,701i: UlICc U bcllBg cBCB JtI8! 08lc U UVcmUct o, 211.
2D
DoY6m06t7, 7011: b0UUcB8 LuCc8 JCCUm Ic0 Uy Lc0B08Bl LU0gB!IB.
8ENO
MUN1LFALUU81
F.O X IYII
Rnn,NV895|I5
(775)JJ42J90
2
DoY6m06t 30, 701i: UlICc U /c8I8BCc, NUlIUB Ut LUBlB08BCc, !lC.
DoY6m06t 30, 701i: JtI8! W88 Bcl0 IB lBI8 m8llcI. tc8cBl UB UcB8I U lBc LIly W88
,,
1
,,
002
l
2
J
4


7
3

1
1 l
l2
lJ
14
1
1
IJ
13
1
2
21
22
2J
24
2
2
27
23


^1
MUNLlFALLUU81
?M Bz(00
Rtuu.M1Kv|I
(7"1 +-219Il
8m bUUcIlS 8B0 ccB08Bl 8Qc8Ic0 IU cI. JBc LU0Il U0B0 llc 0ccB08l g0Ily U cll
8f0cBy, 8 VU8lUB U bNL 08.10.040. JBc ccB08Bl W8S ScBlcB0c0 8S U!UWS.
Jlfcc 10B0Ic0 8B0 Bc.
0rm0rI 30, 2011: 1\0gmcB\ U LUBV\0\\UB 8B0 LU\Il LI0cI
0Yrm0rI 30,20i1: LI0cI UI b0mm8Iy 0BISDcBl U LUBlcml LUmmIllc0 B lBc
mmc0I8lc `cW 8B0 IcScB0c U llc LU0Il.
rrm0rI 13, 2011: UlI0c U /Qc8!, NUlIUB lU `808lc 80 UI bcl /SI0c, JLbL
3V, JLbL 0, NUlIUB UI bc0UBSI0cI8lIUB, NUlIUB UI bc00S8.
rrm0rI 13, 2011: bc0UI0 bcg0cSl Uy ccB08Bl LU0gB!IB.
rrm0rI 13, 2011: bc0UI0 bcg0cSl Uy ccB08Bl LU0gB!IB.
rrm0rI i4, 20i1: IB8B0I8! Bg0IIy /Q!I08lUB 8B0 NUlIUB lU IU0cc0 BUfm8
80cIIS.
rrm0rI i5, 20i1: LI0cI 0cByIBg ccB08BlS NUlUB lU IU0cc0 B UIm8
80cIS, NUlIUB UI 0UlI08lIUB U JI8BS0IQl 8l 0U!I0 !XQcBSc, NUlIUB lU `808lc 8B0/UI bcl
/SI0c, NUlUB UI bc0UBSI0cf8lIUB 8B0 NUlUB UI bc00S8!.
rrm0rI 15, 2011: Ul0c U cB8 U bcIVI0c !c0 Uy bcBU LIly /lIUDcy.
rrm0rI 1b, 2011: ccB08Bl LU0gBlIBS b0!cmcBl8! lU UlI0c U /Qc8,
NUlIUB lU `808lc 8B0 UI bcl /SI0c, JLbL 3V, JLbL 0, NUlIUB UI bc0UBSI0cI8lIUB,
NUlIUB UI bc00S8!, NUlIUB lU blIKc.
rm0rt 1b, 201i: ccB08Bl LU0gB!B`S UlI0c U cBI8l U bcIV0c, LUSIlIUB
LIly U bcBU`S UlI0c U cBI8l U bcIVI0c bcg0cSl UI L8II08lIUB bcg8I0IBg c80IBc UI
I!Bg NUlIUB UI BcW JI8, LlBcI lUlIBg NUlIUBS, cl0., /!I08lIUB UI ccfI8! UI 8IVcI U
0U0Il ccS 8B0 LUSl.
rrm0rI ib, 2011: LU0Il LI0cI UI0cIIBg ccB08Bl LU0gBlIB Um 0Umm0BI08lIBg
VI8 c-m8Il WIlB J00gc !UW8I0 8B0 0U0Il Sl8.
rrm0rI ib, 20i1: ccB08Bl LU0gB!IB5 UlI0c U cBI8l U bcIV0c, LUSIlIUB
Lly U bcBUS UlI0c U cB8 U bcIVI0c, bcg0cSl UI L8fIJ08lIUB bcg8I0IBg c80!Bc UI
-
,

_ -..
003
'
10
1'
20
2'
24
27

1
IIBg N0l0B 0t cW JII8, LlBct J0!lBg N0lI0BS, cl0 /L/JL Lb Lbb/
2
Lb /`b L LL\bJ b /L LLbJb.
J
66m06t 1b, 11:
4
N0lI0B l0 `808lc B0 0t bcl /SI0c, JLbL 5, JLbL U, N0lI0B 0t bc00BS0ct8lI0B,
N0lI0B 0I bc00S8!, N0lI0B \0 bl\IKc.

66m06I 1Y11 LccB08Bl L0ugB!IBS 0l0c 0 LcB8! 0 bcIVI0c, L0SIl0B
7
LIly 0 bcB0S 0lI0c 0 LcBI8 0 bcIVI0c, bcgucSl 0t Ll8tIC8lI0B bcg8I0IBg Lc80!IBc 0t
3
I!Bg N0lI0B 0t cW JtI8l, LlBcI J0!IBg N0l0BS, cl0, /L/JL Lb Lbb/

Lb /`b L LLbJ b /L LLbJ.
66mb6I111: bcB0 LIIy ^II0Dcy`S L0SIII0B 0 N0II0B 0t cW t8.
LccB08Bl L0ugB!BS bulcmcBl8! J0 0lI0c 0 /c!,
11
L8lc0 lBIS ZZ

08y 0 Lc0cmUcI, ZU 1.
12
1J
14
1
I7
I3
1
21
22
2J
cnBclB b. !0Wt0, Ju0gc
2
8hU
MUhlLUALLOU8T
P uz l9IlII
8cn NV895t|5
(77)JJ4I290
23
|
J
J
004
I
2
J
1


7
3

l
TT
T2
IJ
T4
T
l
T7
I3
T
2
?J
22
2J
24
2
2
27
?3


P P^bP M ^ PP
, L/bb/Lb/ J/LbL, lBlcIIm LU0tl /0mIBISlt8lUI U lBc bcBU N0BI0I8!
LUutI, 0U BctcUy 0ctlI] lB8l lBc 8ll80Uc0 0U00mcBlS IB0!00c !!, Uuc 8B0 0UtIc0l 0UIcS U 8l!
8cIS tc8lIBg lU 986 ^0mD6I J&&1b. IB0!00IBg 8 LctlIDc0 LUy U LU0Kcl. 0IlBcI,
S80 0U00mcBlS B8Vc Uccn lt8BSmIllc0 lU 8n0 11!c0 WIlB lBc 0lctK U lBc 8SBUc LU0Bly
LSlII0l LU0tl.
L8lc0 lBS>
/]
08y U Lc0cmUcI, J1I.
b\bLb!L /L bLb !LH! N!
08y U LOc ct, J11.
B
UNICFAL4UU8J
FO.x I||0
8taohV89M^
(5)JJ427|


| "J

005

?'
1
bN
?
Parsasa| |c NPCP 'b), l :er|i[ |ast l d sa eaplcyee cl tae Peac Maai:ips| Ccar|,
J
Peac, NevsJs, saJ |hs| ca |a|s Js|e l serveJ s |rae saJ :crre:| :cpy cl |he lcregciag
Jc:aaea|, CEP1lFlED C0PY 0F D0CKE ca |he psr|yies) se| |cr|a be|cw.
'
.
P|s:iag ssiJ Jc:aaea| ia s sesleJ eavelcpe p|s:eJ lcr :c||e:|iag saJ asi|iag

ia |ae Uai|eJ S.s|es asi|, s| Peac, NevsJs, pcs.sge prepsiJ, lc|lcwiag crJiasry
7 basiaess prs:|i:es.
Fs:s|ai|e (FAX).
8
Peac|Cs:sca Messeager Servi:e.

FeJers| Express cr c|ae: cvemiga| Jelivery.
I
. laaer

cl:e asil lc||cwiag crJiasry busiaess prs:|i:es.


11
Perscas| De|ivery.
1?
1J
Ci|y A|tcmey's 0|f:e Mr. Zs:asry Bsrker Ccaga|ia
P.0. Bcx 1900 817 N. Vi:gia|s S.ree., #?
14
Peac, NevsJs 89509 Peac, NevsJs 89'01
1'
Ds|eJ tais Jsy cl De:eaber, ?011.
I
I7
18
I
?
?T
??
?J
?4
?
8 U
?7
MUNlClFAL1OURT
F.O. 8z I9tO
Rrne.NV95
(775IJJ4229|
?8
'
' !
006
1
Z
J
4

0

6
V
1
11
1Z

14
1
1
1
16
1V
Z
Z1
ZZ
ZJ
Z4
Z
Z
WU
Z
%URLWA1OURT
PUWtW
WM
Z6
7M3M

L8S6 PC. VLbJuZ ! V



6Ql. +
/
`
?
.

N 1M NLA LLH1 L 1M
LLN1YLAhML,h1A1 LNYAA
WWWWW
ZALMAHY AHbH LLLMN,
PQQ68Bl,
VS. AA LN HH
L \ bLP\,
b6SQCB06Bl.




'
ulSu8Bl lC ^b J.J3, I .|J.+, 0 JV, lBIS LCull Cf06fS 8l 8I Cf C00

CB PQQ68 IS'
'
(X} LHAN1 8B0 S6l I0 lB6 8mCuB C $ Ju. , WIlB lB6 0CB0IlCB lh8l
!
! i
6 66B08Bl
'

) 0CmQy WIlB lB6 PC LCBl80l \f06f

) 0CmQy WIU 8 LCuBS6Bg f6QuIf6m6BlS

) 0CmQy WIlh lh6 8l6BlIBg L8SS f6QuIl6m6Bl

) Clh6f

\
) N Ct 1h6 COWIBg f68SCB

S)`
) VIC6Bl B8luf6|S6fCuSB6SS C lB6 IBSl8Bl C6BS6

) QfICf 0fImB8 BISlCfy
) Qfuf 8Iul6S lC 8QQ68f 8B0Cf 0CmQy WIlB LCull Cf06fS

) 80K C 0C0B60lICB lC lU6 0CmmuBIQ

) 80K C ]ufIS0I0lICB CB 8QQ68

)
PJL lhS , Z11
Jb.
6Q8fm6Bl Cuf

. |
|



'

'!
''
'

i
`
.
{',
'


'
''

|


|

007
008
009
. ... 9..... ... ... .9 ..
... ..... ..... .....
ONL 5OL1H 5LHHA 51HLLT, HLNO, NV Ybb
MaiIg: Y.O. Box |V

Hcno, NV Vbb YHONL b)4-11Y AX
{b)4-14
LIY L DL, AD1
V5.
U1PUAP1: Ll1LHLIP, ZALHAHY UAHKH
LOuH L850k. 11 LH 111 1 OB.
BIaI0. OLN
Agency#: BbL!1L11b/7
AccidcnI#: BOUIH9' 1bVb
Ianuagc. tNt1bH
LHc05c !` 0|0/0 JJ
/DcS! |: 0|0/011
cJ 10/10/011 - HOT UU1LTY
/dd!!!O08 1ccS
Supctvisroo Fce Subtota| Supv Fee(s) Duc.
ZACHARY
DcfendunI 1ntiaIs:
+0.00
540.00
J8I 8}5`
0
bUSQcBdcd 1J5. V
40.00
40.00 $0
CA5( k: 1J 'R 17
I01 Datc: 10/10/011 Dutu Dut: 10/10/011
?uc 1 o1J
010

8l8H00.
L0mQlcI00
PLLKL L !LNl\7 W\ H LLHL!JLHb L P\ Pb LLbLKLL H b LKLLK W\\ KbU\ I \ 1bbUPHLL L P
P1L\KL JL !LNL7 WPKKPH LK )NNLP PKKb PHL HLPKLLKPLH LK LLHJLN L LL\K PHL/LK PlL
KLVLLPLH. LK UKUK HLKNPLH, LLHPL 1HL bLHLHLL LLNLAH(L WHLLW LLLPLL LH HL Kb
LLLK L KLHL N!HL!P! LLUK, LHL bL!H bLKKP b, KLHL, uv (:s; +-77V.
HL LLLHLPH bHALL PLAK Pb LKLLKLL LK x.t bHPLL LLLLKPL ULL7 W1H JH

- '
HL LLHLPH1 bHPLL P1LHL P!L KV!LWb, PHL KLKPN
_\ __ ^_
l =
_/ ',*.
HL LLLHLPHJ bHALL tHLW Hb/HK LL!KJ LP PHQ NP)HP)H LLHJPLJ WH Hb/HK PJLKHL7
KLK L LHPHH Hb/HLK PLLKLbb LK HLHL HUNLK, HL LLLHLPH bHA)L HLl7 1HL LLUK1 L bULH
LHPH.
LL7 .t .xws
var aoxoaxatr wttttx

xaaxra

XO0 80 O|00|00 Py l0 LO0|| lO 8|IY0 0|0g/80OO H00 3u0 Ou |I00 lO| 8| LO0|| h03lIu_S 3u0 LO0|| |08|00 QlC_3mS. 800 |O
8QQ08| LO0|| Wl! 05u| |0 |0 I55u8000 Ol 8W3Il3ul O| yOu| 8||05|. P0y YIO8||O0 O lhS IuSl3ul O|00| 08y |050l| u 0O0|00Q|
QO00000g5 3n0 |0 IIu_ Ol 800|IO08| U)m)u3! UH3I_0S. u 3UU0I03uUc WIlh NRb ZZ.J, Il I8 3 mIS00m03u0I lO| 3uj Q0|5O0 |0 !3I!
|0m50 O| 00g00| |O 0O0Qy WIlh |0 |0|05 Ol 3uj O|00| I55u00 by lh0 %000Q8 Jud_0. Jh!S |008|0 |0 0|00| 00|! |0
LO0|| SSu0S 80O|0| O|00 SuQ0lS00)u_ )l.
: uxarasvxxa xxa raotsr vo oarv vats oaara. orrrxaxxv
t, var swoax txvrarvra axvr rutrv txvrararvra vats vur
arrrxaxxv.
axvr. vrr.
arcrtvra av arruvv. vtr.
tsstra av xasuxt.
vtr.
arrrxaxxv. cou

uttx, zxcuxav
a-t--.-: i-i:..|.
x,--.,-. tcrrtc:
r-.-: a.:-. atat:a
cotav cxsr -. ca ::c :i
a.:. a.:-. tttt:t
r.,- : -t :
011
Z
J
+
3
1

1Z
J
1+
13
1O
1!
I
V
Z
Z1
ZZ
ZJ
Z+

|
l|
L
LC L. L11OZ!
h
h0
"|
hl'
''
'
lU
U '
LJ. L.
LJA L! KLL
VS.
Z"I
U|
lb
A
IJ
5
1D M D1L1L LLH L M L1Y L HDL !
1D D LH M LLDY L bJL
8IBIII, DLL L1 Y1Y L
1bLLYHY D LH
HL1HLLL bLLYHY
Z8Uh8iy LOughIB_
a ac. 11I14I211
ccB08BI.

c8Sc U8) hc Lmua VS0u 8I JJ+-Z3 IO 8ii8Bgc Oi Ic8i8IIOB O 0ISUOVc|y IB
IhIS U8Sc. Pci yOui U8 icqucSIIBg |cdi8IIOB O 0ISUOVciy, II WI Dc 8V8I8Dc Oi IUku 8I
!hc KcBO LIIy IIODcyS LUc NOB08y - Jhu!S08y 1. 8.H. IO J. .H OIcBII8
WIIBcSScS O! Ihc LIIyS U8Sc IB UhIc 8Ic B8Hc0 IB Ihc 0ISUOVc!y (WhIUh IBUu0cS 8 UOy O Ihc
O!IUc icOil), 8B0 uiSu8BI IO KC 1!+.ZJ+-ZJ3 BO OIhci WIIBcSS ISI Bcc0 Dc Oi WI Dc
!OVI0c0.
Jhc LI!y cicDy icqucSIS Ih8I Ihc LcIcB08BI iOVI0c 0ISUOVciy 8B0 BOIIUc O 0ccBSc
WIIBcSScS uiSu8BI IO KC 1!+.ZJ 8n0 !+.ZJ3.
LJL IIS 08y O LUIODci, Z11.
cuIy LIIy IIODcy
Z3 UOy OI IhIS OIIUc h8S OccB ScBI !O Z8U8iy LOugIn 8I 1Z1 KIVci KOUk CI!ccI, KcBO,
ZO cV808 V31 OB LUIOOc! 11.
Z!
Z
Hcn0 Lly All0rnry
Y.!. 0X IV0
VtB0, N V0
-|.
012
HbN MUNlLlL LUH1
LlL1lN ND FFlDVl1 FH lN1MbN1 F LbUL DEFbNDEH
|LL
HLh0 "l'r `U'F' LLHc mUN/L/|L c cNL
LjLU Y LLLPHPLLN JUHPP rPHP P|NPLLN L LLNLH LLL
| I \
'\
|I! UU! b h | Jb
I 060|8I6 l08 l 80 8 |0|g6 6l80 w|l00u l8O|8| 0688 l0 60|0y 8 8lI0I6y 80 08 8|| 0I lh6 80l9, lgdI68, 88w6I8 80
8|8l606G 008|60 | 0|8 8||O8|0 8I6 Iu6 80 00II6O.
10 060|8l0 56/ u08 6l8008 '00'g60l6 j Q/6Z00 J0 /60Jl505 60000M'005 6l8 000ll8l8/ |05 50|Y005 J0 J0 800g800 y 00||0 J0
|0|0/00|00, 0||/5, /0$J05/5 j J00|/0|0005 000/00|J5 00 05/ 50||0|/JJ 500 r0/JJ0M5 j
`
1. 0 y0u 806|V6 8y \0I0 0| u0D 888|8\8008 8u00 88 !0 8I3m8 0! ub|0 h0u8|n? "88 [_ Nc[ ]
00|00 J5/J |J0 |0/0 J0 jJJ h000|0/8 J0| 00|000 /| 0000 0J00005 00M 000|J, Ul|l|00J 0!l0/7 | [ N0 [
I
_
.
J.
.
|! y88, 6856 880|y

| /050J05/ 05 0/00l, 05000J0
W8I |00 0 |08 885|8|8006 O y0u h8V8
QJ0 0000 0JJ0 J5/0J 0/0500// J0 05| jJJ7
|6 y0u 6u|I6l|y 86IV|0g 8 86l6006 |0 8 |8|| crI|800
0/J|000/0 05/8 J5/0J 0J00|00J0 J0 500/000| 00 J0 00/00| U 0/|5|007
168\ | H0
|] ] N0 ]
| y68, |9 0h8Ig88, 0896 u006I5 800 |06 l0 86|6.
b| | /050J05/ 05 /|/0/|l, |0J|J0 |05 0/g05, 0| 0!l00/0 J0| 050 j 0J0/0 /|0000 0 J0J 00/ 0J00|||.
H0w 080y 60|6 8l6 | y0uI 00u86000 [|V6 wlI0 y0u)
J0/5 00/3005 l|l00 00 5J /05|J000| [l|l00 000 J5/0J}7
W8 |8 06 0l8| wMk|y 80lg |O006 0I 6V6ly06 |V|g | y0uI 00u86000
J0/0 05 0| |0|050 /0/| $m808l l0|||/ J0 |0J05 |0 J0 l|l00 00 5J /05|J000|7
W08l |8 lh6 l08 000l0y 80ly |0006 0I 6V6Iy06 |lV|g | y0uI 00u8600|0
J0|0 05 0| |0/050 /0/| me0$u8I |0J|/ J0 /0J05 |05 J0 l|l00 00 5J /05|J000|7
'| `)
f
.
I6 lh6I6 006I I68808 w0y y0u 66 y0u w0u0 8u6I 8u088ll8 08I080| | y0u w6l6 I6qu|I60 l0 866K 80 I6l8| IlV86 00u86
| 80, w08l 8I6 l06y
H) 0||85 /0005 J0 J5/0J 0/00 J0 I0 000J//0 00 J|00J|GJ05 0000005 5| 50 q 00|| 00/|8/d/ J0 00J0 00lJ07 b|
| /050J05/ 05 0/0/|l, 0J|05 5007 : |

'
'


(| ,^ / ^ | i ' '` ' `|
013
014
J L8Sc PO.LKZZ1U
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
cQ!

_t

/
9
r
\
JL N\lLlPL LL\KJ L JL LlJ L KLL
LL\PJX L WPbLL bJPJL L PLNPP
LJ L bLPL
8IBII
VS
Z8Ob8fy 8IKcf LOugbIB
ccBU8BI.
ORUR UNY1NG GA UtNUR
LL\bJ PJL. POVcUOcf 1.UU
cj8fUcDI Ouf LOuf!IOOU
PQQIO8IIOB Of 8QQOIBIUcBI O 8 Lcg8 ccDUcf b8VIBg OccB cU WIIb IblS LOuf!
8BU b8VIBg 0ccB fcVIcWcU Oy IbIS LOuf!, IbcfcJOIc,
JbIS LOuf! UOcS bcfcOy LP` S8IU 8QQOIBIUcBI Of Ibc fc8SOD Ib8I I OOBVIOIcU O IbIS
Ob8I_c \b0 S\8UaIC ScB\0D00 08 \cS D0 \!Uc.
l !S SO LbLbL.
PJL IbIS 2`
r
U8y O LOIO0cf /U11

y
LPLJ b. LPb J\LL
015
016
d
Z
.
9



C

u
dd
dZ
d.
d
d
d
d
lC
1
Z
Zu
Zz
Z.
Z
Z,
Z\
Z
ZC


LV1bL1 Ob HVVL
llI511I 1 N11 D} , 1 IIJ 111 1 K 1 K. I1
11 Ml1JJ. 1I1 11 N'U 1U 111 1 11J5 U61 1 5I'U
1I\ 1U I(1 | J 1! 1QJ1_ U\m1*, OWV NXNG
MO1ON 1O LON1NU 1V| 1 VVON1NN1 Ob 1 bNV 1
11 I1 J5 51 II11 L.\:
FJ.1_ 5.U U\n11 .1 5JU 1.| |`U I
JJIJ1Q 1U KJ.J1Q l1 11 U1JIU S115 KJ. 1
11 N'U 51Q I+JU, J..J1Q IUJ1I
Dl5J155 I1J5
15JKJ. 11X)
11;I51 M551QI SI'J
1U(, [;I55 ( I1I 'I1JQ11 U.J'I
T11I~JJ3 mJ. J.`.1Q IU31I D\5J155 |I15
FI51. D.J'I
\|ly PIlDIHBy$ L|CB
L L T
BDD, NV
BCDBIy BIKBI \DUgD|D
T<` vBl DCK I.
BDD, NV J
D1JLD U 1 O11I Zdd
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
"


Z00B LCugB!IH, LS.

1! P. NIlgIDI8 b\. FZ
J
HCDO, PN VJU1
ClC. !!J-JJ-J1
8X. V+V-!-!+UZ
PllOHCy OI !CCd8Dl LOugDlIB
0
JL W1LP LL1bJ Lt L L+` Lt bLL
bPL Lt LNPLP PL Lb
L LL13 Lt PbL1
0
II
I
LIJY L KLPL,
ain!ll.
IJ
V


I5
ZALHAKY HAKcK LLL1I
Lclcnd8n!.
I0

LLL tLb
I IS ImCIl8Hl !C Sl8lc 0g8H BcIc lB0l lBc 8!JWS8 lBlc0IcHIHg 8Hd lcl8I8ICly

WBcH lBc uHdclSIgHcd 0c0lcd 0cCfc Judgc L0ldHcl CH LClC0cl l, Z !1 IHC!udIHg
I m0KHg IHlImd8lIHg Sl8IcmcHlS lC lBc uHdclSIgHcd SccmHgy H 0 lcl8!I0lCry 0SBCH
0Hd dcSgHcd lC lcVcHl !Bc uHdclSIgHcd DCm 5ccKtHg 0CufI 0CIHlcd lclcScHl8lICH.

Bc 0II|S H0mc mgBl B0Vc 0ccH `WCHlc Cl SCmclBHg SIm!8l, BCWcVcf, lBc

lc0CldS C lB8I IHlcl80l!CH 0lc 0cHg Bcd uHdcl 0H mclmSSI0c lcHI dISll8IHl 0y 8B
CCSIHg 0llCUcy. L0VICuS!y, Su0B 8ClCHS, WBcH CCm0IHcd WlB IBc l80K C 8 L 8!

lBc 0ll0IgHmcHl, 0H 0ll8IgHmcHl V0cC 0cIHg SBCWU 0y lBc CCu|l WBCB CCHl8IHS
lB|c0!cHIHg Sl0IcmcHlS 8Hd CVcI!y CmIHCuS ICHcS WB0H 0dVISIHg !lIg0UlS 0g8IHSl
C
0c0IIHg IC Sc, lBc LIly C bcHC/VcHC WuHI00! LCuII'S 8!!cgcd l00II0c C CH!y
BIlIHg Cfmcl lCSc0ulClS lC 0c 0Cu|l 8CIHlcd CCuHSc!, IH 0CHjuH0lICH WIlB lBc

0I!ulc IC 8!CW lBc dccHd8Hl 00CcSS lC IBc L SBccl 8Hd dISCCVcry Cl CVcl ! mCHlB,

mu0B !cSS + BCulS fCm !Bc 0llcS!, CCm0!Hc lC m8Kc 0 I0Il IlI0 !mCSSI0!c IH !BS

PLJL L
8gc l
026
matter.
Please note that the undersigned hereby Iiles this Notice oI Appearance as
counsel oI record in this matter.
Reno Municipal Court rules
'Court Rules and Procedures Rule 1: Applicability oI Rules A. These rules may
be reIerred to as the Reno Municipal Court rules and may be abbreviated as
R.M.C.R. These rules are intended to supercede the rules promulgated and made
eIIective on January 1, 1980 by the Reno Municipal Court. B. Whenever it appears
that a particular situation does not Iall within the purview oI a rule, or that a literal
application oI a rule would cause a hardship or injustice in a case, the court may
make such order as the interests oI justice require. Rule 2: Organization oI the Court
A. The Municipal Court consists oI a number oI departments designated by City
Council resolution, each presided over by a judge duly elected or appointed to that
position. Judges pro tem may sit in each department Irom time to time as authorized
by law. A judge pro tem duly appointed and authorized by the presiding judge oI a
particular department to sit in that department shall have the same jurisdiction as the
presiding judge, except that the judge pro tem has jurisdiction only over matters to be
heard on his or her assigned docket. Judges pro tem are not permitted to act on any
motion Iiled in any case, except those requiring resolution beIore a case can proceed
on the docket to which the pro tem judge is assigned. B. All cases set Ior trial or other
post-arraignment proceeding, except a sentencing set by the arraigning judge, shall be
randomly or sequentially assigned to one oI the departments. InsoIar as is practical,
all cases pertaining to a deIendant shall be assigned to the same judge. In the event a
judge must recuse himselI or herselI, the matter shall be sent to the administrative
judge Ior reassignment to another department. C. The elected or appointed judges oI
each department may act Ior one another by mutual agreement as circumstances
dictate. D. Each year, the elected or appointed judges shall select one oI their number
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 2-
027
to act as administrative judge Ior the upcoming Iiscal year. The administrative judge
shall handle all court administrative matters and shall be authorized to speak publicly
Ior the court on matters oI court policy. Rule 3: Authorization to Represent A.
Attorneys representing deIendants shall promptly serve written notice oI their
appearance with the City Attorney and Iile the same with the Court. B. An attorney
desiring to withdraw Irom a case shall Iile a motion with the court and serve the City
Attorney with the same. The court may rule on the motion or set a hearing. Rule 4:
Motions A. Except Ior good cause shown, all motions shall be accompanied by
aIIidavit, and, when appropriate, by points and authorities. All motions must be
served on the opposing party and must be Iile stamped along with accompanying
prooI oI service. B. The opposing party may Iile and serve answering points and
authorities on the moving party within 10 days aIter service oI a motion. C. The
moving party may Iile and serve reply points and authorities within 5 days thereaIter.
D. Upon the expiration oI any time period set Ior response by this rule, either party
may Iile and serve a written request Ior submittal oI the motion, or the court may
consider the motion submitted. E. An opposition to a motion must state the reason(s)
Ior objection. F. Motions shall be decided without oral argument unless oral
argument is ordered by the court. Rule 5: Motions by Facsimile A. All rules and
procedures that apply to motions Iiled in person at the court shall also apply to
motions Iiled by Iacsimile, except as otherwise speciIied in this rule. B. All persons
are eligible to use motion-by-Iacsimile procedures. C. All motions Iiled by Iacsimile
must be accompanied by a cover sheet which must include the person`s name,
address, Iax number and telephone number. D. All Iacsimile motions Iiled by an
attorney must include the attorney's name, the Iirm`s name, address, Iax number and
telephone number. In addition, the attorney`s state bar number must be conspicuously
displayed on the cover sheet. E. All motions Iiled by Iacsimile must be accompanied
by prooI oI service. Service may be accomplished by Iacsimile when the receiving
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 3-
028
party is a governmental agency, an attorney, or with the consent oI the receiving
party. II service oI the motion is accomplished by Iacsimile the 3-day allowance Ior
mailing shall not be computed into the time Ior response. F. A deIense attorney Iiling
a motion in the Iirst instance must also Iile a proper authorization to represent. G.
Any motion received by the court aIter 4:30 p.m. or on a non-court day shall be Iiled
on the Iollowing court day. Rule 6: Continuances No continuance shall be granted,
including a stipulated continuance, except Ior good cause. A motion or stipulation Ior
continuance must state the reason thereIore and whether or not any continuance has
previously been sought or granted. Rule 7: Corporations Except with the permission
oI the court, a corporation or other business entity shall not appear in propria persona.
Rule 8: Courtroom Conduct and Attire Proceedings in court should be conducted
with dignity and decorum. All persons appearing in the court must be appropriately
attired. All attorneys must wear appropriate business attire. Rule 9: Appeals to
District Court Except as otherwise provided in NRS 177.015 a deIendant in a
criminal action tried beIore a Municipal Court Judge may appeal Irom the Iinal
judgment therein to the Second Judicial District Court, at any time within 10 days
Irom the date that judgment is rendered. EIIective January 1, 2000
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES Coughlin/DeIendant, Zach Coughlin, Esq., hereby Iiles MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES based on the papers on Iile in this
action, all correspondence between Roberts, Coughlin, Reno City Attorney Roberts,
Hylin, and others, and the points and authorities herein contained. Court-appointed
attorney as subject to liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983. 36 A.L.R. Fed. 594
(Originally published in 1978). Public deIenders are not immune Irom liability under
42 U.S.C.A. 1983 Ior alleged con- spiracy, with state oIIicials, under color oI state
law, to deprive clients oI Iederal rights. Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 104 S. Ct.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Page 4
029
2820, 81 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1984). Public deIender may be held liable under 1983 iI he
or she engaged in a conspiracy with oIIicials acting under the color oI state law to
deprive a person oI a right secured by the Con- stitution. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983. Warren
v. Fischl, 33 F. Supp. 2d 171 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). County public deIender acted under
"color oI state law" in Iailing to request indigency hearing on behalI oI motorist
convicted and Iined Ior misdemeanor reckless driving, prior to motorist's
incarceration Ior Iailure to pay his Iine, Ior purpose oI 1983 action against county
public deIender's oIIice, alleging that it had a policy or custom oI Iailing to seek such
indi- gency hearings; the act oI not requesting indigency hearing was administrative,
as it was due to the oIIice's alleged systemic inaction. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983. Powers v.
Hamilton County Public DeIender Com'n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2007). Appointed
deIense attorney was not immune Irom action under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 and 1985,
either in his own right or derivatively Irom alleged co-conspirators' absolute
immunity, Ior conspiracy with judge and prosecutor to impanel all-white jury Ior
deIendants criminal tri- al and may be regarded as having acted under color oI state
law in view oI conspiracy alleged with public oIIicals. White v Bloom (1980, CA8
Mo) 621 F2d 276. Attorney's liability Ior malpractice in connection with deIense oI
criminal case, 53 A.L.R.3d 731. Negligence, inattention, or proIessional
incompetence in handling client's aIIairs as ground or disciplinary action, 96
A.L.R.2d 823. Joe Roberts has indicated to his client, Coughlin, that his superiors at
the WCPD have made him Ieel uncomIortable doing much in the way oI deIending
Coughlin, and that doing so with much zeal would adversely aIIect his opportunities
Ior advancement at the WCPD and perhaps even his job security. IneIIective
Assistance oI Counsel, 5 Am. Jur. ProoI oI Facts 2d 267 Strategies Ior EnIorcing the
Right to EIIective Representation, 46 Am. Jur. Trials 571 Avoiding Legal
Malpractice Claims in Litigation, 46 Am. Jur. Trials 325 Prisoners' Rights litigation,
22 Am. Jur. Trials 1 Actions Against Attorneys Ior ProIessional Negligence, 14 Am.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 5-
030
Jur. Trials 265 Cause oI Action Ior Malpractice Against DeIense Attorney Ior
IneIIective Representation During Pretrial Phase oI Criminal Case, 42 Causes oI
Action 2d 707. Bines, Remedying IneIIective Representation in Criminal Cases:
Departures Irom Habeas Corpus. 59 Va L Rev 927 Mallen, The Court-Appointed
Lawyer and Legal MalpracticeLiability or Immunity. 14 Am Crim L Rev 59 Note,
Remedying IneIIective Representation by Public DeIendersAn Administrative Al-
ternative to Traditional Civil Actions. 60 Minn L Rev 123 Note, The Right oI the
Indigent Client to Sue His Court-Appointed Attorney Ior Malprac- tice. 33 La L Rev
740. In each oI the Iollowing cases, a public deIender was held not to be immune
Irom liability Ior proIessional malpractice. In Spring v Constantino (1975) 168 Conn
563, 362 A2d 871, an action by a state criminal deIendant against a public deIender
Ior malpractice, the court held that an attorney occupying the position oI public
deIender and assigned to represent an indigent deIendant did not enjoy immunity
Irom liability Ior proIessional malpractice. Stating that a public deIender is like any
other attorney whose duties as an oIIicer oI the court and to an individual client and
whose principled and Iearless conduct oI the deIense are not deterred by the prospect
oI liability, the court rejected the contention oI the public deIender that the doctrine
oI judicial immunity should be extended to public deIenders on the ground that the
immunity rule is designed to promote principled and Iearless decisionmaking by
removing the Iear that unsatisIied litigants might bring harassing actions. The court
also rejected the contention that the common-law doctrine oI sovereign immunity
which extends to public oIIicials applied to a malpractice ac- tion brought against a
public deIender, saying that a public deIender, in representing an indi- gent, is not a
public oIIicial, since even though the state must insure that indigents are repres-
ented by competent counsel, it could not be argued that the actual conduct oI the
deIense oI an individual is a governmental act. The court also rejected the third
suggested ground oI im- munity: the statutory immunity oI public oIIicers and state
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 6-
031
employees. The court said that while it was true that a public deIender could be told
when he is to work and within what area, those elements oI control were indicia oI
the master-servant relationship and incidents oI a public deIender's employment
which are not within the scope oI the attorney-client relation- ship. Stating that the
independence oI the public deIender was a key constitutional underpin- ning oI the
public deIender system, the court said that other than the source oI the public de-
Iender's compensation, the relationship oI public deIender and client is the same as
that oI privately employed counsel and client. A public deIender was held not to be
immune Irom liability Ior malpractice, in Reese v DanIorth (1979) 486 Pa 479, 406
A2d 735, 6 ALR4th 758, In holding that the public deIender was not a public oIIicial
entitled to immunity, the court said that the overriding duty oI zeal- ous
representation oI a client's interest attaches to the role oI the public deIender and thus
the perIormance oI that duty by the deIender was similar to the perIormance oI
privately retained counsel. Stating that the relationship between the county and the
public deIender was similar to that between an independent contractor and the party
contracting his services, the court said that while the availability oI court-appointed
counsel to represent indigents is indubitably the public business, once the
appointment oI a public deIender in a given case is made, his state or public Iunction
ceases and thereaIter he Iunctions purely as a private attorney concerned with
servicing his client, and his proIessional relationship with his client takes on all the
obliga- tions and protections attendant upon a private attorney-client relationship
except that the pub- lic pays the attorney's Iee. The court also rejected the contentions
that not granting immunity to the public deIender would hinder the recoupment oI
able lawyers to represent indigents, and would inhibit the deIender's proIessional
discretion in declining to press the Irivolous, to assign priorities between indigent
litigants, and to make strategic decisions with regard to a particular litigant as to how
his interest may best be advanced. In the Iollowing case, a public deIender was held
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 7-
032
not liable Ior the malpractice oI one oI his deputies. A public deIender was held not
to be liable solely by virtue oI his oIIice, Ior the malprac- tice oI one oI his deputies,
in Sanchez v Murphy (1974, DC Nev) 385 F Supp 1362. Stating that the proIessional
relationship between court-appointed counsel and indigent criminal de- Iendants
under public deIender systems is no diIIerent than that between a client and privately
retained counsel, the court went on to say that the relationship oI the public deIender
and his deputies among themselves was not a partnership relationship, since the
economic justiIica- tion Ior holding one partner liable Ior the misconduct oI another
partner was grounded on the Iact that Iees Ior services are shared, whereas each oI the
public deIender attorneys was com- pensated independently by salary Ior his own
services. Stating that a deputy public deIender is an independent oIIicer, the court
noted that there was substantial authority in support oI the rule that in the absence oI
statute imposing liability or oI negligence on his part in appointing or supervising his
assistants, a public oIIicer is not liable Ior the deIault and misIeasance oI assistants
appointed by him. Related Annotations are located under the Research ReIerences
heading oI this Annotation. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases: PlaintiII's
malpractice action against public deIender was not precluded by quasi-judicial
immunity. Wilcox v. Brummer, 739 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1999).
Public deIender attorneys were not entitled to sovereign immunity Irom legal
malpractice claims brought by Iormer client convicted in criminal case and later
exonerated; attorneys' duty to client arose independently oI their state employment.
Johnson v. Halloran, 312 Ill. App. 3d 695, 245 Ill. Dec. 408, 728 N.E.2d 490 (1st
Dist. 2000), appeal allowed, 189 Ill. 2d 688 (2000). The court in Dziubak v Mott
(1993, Minn) 503 NW2d 771 held that a public deIender is immune Irom liability Ior
malpractice: In contrast, the court in Veneri v Pappano (1993, Pa Super) 622 A2d
977 noted that a pub- lic deIender is not immune Irom liability Ior malpractice.
Attorney's liability Ior malpractice in connection with deIense oI criminal case, 53
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 8-
033
A.L.R.3d 731; The independence oI the public deIender is oI utmost importance to its
duties to indigent deIendants. Crist v. Florida Ass'n oI Criminal DeIense Lawyers,
Inc., 978 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 2008). Trial court's comments on perceived deIiciencies oI
public
deIender system, made in its order denying deIendant's request Ior 35day
pretrial continuance oI capital murder trial, did not create a conIlict oI interest
between deIendant and public deIender which required public deIender to withdraw
Irom the representation. Sup. Ct. Rules, Rule 3.130, Rules oI ProI. Con- duct, Rule
1.16(a). Furnish v. Com., 95 S.W.3d 34 (Ky. 2002), as modiIied, (Dec. 10, 2002). At
the hearing on the Competency Evaluation, Judge SIerrazza could be heard, during a
recess, making an excited utterance wherein he commented that the bill Ior the
ridiculous, baseless, and clearly motivated by a retaliatory intent request Ior a
Competency Evaluation made by PD Hylin would not be accepted by the Reno
Justice Court, and that it would be returned to the Public DeIender's OIIice and they
could pay the bill Ior the Competency Evaluation iI they wanted to waster money so
bad. Mr. Roberts, Please provide, in writing an inventory oI everything you believe
you have provided me. Further, your Ilip disregard and non response in relation to my
FOIA requests and other requests, made in writing, asking you to Iile a Motion to
Dismiss, and other motions is truly troubling and reIlects exceedingly poorly on your
level oI proIessional responsibility. In Iact, I have commenced an inquiry into
whether you have EVER Iiled a Motion to Dismiss on behalI oI ANY client and,
similarly, whether you, in your long tenure at the WCPD have ever asked Ior
sanctions oI any sort against the Reno City Attorney. In court, at a hearing Ieaturing
Reno City Attorney Roberts, you walked over to Reno City Attorney Roberts's Iile,
without a hint oI consternation Irom Reno City Attorney Roberts, and riIled through
his Iile looking Ior something, yet you deny me access to my Iile. That sort oI
Iraternization with the Reno City Attorney's OIIice (you still have not answered
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Page 9
034
whether Reno City Attorney Roberts was in your retinue at the Iree trade coIIee place
that day I saw you on the street) is inappropriate an reIlects poorly on the legal
proIession and the WCPD's OIIice, particularly in the context oI your myriad reIusals
to Iile even a single document in my deIense, you cohorts Iorcing me into a
burdensome and insulting Competency Evaluation, your non response to my FOIA
request, the patently retaliatory Ialsehoods Mr. Hylin attributes to Jessica, your
receptionist, Mr. Bosler's hiring by Reno City Attorney Gammick, and all the other
13th chimes oI the clock one hears in the tape Irom this case. Just a Iew turns on the
EQ, and this case could be a symphony oI transparency. Coughlin Iurther moves Ior
sanctions against Deputy City Attorney Roberts pursuant to NRS 7.085, Ior the
attorneys' Iees Coughlin has needlessly incurred due to Roberts's cowardly, lethargic,
largesse and reckless uses oI this court's processes.
ANALYSIS
II a Reno City Attorney has in his or her possession exculpatory video and audio
evidence, in addition to audio and video evidence which shows material witnesses
not only completely contradicting themselves, but also seeking to dissuade other
material witnesses Irom testiIying, it would be troubling to see that Reno City
Attorney or someone Iilling in Ior him as some preliminary hearing to continue to
appear in court and stand behind the Criminal Complaint, all while collecting a
paycheck that is more and more put into rather stark relieI in comparison to that
which similarly experienced and educated inviduals garner in the private sector.
Further, iI other material witnesses can be seen in audio and video evidence
assaulting and battering an investigator asking questions related to exculpating the
accused in a matter, it would be all the more troubling to see a prosecutor continue to
appear in court advocating orally and Iiling documents in support oI the allegations
oI the criminal complaint. It is important to clariIy statements made in court today
with respect to whether NRCP Rule 11 sanctions may be levied against a prosecutor.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Page 10
035
Such a proposition was met with general doubt today. However, Nevada law is quite
clear in this regard. Clearly, they can. Contrary to any indication in court today, the
Reno City Attorney does not play with some sort oI special saIety net the rest oI the
attorneys in the state Iail to have: Office of Washoe County Dist. Atty. v. Second
1udicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Washoe, 116 Nev. 629, 5 P.3d 562 (2000) .
The Reno City Attorney absolutely is subject to NRCP 11, and so is any with the
Washoe County Public Defender's Office or the court appointed ~four former
prosecutors the Reno City Attorney and Reno Municipal Court call court
appointed defense attorneys.. "In a case brought by the district attorney to
enforce a Washington child support order in Nevada, the district court imposed
NRCP 11 sanctions against the district attorney for failing to discontinue
enforcement of the support order after the district court's previous ruling that
Washington had continuing exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the arrearage
amount. District attorney's oIIice, as a non-party in underlying proceedings to
enIorce out-oI-state child support order, did not have right to appeal district court's
order imposing Rule 11 sanctions against the oIIice, and thus writ oI mandamus was
an available remedy. OIIice oI Washoe County Dist. Atty. v. Second Judicial Dist.
Court ex rel. County oI Washoe, 2000, 5 P.3d 562, 116 Nev. 629. District judge
abused his discretion in imposing $2,500 sanctions against city manager and city
attorney Ior their alleged Iailure to participate in good Iaith in settlement conIerence
and, thereIore, petition Ior writ oI mandamus to prevent district court Irom enIorcing
sanctions would be granted; sanctions levied did not Iit purported violations at issue.
City oI Sparks v. Second Judicial Dist. Court In and For County oI Washoe, 1996,
920 P.2d 1014, 112 Nev. 952. In the United States Supreme Court case oI Buckley v.
Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993), the petitioner
alleged the prosecutors and police conspired to link the boot print at the murder scene
with his print by witness 'shopping. 'At the time oI this witness shopping the
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 11-
036
assistant prosecutors were working hand in hand with the sheriII's detectives.... Id. at
272, 113 S.Ct. 2606. The Court held the prosecutors were not entitled to absolute
immunity, stating: A prosecutor's administrative duties and those investigatory
Iunctions that do not relate to an advocate's preparation Ior the initiation oI a
prosecution or Ior judicial proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity. Id. at
273, 113 S.Ct. 2606. See Gentile v. County oI SuIIolk, 926 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1991)
(holding that a county district attorney's long practice oI ignoring evidence oI police
misconduct and sanctioning and covering up wrongdoing could make the county
liable); Claude H. v. County oI Oneida, 626 N.Y.S.2d 933 (App. Div. 1995) (holding
that district attorney's command that plaintiII be unlawIully arrested could support
action against county Ior Ialse imprisonment). Nevada Rules oI ProIessional
Conduct, Rule 3.8. Special Responsibilities oI a Prosecutor. " The prosecutor in a
criminal case shall: (a) ReIrain Irom prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows
is not supported by probable cause; (b) Make reasonable eIIorts to assure that the
accused has been advised oI the right to, and the procedure Ior obtaining, counsel and
has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel; (c) Not seek to obtain Irom
an unrepresented accused a waiver oI important pretrial rights, such as the right to a
preliminary hearing; (d) Make timely disclosure to the deIense oI all evidence or
inIormation known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt oI the accused or
mitigates the oIIense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the deIense and
to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating inIormation known to the prosecutor,
except when the prosecutor is relieved oI this responsibility by a protective order oI
the tribunal; (e) Not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding
to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably
believes: (1) The inIormation sought is not protected Irom disclosure by any
applicable privilege; (2) The evidence sought is essential to the successIul
completion oI an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and (3) There is no other
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 12-
037
Ieasible alternative to obtain the inIormation; (I) Except Ior statements that are
necessary to inIorm the public oI the nature and extent oI the prosecutor`s action and
that serve a legitimate law enIorcement purpose, reIrain Irom making extrajudicial
comments that have a substantial likelihood oI heightening public condemnation oI
the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enIorcement
personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a
criminal case Irom making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be
prohibited Irom making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule." Under Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83, 87 (1963), 'the suppression by the prosecution oI evidence Iavorable to an
accused ... violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to
punishment....United States v. Shaygan, 661 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2009)
(judge reserved the right 'to impose any Iurther sanctions and/or disciplinary
measures as may be necessary against |the Iederal prosecutors| aIter reviewing the
results oI the Justice Department`s investigation.); United States v. Jones, No. CR
07-10289- MLW, 2010 WL 565478 (D.Mass. 2010) (court determined that
imposition oI sanctions against AUSA or government Ior Iailure to adequately train
AUSA based on Iailure to disclose plainly material exculpatory evidence were
neither necessary nor appropriate where, since violation disclosure, AUSA, US
Attorney`s OIIice and DOJ oIIicials took actions such as participating in discovery
training programs, which obviated need Ior sanctions). As Ior the Public DeIender:
Roy B. Flemming, II You Pay the Piper, Do You Call the Tune? Public DeIenders in
America's Criminal Courts, 14 LAW & SOC. INQUIRY 393 (1989)'. What Public
DeIender? The undersigned was denied one in contravention oI the Sixth
Amendment, and it doesn't matter iI the state doesn't intent to seek jail time, one is
required where jail time is a possibility. Such a decision would constitute an
"objective" oI the representation. See MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL
CONDUCT Rule 1.2(a); ABA Standards Ior Criminal Justice, Standard 4-5.2
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 13-
038
"Control and Direction oI the Case" (1992) (speciIying that the decisions to be made
by the accused aIter Iull consultation with counsel include what pleas to enter,
whether to accept a plea agreement, whether to waive jury trial, whether to testiIy,
and whether to appeal). The lawyers who characteristically gravitate toward indigent
deIense would not, it seems, easily adjust to a practice that involved adhering to a set
oI overriding institutional objectives. Neither their training nor their impulses would
typically prepare public deIenders to bend to the oIIice's larger goals. In Iact, the anti-
authoritarian nature oI the work appealed to me as a staII lawyer. I expected to
represent my clients without either intervention or interIerence Irom my supervisors.
My clients' objectives were not only important, but the only ones that mattered. I
remain sensitive that by imposing institutional controls that to some extent curb the
rebellious spirit oI deIenders, the deIender oIIice might run the risk oI changing both
the nature oI deIenders' practice and the type oI lawyers who choose to join the
oIIice. Clearly, iI a criminal deIendant has a legitimate and articulable basis Ior
wanting a Motion to Dismiss Iiled, it should be Iiled, even by a Public DeIender
whose boss was chosen, in part, by the District Attorney. This is particularly true
where exculpatory audio and video evidence exists, and even more so where
extortion or other police misconduct is evident, such as coercive attempts to garner
consent to search, threats to bad mouth one to a proIessional licensure body,
excessive Iorce, sexual battery, overcharging in a retaliatory manner in light oI an
assertion oI Fourth or FiIth Amendment rights, Ialse imprisonment, etc.... By now,
the actions oI Michael NiIong, the Iormer District Attorney oI Durham County, North
Carolina, that led to his disbarment are well known. See generally Robert P.
Mosteller, The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, and False IdentiIications: A
Fundamental Failure to 'Do Justice, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 1337 (2007). Some argue
that the situation involving NiIong is an isolated case. Yet prosecutorial overreaching
has been an issue well beIore this headline-grabbing case came along. A recent report
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 14-
039
issued by the CaliIornia Commission on the Fair Administration oI Justice reIerred to
a study that reviewed 2,130 CaliIornia appellate cases in which a claim oI
prosecutorial misconduct was raised. Cal. Comm`n on the Fair Admin. oI Justice,
Report and Recommendations on ProIessional Responsibility and Accountability oI
Prosecutors and DeIense Lawyers (2007), available at
http://www.ccIaj.org/documents/reports/prosecutorial/oIIicial/oIIicial report on
reporting misconduct.pdI. OI those 2,130 cases, 443 resulted in Iindings that
prosecutorial misconduct actually occurred. In 53 oI the 443 cases, a reversal oI
conviction was the resultthe rest concluding that the misconduct was harmless
error. Perhaps the most disturbing statistic is that a Iollow-up study looking at halI oI
the cases resulting in a reversed conviction concluded that the prosecutor was not
reIerred to the CaliIornia State Bar Ior discipline, which is required under CaliIornia
law. II there is a positive aspect to the Duke Lacrosse saga, it is that NiIong`s actions
and ultimate disbarment have served to highlight the important issue oI prosecutorial
misconduct and the need Ior eIIective remedies. Prosecutorial Misconduct and
WrongIul Convictions: Shaping Remedies Ior a Broken System, 2006 Wis. L. Rev.
399, 403 (2006). Moreover, assuming that the deIendant is Iactually culpable, a
conviction secured through the improper actions oI a prosecutor could be
unconstitutional and, thus, subject to reversal. The result is that the innocent are
convicted and the guilty go Iree, which can only exacerbate the public`s loss oI trust
in the integrity oI the criminal justice system. PROSECUTORIAL GUIDELINES In
perIorming 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 Iunction. Rule 3.8 oI the ABA Model Rules oI
ProIessional Conduct ('Model Rules) speciIically covers the actions and
responsibilities oI prosecutors. All state jurisdictions have an ethics rule imposing
special responsibilities on prosecutors, most based on Model Rule 3.8. Prosecutors
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 15-
040
are also guided by standards Iound in the ABA Standards Ior Criminal Justice
Prosecution Function and DeIense Function (3d ed. 1993) ('ABA Standards) and
the National District Attorneys Association Prosecution Standards (2d ed. 1991)
('NDAA Standards). In assessing the conduct oI prosecutors, courts have oItentimes
looked to the ABA Standards Ior guidance. See, e.g., Miller v. North Carolina, 583
F.2d 701, 706 n.6 (4th Cir. 1978). For years, the U.S. Department oI Justice ('DOJ)
took the position that Assistant United States Attorneys ('AUSAs) were exempt
Irom 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
Ior 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. 28 U.S.C. 530B(a). The ProIessional Responsibility Advisory OIIice within
the DOJ provides advice to AUSAs regarding ethical issues and choice-oI-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 Joy, supra, at 402 (listing
numerous Iorms oI prosecutorial misconduct). This article Iocuses on Iive categories:
(1) suppression oI evidence, (2) misuse oI the media, (3) misconduct involving
witnesses, (4) investigative misconduct, and (5) trial misconduct. Any speciIic act oI
prosecutorial misconduct may Iall into more than one category. For example,
knowingly presenting perjured testimony would be misconduct involving a witness,
as well as a violation oI the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. NiIong committed
investigative misconduct in devising the photo array that led to the arrest oI 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 'Iillers. Every single picture, 36 in total, that Mangum looked at was a
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 16-
041
lacrosse player. Mangum was unable to identiIy any oI her alleged attackers. Then,
on March 31, 2006, NiIong suggested to the police that Mangum be shown
photographs oI all 46 white members oI the team at the same time. See Mosteller,
supra, at 1398. During this procedure, which occurred on April 4, 2006, Mangum, at
the direction oI NiIong, was told that the police had reason to believe that all oI the
men she was looking at were at the party where she was allegedly raped. Again, the
array contained no 'Iillers. In essence, Mangum was told that she could not make a
wrong choice. It was at this time that Mangum identiIied the players who were later
charged. The direct consequence oI this investigative misconduct was the indictment
oI three innocent people. Trial Misconduct Prosecutorial misconduct during the
course oI trial covers a broad spectrum. For example, a prosecutor may improperly:
introduce evidence, assassinate the character oI a deIendant, reIer to the Iact that a
deIendant did not talk to the police or take the stand in his or her deIense, make
inIlammatory statements during closing argument, or attempt to bolster the credibility
oI 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 oI closing arguments. The NDAA Standard simply states: 'Closing
arguments should be characterized by Iairness, accuracy, rationality, and a reliance
upon the evidence or reasonable inIerences drawn thereIrom. NDAA Standard 85.1.
The ABA Standard goes Iurther and speciIically states that a prosecutor should not
express his or her personal belieI as to the veracity oI any evidence or guilt oI the
deIendant. The ABA Standard also provides that a prosecutor should not appeal to
the prejudices oI the jury. See ABA Standard 3- 5.8(b) (c). Case law is Iilled with
innumerable instances oI improper trial conductmost oI which is deemed harmless.
One prosecutor who repeatedly went over the line according to appellate courts is
Robert H. Macy, the Iormer District Attorney oI Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. See
Ken Armstrong, 'Cowboy Bob Ropes WinsBut at Considerable Cost, Chi. Trib.,
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 17-
042
Jan. 10, 1999, at 13. Called a 'true patriot by Iormer Attorney General William Barr
and honored as 'America`s prosecutor by the Oklahoma Senate upon his retirement
in 2001, Macy leIt behind a string oI cases commenting unIavorably 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 eIIect on his conduct. Nevada Rules oI ProIessional Conduct Rule 1.2.
Scope oI Representation and Allocation oI Authority Between Client and Lawyer. (a)
Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client`s decision
concerning the objectives oI representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult
with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take
such action on behalI oI the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the
representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client`s decision whether to settle a matter.
In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client`s decision, aIter consultation
with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the
client will testiIy. (b) A lawyer`s representation oI a client, including representation
by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement oI the client`s political,
economic, social or moral views or activities. (c) A lawyer may limit the scope oI the
representation iI the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client
gives inIormed consent. (d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a
client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or Iraudulent, but a lawyer may
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Page 18
043
discuss the legal consequences oI any proposed course oI conduct with a client and
may counsel or assist a client to make a good Iaith eIIort to determine the validity,
scope, meaning or application oI the law. |Added; eIIective May 1, 2006.| Model
Rule Comparison2006 Rule 1.2 (Iormerly Supreme Court Rule 152) is the same as
ABA Model Rule 1.2. Rule 1.3. Diligence. A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client. |Added; eIIective May 1, 2006.|
Model Rule Comparison2006 Rule 1.3 (Iormerly Supreme Court Rule 153) is the
same as ABA Model Rule 1.3. Investigative Misconduct Pressure to solve a crime
might lead a prosecutor to get intimately involved in the pre-trial investigation oI a
matter. See ABA Standard 3-3.1 ('|T|he prosecutor has an aIIirmative responsibility
to investigate suspected illegal activity when it is not adequately dealt with by other
agencies.). REMEDIES To date, prosecutorial misconducteven the most
egregioushas largely gone unchecked. See Gershman, Misconduct, supra, at vi
('Relatively Iew judicial or constitutional sanctions exist to penalize or deter
misconduct; the available sanctions are sparingly used and even when used have not
proved eIIective.). In January 1999, the Chicago Tribune published a Iive-part series
titled: Trial & Error: How Prosecutors SacriIice Justice to Win. Analyzing thousands
oI cases, the newspaper Iound that since 1963 at least 381 deIendants had their
convictions reversed either because prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence or
suborned perjury. Alarmingly, oI those 381 cases, 'not one oI those prosecutors was
convicted oI a crime. Not one was barred Irom 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., Jan. 10, 1999, at 1. Criminal Prosecutions The criminal prosecution oI a
prosecutor is extremely rare. According to the Chicago Tribune series, '|I|ew
prosecutors nationally have been indicted, and they were acquitted or, at worst,
convicted oI a misdemeanor and Iined. Ken Armstrong & Maurice Possley, Break
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 19-
044
Rules, Be Promoted, Chi. Trib., Jan. 14, 1999, at 1 |hereinaIter 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 Ior acts committed in their oIIicial capacity; neither resulted in
convictions. The Iirst occurred in mid-1999 a case in which three Iormer Illinois
state prosecutors were charged with conspiring to Irame a man by the name oI
Rolando Cruz Ior murder. Cruz spent nearly 10 years on Death Row beIore it became
clear that the prosecution had suppressed evidence that another person had
committed the crime and that prosecutors had conspired with police oIIicers to
introduce a 'dream statement oI Cruz`s into evidence at his original trial and two re-
trials. A judge dismissed charges against two oI the prosecutors Ior insuIIicient
evidence. (One later became an Illinois judgethe other, an AUSA.) A jury
acquitted the third aIter a 28-day trial. See Andrew Bluth, Prosecutor and 4 SheriII `s
Deputies Are Acquitted oI WrongIully Accusing a Man oI Murder, N.Y. Times, June
5, 1999, at A9. Rule 1.4. Communication. (a) A lawyer shall: (1) Promptly inIorm the
client oI any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client`s inIormed
consent is required by these Rules; (2) Reasonably consult with the client about the
means by which the client`s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) Keep the client
reasonably inIormed about the status oI the matter; (4) Promptly comply with
reasonable requests Ior inIormation; and (5) Consult with the client about any
relevant limitation on the lawyer`s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client
expects assistance not permitted by the Rules oI ProIessional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the
client to make inIormed decisions regarding the representation. ...Added; eIIective
May 1, 2006; as amended; eIIective November 21, 2008.| Model Rule Comparison
2007 Rule 1.4 (Iormerly Supreme Court Rule 154) is the same as ABA Model Rule
1.4, except that the 2007 amendments include language in paragraph (c) that was
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 20-
045
previously part oI repealed Rule 7.2A(a) through (d) and (I) (Iormerly Supreme Court
Rule 196.5) which is NevadaspeciIic language and has no counterpart in the Model
Rules. Disciplinary Actions Each state bar has a mechanism in place Ior the
discipline oI misconduct by attorneys licensed in that state. Separately, Iederal courts
may discipline attorneys who appear beIore them, which may result in the suspension
or disbarment oI attorneys Irom that particular court. See, e.g., In re Kramer, 282
F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, the DOJ`s OIIice oI ProIessional Responsibility
('OPR) has responsibility Ior investigating allegations oI misconduct committed by
AUSAs. It appears that these procedures are rarely eIIective in dealing with
prosecutorial misconduct. The disciplinary action against NiIong 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 Ior Public Integrity
conducted a study that Iound only 44 instances oI disciplinary actions against
prosecutors since 1970. OI those 44: ? in 7, the court dismissed the complaint or did
not impose punishment; ? in 3, the court remanded the case Ior Iurther proceedings; ?
in 24, the court assessed the costs oI 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 prosecutor`s license was suspended; ? in 2, the
prosecutor was disbarred. Neil Gordon, Misconduct and Punishment: State
Disciplinary Authorities Investigate Prosecutors Accused oI Misconduct (2007),
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/deIault.aspx?actsidebarsb&aid 39; see
generally Steve Weinberg et al., Ctr. Ior Pub. Integrity, HarmIul Error: Investigating
America`s Local Prosecutors (2003). A Iollow-up to the Tulia case discussed above
revealed that the prosecutor, whose subornation oI perjury and Brady violations led
to the wrongIul convictions oI scores oI people, received two years oI probation. See
Disciplinary Actions, 68 Tex. B.J. 753, 758 (2005). The OPR has the authority to
determine whether an AUSA committed 'proIessional misconduct in the exercise oI
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 21-
046
his or her authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. U.S. Dep`t oI
Justice OIIice oI ProI`l Responsibility, Analytical Framework (rev. 2005), available
at http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/Iramework.pdI. ProIessional misconduct is deIined as
the intentional or reckless disregard 'oI an obligation or standard imposed by law,
applicable rule oI proIessional conduct, or Department regulation or policy. Id. II the
OPR determines that an AUSA committed proIessional misconduct, it recommends a
certain sanction to the attorney`s supervisor. Available sanctions range Irom a written
reprimand to removal. The OPR may also reIer the matter to the bar disciplinary
authority in the jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed. See U.S. Dep`t oI
Justice OIIice oI ProI`l Responsibility, Policies & Procedures, available at
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/ polandproc.htm. In 2001, a General Accounting OIIice
report concluded that the OPR was ineIIective in dealing with prosecutorial
misconduct. See News Advisory, U.S. House oI Representatives, Committee on the
Judiciary, GAO Report Finds SigniIicant Problems with Justice Department`s OIIice
oI ProIessional Responsibility (Feb. 20, 2001), available at
http://www.judiciary.house.gov/legacy/news0220.htm. A recent highly-publicized
case illustrates the problem. ChieI Judge Mark WolI oI the U.S. District Court,
District oI Massachusetts Iound 'extraordinary misconduct by the Department oI
Justice in its investigation and prosecution oI members oI the Patriarca Family oI La
Cosa Nostra. Ferrara v. United States, 384 F. Supp. 2d 384, 387 (D. Mass. 2005), aII
`d, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006). ChieI Judge WolI Iound that AUSA 'JeIIrey
Auerhahn, violated |his| clearly established constitutional duty to disclose . . . beIore
trial, important exculpatory inIormation that directly negated |Vincent Ferrara`s and
Pasquale Barone`s| guilt on murder charges. Id. The suppression oI the evidence
was intentional according to ChieI Judge WolI. See id. at 393 98. The First Circuit
agreed, stating: '|T|he government`s actions in this case . . . paint a grim picture oI
blatant misconduct. The record virtually compels the conclusion that this Ieckless
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 22-
047
course oI conduct . . . constituted a deliberate and serious breach oI its promise to
provide exculpatory evidence. Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278, 293 (1st Cir.
2006) (Iootnote omitted). The OPR investigated Auerhahn and concluded that he had
acted in reckless disregard oI his duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.
I have been evicted and perhaps subject to an illegal lockout and unlawIul rent
distraint by an attorney representing my Beverly Hills High School graduate
CaliIornia Neurosurgeon landlord, who has spent approx $30,000 in attorneys Iees
pursuing a summary eviction, and whose attorney is withholding my state issued
indentiIication, wallet, and all materials necessary to my law practice all in an
unlawIul rent distraint prohibited by NRS 40.460 and 40.520. I am pursuing a
continuance oI the upcoming hearing/trial, I cannot even access when that hearing is.
I have inIormed opposing counsel Roberts oI some oI the issues which will require
extensive discovery, a jury trial, and more time to aIIord myselI a legitimate
opportunity to deIend this case. I have not been served any Order responding to my
request Ior appointment oI counsel, as I believe it is required even iI the State does
not "intend" to seek jail time, where any incarceration is a possibility, the Sixth
Amendment guarantees it. Please note that my temporary address Ior now is: Zach
Coughlin, Esq. c/o Silver Dollar Motel 817 N. Virginia St., Unit # 2 Reno, NV 89501
The opposing counsel in the summary eviction matter is withholding my phone as
well and reIusing to allow me to access any mail that may remain at the property
Irom those times when the USPS was processing my oIIicial Change oI Address.
Email is the best way to get in contact with me during this transition period. For
instance, I am unware whether my Motion Ior Appointment oI Counsel was granted
or not. I called Judge Howard's assistant and requested that she email me the docket
in this case and any pleadings or orders Iiled, including any order that may have
stemmed Iorm any oI my previous motions, as I am not sure how those were ruled
on. I believe my internet based Iax service will allow me to receive those materials at
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 23-
048
my number 949 667 7402, though I would preIer email, but I know many
governmental entities preIer to Iax such items. I am requesting a jury trial, a
substantial continuance, and the appointment oI counsel. I object to the RMC's
practice oI reIusing to tell litigants who the 4 "house" appointed deIenders are upon
questioning. Further, it has become clear that some oI these "Iormer prosecutors"
who are now the gang oI Iour "house" deIenders, do not even announce to accused
arraignees that they are, in Iact, the deIender or an attorney or that they may be
representing the arraignees. I am hereby Iiling a motion in limine regarding any
materials or inIormation gleaned Irom the unlawIul search by the RSIC OIIicer, who
clearly announced that they would base their probable cause to arrest and conduct a
search incident to arrest upon any Iailure to consent to a search by the accused.
Further, the alleged conduct did not occur in the OIIicer's presence, and I believe
there exists authority preventing a minor misdemeanor arrest and transport under
those circumstances. Additionally, more time is needed to conduct discovery in this
matter, especially in light oI allegations that Walmart had previously threatened
individuals, including, perhaps, the accused, with retaliatory action, including illicit
abuse oI process, Ior the purported attempts by someone to have the Walmart Return
Policy enIorced, and to hold accountable all Walmart employees and managers, some
oI whom have over a decade experience in their positions, who curiously "Iorget"
they Return Policy Walmart holds out to the public when it is convenient to do so,
the same Return Policy that Walmart used to drive out oI business so many
competitors. Further, this case is likely to get extremely complicated given the
apparent conIlict oI interest stemming Irom the Iact that the Walmart in question is
on land owned by the RSIC, which may own or employ the RSIC police, and which
is rented or owned in part by Walmart. I know Opposing Counsel Roberts may
appreciate a continuance as well and the opportunity it would aIIord her to IulIill her
NRCP 11 duty and other prosecutorial duties to conduct a reasonably diligent inquiry
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 24-
049
into these matters.....I did obtain a copy oI the "discovery" about the second day it
was made available to me Irom your oIIice in person. At that time, no video evidence
was made available to me. Is there now some video or audio recording to which I
may be provided access? Would you mind just emailing me the names oI the
intended witnesses. Do you believe you do not have a duty to make a reasonably
diligent inquiry oI either Walmart or RSIC do assess the validity oI the matters
mentioned in my last email, ie the retaliatory motive vis a vis Walmart and or the
impermissible search/ 42 USC Sec 1983 police misconduct oI the RSIC oIIicers?
Full view,,Back to messagesRE: motion Ior continuance? 11/16/11 Pamela
RobertsTo Zach Coughlin From: Pamela Roberts (robertspreno.gov) Sent: Wed
11/16/11 5:12 PM To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlinhotmail.com) Mr. Coughlin,
you should have already received a notice regarding the availability oI discovery and
request Ior reciprocal discovery. You just need to call ahead at 334-2050 and arrange
to pick it up. You are entitled to copies oI all the reports and witness statements and
video we may have on this case. Since I am not calling any additional witnesses that
are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send you an
additional list oI witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any Iurther investigation or
interviews. Pam Roberts. -----Original Message----- From: Zach Coughlin
zachcoughlinhotmail.com~ To: robertspreno.gov~ Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011
15:35:48 -0800 Subject: RE: motion Ior continuance Ms. Roberts, Thanks Ior your
reply. Please ascertain Irom Walmart whether any Walmart employees had, previous
to this incident, made any threats respecting maliciously having the accused banned
Irom Walmart's incident to a disagreement over Walmart staII and managers curious
practice oI "Iorgetting" their return policy, despite some individuals having worked
there over 10 years....Further, I believe it relevant and part oI your duty to provide
exculpatory inIormation to ascertain whether the RSIC police oIIicer made
statements wherein he attempted to coerce a consent to an impermissible search and
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 25-
050
Iurther buttressed his probable cause Iinding to conduct a search incident to arrest,
expressly, in words, to the accused, upon the accused's Iailure to consent to such a
search. Please provide a list oI any witnesses you intend to call at trial, including a
summation oI the matters the will testiIy to, in addition to producing a copy or
making available Ior reproduction any documentation, audio, video, or other
materials intended to be used in any way at trial. Thank You,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14
Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800 From: robertspreno.gov To: zachcoughlinhotmail.com
Subject: Re: motion Ior continuance Mr. Coughlin, we were closed on Friday and I
have just read your email. II you have not received conIirmation Irom the Court that
your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this aIternoon at 1:00 pm
in Courtroom B oI the Reno Municipal Court. We can discuss your case Iurther at
that time and iI we are unable to resolve the case, you can ask the Court again Ior 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
deIender. I do not plan to ask Ior 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 aIternoon. Pam Roberts, Deputy
City Attorney. -----Original Message----- From: Zach Coughlin
zachcoughlinhotmail.com~ To: robertspreno.gov~ Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011
01:40:53 -0800 Subject: motion Ior continuance Dear Counselor Roberts, I believe
you are the prosecutor Ior the case against me, State v. Coughlin, which I believe is
still set Ior trial on November 14th, I think at 1pm. I am not totally sure that there is a
duty to serve you on such a thing, but I Iiled a Motion Ior Continuance and a Motion
Ior Appointment oI Counsel sometime within about the last 10 days, I would say. I
believe I attempted to copy you on it, but have recently been evicted and its been a
very diIIicult time in terms oI coordinating paperwork, etc., etc. I apologize Ior any
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 26-
051
inconvenience this may have cause you. I am unsure oI whether the November 14th
trial is still set to take place. I believe Iairness dictates that it be continued to a later
date. I have request counsel but have yet to receive any, or wait, I was denied a
request to receive counsel because Judge Howard said there is not a 6th amendment
right to counsel where, even though jail time is technically a possibility, the state
does not anticipate seeking jail time...or something like that, however, I Iound some
cases that say I should still get counsel appointed, especially where I show I am
indigent, and I believe I qualiIy as indigent rather easily. Can and would you agree to
a continuance? I believe I tried to contact about this prior to Iiling my Request Ior a
Continuance. I maintain my innocence in this case and Ieel any sort oI conviction,
especially one involving any sort oI theIt based charge, would work a terrible
injustice and greatly damage my reputation and employment prospects. I want a jury
trial, too. Sincerely,
The sanction was a private written reprimand. Not satisIied, ChieI Judge WolI
initiated his own disciplinary action against Auerhahn and wrote then- Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales a letter on June 29, 2007 criticizing the OPR. Associate
Deputy Attorney General David Margolis replied by letter to ChieI Judge WolI,
asserting that 'the discipline imposed by the Department was consistent with,
correlated to, and proportional with the Iindings that resulted Irom OPR`s
investigation. Letter Irom David Margolis to The Honorable Mark L. WolI (Oct. 2,
2007). Still not satisIied, ChieI Judge WolI wrote Attorney General Michael
Mukasey. In this letter, ChieI Judge WolI noted that he assisted in the establishment
oI OPR, but now has 'serious questions about whether judges should continue to rely
upon the Department to investigate and sanction misconduct by Iederal prosecutors.
Letter Irom The Honorable Mark L. WolI to The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
(Jan. 2, 2008). The letters may be Iound in the court Iiles oI Barone v. United States,
No. 98-11104 (D. Mass. 1998) and Ferrara v. United States, No. 00-11693 (D. Mass.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 27-
052
2000). Sellers v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Ct., 119 Nev. 256, 71 P .3d 495 (2003), but,
see: NOTE: Awarding Attorney's Fees to Pro Se Litigants Under Rule 11, June,
1997, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 2308, Jeremy D. Spector. Sellers speaks to awards oI
attorney's Iees to prevailing parties in civil actions. It does not purport to speak to
attorney's Iees awards stemming Irom Rule 11 violation, a situation where the
granting oI attorney's Iees to an attorney pro se litigant is Iar more accepted
throughout American jurisprudence. To wit: 'states that have considered whether an
attorney proper person litigant may be awarded attorney Iees are divided, with a
slight majority permitting such Iees. Decisions approving Iee awards to attorney
proper person litigants generally do so on the basis that an attorney is paid Ior
rendering legal services, and iI he renders such services on his own behalI, it results
in as much pecuniary loss to him as iI he paid another attorney to render the same
services. So, iI a losing party must pay attorney Iees anyway, it should make no
diIIerence whether the Iees are to be paid to an attorney representing himselI or
another attorney employed by him. In short, "a lawyer's time and advice are his stock
in trade."...We interpret NRS 69.030 to require that all proper person litigants,
whether attorney or non-attorney, be obligated to pay attorney Iees as a prerequisite
Ior an award oI prevailing party attorney Iees. This interpretation gives eIIect to the
Legislature's clear intent that the prevailing party in justice's court be reimbursed by
the losing party Ior out-oIpocket costs incurred to prosecute the suit. To interpret the
statute otherwise would require us to redeIine what is meant by an attorney Iee,
which is commonly understood to be the sum paid or charged Ior legal services.
Because Matthews represented himselI and did not pay or incur any obligation to pay
attorney Iees, the justice's court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding such Iees. We
thereIore grant, in part, the petition Ior a writ oI certiorari. Sellers v. Fourth Judicial
Dist. Ct., 119 Nev. 256, 71 P .3d 495 (2003). NRS 69.030 'Prevailing party allowed
attorney's Iee to be taxed as costs in justice court. The prevailing party in any civil
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 28-
053
action at law in the justice courts oI this State shall receive, in addition to the costs oI
court as now allowed by law, a reasonable attorney Iee. The attorney Iee shall be
Iixed by the justice and taxed as costs against the losing party.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030 The undersigned does hereby aIIirm
that the preceding document does not contain the social security number oI any
person.
DATED this November 29
th
, 2011
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
Attorney Ior DeIendant Coughlin
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 29-
054
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare: On November 29, 2011, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served
the Ioregoing MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES; emailing a
true copy thereoI to:
Pam Robert, Esq.-
Reno City Atty OIIice-
robertspreno.gov
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not
contain the social security number oI any person.
DATED this November 29
th
, 2011
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
Attorney Ior DeIendant Coughlin
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 30-
055
INDEX TO ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT 1: TWO LAW REVIEW ARTICLES ON PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT: 'Crossing the Line: Responding to Prosecutorial Misconduct (13
PAGES, AND 'PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (33 PAGES)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-
Page 31-
056
EXHIBIT 1
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Page 32
057
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
CrossingtheLine:
RespondingtoProsecutorialMisconduct
INTRODUCTION
Amonglawyers,aprosecutorisinauniqueposition. NormallyalawyerisIreetoindeed,expected
tozealouslyadvocateonbehalIoIhisorherclient.Prosecutors,however,arenotsimplyadvocates
Iorthegovernment.TheyarealsoministersoIjusticewhoseaimisnottowinacase,butthatjustice
shallbedone. Bergerv.UniteaStates,295U.S.78,88(1935).Assuch,|i|tisasmuchhisdutyto
reIrain Irom improper methods calculated to produce a wrongIul conviction as it is to use every
legitimatemeanstobringaboutajustone. Ia.; seegenerallyBennettL.Gershman,TheProsecutors
DutytoTruth,14Geo.J.LegalEthics309(2001).
By now, the actions oI Michael NiIong, the Iormer District Attorney oI Durham County, North
Carolina, that led to his disbarment are well known. See generally Robert P. Mosteller, The Duke
Lacrosse Case, Innocence, ana False Iaentifications. A Funaamental Failure to Do Justice, 76
FordhamL.Rev.1337(2007).SomearguethatthesituationinvolvingNiIongisanisolatedcase. Yet
prosecutorialoverreachinghasbeenanissuewellbeIorethisheadline-grabbingcasecamealong.
ArecentreportissuedbytheCaliIorniaCommissionontheFairAdministrationoIJusticereIerredtoa
studythatreviewed2,130CaliIorniaappellatecasesinwhichaclaimoIprosecutorialmisconductwas
raised. Cal. Commn on the FairAdmin. oI Justice, Report ana Recommenaations on Professional
Responsibility ana Accountability of Prosecutors ana Defense Lawyers (2007), available at
http://www.ccIaj.org/documents/reports/prosecutorial/oIIicial/oIIicial report on reporting
misconduct.pdI. OIthose2,130cases,443resultedinIindingsthatprosecutorialmisconductactually
occurred.In53oIthe443cases,areversaloIconvictionwastheresulttherestconcludingthatthe
misconductwasharmlesserror.PerhapsthemostdisturbingstatisticisthataIollow-upstudylooking
athalIoIthecasesresultinginareversedconvictionconcludedthattheprosecutorwasnotreIerredto
the CaliIornia State Bar Ior discipline, which is required under CaliIornia law. II there is a positive
aspect to the Duke Lacrosse saga, it is that NiIongs actions and ultimate disbarment have served to
highlighttheimportantissueoIprosecutorialmisconductandtheneedIoreIIectiveremedies.
Few would claim that any prosecutor intentionally sets out to seek the conviction oI an innocent
person. Rather, it is argued that prosecutorial misconduct stems Irom a win at all cost mentality
underlying the desire to Iurther a career, or a Iirm belieI in the deIendants guilt notwithstanding
admissibleevidence.SeeJosephF.Lawless,ProsecutorialMisconauct1:06,at1-15(3ded.2003).
RegardlessoIthecauses,theeIIectsoIprosecutorialmisconductaredistressing.TwodiIIerentstudies
oI persons exonerated by DNA evidence have shown that prosecutorial misconduct played a role in
convicting an innocent person nearly halI oI the time. See PeterA. Joy, The Relationship Between
1
058
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
Prosecutorial Misconauct ana Wrongful Convictions. Shaping Remeaies for a Broken System, 2006
Wis. L. Rev. 399, 403 (2006). Moreover, assuming that the deIendant is Iactually culpable, a
conviction secured through the improper actions oI a prosecutor could be unconstitutional and, thus,
subjecttoreversal.TheresultisthattheinnocentareconvictedandtheguiltygoIree,whichcanonly
exacerbatethepublicslossoItrustintheintegrityoIthecriminaljusticesystem.
PROSECUTORIALGUIDELINES
InperIormingtheirdutiestoseekjustice,prosecutorsareboundbyconstitutionalstandards,caselaw
governingtrialconduct,andvariousethicsrulesandstandardspertainingtotheprosecutorialIunction.
Rule 3.8 oI theABA Model Rules oI ProIessional Conduct (Model Rules) speciIically covers the
actionsandresponsibilitiesoIprosecutors. Allstatejurisdictionshaveanethicsruleimposingspecial
responsibilities on prosecutors, most based on Model Rule 3.8. Prosecutors are also guided by
standards Iound in the ABA Stanaaras for Criminal Justice Prosecution Function ana Defense
Function (3d ed. 1993) (ABA Standards) and the National District Attorneys Association
ProsecutionStanaaras(2ded.1991)(NDAAStandards). InassessingtheconductoIprosecutors,
courtshaveoItentimeslookedtotheABAStandardsIorguidance. See,e.g., Millerv.NorthCarolina,
583F.2d701,706n.6(4thCir.1978).
For years, the U.S. Department oI Justice (DOJ) took the position that Assistant United States
Attorneys(AUSAs)wereexemptIromstateethicsrules.TheMcDadeAmendmentin1999laidto
restthisargument.Theamendment,attachedasaridertoanappropriationsbill,provides:
An attorney for the Government shall be subfect to State laws ana rules, ana local
Feaeralcourtrules,governingattorneysineachStatewheresuchattorneyengages
in that attorneys auties, to the same extent ana in the same manner as other
attorneysinthatState.
28 U.S.C. 530B(a). The ProIessional Responsibility Advisory OIIice within the DOJ provides
advicetoAUSAsregardingethicalissuesandchoice-oI-lawmatters.
EXAMPLESOFPROSECUTORIALMISCONDUCT
Like the Hydra slain by Hercules, prosecutorial misconduct has many heads. Unitea States v.
Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 60 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Joy, supra, at 402 (listing
numerousIormsoIprosecutorialmisconduct).ThisarticleIocusesonIivecategories:(1)suppression
oI evidence, (2) misuse oI the media, (3) misconduct involving witnesses, (4) investigative
misconduct,and(5)trialmisconduct.AnyspeciIicactoIprosecutorialmisconductmayIallintomore
than one category. For example, knowingly presenting perjured testimony would be misconduct
involvingawitness,aswellasaviolationoIthedutytodiscloseexculpatoryevidence.
Suppression of Evidence
[J{iolations of Brady are the most recurring ana pervasive of all constitutional
proceauralviolations,withaisastrousconsequences.innocentpeoplearewrongfully
2
059
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
convictea, the reputation of U.S. prosecutors suffer, ana the absence of meaningful
legal ana ethical enforcement ana accountability has a corrosive effect on the
publicsperceptionofafusticesystemthatoftenappearstobearbitrary,unfust,ana
simplyunreliable.
Bennett L. Gershman, Litigating Brady v. Maryland. Games Prosecutors Play, 57 Case W. Res. L.
Rev.13,15(2007)|hereinaIterGershman,Litigating|.
The key holding oI Braay v. Marylana is that the suppression by the prosecution oI evidence
Iavorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to
guiltortopunishment,irrespectiveoIthegoodIaithorbadIaithoItheprosecution.373U.S.83,87
(1963).Arguably,becauseaBraay violationmayoccurevenwhentheprosecutoractsingoodIaith,
thetermprosecutorialmisconductinthesuppressionoIevidencecontextshouldbeusedonlywhen
theprosecutorintentionallywithholdsexculpatorymaterial.
In UniteaStatesv.Agurs,theSupremeCourtexplainedthataprosecutorhasaconstitutionaldutyoI
disclosurewhenheorsheisinpossessionoIevidencethatwoulddenyadeIendantaIairtrialiIthat
evidence were not disclosed. See 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976). The Court has stressed that because a
prosecutor is in a diIIerent position to determine the materiality oI a piece oI evidence than is an
appellatecourt,theprudentprosecutorwillresolvedoubtIulquestionsinIavoroIdisclosure.Ia.
The Supreme Court has clariIied that the constitutional requirement that a prosecutor disclose
evidencethatisIavorableandmaterialexistsregardlessoIwhetherthedeIendantmakesarequestIor
a speciIic piece oI evidence, a general request Ior Iavorable evidence, or no request at all. Unitea
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
beendisclosedtothedeIense,theresultoItheproceedingwouldhavebeendiIIerent.Areasonable
probability is a probability suIIicient to undermine conIidence in the outcome. Ia. Moreover, a
prosecutor has a duty to learn oI any Iavorable evidence known to the others acting on the
governments behalI in the case, including the police. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995).
Finally, there is no constitutional signiIicance between impeachment evidence and evidence that is
directly exculpatory. The key to a Braay violation is the materiality oI the withheld evidence. See
Bagley,473U.S.at67678.
EthicalrulesrequiremorethantheconstitutionalminimumoIBraay. AlthoughtheNDAAStandards
seemtorequireonlyslightlymorethantheconstitutionalminimum,see NDAAStandard25.4(The
prosecutorshoulddisclosetheexistenceornatureoIexculpatoryevidencepertinenttothedeIense.),
theModelRulesandABAStandardsgoIurther. ModelRule3.8(d)providesthataprosecutormust:
make timely aisclosure to the aefense of all eviaence or information known to the
prosecutorthattenastonegatetheguiltoftheaccuseaormitigatestheoffense,ana,
in connection with sentencing, aisclose to the aefense ana to the tribunal all
unprivilegea mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the
prosecutorisrelieveaofthisresponsibilitybyaprotectiveoraerofthetribunal.
3
060
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
LikewiseABAStandard3-3.11(a)provides:
Aprosecutorshoulanotintentionallyfailtomaketimelyaisclosuretotheaefense,at
theearliestfeasibleopportunity,oftheexistenceofalleviaenceorinformationwhich
tenas to negate the guilt of the accusea or mitigate the offense chargea or which
woulatenatoreaucethepunishmentoftheaccusea.
The commentary to ABA Standard 3-3.11 notes that this provision is virtually identical to that
imposedbyABAmodelethicalcodes,|and|goesbeyondthecorollarydutyimposeduponprosecutors
by constitutional law. (Footnote omitted.) See also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437 (noting that Braay
requireslessoItheprosecutionthantheABAStandardsIorCriminalJustice,whichcallgenerallyIor
prosecutorialdisclosuresoIanyevidencetendingtoexculpateormitigate).Finally,ABAStandard3-
3.11(c)warnsthat|a|prosecutorshouldnotintentionallyavoidpursuitoIevidencebecauseheorshe
believesitwilldamagetheprosecutionscaseoraidtheaccused.
NiIong suppressed exculpatory evidence when he did not tell the deIense team that DNA Irom
numerous males, none oI it Irom any oI the lacrosse players, was Iound in items obtained Irom the
complainantduringhermedicalexamination. Thisevidencewasinconsistentwiththecomplainants
allegationsthatshewasrapedbyseveraloItheteammembers.Italsocontradictedherclaimsthatshe
hadnothadsexwithanyoneinoveraweekpriortotheallegedincident.SeegenerallyStuartTaylor,
Jr.&KCJohnson,UntilProvenInnocent(2007).
OneoIthemostegregiouscasesoIaprosecutorIailingtodiscloseimpeachmentevidenceoccurredin
thesmalltownoITulia,Texas.In1999,38people(36oIthemblack)werearrestedondrugcharges
and later convicted. The only evidence used to secure their convictions was the uncorroborated
testimonyoIoneundercoveroIIicerwithseverecredibilityproblems.Atahearingseveralyearslater,
a judge determined that the prosecutor had Iailed to turn over evidence impeaching the oIIicers
credibility,andstoodsilentwhenheknewtheoIIicerwascommittingperjury. AlloIthedeIendants
were either pardoned or had their convictions overturned. See Laura Parker, Court Cases Raise
Conauct Concerns, USA Today, June 26, 2003, at 3A. A more thorough discussion oI how
prosecutors may evade their responsibility to disclose exculpatory evidence may be Iound in
Gershman,Litigating, supra.
Misuse of the Media
EthicalrulesprohibitalllawyersinvolvedinlitigationorinvestigationsIrommakingstatementstothe
mediathatwouldprejudicethematter.ModelRule3.6(a)provides:
Alawyerwhoisparticipatingorhasparticipateaintheinvestigationorlitigationof
a matter shall not make an extrafuaicial statement that the lawyer knows or
reasonablyshoulaknowwillbeaisseminateabymeansofpubliccommunicationana
will have a substantial likelihooa of materially prefuaicing an aafuaicative
proceeainginthematter.
Model Rule 3.8(I), which applies speciIically to prosecutors and is meant to protect a deIendants
SixthAmendmentrighttoaIairtrial,iswordedsimilarlytoModelRule3.6(a).Italsoimposesaduty
4
061
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
on a prosecutor to take reasonable steps to prevent the entire prosecutorial team Irom making
prejudicialstatements:
[E{xceptforstatementsthatarenecessarytoinformthepublicofthenatureana
extent of the prosecutors action ana that serve a legitimate law enforcement
purpose,[aprosecutorshall{ refrainfrommakingextrafuaicialcommentsthathave
a substantial likelihooa of heightening public conaemnation of the accusea ana
exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel,
employeesorotherpersonsassistingorassociateawiththeprosecutorinacriminal
casefrommakinganextrafuaicialstatementthattheprosecutorwoulabeprohibitea
frommakingunaerRule3.6orthisRule.
Standard3-1.4oItheABAStandardsisbasicallyanamalgamoIModelRules3.6(a)and3.8(I).The
IulltextoIStandard3-1.4Iollows:
(a) A prosecutor shoula not make or authori:e the making of an extrafuaicial
statement that a reasonable person woula expect to be aisseminatea by means of
publiccommunicationiftheprosecutorknowsorreasonablyshoulaknowthatitwill
haveasubstantiallikelihooaofprefuaicingacriminalproceeaing.
(b) A prosecutor shoula exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law
enforcementpersonnel,employees,orotherpersonsassistingorassociateawiththe
prosecutor from making an extrafuaicial statement that the prosecutor woula be
prohibiteafrommakingunaerthisStanaara.
The DOJ has promulgated regulations governing the release oI inIormation in criminal cases. 28
C.F.R. 50.2(a)(b). The regulations provide that very general inIormation about the deIendant,
charginginstrument,investigatingagency,andcircumstancesoIarrestmaybereleased.50.2(b)(3).
Importantly, |d|isclosures should include only incontrovertible, Iactual matters, and should not
includesubjectiveobservations.50.2(b)(3)(iv).TheregulationsclearlyprohibitdisseminationoI
anyinIormationconcerningadeIendantspriorcriminalrecord,50.2(b)(4),andalsolistnumerous
types oI inIormation or opinions that a prosecutor should reIrain Irom 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 enIorceable in law or otherwise in any
party.USAM1-7.001.
Improper extra-judicial statements include: releasing grand jury material, commenting on the bad
character oI a deIendant, reIerring to the crime as heinous or reprehensible, disclosing a deIendants
conIession, disclosing a deIendants criminal record, discussing trial strategy, opining on the
deIendants guilt, claiming that the governments case is strong, and commenting on the deIendants
lack oI cooperation. See Bennett L. Gershman, Prosecutorial Misconauct 6:3:10 (2d ed. 2007)
|hereinaIter Gershman, Misconauct|. But see 28 C.F.R. 50.2(b)(6) (providing that a prosecutor
should reIrain Irom giving an opinion as to the deIendants guilt and reIerring to the deIendants
characterorconIession).
5
062
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
The Disciplinary Hearing Commission oI the North Carolina State Bar determined that NiIong had
violatedRule3.6(a)and3.8(I)oINorthCarolinasRevisedRulesoIProIessionalConductonatleast
30diIIerentoccasions. AsmallsamplingoIthestatementsinclude:
|O|newouldwonderwhyoneneedsanattorneyiIonewasnotchargedandhadnotdoneanything
wrong.
The contempt that was shown Ior the victim, based on her race was totally abhorrent. It adds
anotherlayeroIreprehensiblenesstoacrimethatisalreadyreprehensible.
IwouldnotbesurprisediIcondomswereused.ProbablyanexoticdancerwouldnotbeyourIirst
choiceIorunprotectedsex.
Im not going to let Durhams view in the minds oI the world to be a bunch oI lacrosse players
IromDukerapingablackgirlinDurham.
What happened here was one oI the worst things thats happened since I have become district
attorney.
TheydontwanttoadmittheenormityoIwhattheyhavedone.
Natl Org. oI Bar Counsel, Case of the Month (June 2007), http://www.nobc.org/cases/0607.asp.
NiIongs numerous statements inIlamed the public, the pool Irom which the jury would have been
drawnhadthecasegonetotrial.
Misconduct Involving Witnesses
It should go without saying that a prosecutor acts unethically when he or she suborns perjury. Such
conduct undermines the integrity oI our adversarial system and, at a minimum, violates Model Rule
3.3(a)(3), whichprohibitsany lawyer Irom knowinglyoIIering Ialseevidence. Similar totheModel
Rule, ABA Standard 3-5.6(a) succinctly states: A prosecutor should not knowingly oIIer Ialse
evidence, whether by documents, tangible evidence, or the testimony oI witnesses, or Iail to seek
withdrawalthereoIupondiscoveryoIitsIalsity.
BeyondtheethicsoIpresentingperjuredtestimony,theknowinguseoIsuchtestimonyinvolve|s|a
corruptionoIthetruth-seekingIunctionoIthetrialprocess.Agurs,427U.S.at104.|A|conviction
obtained by the knowing use oI perjured testimony is Iundamentally unIair, and must be set aside iI
there is any reasonable likelihood that the Ialse testimony coula have aIIected the judgment oI the
jury. Ia. at103 (emphases added) (Iootnote omitted). This rule equally applieswhen aprosecutor,
although not soliciting Ialse evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears, even when the
uncorrected testimony goes to the credibility oI the witness. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269
(1959).
InadditiontotheTuliacasediscussedabove,anotherwell-knowncaseoIaprosecutorusingperjured
testimony in order to obtain a conviction occurred in the Detroit Sleeper Cell terrorism trial.
Although the case was riddled with various Iorms oI prosecutorial misconduct, perjury played akey
role.
CentraltotheprosecutionscaseinUniteaStatesv.Koubriti,No.01-80778(E.D.Mich.),wasasketch
recovered Irom the deIendants apartment containing the words Queen Alia and Hashemite
KingdomoIJordanwritteninArabic.Indictment,UniteaStatesv.Convertino,No.06-cr-20173,at3
6
063
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2006). The government presented testimony through a Department oI State
SpecialAgent that he had traveled to theQueenAlia Military Hospital in Jordan and concluded that
thesketchwasalmostanexactrepresentationoItheIacility. Amongtheagentsassertionswasthata
very large dead tree corresponded with a marking on the sketch and provided certainty that the
drawingdepictedthehospital. See BennettL.Gershman,HowJuriesGetItWrongAnatomyofthe
Detroit Terror Case, 44 Washburn L.J. 327, 33233 (2005). Both on direct and on cross, the agent
claimedthathehadnottakenanyphotographsoItheIacilitybecauseoIsecurityrestrictions.
AccordingtotheDOJ,however,thetruthwasthattheagenthadtakennumerousaerialphotographsoI
theIacilityattherequestoItheprosecutor,RichardConvertino.AlthoughitappearsConvertinonever
received these speciIic photographs taken, he did obtain photographs oI the Queen Alia Military
Hospital taken by the agents replacement. Not only did Convertino elicit perjury Irom the agent
during his direct testimony (and allow it to stand during cross-examination), Convertino never
disclosed to the deIense the photographs he eventually did receive. Indictment, Unitea States v.
Convertino, No.06-cr-20173, at 34. In an unprecedented case, the DOJs Public Integrity Section
chargedandtriedSmithandConvertinowithobstructionoIjustice,perjury,andconspiracy. Ia. Both
wereacquitted.
Witness coaching can also be a Iorm oI prosecutorial misconduct. See generally Bennett L.
Gershman, Witness Coaching by Prosecutors, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 829 (2002). Although witness
coaching has received scant attention Irom courts, a recent case may cause jurists to more closely
scrutinizethisissue. AVirginialawyer,LeslieSmith,representedWilliamJones,theco-deIendantoI
DarylAtkins. Based on Joness testimony,Atkins received the sentence oI death Ior the murder oI
EricNesbitt.AtkinsscasewentallthewaytotheSupremeCourt,wheretheCourtruledthattheU.S.
ConstitutionbarstheexecutionoIthosewithmentalretardation.SeeAtkinsv.Jirginia,536U.S.304
(2002).AsoIearly2008,however,VirginiawasstilltryingtoputAtkinstodeath,arguingthatAtkins
wasnotmentallyretarded.
Recently,SmithcameIorwardandrevealedthatin1997prosecutorshadcoachedhisclient,William
Jones,intoprovidingtestimonythatmorecloselyalignedwiththeirtheorythatAtkins,andnotJones,
was the triggerman. Soon aIter the coaching had occurred, Smith went to the Virginia State Bars
ethicscounsel,butwastoldthathecouldnotdiscloseinIormationaboutthecoachingsinceitwould
be detrimental to his client. Approximately ten years later, Smith Iinally came Iorward aIter getting
the green light Irom the Virginia State Bar because Joness case is now Iinal. Because oI Smiths
account,acourtinJanuary2008commutedAtkinssdeathsentencetoliIeimprisonment.See Adam
Liptak, LawyerRevealsSecret,TopplingDeathSentence,N.Y.Times,Jan.19,2008,atA1.
Investigative Misconduct
Pressure to solve a crime might lead a prosecutor to get intimately involved in the pre-trial
investigationoIamatter. See ABAStandard3-3.1(|T|heprosecutorhasanaIIirmativeresponsibility
to investigate suspected illegal activity when it is not adequately dealt with by other agencies.).
AlthoughthelinebetweeninvestigatingacrimeandprosecutingacrimecanbeIuzzy,suIIiceittosay
thataprosecutoractsinaninvestigativecapacitywhengatheringIactssuchasstaginganundercover
operationorengaginginwiretapping.SeegenerallyGershman,Misconauct, supra,1.
7
064
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
NiIong committed investigative misconduct in devising the photo array that led to the arrest oI the
threelacrosseplayers.Theaccuserinthecase,CrystalMangum,hadbeenshowntwophotoarrays
one on March 16, 2006 and another on March 21, 2006that did not contain any Iillers. Every
single picture, 36 in total, that Mangum looked at was a lacrosse player. Mangum was unable to
identiIy any oI her alleged attackers. Then, on March 31, 2006, NiIong suggested to the police that
MangumbeshownphotographsoIall46whitemembersoItheteamatthesametime.See Mosteller,
supra,at1398.Duringthisprocedure,whichoccurredonApril4,2006,Mangum,atthedirectionoI
NiIong, wastold that the policehad reasonto believethat all oIthemen she waslooking at were at
thepartywhereshewasallegedlyraped.Again,thearraycontainednoIillers.Inessence,Mangum
was told that she could not make a wrong choice. It was at this time that Mangum identiIied the
players who were later charged. The direct consequence oI this investigative misconduct was the
indictmentoIthreeinnocentpeople.
Trial Misconduct
Prosecutorial misconduct during the course oI trial covers a broad spectrum. For example, a
prosecutor may improperly: introduce evidence, assassinate the characteroI a deIendant, reIer to the
Iact that a deIendant did not talk to the police or take the stand in his or her deIense, make
inIlammatorystatementsduringclosingargument,orattempttobolsterthecredibilityoIaprosecution
witness. Seegenerally,Lawless,supra,910;Gershman,Misconauct, supra,1011.
ABA Standard 3-5.8 and NDAAStandard 85.1 govern the scope oI closing arguments. The NDAA
Standardsimplystates:ClosingargumentsshouldbecharacterizedbyIairness,accuracy,rationality,
and a reliance upon the evidence or reasonable inIerences drawn thereIrom. NDAA Standard 85.1.
TheABAStandardgoesIurtherandspeciIicallystatesthataprosecutorshouldnotexpresshisorher
personal belieI as to the veracity oI any evidence or guilt oI the deIendant. TheABA Standard also
providesthataprosecutorshouldnotappealtotheprejudicesoIthejury.See ABAStandard3-5.8(b)
(c).
Case law is Iilled with innumerable instances oI improper trial conductmost oI which is deemed
harmless. OneprosecutorwhorepeatedlywentoverthelineaccordingtoappellatecourtsisRobert
H. Macy, the Iormer District Attorney oI Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. See Ken Armstrong,
CowboyBobRopesWinsButatConsiaerableCost,Chi.Trib.,Jan.10,1999,at13.Calledatrue
patriot by Iormer Attorney General William Barr and honored as Americas prosecutor by the
Oklahoma Senate upon his retirement in 2001, Macy leIt behind a string oI cases commenting
unIavorablyonhistrialconduct. Paxtonv.Wara,199F.3d1197(10thCir.1999);Washingtonv.State,
989P.2d960(Okla.Crim.App.1999);Ochoav.State,963P.2d583(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);Hawkinsv.State,891P.2d586(Okla.Crim.App.1995);Hookerv.State,887P.2d1351
(Okla.Crim.App.1994);Howellv.State,882P.2d1086(Okla.Crim.App.1994);McCartyv.State,
765 P.2d 1215 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985); Cantrell v. State, 697 P.2d 968 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985)
(Parks,J.,dissenting).TherebukesseemnottohavehadanyeIIectonhisconduct.
TheintroductionoImisleading(orpatentlyIalse)Iorensicevidencehasbeenpublicizedrecently.As
ProIessor Gershman discusses in a law review article, |t|he records oI contemporary criminal trials
8
065
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
arerepletewithinstancesoIso-calledjunkscienceIindingitswayintocourtrooms,andchampioned
by prosecutors to win convictions. Bennett L. Gershman, Misuse of Scientific Eviaence by
Prosecutors,28Okla.CityU.L.Rev.17,30(2003).ExamplesincludetenderingevidenceoIsloppy
or outright Iaulty lab work oI otherwise reliable Iorensic tests, or the presentation oI scientiIic
evidence oI dubious quality such as bite-mark and hair analysis. See ia. One example oI Iaulty
Iorensic evidence is the FBIs use oI compative-bullet lead analysis. The procedure supposedly
allowedtheFBItomatchIiredbulletsIoundatacrimescenewithunIiredbulletsinthepossessionoI
a suspect. The FBI used the procedure Ior decades, but stopped doing so in 2005 aIter Iinally
acknowledgingthatthetechniqueisunreliableandmisleading.Itisestimatedthatcomparativebullet-
lead analysis played a role in convictingover 2,500 people. See John Solomon, FBIs ForensicTest
FullofHoles,Wash.Post,Nov.18,2007,atA1.
REMEDIES
To date, prosecutorial misconducteven the most egregioushas largely gone unchecked. See
Gershman, Misconauct, supra, at vi (Relatively Iew judicial or constitutional sanctions exist to
penalizeordetermisconduct;theavailablesanctionsaresparinglyusedandevenwhenusedhavenot
provedeIIective.). InJanuary1999,theChicagoTribunepublishedaIive-partseriestitled:Trial &
Error.HowProsecutorsSacrificeJusticetoWin. AnalyzingthousandsoIcases,thenewspaperIound
that since 1963 at least 381 deIendants had their convictions reversed either because prosecutors
suppressed exculpatory evidence or suborned perjury. Alarmingly, oI those 381 cases, not one oI
thoseprosecutorswasconvictedoIacrime.NotonewasbarredIrompracticinglaw.Instead,many
sawtheircareersadvance,becomingjudgesordistrictattorneys.Onebecameacongressman.Ken
Armstrong&MauricePossley,TheJeraict.Dishonor,Chi.Trib.,Jan.10,1999,at1.
Criminal Prosecutions
ThecriminalprosecutionoIaprosecutorisextremelyrare.AccordingtotheChicagoTribuneseries,
|I|ewprosecutorsnationallyhavebeenindicted,andtheywereacquittedor,atworst,convictedoIa
misdemeanorandIined.KenArmstrong&MauricePossley,BreakRules,BePromotea,Chi.Trib.,
Jan.14, 1999, at1 |hereinaIterArmstrong & Possley,Break Rules|. Thisstatisticseemsnottohave
changed in the last nine years. Subsequent to the Tribune series, two separate cases were brought
againstprosecutorsIoractscommittedintheiroIIicialcapacity;neitherresultedinconvictions.
TheIirstoccurredinmid-1999acaseinwhichthreeIormerIllinoisstateprosecutorswerecharged
withconspiringtoIrameamanbythenameoIRolandoCruzIormurder.Cruzspentnearly10years
onDeathRowbeIoreitbecameclearthattheprosecutionhadsuppressedevidencethatanotherperson
hadcommittedthecrimeandthatprosecutorshadconspiredwithpoliceoIIicerstointroduceadream
statement oI Cruzs into evidence at his original trial and two re-trials. A judge dismissed charges
against two oI the prosecutors Ior insuIIicient evidence. (One later became an Illinois judgethe
other,anAUSA.)AjuryacquittedthethirdaItera28-daytrial.SeeAndrewBluth,Prosecutorana4
Sheriff sDeputiesAreAcquitteaofWrongfullyAccusingaManofMuraer,N.Y.Times,June5,1999,
atA9.
9
066
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
ThesecondsuchprosecutionoIaprosecutoristheConvertinocasediscussedabove.Convertinoled
the U.S. governments case in convicting two men on terrorism-related charges in 2003. Then-
Attorney General John AshcroIt asserted that the convictions sent a clear message that the DOJ
would work diligently to detect, disrupt and dismantle the activities oI terrorist cells in the United
States and abroad. Danny Hakim, U.S. Asks for Dismissal of Terrorism Convictions, N.Y. Times,
Sept. 1, 2004, atA17. A little over a year later,however, the Iederal government asked the court to
throwouttheconvictionsdue,inpart,toprosecutorialmisconductcommittedbytheleadprosecutor,
RichardConvertino.
The DOJs Public Integrity Section eventually charged Richard Convertino with perjury, obstruction
oIjustice,andconspiracyinwhatmaybetheonlytimethattheDOJhaseverchargedanAUSAIor
actscommittedinhisorheroIIicialcapacity.ConvertinowasacquittedbyajuryinOctober2007and
is now seeking reimbursement Ior attorney Iees, alleging that the governments prosecution oI him
was vexatious, Irivolous or in bad Iaith. Ironically, Convertino is in essence asserting that the
prosecutionagainsthimwasitselIanactoIprosecutorialmisconduct.
Disciplinary Actions
EachstatebarhasamechanisminplaceIorthedisciplineoImisconductbyattorneyslicensedinthat
state.Separately,IederalcourtsmaydisciplineattorneyswhoappearbeIorethem,whichmayresultin
thesuspensionordisbarmentoIattorneysIromthatparticularcourt. See,e.g., InreKramer,282F.3d
721 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, the DOJs OIIice oI ProIessional Responsibility (OPR) has
responsibilityIorinvestigatingallegationsoImisconductcommittedbyAUSAs.Itappearsthatthese
proceduresarerarelyeIIectiveindealingwithprosecutorialmisconduct.
The disciplinary action against NiIong 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 Ior Public Integrity conducted a study that Iound only 44 instances oI disciplinary actions
againstprosecutorssince1970.OIthose44:
in7,thecourtdismissedthecomplaintordidnotimposepunishment;
in3,thecourtremandedthecaseIorIurtherproceedings;
in24,thecourtassessedthecostsoItheproceedingsagainsttheprosecutor;
in20,thecourtimposedapublicorprivatereprimandorcensure;
in1,theprosecutorwasplacedonprobation;
in12,theprosecutorslicensewassuspended;
in2,theprosecutorwasdisbarred.
Neil Gordon, Misconauct ana Punishment. State Disciplinary Authorities Investigate Prosecutors
Accusea of Misconauct (2007), http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/deIault.aspx?actsidebarsb&aid
39; see generally Steve Weinberg et al., Ctr. Ior Pub. Integrity, Harmful Error. Investigating
AmericasLocalProsecutors(2003).AIollow-uptotheTuliacasediscussedaboverevealedthatthe
prosecutor, whose subornation oI perjury and Braay violations led to the wrongIul convictions oI
scores oI people, received two years oI probation. See Disciplinary Actions, 68 Tex. B.J. 753, 758
(2005).
10
067
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
TheOPRhastheauthoritytodeterminewhetheranAUSAcommittedproIessionalmisconductinthe
exerciseoIhisorherauthoritytoinvestigate,litigateorprovidelegaladvice.U.S.DeptoIJustice
OIIice oI ProIl Responsibility, Analytical Framework (rev. 2005), available at
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/Iramework.pdI. ProIessional misconduct is deIined as the intentional or
reckless disregard oI an obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule oI proIessional
conduct, or Department regulation or policy. Ia. II the OPR determines that anAUSA committed
proIessional misconduct, it recommends a certain sanction to the attorneys supervisor. Available
sanctions range Irom a written reprimandto removal. The OPR may also reIer the matter to the bar
disciplinary authority in the jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed. See U.S. Dept oI Justice
OIIice oI ProIl Responsibility, Policies & Proceaures, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/
polandproc.htm.
In2001,aGeneralAccountingOIIicereportconcludedthattheOPRwasineIIectiveindealingwith
prosecutorial misconduct. See News Advisory, U.S. House oI Representatives, Committee on the
Judiciary, GAO Report Finas Significant Problems with Justice Departments Office of Professional
Responsibility (Feb. 20, 2001),availableathttp://www.judiciary.house.gov/legacy/news0220.htm. A
recenthighly-publicizedcaseillustratestheproblem.
ChieI Judge Mark WolI oI the U.S. District Court, District oI Massachusetts Iound extraordinary
misconduct by the Department oI Justice in its investigation and prosecution oI members oI the
Patriarca Family oI La Cosa Nostra. Ferrara v. Unitea States,384 F. Supp. 2d 384, 387 (D.Mass.
2005), aff a, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006). ChieI Judge WolI Iound thatAUSA JeIIreyAuerhahn,
violated|his|clearlyestablishedconstitutionaldutytodisclose...beIoretrial,importantexculpatory
inIormationthatdirectlynegated|VincentFerrarasandPasqualeBarones|guiltonmurdercharges.
Ia. ThesuppressionoItheevidencewasintentionalaccordingtoChieIJudgeWolI.Seeia.at393
98. TheFirstCircuitagreed,stating:|T|hegovernmentsactionsinthiscase...paintagrimpicture
oI blatant misconduct. The record virtually compels the conclusion that this Ieckless course oI
conduct . . . constituted a deliberate and serious breach oI its promise to provide exculpatory
evidence.Ferrarav.UniteaStates,456F.3d278,293(1stCir.2006)(Iootnoteomitted).
TheOPRinvestigatedAuerhahnandconcludedthathehadactedinrecklessdisregardoIhisdutyto
disclose exculpatory evidence. The sanction was a private written reprimand. Not satisIied, ChieI
Judge WolI initiated his own disciplinary action againstAuerhahn and wrote then-Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales a letteron June 29,2007criticizingthe OPR. Associate DeputyAttorney General
David Margolis replied by letter to ChieI Judge WolI, asserting that the discipline imposed by the
Department was consistent with, correlated to, and proportional with the Iindings that resulted Irom
OPRs investigation. Letter Irom David Margolis to The Honorable Mark L. WolI (Oct. 2, 2007).
Still not satisIied, ChieI Judge WolI wroteAttorney General Michael Mukasey. In this letter, ChieI
JudgeWolInotedthatheassistedintheestablishmentoIOPR,butnowhasseriousquestionsabout
whether judges should continue to rely upon the Department to investigate and sanction misconduct
by Iederal prosecutors. Letter Irom The Honorable Mark L. WolI to The Honorable Michael B.
Mukasey (Jan. 2, 2008). The letters may be Iound in the court Iiles oIBarone v. Unitea States, No.
98-11104(D.Mass.1998)andFerrarav.UniteaStates,No.00-11693(D.Mass.2000).
11
068
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
Contempt
A court could exercise its contempt powers to curb prosecutorial misconduct that occurs in the
courtroom. However, |a|lthough contempt is Irequently used to punish deIense counsel Ior
misconduct,itisrarelyusedtopunishprosecutors.Gershman,Misconauct, supra,14:9(Iootnote
omitted). Even when a trial court imposes contempt on a prosecutor, appellate courts rarely sustain
thecharge. Seeia.;Lawless,supra,13.35.
Appellate Court Action
II prosecutorial misconduct violates a deIendants constitutional rights to a Iair trial, the deIendants
conviction might be overturned on appeal. Reversals oI convictions, however, are limited by the
harmless-errordoctrine,whichgenerallyprecludesrelieIwhenthecourtIindsthatthedeIendantwas
not Iundamentally prejudiced by the prosecutorial misconduct. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570
(1986). The Center Ior Public Integrity looked at 11,452 appellate cases since 1970 where
prosecutorialmisconductwasanissueraisedbythedeIendant.Thestudyrevealedthatin2,012cases
theprosecutorsmisconductwassoseriousthatadismissaloIthecharges,areversaloIconviction,or
areductionintheimposedsentencewaswarranted.InthousandsoIothers,prosecutorialmisconduct
was Iound to have occurred, but was deemed to be harmless. Steve Weinberg, Breaking the Rules.
Who Suffers When a Prosecutor Is Citea for Misconauct? (2007), http://www.publicintegrity.org/
pm/deIault.aspx?actmain;seegenerallyWeinbergetal.,supra.
OneshouldaskwhetherareversaloIaconvictionadequatelysanctionsaprosecutorIormisconduct
since the Iocus is on the deIendant, 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 oI the rule is
tantamount to saying that iI one is obviously guilty as charged, he has no Iundamental right to be
tried Iairly. Note, Prosecutor Inaiscretion. 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 oI
harmless-error review in case aIter case, and Ior error aIter error, can only encourage prosecutors to
subordinatetheinterestinrespectingtheConstitutiontotheever-presentandalwayspowerIulinterest
inobtainingaconvictioninaparticularcase.).
Another way appellate courts can address prosecutorial misconduct is by public rebuke. In Bank of
Nova Scotia v. Unitea States, the Supreme Court stated that deIendants should not be given a
windIallwhentheyarenotprejudicedbyprosecutorialmisconduct. 487U.S.250,263(1988).One
waytodealwithprosecutorialmisconductwhenthedeIendantsrightsarenotviolated,accordingto
the Court, is Ior an appellate court to chastise the prosecutor in a published opinion. Ia. The
eIIectiveness oI this remedy has been questioned as well. An article in the Chicago Tribune series
notedthatevenwhentheprosecutorsactionsarecriticizedinappellateopinions,thecourtsusuallydo
not call out the prosecutors by name. According to the article, |t|he granting oI anonymity isnt
mandated anywhere, but instead stems Irom tradition and proIessional courtesy. Armstrong &
Possley,BreakRules, supra. Moreover,evenwhenprosecutorsarenamedinappellateopinions,there
is little evidence that it adversely impacts that persons career or Iuture conduct. See ia.; supra Part
III.E(discussingthechastisingoIRobertH.Macy).
12
069
ABASectionofLitigationAnnualConference,April1618,2008.
CrossingtheLine.ResponaingtoProsecutorialMisconauct
Civil Liability
When being sued under Iederal civil rights laws, prosecutors oIten assert they are immune Irom
liability.Thelawisnuancedinthisarea,butprosecutorscanbeIoundliable.Forexample,amanby
thenameoIJohnThompsonspent14yearsonDeathRowaIteranassistantdistrictattorneydestroyed
exculpatoryevidence.AjuryintheEasternDistrictoILouisianaawardedThompson$14millionaIter
Iinding that the district attorney was deliberately indiIIerent to the need to train, monitor, and
supervise his prosecutors to comply with the constitutional requirements concerning production oI
evidence Iavorable to an accused. Thompson v. Connick, No. 03-2045, 2007 WL 1200826, at *1
(E.D. La. April 23, 2007). The availability Ior redress under state tort law (e.g., malicious
prosecution)variesIromjurisdictiontojurisdiction.
OneavenueoIrelieIIorthosewronglyprosecutedbytheIederalgovernmentisaHydeAmendment
claim. See DepartmentoICommerce,Justice,andState,theJudiciaryandRelatedAppropriationsAct
oI1998,Pub.L.No.105-119,617,111Stat.2440(codiIiedat18U.S.C.3006ANote).Thislaw
provides Ior the recovery oI attorney Iees Ior prosecutions by the U.S. government that were
vexatious,Irivolous,orinbadIaith. TorecoverattorneyIees,thedeIendantmustbeaprevailing
party. To determine whether a deIendant is a prevailing party, courts look to the totality oI the
circumstances. See, e.g., Unitea States v. Campbell, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2001),
aff a,291F.3d1169(9thCir.2002).Generally,adeIendantprevailswhenheorshewascompletely
exoneratedthroughvoluntarydismissaloIallchargeswithoutsanction,dismissalbywayoIamotion
oI judgment Ior acquittal or dispositive motion, or through acquittal. Ia. at 1108. Moreover, a
deIendant 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 Unitea States v.
Garaner,23F.Supp.2d1283,1292(N.D.Okla.1998).
CONCLUSION
The NiIong/Duke Lacrosse sagabrought tothe publics awareness the sadand disturbingnature oI
prosecutorialoverreaching. While NiIongs actions may have been particularly egregious, it is clear
that the problem oI prosecutorial misconduct is nothing newit has simply taken place outside oI
publicviewIorthemostpart.Itisalsoclearthat,todate,therehasnotbeenaneIIectiveremedyto
this systemic problem. HopeIully something good can come out oI the tragedy oI the Duke case
public awareness oI the need to hold prosecutors accountable Ior misconduct, and a newIound
willingness oI the courts, bar associations, and the DOJ to impose harsher sanctions on wayward
prosecutors.
13
070
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
JonSands StevenKalar GeoIIreyHansen
FederalPublicDeIender AFPD ChieIAssistantPublicDeIender
Phoenix,Arizona SanFrancisco,CaliIornia SanFrancisco,CaliIornia
ChrisMiles PeterDavids JonathanKatchen
R&WAttorney,FPD Associate AssistantAttorneyGeneral
SanFrancisco,CaliIornia JonesDay StateoIAlaska,Dept.oILaw
TheUnitedStatesAttorneyistherepresentativenotoIanordinarypartytoacontroversy,
butoIasovereigntywhoseobligationtogovernimpartiallyisascompellingasits
obligationtogovernatall;andwhoseinterest,thereIore,inacriminalprosecutionisnot
thatitshallwinacase,butthatjusticeshallbedone.Assuch,heisinapeculiarandvery
deIinitesensetheservantoIthelaw,thetwoIoldaimoIwhichisthatguiltshallnot
escapeorinnocencesuIIer. Hemayprosecutewithearnestnessandvigorindeed,he
shoulddoso. But,whilehemaystrikehardblows,heisnotatlibertytostrikeIoulones.
ItisasmuchhisdutytoreIrainIromimpropermethodscalculatedtoproduceawrongIul
convictionasitistouseeverylegitimatemeanstobringaboutajustone.
Bergerv.UniteaStates,295U.S.78,88(1935)
...itistheresponsibilityoItheUnitedStatesAttorneyandhisseniorstaIItocreatea
culturewherewin-at-any-costprosecutionisnotpermitted.Indeed,suchaculturemust
bemandatedIromthehighestlevelsoItheUnitedStatesDepartmentoIJusticeandthe
UnitedStatesAttorneyGeneral.ItisequallyimportantthatthecourtsoItheUnited
Statesmustletitbeknownthat,whensubstantialabusesoccur,sanctionswillbeimposed
tomaketheriskoInon-compliancetoocostly.
UniteaStatesv.Shaygan,661F.Supp.2d1289,1292(S.D.Fla.2009)
TheCourtIinds|thegovernments|explanationwhollyincredible.
UniteaStatesv.Stevens,593F.Supp.2d177,181(D.D.Ct.2009)
ProsecutorialMisconduct 1
071
TableofContents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. PolicingtheProsecutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. EthicalImmunityBeIore1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. TheCitizensProtectionActoI1998,28U.S.C.530B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. TheHydeAmendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. CriminalContempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
E. CaseRemedies-Mistrial,Dismissal,JuryInstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
II. Winning-At-All-Costs:ProsecutorialMisconductDuringVariousPhasesoIaCriminal
Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Pre-IndictmentInvestigationandTheGrandJury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. SubpoenastoDeIenseCounsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Pre-indictmentContactwithRepresentedWitnesses . . . 11
3. ExculpatoryEvidenceBeIoretheGrandJury . . . . . . . . . 12
4. MiscellaneousProsecutorialMisconductWithintheGrand
Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Braay,DueProcess,andStateEthicalRulesonDiscovery . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. ProsecutorialMisconductDuringTrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. MisconductDuringJurySelection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. ImproperConductDuringOpeningStatements . . . . . . . 19
3. EthicalProblemswithGovernmentWitnessesandTrial
Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. ImproperClosingArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
D. BrokenPromises:BreachedPleasatSentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
III. NormalizingJustice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A. TheProposedExpansionoIRule16andDOJsOpposition . . . . . . . . . . 27
B. FortheDeIenseCommentatorsOpinionsandRecommendations . . . 29
PartingThoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendices
ProsecutorialMisconduct 2
072
Introduction
MostexperiencedpractitionerswouldagreethatthevastmajorityoIIederalprosecutors
behaveinanethicalmanner,andwouldIurtheragreethatIederalprosecutorialmisconducthas
beentheexception,ratherthantherule. Aswillbedescribedingreaterdetailbelow,Iederal
prosecutorialmisconductisnowalocalinquiryaswellasaconstitutionalinquiryaIter1998,
state ethicalrulesnowalsobindIederalprosecutors.ThereIore,whilethisoutlinemaybea
useIulstartingpoint,counselshouldbeencouragedtoturntostatebarrulesoIproIessional
responsibilityand,iIquestionsarise,consultanethicshotline.
I. PolicingtheProsecutors
A. EthicalImmunityBefore1998
BeIorethelate1990's,thesystemoIethicalrulesandrestraintsthatconstrainedanyother
attorneyincludingdeIensecounseldidnotapplytoIederalprosecutors. Aswillbediscussed
ingreaterdepthbelow,CongressmanMcDades1998CitizensProtectionAct(CPAor
530B)revolutionizedtheapplicationoIstaterulestoIederalprosecutorsinwaysthathave
stillnotbeenIullyexplored. EvenbeIoreJosephMcDadesuccessIullyslippedtheCPAinto
law,however,nationaldiscontentaboutthespecialtreatmentoIIederalprosecutorshadbeen
brewing.
BeIore1998,IederalprosecutorscouldbesanctionedIorethicalmisconductbythe
Iederalcourtinwhichtheypracticed,orbytheDepartmentoIJustice.Manycommentators
includingIederaljudgeswere(andremain)dubiousoIthegovernmentsabilitytoselI-regulate
itsattorneys. See,e.g.,LynnR.Singband,THEHYDEAMENDMENTANDPROSECUTORIAL
INJESTIGATION.THEPROMISEOFPROTECTIONFORCRIMINALDEFENDANTS,28
FORDHAMURB. L.J.1967,1978(Aug.2001)(discussingthecreationandlimitationsoIthe
DOJOIIiceoIPersonalResponsibility(OPR.)). In1993,NinthCircuitJudgeKozinski,Ior
example,openlyquestionedtheIailureoItheUnitedStatesAttorneytosupervisetheethical
behavioroIitsAUSAs:
HowcanitbethataseriousclaimoIprosecutorialmisconduct
remainsunresolvedevenunaddresseduntiloralargumentin
theCourtoIAppeals?Surelywhensuchaclaimisraised,wecan
expectthatsomeoneintheUnitedStatesAttorneysoIIicewill
takeanindependent,objectivelookattheissue. Theclaimhere
turnedentirelyonveriIiableIacts: Adispassionatecomparison
betweenthetranscriptoItheAUSA'sstatementtothejuryand
Nourian'spleaagreementwouldhavedisclosedthatthedeIense
wasrightandthegovernmentwaswrong. YettheUnitedStates
AttorneyallowedtheIilingoIabrieIinourcourtthatdidnotown
uptotheproblem,abrieIthatitselIskatedperilouslycloseto
misrepresentation.
UniteaStatesv.Kofayan,8F.3d1315,1320(9thCir.1993).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 3
073
DespitetheshortcomingsoIselI-regulation,itwasthecommonviewthataIederal
prosecutorwasnotsubjecttostateorlocalethicalrulesorrestraints.Thisviewwasbasedonthe
positionthattheSupremacyClauseoItheUnitedStatesConstitutionpreemptedstateregulation
oIIederalprosecutors,practicalargumentsaboutconIlictsoIlocalstaterulesarisingina
nationalIederalpractice,andahealthydoseoIselI-interestIromtheDepartmentoIJustice.
TwoissueshelpedtosharpenthedebateovertheproprietyoIanexemptionIorIederal
prosecutorsIromstateethicalrules.SeeFredC.Zacharias,BruceA.Green,TheUniquenessof
FeaeralProsecutors,88GEO. L.J.207,213(2000).TheIirstoItheseissuesrelatedtoattorney
contactoIrepresentedparties. Thoughsuchcontactwaswidelyprohibitedbystatelocalrules,
in1989AttorneyGeneralThornburghdistributedaninIamousmemorandumthatpurportedto
exemptIederalprosecutors.ThismemorandumwascontroversialbothwithinandoutsideoIthe
legalcommunity.See DickThornburgh,EthicsanatheAttorneyGeneral.TheAttorneyGeneral
Responas,74Judicature290(April/May1991)(GiventhenormallyhighqualityoIthearticles
inJudicature,IhadhopedtoseeadiscussionoItheDepartmentoIJusticespolicyoncontacting
representingpersonsthatwasIreeoIthenear-hysteriathathaspunctuatedarticleswrittenby
somemembersoIthedeIensebar.)
TheseconddebateIocusedonaprosecutorsabilitytosubpoenawitnesses. Zacharias&
Green,supraat212;seealsoSternv.UniteaStatesDistrictCourt,214F.3d4,7(1stCir.2000)
(The1980switnessedadramaticincreaseinthenumberoIsubpoenasservedondeIense
attorneysbyIederalprosecutors.ThereasonsIorthistrendarediIIiculttopinpoint,butsome
commentatorshavelinkeditwithheightenedeIIortstoIightorganizedcrimeanddrug-
traIIicking,newIorIeiturelaws,andanunprecedentedexpansionoItheDepartmentoIJustice
(DOJ).)
InthewakeoIthecontroversyoItheThornburghmemorandum,in1994Attorney
GeneralJanetRenoissuedIormalregulationswhichcontinuedtheexemptionIorIederal
prosecutorsIromstateethicalviolations,butpromisedvoluntarycompliancewithmost
proIessionalrules(theRenoRule.) Zacharias&Green,supraat212;seealso
CommunicationsWithRepresenteaPersons,59FR39910-01(Aug.4,1994)(containingtextoI
theRenoRuleregardingcontactwithrepresentedpersons).
AlsoIuelingtheIireoIthisethicaldebatewereanumberoIdevelopmentsthatsharpened
theadversarialprocessanddirectlyimpactedthecriminaldeIensebar,includingIederalgrand
jurysubpoenastodeIenseattorneys,IorIeitureoIIundspaidbydeIendantstoretainedcounsel,
andnon-discretionarysentencingprovisionsintheFederalSentencingGuidelines. SeeRoryK.
Little, WhoShoulaRegulatetheEthicsofFeaeralProsecutors?,65FORDHAML. REV.355,Oct.
1996; seealsoNote,FeaeralProsecutors,StateEthicsRegulations,anatheMcDaae
Amenament,113HARV. L. REV.2080,2083(2000)(discussingthreeModelRulesoIEthicsthat
promptednationaldebateonstateethicallimitationsonIederalprosecutors).
OutsideoIthenationallimelightoIthisethicaldebate,however,aIederalcriminal
prosecutionwasbrewingaprosecutionwhichledtoaIurtherattempttoIormallyregulate
Iederalprosecutors.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 4
074
B. TheCitizensProtectionActof1998,28U.S.C.530B
In1992,PennsylvaniaCongressionalRepresentativeJosephMcDadewasindictedwith
IiveIederalcountsrelatingtobribery. WhileCongressmanMcDadeadmittedthaterrorshad
beenmade,hedeniedtheallegations.
1
HekepthisseatinoIIiceandIouryearslaterwas
acquittedbyajuryoIalloIthecharges.Zacharias&Green,supraat212.
McDadecomplainedthatIederalprosecutorshadturnedhisliIeintoalivingnightmare
andhadharassedandhoundedhim.
2
InhisroleasacriminaldeIendant,heIiledanumberoI
motionsallegingprosecutorialmisconductalloIwhichweredenied.See,e.g.,UniteaStatesv.
McDaae,No.92-249,1992WL187036,at*2(E.D.Pa.July30,1992)(discussingmotionto
dismissarisingIromprosecutorsallegedconIlictoIinterest).
StingingIromhisrecentpersonalexperienceswithIederalprosecutors,McDade
introducedintheHouseoIRepresentativesaversionoItheCitizenProtectionActwhichwould
haveimposedstateandlocalethicalrulesonIederalprosecutors(aswellasanumberoIother,
wide-rangingchanges). Thatbillwaskilledincommittee,andare-introducedbilltheIollowing
yearalsonevermadeitoutoIcommittee.Zacharias&Green,supra,at214-15. Finally,in1998
theCPAwasintroducedasaridertoanappropriationsbill,andwaspassedwithouteverclearing
committeemuchtothechagrinoI(DOJadvocate)SenatorHatch.Ia.at215. Thebillsunique
roadtopassagewasasourceoIlatercriticismIromDOJalliesandsparkedlatereIIortsatrepeal;
eIIortsthatwereunsuccessIul. See,e.g.,NAAUSAInitiatives,FeaeralProsecutorEthicsAct,
http://www.naausa/org./initiatives/ethics.htm(visitedFeb.18,2003)(discussingcongressional
testimonyoInationalAUSArepresentativeagainstCPAanddescribingalternativebills
proposed).
TheCitizensProtectionActhasbeencodiIiedat28U.S.C.530B.
3
530B.EthicalstandardsforattorneysfortheGovernment
(a)AnattorneyIortheGovernmentshallbesubjecttoStatelawsandrules,andlocal
Federalcourtrules,governingattorneysineachStatewheresuchattorneyengagesinthat
attorney'sduties,tothesameextentandinthesamemannerasotherattorneysinthatState.
(b)TheAttorneyGeneralshallmakeandamendrulesoItheDepartmentoIJusticeto
assurecompliancewiththissection.
(c)Asusedinthissection,thetermattorneyIortheGovernmentincludesanyattorney
1
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/06/us/top-republican-on-a-house-panel
-is-charged-with-accepting-bribes.html?pagewanted1(lastvisited4/7/10)
2
Ia.
3
TheCitizensProtectionActisreIerredtoastheCPAor,moreIrequently,530B.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 5
075
describedinsection77.2(a)oIpart77oItitle28oItheCodeoIFederalRegulationsand
alsoincludesanyindependentcounsel,oremployeeoIsuchacounsel,appointedunder
chapter40.
28U.S.C.530B(West2003).Section530BhasbeenworkedintotheCodeoIFederal
Regulations(CFR)andintegratedintotheUnitedStatesAttorneysManual. See, e.g.,28CFR
77.3(applying28U.S.C.530BtoallattorneysIorthegovernmentinvolvedin,amongother
actions,allcriminalinvestigationsandproceedings);U.S.A.M.9-13.200(2005)(Department
attorneysaregovernedincriminalandcivillawenIorcementinvestigationsandproceedingsby
therelevantruleoIproIessionalconductthatdealswithcommunicationswithrepresented
persons.).
Aswillbediscussedingreaterdepthinfra,remediesIorviolationoItheCPAmaybe
sparse. InoneoItheIewpublishedcasesonthenewstatuteandregulations,theEleventh
CircuitrejectedtheideathataviolationoIastateethicalrulewouldsupportsuppressionoI
evidenceinIederalcourt. SeeUniteaStatesv.Lowery,166F.3d1119,1124-25(11thCir.1999)
(AssumingIorpresentpurposesthattheruleisviolatedwhenaprosecutorpromisesawitness
someconsiderationregardingchargesorsentencinginreturnIortestimony,astateruleoI
proIessionalconductcannotprovideanadequatebasisIoraIederalcourttosuppressevidence
thatisotherwiseadmissible.)Similarly,inUniteaStatesv.Syling,thecourtheldthatanystate
ethicalstandardswouldnotoverridethelawgoverningpresentationoI|exculpatory|evidence
atgrandjuryproceedings. 553F.Supp.2d1187,1192(D.Haw.2008). Indeed,theCFRitselI
providesthat530BshouldnotbeconstruedinanywaytoalterIederalsubstantive,
procedural,orevidentiarylawortointerIerewiththeAttorneyGeneral'sauthoritytosend
DepartmentattorneysintoanycourtintheUnitedStates.28CFR77.1.
TheFirstCircuithasIlatlyreIusedtoviewtheCPAasaninroadIorstate(orlocal)
regulationoIIederalprosecutorsinIederalcourt. SeeStern,214F.3dat19. InStern,theFirst
CircuitrejectedalocalruleIromtheDistrictoIMassachusettsthatrequiredjudicial
authorizationIorgrandjurysubpoenasoIdeIenseattorneys. Ia. DespitetheclearlanguageoI
theCPA,theCourtinSternconcludedthatCongressdidnotmeantoempowerstate(orIederal
districtcourts,Iorthatmatter)toregulategovernmentattorneysinamannerinconsistentwith
Iederallaw.Ia.
Nonetheless,otherIederalcourtshaveconcededthat530Bdoesextendstateethical
rulestoIederalprosecutors. SeeJenniIerBlair,TheRegulationofFeaeralProsecutorial
MisconauctbyStateBarAssociations, 28U.S.C.530BanatheRealityofInaction,49UCLA
L. REV.625,637(Dec.2001)(collectingIederalauthorityacknowledgingtheextensionoIstate
ethicalrulestoIederalprosecutorsaIter28U.S.C.530B). OneoIthemostthoughtIuloIthese
decisionsisUniteaStatesv.ColoraaoSupremeCourt,189F.3d1281(10thCir.1999). Inthat
case,theTenthCircuitheldthatinlightoI530BaColoradostateethicalruleprohibiting
Iederalprosecutors|Irom|subpoenaingattorneystodivulgeinIormationonpastandpresent
clientsinconnectionwithacriminalproceedingotherthanagrandjury,wasnotinconsistent
withIederallawinviolationoItheSupremacyClauseoItheUnitedStatesConstitution.Ia.at
1288-89.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 6
076
TheultimateimpactoI530BonIederalprosecutorsremainsanopenquestionone
commentatorhasdiscoveredthatduringayear-and-a-halIlongperiodonlyoneIederal
prosecutorwasdisciplinedoutoIthe1767lawyerspunishedbytenstatebarorganizations.
Blair, supra,at641(IIpunishmentIorprosecutorswaspreviouslylax,oneIederalprosecutor
disciplinedoutoIthe1767lawyerspunishedbytenstatebarassociationsIromApril1999until
December2000doesvirtuallynothingtoincreasetheregulationoIunethicalbehaviorbyIederal
prosecutors.)
CourtsappearreluctanttoIileacomplaintwithastatebarorganization.Currently,at
leastoneIederalprosecutorisinstatedisciplinaryproceedingsaIterallegedlywithholding
exculpatoryevidenceinacase.
4
ThedistrictcourtjudgeonthatcaseIiledtheletteroIcomplaint
withstatebarcounselaIterlearningthatDOJhadonlyissuedawrittenreprimandtothe
prosecutor.
5
AnotherdistrictcourtjudgehasreservedtherighttoimposeanyIurthersanctions
and/ordisciplinarymeasuresasmaybenecessaryagainst|theIederalprosecutors|aIter
reviewingtheresultsoItheJusticeDepartmentsinvestigation.UniteaStatesv.Shaygan,661
F.Supp.2d1289,1325(S.D.Fla2009).
C. TheHydeAmendment
AnotherchampionoIethicalrestraintsonIederalprosecutorshasbeenCongressman
Hyde. In1997,hisinIamousHydeAmendmentexposedtheIederalgovernmenttocivil
liabilityIorcriminallawsuitsthatarevexatious,Irivolous,orinbadIaith:
AttorneyFeesandLitigationExpensestoDefense
Pub.L.105-119,TitleVI,617,Nov.26,1997,111Stat.2519,providedthat:"During
Iiscalyear1998andinanyIiscalyearthereaIter,thecourt,inanycriminalcase(other
thanacaseinwhichthedeIendantisrepresentedbyassignedcounselpaidIorbythe
public)pendingonoraIterthedateoItheenactmentoIthisAct|Nov.26,1997|,may
awardtoaprevailingparty,otherthantheUnitedStates,areasonableattorney'sIeeand
otherlitigationexpenses,wherethecourtIindsthatthepositionoItheUnitedStateswas
vexatious,Irivolous,orinbadIaith,unlessthecourtIindsthatspecialcircumstances
makesuchanawardunjust.Suchawardsshallbegrantedpursuanttotheproceduresand
limitations(butnottheburdenoIprooI)providedIoranawardundersection2412oItitle
28,UnitedStatesCode.TodeterminewhetherornottoawardIeesandcostsunderthis
section,thecourt,Iorgoodcauseshown,mayreceiveevidenceexparteandincamera
(whichshallincludethesubmissionoIclassiIiedevidenceorevidencethatrevealsor
mightrevealtheidentityoIaninIormantorundercoveragentormattersoccurringbeIore
agrandjury)andevidenceortestimonysoreceivedshallbekeptunderseal.Feesand
4
SeeBostonAUSAFacesJudicialPanelOverAllegedMisconduct,
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/01/22/boston-ausa-Iaces-judicial-panel-regarding-alleged-mis
conduct/(lastvisited4/9/10).
5
Ia.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 7
077
otherexpensesawardedunderthisprovisiontoapartyshallbepaidbytheagencyover
whichthepartyprevailsIromanyIundsmadeavailabletotheagencybyappropriation.
NonewappropriationsshallbemadeasaresultoIthisprovision.
18U.S.C.3006A,stat.history(West2003).
Like530B,theHydeAmendmenthaditsoriginsintheeight-yearprosecutionoI
CongressmanMcDade.See Singbana,supraat1981-82;seealsoUniteaStatesv.Gilbert,198
F.3d1293,198-99(11thCir.1999)(tracinglegislativehistoryoItheHydeAmendment).The
HydeAmendmenthashadsomerecentsuccessinIederalcourts.Seeia.at1986-88(collecting
HyaeAmenamentcases).SeealsoUniteaStatesv.Aisenberg,No.899-CR-324-T23MAP,2003
WL403071,*39(M.D.Fla.Jan.31,2003)(PursuanttotheHydeAmendment,theAisenbergs
areentitledtoareasonableattorney'sIeeintheamountoI$2,680,602.22andotherlitigation
expensesintheamountoI$195,670.32.); UniteaStatesv.Shaygan,661F.Supp.2d1289,1324
(S.D.Fla2009)(attorneysIeesandcostsintheamountoI$601,795.88awardedtothe
deIendant); UniteaStatesv.Claro,579F.3d452,456(5thCir.2009)(notingthedistrictcourt
awardedandgovernmentpaid$391,292.29inattorneysIeespursuanttoHydeAmendment);
UniteaStatesv.Aakinson,247F.3d1289(11thCir.2001)(determiningthatdeIendantswere
entitledtoattorneysIeeswheregovernmentincludedbankIraudinconspiracyindictmentwith
knowledgethatitwasprecludedbycontrollingprecedent). SeealsoBrownv.UniteaStates,SA-
03-CV-0792-WRF(W.D.Tex.2007)(whereinpartiesreachedsettlementagreementand
governmentagreedtopayplaintiII$1,340,000tosettleplaintiIIscomplaintIiledunderthe
FederalTortClaimsActbasedonnatureoIgovernmentscriminalinvestigationandprosecution
oIplaintiIIs).
TheHydeAmendmentcertainlyheightenedthesensitivityoItheDOJtochargesoI
vexatiousprosecution. See ElkanAbramowitz,PeterScher,TheHyaeAmenament.Congress
CreatesaToeholaforCurbingWrongfulProsecution,THE CHAMPION(Mar.1998)(discussing
aggressiveDOJstanceagainstHydeAmendmentbeIoreitsadoption).Thecourtsrecentawards
suggestthattheIederaldeIensebarshouldcontinuetopushIorsuchrecourseagainstthe
governmentIorwrongIulprosecutions.
6
SeealsoDickDeGuerin,NealDavis,IfTheyHoller,
MakeEmPay...TheHyaeAmenament,THE CHAMPION(Sept./Oct.1999).
7
6
LarryBreuer,headoIDOJsCriminalDivision,speakingattheABAswhitecollar
crimeconIerence,calledonthedeIensebartoreIrainIromtermingdiscoveryviolationsas
endemicstatingthatnothingcouldbeIurtherIromthetruth.Hecriticizedthosewhothinkit
isacceptabletousemotionsIorsanctions,orthreatsoIOPRreIerrals,asawaytogainsomesort
oIstrategiclitigationadvantage. http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/25/
breuer-tells-white-collar-bar-to-ease-up-on-prosecutors/(lastvisted4/12/10).
7
ThisChampionarticleisanexcellentstartingpointIoranyHydeAmendment
litigation,andincludesauseIulcheck-listIordeIensecounseltoreviewbeIoreinitiatingaHyde
Amendmentpetition.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 8
078
D. CriminalContempt
TheIiveDOJemployeeswhoprosecutedSenatorTedStevensinUniteaStatesv.Stevens
arecurrentlythesubjectoIcriminalcontemptproceedingsinstigatedbyU.S.DistrictCourt
JudgeEmmetSullivanbasedinpartonallegationsoIBraayandGiglioviolations.
8
Judge
SullivanappointedaspecialcounseltoexaminetheconductoItheprosecutorsaItertheJustice
Departmentmovedtodismissthecasewithprejudice.TheDOJsOIIiceoIProIessional
Responsibilityisconductingasimultaneousinvestigation.Bothreportsareduetobecompleted
inthenearIuture.
E. CaseRemedies-Mistrial,Dismissal,1uryInstruction
Unethicalbehaviororimpropermethodsbytheprosecutormayresultinamistrialora
reversaloIaconvictionwherethemethodssoinIectthetrialwithunIairnessastomakethe
resultingconvictionadenialoIdueprocess. Daraenv.Wainwright,477U.S.168,181(1986).
In UniteaStatesv.TeaStevens,thegovernmentitselImotionedtosetasidetheverdictand
dismissthecasewithprejudicebasedonadmittedBraayviolations. Thejudgevoidedthe
conviction. InUniteaStatesv.Chapman,thedistrictcourtdeterminedthattheprosecutor
violatedbothBraayandGiglioandthedistrictcourtdeclaredamistrial.524F.3d1073,1083-
84(9thCir.2008).
9
Followingahearingonthematter,thedistrictcourtjudgedismissedthe
indictmentwithprejudice.Ia. InUniteaStatesv.W.R.Grace,CR05-07-M-DWM(D.Mt
2009),basedonthegovernmentsBraayandGiglioviolations,thecourtexplainedtothejury
whythegovernmentwouldnotbepermittedtodoanyredirectexaminationoIoneoIthe
governmentsmainwitnessesandwhytheyshouldviewanyprooIoIIeredby|thatmain
witness|withskepticism.SeeAppenaixAW.R.GraceJuryInstruction.Thecourtinstructed
thejury,inpart,that,theDepartmentoIJusticeandtheUnitedStatesAttorneysOIIicehave
violatedtheirconstitutionalobligationtothedeIendantsandtheyhaveviolatedordersoIthe
court. Ia.
Attheappellatelevel,reviewoIprosecutorialmisconduct...consistsoIatwoparttest:
Iirst,wastheprosecutorsconductactuallyimproper;second,didthemisconduct,takeninthe
contextoIthetrialasawhole,violatethedeIendantsdueprocessrights. AndrewM.
Hetherington,ProsecutorialMisconauct,90GEO. L.J.1679(May2002).Inevaluatingthe
seriousnessoIthemisconduct,courtswillIindharmlesserroriIthemisconductwasnotsevere,
eIIectivecurativemeasuresweretakenbythetrialcourt,oriItheweightoIevidencemade
convictioncertainabsenttheimproperconduct.Ia.at1689(Iootnotesomitted).Somecourts
willadditionallyconsiderwhetherthemisconductwasdeliberatelyoraccidentallymade|and|
theextenttowhichthedeIensewasabletocountertheimproperconductwithrebuttal,orboth,
8
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/10/21/welch-to-step-down-as-public-integrity-chieI/
(lastvisited4/9/10).
9
Onappeal,theNinthCircuitheldthatthemistrialwassupportedbyavalid
determinationoImaniIestnecessityandthus,aretrialoIthedeIendantwouldnotviolatethe
DoubleJeopardyClause. Chapman,524F.3d1073,1083-84(9thCir.2008)
ProsecutorialMisconduct 9
079
totheirevaluationoItheseriousnessoImisconduct. Ia.
Theone,universallessonIromallauthorityregardingremediesIorprosecutorial
misconductistheneedtoobjecttopreservetheerror.TimidityintheIaceoIprosecutorial
misconductwillinjuretheclientonlaterappellatereview,wherethe(nearlyinsurmountable)
plainerrorstandardwillbeapplied.
II. Winning-At-All-Costs: ProsecutorialMisconductDuringVariousPhasesofa
CriminalProsecution
WiththeMcDadeandHydelawsinhandandremediesinmind,weturntoexamplesoI
prosecutorialmisconductastheyariseduringvariousstagesoIacriminalprosecutionand
investigation.
A. Pre-IndictmentInvestigationandTheGrand1ury
1. SubpoenastoDefenseCounsel
GrandjurymisconductwasoneoItheethicalissuesthatsparkedtheMcDaderevolution,
andyetIiveyearsaIter530Bwasenacted,itstillremainsanunsettledissue.OneoIthemost
controversialaspectsoIgrandjurypracticehasbeentheissuanceoIagrandjurysubpoenato
deIensecounsel,tosecureinIormationaboutacounselsclient.TheAmericanBarAssociation
haspromulgatedmodelethicalrulesthatlimitthistypeoIgrandjurysubpoena.SeeAppenaixB,
ABAMoaelRuleofProfessionalConauct3.8(e). BecausetheABAModelRuleshavebeen
adoptedinmanystates,aIter530BtheissueisripeIorconIlictinIederalcourt.Stateethical
rulesinColoradoprovideagoodexampleoItheproblem.
GrandjurysubpoenastodeIensecounselonthesubjectoItheirrepresentationare
prohibitedbyColoradostateethicalrules. SeeAppenaixC,ColoradoStateRuleoIProIessional
Conduct3.8,SpecialResponsibilitiesoIaProsecutor.
10
TheIederalgovernmentspolicyoI
10
BecausethisstateruleisbasedonrulesIromABAStandardsoICriminalJustice
RelatingtotheProsecutionFunction,theconIlictbetweenthisstateethicalruleandIederal
actionislikelytoarisemoreIrequently.Anon-exhaustivelistoIstatesthathaveadoptedModel
Rule3.8,SpecialResponsibilitiesoIaProsecutor,(orasubstantially-similarrule),includes
Arizona,Colorado,Arkansas,Connecticut,Delaware,Indiana,Kansas,Maryland,Michigan,
NewJersey,Massachusetts,RhodeIsland,SouthCarolina,andWestVirginia.CaliIorniais
currentlyproposingsuchanadoption. See,e.g., http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdIs/public-comment
/2009/Revision-Rules-ProIessional-Conduct-11-Rules11-13-09.pdI(comparingandcontrasting
otherstatesadoptionandCaliIorniasproposedchanges)(lastvisited4/9/10);Ari:onav.
Talmaage,999P.2d192,197(Az.S.Ct.2000)(discussingE.R.3.8,ArizonaRulesoI
ProIessionalConduct);Coloraaov.Mucklow,35P.3d527,534(Co.S.Ct.2000)(discussing
Colo.RPC3.8(d));ArkansasR.ProI.Conduct3.8(West2002);ConnecticutRuleProI.Conduct
3.8(West2002);Del.R.ProI.Conduct3.8(West2002);IndianaR.ProI.Conduct3.8(West
2003); Kansasv.Dimaplas,978P.2d891,894(Ka.S.Ct.1999);Md.R.ProI.Conduct3.8(West
ProsecutorialMisconduct 10
080
IorcingdeIensecounseltotestiIyregardingtheirclientsthusbecameanissueIortheTenth
Circuit. See UniteaStatesv.ColoraaoSupremeCourt,189F.3d1281,1284&n.3(10thCir.
1999).
TheTenthCircuitnotedthatbeIore530B(McDadesCitizenProtectionAct)was
adoptedtherehadbeenacircuitsplitontheissueoIIederalgrandjurysubpoenastodeIense
counsel,overstateethicalprohibitions. See UniteaStatesv.ColoraaoSupremeCourt,189F.3d
1281,1284&n.3(10thCir.1999)(discussingcontraryauthoritypermitting,andstriking,local
ruleslimitingIederalgovernmentgrandjurysubpoenasoIdeIensecounsel).InColoraao
SupremeCourt,theTenthCircuitmanagedtoavoidthegrandjuryissuebecausethatparticular
aspectoItheColoradostaterulewasnotappealed. Ia.at1284.
Theshort,andunsatisIying,answeristhatthereisnownodeIinitiveauthorityonwhether
530BextendsstateethicalprohibitionsongrandjurysubpoenastodeIensecounsel. See
Brenner&Shaw,FeaeralGranaJury.AGuiaeToLawAnaPractice,FED.GRAND JURY13.5
(discussingconIlictingauthorityonissueandDepartmentoIJusticeGuidelines).
IIIacedwithsuchasubpoena,theIirststepshouldbetoturntostateethicalrulestosee
whethertheyprohibitsuchaction(likelytobeIoundinRule3.8,adoptedIromtheABAModel
Rule). DeIensecounselwillthenneedtoarguethatthisstateethicalrulehasbeenextendedto
theIederalprosecutorbyvirtueoI28U.S.C.530B,andthatthisstatutetrumpsanySupremacy
Clauseissues.
2. Pre-indictmentContactwithRepresentedWitnesses
DoesaIederalprosecutorviolatestateethicalruleswhenheorshespeakstoa
representedwitnessbeIoreindictment?ThatwasthequestionbeIoretheNinthCircuitinoneoI
theleadcasesonthesubject,UniteaStatesv.Talao,222F.3d1133(9thCir.2000). InTalao,a
IederalprosecutorspoketoanemployeeoIacorporationthatwasrepresentedbycounsel
beIoreindictment,andwhilethatcorporatecounselwasbangingonthedooroItheinterview
room.Ia. at1136. ThedistrictcourtheldthattheprosecutorhadviolatedCaliIorniaethicalrule
2-100,prohibitingcontactwithrepresentedpersons. Ia.at1136. TheNinthCircuitreversed,but
notbeIorearticulatingseveralimportantrulesregardingIederalprosecutors,ethics,andcontact
withrepresentedpersons.
Asaninitialmatter,itwasbynomeansclearthatpre-inaictmentcontactwith
representedpersonswasprohibited. TheCourtturnedtotheSecondCircuitsdecisioninUnitea
Statesv.Hammana,858F.2d834(2dCir.1988),andconcludedthattherewasnobright-line
2002);MichiganR.ProI.Conduct3.8(West2003);NewJerseyv.Torres,744A.2d699,708
(N.J.S.Ct.2000)(discussingR.P.C.3.8);Inre.GranaJuryInvestig.,15Mass.L.Rptr.354
(Super.Ct.Mass.2002)(mem.)(discussingMass.R.ProI.Conduct3.8(I));RIRuleProI.
Conduct3.8(West2002);SouthCarolinav.Quattlebaum,338S.E.2d105,109(S.C.S.Ct.
2000)(discussingSouthCarolinaR.ProI.Conduct3.8);WestVa.R.ProI.Conduct3.8(West
2002).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 11
081
categoricalruleontheissue. Ia.at1139. TheNinthCircuitconcludedthatinthepre-indictment
proceduralcontextoItheTalaocase,therewereIullydeIinedadversarialroles
11
thattriggered
theethicalprohibition. Ia.
TheCourtalsowasnottroubledbythecontroversyoverDOJspreviouspositionandthe
Thornburghmemorandum,whichpermittedcontactwithrepresentedwitnesses.Ia.at1139-40.
TheNinthCircuitIlatlyconcludedthat28U.S.C.530Bmadestateethicalrulesapplicableto
Iederalattorneys,whichdissipatedanypreviousdispute. Ia.at1140.
TheCourtinTalaoultimatelylettheprosecutoroIIoItheethicalhook,however,because
itconcludedthatintheuniquecircumstancesoIadisgruntledemployeeseekingtodistance
herselIIromcorporatecounselanemployeewhowasallegingsubornationoIperjurybythe
leaddeIendantRule2-100didnotprecludecontact. Ia.at1140.
The Talaocaseisnotablebecauseitun-hesitantlyextendsstateethicalrulestoIederal
prosecutors,extendstheprohibitionoIrepresented-witnesscontacttothepre-indictmentcontext,
anditsuggeststhatunderaless-uniqueIactualsettingthedisciplinaryreIerralwouldhavestood.
3. ExculpatoryEvidenceBeforetheGrand1ury
ConsidertheIollowinghypothetical: ThedeIendantischargedwithbeingaIelonin
possessionoIagun,inviolationoI18U.S.C.922(g)(1).Duringhisarrest,hisgirlIriend
proteststhatitwasher gun,andthatthedeIendantwasunawarethattheweaponwasinthe
house. NeedtheAUSApresentthegirlIriendsexculpatorystatementtothegrandjurybeIore
indictment?
TheIederalrulebefore530BhasbeenthataIederalprosecutorneednotpresent
exculpatoryevidencetothegrandjury. SeeUniteaStatesv.Williams,504U.S.36,52(1992)
(Imposingupontheprosecutoralegalobligationtopresentexculpatoryevidenceinhis
possessionwouldbeincompatiblewiththis|grandjury|system.)Yet,despitetheWilliamsrule,
theUnitedStatesAttorneysManualstatesthatwhenanAUSAispersonallyawareoI
substantialevidencethatdirectlynegatestheguiltoIasubjectoItheinvestigation,the
prosecutormustpresentorotherwisedisclosesuchevidencetothegrandjurybeIoreseekingan
indictmentagainstsuchaperson.U.S.A.M.9-11.233(2008).TheManualalsostatesthatan
indictmentshouldnotbedismissedIoraviolationoIthispolicy,butappellatecourtsmayreIer
prosecutorstotheDOJOIIiceoIProIessionalResponsibilityIorreviewiItheyviolatethe
policy. Ia.
SinceenactmentoI530B,adistrictcourthasheldthatanystateethicalstandards
requiringthepresentationoIexculpatoryevidencewouldnotoverridethelawgoverning
11
Thecasehadalreadyundergoneacivilinvestigation,aquitamaction,ancorporate
counselhadalreadyinitiatedsettlementdiscussionswiththegovernment.Talao,222F.3dat
1139.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 12
082
presentationoI|exculpatory|evidenceatgrandjuryproceedings. UniteaStatesv.Syling,553
F.Supp.2d1187,1192(D.Haw.2008). Thedistrictcourtsopiniondidnotaddressany
prosecutorialobligationscreatedbytheUnitedStatesAttorneysManual.
4. MiscellaneousProsecutorialMisconductWithintheGrand1ury
IIitistruethatanexperiencedprosecutorcangetagrandjurytoindictahamsandwich,
thenwhywouldanAUSAcutcornerstogetanindictment?WhileunethicalbehaviorbeIorea
grandjuryseemsparticularlyunnecessary,itnonethelessoccurs.AgoodsummaryoIprohibited
actscanbeIoundinUniteaStatesv.Samango,607F.2d877(9thCir.1979).
In Samango,anindictmentwasdismissedbyaIederaldistrictjudgeinHawaii.Ia.at
878.
12
SamangowasawitnesscalledbeIorethegrandjuryrelatingtoacocaineimportationcase
IromTahiti.Ia.TheAUSAinIormedthegrandjuryoIhisdissatisIactionwithSamangos
perIormanceunderanon-prosagreement,chidedthewitnesswhenheaskedtoseecounsel,
insinuatedthatthewitnesswaslyingandthreatenedtochargehimasadeIendant.Ia.at879.
TheAUSAlatersoughtasanitizedindictmentbydumping1,000pagesoItranscriptonthe
grandjury,andtellingthemthathehadadeadlineIortheirconsiderationeightdayslater.Ia.
TheNinthCircuitconcededthatanattackagainstanindictmentbasedonincompetentor
inadequateevidencewasnotpossible. Ia.at880-81&n.6. TheCourtobserved,however,that
dismissaloIanindictmentcanbeappropriatetoprotecttheintegrityoIthejudicialprocess...
particularlytheIunctionsoIthegrandjury,IromunIairorimproperprosecutorialconduct.Ia.
at877(internalcitationsandquotationsomitted).
13
Thiswassuchacase;Althoughdeliberate
introductionoIperjuredtestimonyisperhapsthemostIlagrantexampleoImisconduct,other
prosecutorialbehavior,eveniIunintentional,canalsocauseimproperinIluenceandusurpation
oIthegrandjurysrole. Ia.at882.
Otherprosecutorialmisconductmaybegroundstodismisstheindictment.AnAUSA
maynotaskquestionsoIagrandjurywitnesssolelytodiscreditthewitness.UniteaStatesv.
DiGra:ia,213F.Supp.232,234(N.D.Ill.1963).
WhilethismayseemselI-evident,thegovernmentmaynotrelyonperjuredtestimonyto
secureanindictmentbeIorethegrandjury.UniteaStatesv.Useni,516F.3d634,656(7thCir.
2008); UniteaStatesv.Basurto,497F.2d781,785-86(9thCir.1974)(WeholdthattheDue
ProcessClauseoItheFiIthAmendmentisviolatedwhenadeIendanthastostandtrialonan
indictmentwhichthegovernmentknowsisbasedpartiallyonperjuredtestimony,whenthe
perjuredtestimonyismaterial,andwhenjeopardyhasnotattached.Whenevertheprosecutor
12
Interestingly,thegovernmentdidnotmakeanappearanceintheappeal.
13
OneleadingcaseauthorizingadismissaloIanindictmentIorprosecutorialmisconduct
is BankofNovaScotiav.UniteaStates,487U.S.250,256(1988)(discussingharmlesserror
standardIordismissaloIanindictment,andcontrastingdismissalIorerrorsdeemed
Iundamental).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 13
083
learnsoIanyperjurycommittedbeIorethegrandjury,heisunderadutytoimmediatelyinIorm
thecourtandopposingcounseland,iItheperjurymaybematerial,alsothegrandjuryin
orderthatappropriateactionmaybetaken.).
OItenitisthecumulativeimpactoIgrandjurymisconductthatwillcostthegovernment
anindictment.InUniteaStatesv.Hogan,712F.2d757(2dCir.1983),theCourtupheld
dismissaloIanindictmentwhentheAUSAportrayedthedeIendantasahoodluminIrontoI
thegrandjury,reliedtooheavilyonhearsayevidence,
14
andpresentedIalseDEAtestimony.Ia.
at761(Insummary,theincidentsrelatedareIlagrantandunconscionable.TakingadvantageoI
hisspecialpositionoItrust,theAUSAimpairedthegrandjurysintegrityasanindependent
body.).
Anothercriticalruleisthedonutban:anAUSAshouldntbondwithgrandjurorsby
bringingthemdonutsatthebeginningoItheirdeliberations.UniteaStatesv.Breslin,916F.
Supp.438,442(E.D.Pa.1996). Itisalsoimpropertorushthegrandjurysdeliberationsby
suggestingthattheassignedtimewasshort,tomakeimpropercharacterizationsoItheevidence,
tosuggestthatlivewitnesstestimonywasunavailable,ortowarnthatthestatuteoIlimitations
wasabouttorunonthecharges. Ia.at442.
WhiletheDiGra:iacaseisauseIullaundrylistoIprosecutorialmisconductbeIorethe
grandjury,theopinionisdepressinglycandidaboutadeIendantschancestoprevailonsucha
claim.ItisrarethatdeIendantshavesuIIicientinIormationIromJencksmaterialtoIindabasis
Ioramotiontodismiss.ItisunusualthatthetrialjudgewouldberequiredtoreviewsuIIicient
materialpresentedtothegrandjurytodevelopaconcernIorthecumulativeunIairnessoIthe
grandjuryproceedings. Ia.at446.
B. Brady,DueProcess,andStateEthicalRulesonDiscovery
EvenbeIorestateethicalobligationswereextendedtoIederalprosecutors,someIederal
courtsdidnothesitatetoimposesanctionsIorprosecutorialmisconductrelatingtoBraay
violations. OneinspiringexampleisIoundinUniteaStatesv.Ramming,915F.Supp.854(S.D.
Texas1996). Inthatcase,thedistrictcourtcareIullychronicledthevariousBraayandGiglio
violationsoItheIederalgovernmentinabankingprosecution.Ia.at868. Thecourtconcluded,
thegovernmentscontentionsoIequalaccess,neutralevidence,thatthedeIendantswereaware
oItheinIormationpossessedbytheGrandJury,thatthetestimonywasmerelyimpeachment,
andthattheyactedingoodIaith,isincredible. Onlyapersonblinaeabyambitionorignorance
ofthelawanaethicswoulahaveproceeaeaaownthisaangerouspath. Ia.(emphasisadded).
ThedeIendantsmotiontodismissbecauseoIprosecutorialmisconductwasgranted.Ia.
14
NotethatthereisnopersebanonhearsayevidencebeIorethegrandjury. Although
thereisnoprohibitionontheuseoIhearsayevidencebeIoreagrandjury,ourdecisioninUnitea
Statesv.Estepa,471F.2d1132(2dCir.1972),indicatesthatextensiverelianceonhearsay
testimonyisdisIavored.Moreparticularly,thegovernmentprosecutor,inpresentinghearsay
evidencetothegrandjury,mustnotdeceivethejurorsastothequalityoIthetestimonythey
hear. Hogan,712F.2dat761.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 14
084
Todate,IewIederalcourtshaveequateddiscoveryviolationswithethicalmisconduct
requiringbarreIerral.Asstatedsupra,Iilingacomplaintwiththestatebarauthoritiesseemsto
beconsideredalastresortbymostIederalcourts
15
eventhoughsuchasanctionhasbeen
approvedoIand,intheappropriatecase,encouragedbythecircuitcourts. SeeUniteaStatesv.
Wilson,149F.3d1298,1304(11thCir.1998)(|W|ewanttomakeclearthatimproperremarks
andconductintheIuture,especiallyiIpersistent,oughttoresultindirectsanctionsagainstan
oIIendingprosecutorinaiviaually.(emphasisinoriginal));UniteaStatesv.Moaica,663F.2d
1173,1185(2dCir.1981)(WesuspectthatthemessageoIasingle30-daysuspensionIrom
practicewouldbeIarclearerthatthedisapprovingremarksinascoreoIappellateopinions.).
16
FederalconstitutionalrequirementsIordisclosureoIexculpatoryandwitness-
impeachmentevidencearewell-established.TheUnitedStatesAttorneysManualdisclosure
policyexceedsconstitutionalobligationsalthoughthegovernmentnotesthattheexpanded
disclosurepolicy,however,doesnotcreateageneralrightoIdiscoveryincriminalcases.Nor
doesitprovidedeIendantswithanyadditionalrightsorremedies.USAM9-5.001(2010).
ThosestateethicalrulesmodeledaItertheABAsModelRuleoIProIessionalConduct3.8
imposeastillhigherdutyoIdiscoverythanthatrequiredbyconstitutionaldueprocessorthe
UnitedStatesAttorneysManual. Querywhether530Bimposesahigherdiscoveryobligation
onIederalprosecutors,byvirtueoIstateethicalrules,andwhetherthatisenIorceable?
TheAmericanBarAssociationhaspromulgatedamodelethicalrulerelatingtothe
productionoIdiscoverybytheprosecutor:
ModelRuleofProfessionalConduct3.8
15
SeeGibeaut,John,TheRoachMotel,ABAJOURNAL,July2009(Judgesseldom
disciplinelawyerswhopracticebeIorethemIorproIessionalmisconductthoughotheractions,
suchasRule11sanctions,sometimesattempttocurbthesamebehaviorandmaygo
unrecognizedaspunishmentdealttoindividuals),http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/
article/theroachmotel(lastvisited4/13/10);UniteaStatesv.Shaygan,661F.Supp.2d1289,
1325(S.D.Fla.2009)(judgereservedtherighttoimposeanyIurthersanctionsand/or
disciplinarymeasuresasmaybenecessaryagainst|theIederalprosecutors|aIterreviewingthe
resultsoItheJusticeDepartmentsinvestigation.);UniteaStatesv.Jones,No.CR07-10289-
MLW,2010WL565478(D.Mass.2010)(courtdeterminedthatimpositionoIsanctionsagainst
AUSAorgovernmentIorIailuretoadequatelytrainAUSAbasedonIailuretodiscloseplainly
materialexculpatoryevidencewereneithernecessarynorappropriatewhere,sinceviolation
disclosure,AUSA,USAttorneysOIIiceandDOJoIIicialstookactionssuchasparticipatingin
discoverytrainingprograms,whichobviatedneedIorsanctions).
16
Itappearsthatstatecourtsarealsoreluctanttoreportprosecutorialmisconducttostate
barauthorities. InCaliIorniaIorinstance,itisrarethatprosecutorialmisconductisreIerredto
theCaliIorniaStateBaralthoughrequiredunderCaliIornialaw. SeeCrossingtheLine:
RespondingtoProsecutorialMisconduct,athttp://www.abanet.org/litigation/progmaterials
/2008sectionannual/016.pdI(lastvisited4/9/10).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 15
085
Theprosecutorinacriminalcaseshall:
....
(d)maketimelydisclosuretothedeIenseoIallevidenceorinIormationknownto
theprosecutorthattendstonegatetheguiltoItheaccusedormitigatesthe
oIIense,and,inconnectionwithsentencing,disclosetothedeIenseandtothe
tribunalallunprivilegedmitigatinginIormationknowntotheprosecutor,except
whentheprosecutorisrelievedoIthisresponsibilitybyaprotectiveorderoIthe
tribunal;
AppenaixB,MoaelRuleofProfessionalConauct3.8(a).
ThismodelruleispatternedaIterABAStandard3-3.11,Prosecution/DeIenseFunction:
DisclosureoIEvidencebytheProsecutor
(a)AprosecutorshouldnotintentionallyIailtomaketimelydisclosuretothedeIense,at
theearliestfeasibleopportunity,oItheexistenceoIallevidenceorinformationwhich
tendstonegatetheguiltoItheaccusedormitigatetheoIIensechargedorwhichwould
tendtoreducethepunishmentoItheaccused.
ABAStandard3-3.11(emphasesadded).
TheABAhasrecentlyissuedan8-pageIormalopinionregardingtheprosecutorial
ethicaldutytodiscloseevidenceandinIormationIavorabletothedeIensewhichclearlyexceeds
constitutionaldiscoveryobligations. See AppenaixD,FormalOpinion09-454(July8,2009).
KeyexcerptsIollow:
Rule3.8(d)ismoredemandingthattheconstitutionalcaselaw,inthatitrequires
thedisclosureoIevidenceorinIormationIavorabletothedeIensewithoutregard
totheanticipatedimpactoItheevidenceorinIormationonatrialsoutcome.The
ruletherebyrequiresprosecutorstosteerclearoItheconstitutionalline,erringon
thesideoIcaution.
Ia.at4.
Further,thisethicaldutyoIdisclosureisnotlimitedtoadmissibleevidence,
suchasphysicalanddocumentaryevidence,andtranscriptsoIIavorable
testimony;italsorequiresdisclosureoIIavorableinIormation.Thoughpossibly
inadmissibleitselI,IavorableinIormationmayleadadeIendantslawyerto
admissibletestimonyorotherevidenceorassisthiminotherways,suchasin
pleanegotiations.IndeterminingwhetherevidenceandinIormationwilltendto
negatetheguiltoItheaccused,theprosecutormustconsidernotonlydeIensesto
thechargesthatthedeIendantordeIensecounselhasexpressedanintentionto
raisebutalsoanyotherlegallycognizabledeIenses.Nothingintherulesuggestsa
ProsecutorialMisconduct 16
086
deminimisexceptiontotheprosecutorsdisclosuredutywhere,Iorexample,the
prosecutorbelievesthattheinIormationhasonlyaminimaltendencytonegate
thedeIendantsguilt,orthattheIavorableevidenceishighlyunreliable.
Ia.at5.
TheSupremeCourthasobservedthatIederaldueprocessrequirementsprovideIorless-
completediscoverythantheABAstandards.SeeKylesv.Whitley,514U.S.419,437(1995).
Yet,theCourthasalsonotedthat,nonetheless,aprosecutormayhaveanobligationunder
applicableethicalorstatutoryrulestogreaterdisclosure. Conev.Bell,U.S.,129S.Ct.
1769,1783n.15(2009)(AswehaveoItenobserved,theprudentwillerronthesideoI
transparency,resolvingdoubtIulquestionsinIavoroIdisclosure.).
TherearetwoprimarydiIIerencesbetweenIederaldueprocessrequirementsandthe
ABAmodelethicalrules.TheIirstrelatestoscopeoIdisclosure. AsnotedinKyles,theABA
modelrulerequiresdisclosureofanyeviaencetenaingtoexculpateormitigate. Ia.(emphasis
added). Federaldueprocess,bycontrast,isprimarilyastandardIorgedoutoIappellatereview;
itprohibitsthesuppressionbytheprosecutionoIevidenceIavorabletotheaccusedupon
request,|which|violatesdueprocesswheretheevidenceismaterialeithertoguiltorto
punishment,irrespectiveoIthegoodIaithorthebadIaithoItheprosecution.Braayv.
Marylana,373U.S.83,87(1963).
TheseconddistinctionrelatestothetimingoIdisclosure. Whenthemodelruleisreadin
conjunctionwiththeABAstandard,theprosecutorisrequiredtodisclosediscoveryatthe
earliestIeasibleopportunity. Bycontrast,BraaylawandtimingIocusesonprejudicetothe
deIenseviewedinthehindsightoIanappealiItherewasnoprejudicetothedeIensebyIailing
todiscloseBraaymaterialbeIoretrial,noviolationlies.See,e.g.,UniteaStatesv.Knight,867
F.2d1285,1289(11thCir.1989)(AppellantsreceivedtheinIormationduringthetrialandhave
IailedtodemonstratethatthedisclosurecamesolatethatitcouldnotbeeIIectivelyused;and
thustheycannotshowprejudice.)OIevengreaterconcern,Iederaldueprocessdoesnotrequire
anydisclosureoIimpeachmentinIormationbeIoreadeIendantpleadsguiltysothisGiglio
inIormationmaynevercometotheattentionoIthedeIense.
17
17
FederalcourtshavelongheldthatthegovernmenthasadutyunderBraayv.
Marylana,373U.S.83(1963),anditsprogenytodiscloseIavorablematerialevidencetothe
deIenseintimeIorthematerialtobeoIvaluetothedeIendant.See,e.g.,UniteaStatesv.
Goraon,844F.2d1397,1403(9thCir.1988). Thisdutytodiscloseincludesimpeachment
evidence(sometimesknownasGigliomaterial)aswellasactualinnocenceevidence.See,
e.g.,UniteaStatesv.Bagley,473U.S.667,676(1985). Theprosecutorhasadutytoobtainthis
inIormationIromstateaswellasIederalagentswhohaveworkedonthecase.SeeKylesv.
Whitley,514U.S.419,437-38(1995).
TheSupremeCourthasheldthatimpeachment(Giglio)materialneeanotbedisclosedto
thedeIensebeIoreapleaoIguilt.UniteaStatesv.Rui:,536U.S.622,629(2002). TheCourt
reasonedthatadeIendantcanconstitutionallymisjudgeothercomponentsoIhisorhercase
ProsecutorialMisconduct 17
087
ThetensionbetweentheIederaldueprocessdiscoverystandardsandtheABAmodelrule
ismorethanjustanacademicdebate;manystateshaveadoptedtheABAmodelruleoran
analogousprovisionrelatingtodiscovery.
18
ConsideranotherColoradocaseasanillustrationoI
thetensionbetweenstateethicalrulesandIederaldiscoveryrequirements.
In Peoplev.Mucklow,35P.3d527(Co.S.Ct.OIIiceDiscipline2000),adistrictattorney
twiceIailedtodiscloseexculpatorystatementstothedeIensebeIorepreliminaryhearings.Ia.at
530-31. TheDisciplineOIIiceoItheSupremeCourtemphasizedthatColoradohadadopteda
versionoIABAmodelrule3.8,andthatthisrulemeantTheprosecutorisrequiredtoprovide
exculpatoryinIormationandmaterialstothedeIenseassoonasitispracticableorfeasibletoao
so. Ia.at535. TheopinionemphasizesthediIIerencebetweendueprocessdiscovery
requirementsand(themorerigorous)ethicaldiscoveryobligationscreatedbythestateethical
rule. Ia.at535. TheD.A.whoignoredthatdistinctiondidsoatherperil;shewaspublically
censured. Ia. at540.
FortheIederalpractitionerinColoradooranystatethathasadoptedaversionoIABA
modelrule3.8theMucklowcaseisintriguing. IICongressmanMcDades530Bextends
stateethicalrulestoIederalprosecutors,thentheColoradoethicalrulerequiringearlydiscovery
shouldapplytoanAUSAaswell.
C. ProsecutorialMisconductDuringTrial
1. MisconductDuring1urySelection
ProsecutorialmisconductcasesmakeIorremarkablereading.OnesuchcaseisWilliams
v.Netherlana,181F.Supp.2d604(E.D.Va.2002). InWilliams,petitionersoughtrelieIIroma
beIoreaplea;thequalityoItheStatescase,thelikelypenalties,achangeinlawregarding
punishment,theadmissibilityoIaconIession,andpotentialdeIenses.Thereaccordinglywasno
constitutionalproblemwithapleaiIthedeIendantmisjudgedthegroundsIorimpeachmentoI
potentialwitnessesasapossibleIuturetrial.Ia.at2455.
18
StatesadoptingasubstantialequivalentoIABAModelRule3.8(d)includeColorado,
Idaho,Maryland,andPennsylvania. See,e.g.,Peoplev.Mucklow,35P.3d527(Co.S.Ct.
OIIiceDiscipline2000)(discussingColo.RPC3.8d,basedonABAModelRule3.8);Id.R.
ProI.Conduct3.8(d)(incorporatingsubsection(d)oIABAmodelrulerelatingtodiscovery);Md
RuleoIProI.Conduct3.8(same);PaRule.ProI.Conduct3.8(same).Otherstateshaveadopted
less-speciIicethicalrulesregardingaprosecutorsdisclosureobligations. CaliIorniaisinthe
processoIadoptingarulebasedinlargepartonABAModelRule3.8(d).See,e.g.,
http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdIs/
public-comment/2009/Revision-Rules-ProIessional-Conduct-11-Rules11-13-09.pdI(comparing
andcontrastingotherstatesadoptionandCaliIorniasproposedchanges)(lastvisited4/9/10).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 18
088
capitalconvictionwheni)ajurorwastheex-wiIeoIagovernmentwitness;ii)theprosecutor
wasthisjurorsIormeraivorce attorney(andwhothereIoreobviouslyknewaboutthe
relationship,andiii)neitherthejurornortheprosecutorbotheredtorevealtheserelationships
duringvoirdire. Ia.at609-12. ThecourtIoundthattheprosecutoractedimproperlyand
grantedthewrit. Ia.
LessIavorableistheNinthCircuitsaIIirmanceinUniteaStatesv.Steele,298F.3d906
(9thCir.2002). InSteele,theAUSAquestionedaprospectivejuroronvoirdirewhohadbeen
employedasapublicdeIender.Ia.at911-12. Sheasked,InthecourseoItrying|Ielony
robberycases|,didyouevermakeadecisionthatyourclientwasguiltyandyouvegottodo
whateveryouhavegottodobecausethatsyourjob?Ia.at912. Thejuroranswered,
truthIully,Iguessso,yeah. Youknow,itgetstheIactsmightshowonewayortheother,and
youhavetopursuethecaseiItheclientwantstoornot,itstheirdecision. Ia.
DeIensecounselsittingnexttoaclientheadingintoaIederalbankrobberytrial
understandablyobjectedtoaquestionaboutdeIendingguiltydeIendantsattrial. Ia. TheNinth
Circuit,however,reIusedtoIindmisconduct.Theprosecutorsquestionsinthepresentcase
maynothavebeenthebestwaytoelicitsignsoIbias,butthecircumstancesdonotsupportthe
conclusionthattherewasprosecutorialmisconduct.Ia.
2. ImproperConductDuringOpeningStatements
Inheropeningstatement,anAUSAstatesthatthearmedrobberycasebeIorethejuryhas
rockedthesenseoIsecurityoIanentireMainecommunity,acommunitythathadbeen
relativelyIreeIromrandomactsoIviolence.UniteaStatesv.Mooney,315F.3d54,58-59(1st
Cir.2002). ShecontinuesontocommentthatthedeIendantchosenottospeaktothepolice,and
encouragedthejurytocomparethatsilencewiththetestimonyoIhiscooperating-co-
deIendants. Ia.Prosecutorialmisconduct?
ThegovernmentconcededasmuchinMooney,choosingnottodeIendtheprosecutors
openingremarks.Ia.at59. Instead,whileIindingmisconducttheFirstCircuitIocused
primarilyontheremeay(whichitultimatelydenied).
In Mooney,theFirstCircuitacknowledgeditsdismaythatanyprosecutorinthiscircuit
couldappriseajuryinanopeningstatementthatadeIendanthadchosennottotalktothepolice.
ItisdiIIiculttoimagineamoreIundamentalerror.Ia.at61&n.1. Nonetheless,inlightoIthe
strengthoItheevidenceandimmediatecurativeinstructions,theFirstCircuitupheldthe
conviction. Ia.
OneparticularlyinterestingaspectoItheMooneydecisionistheCourtsanalysisoIthe
timing oIthemisconduct.TheCourtobservedThecontextoItheprosecutorscommentsalso
weighsagainstaIindingthattheylikelyaIIectedtheoutcomeoIthetrial.Thecomments
occurredduringopeningarguments,notduringsummationwherethelastwordsthejuryhears
havesigniIicantpotentialtocauseprejudice. Ia.at60. Prosecutorialmisconductduring
openingstatementsthusmaybemorediIIiculttoremedyonappealthanimproperstatements
duringclosingarguments.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 19
089
3. EthicalProblemswithGovernmentWitnessesandTrialEvidence
Governmentwitnessesandevidenceattrialpresentagrab-bagoIethicalproblems.One
straightIorwardprohibitionprecludeselicitingawitnessopinionoIanotherwitnesstestimony.
UniteaStatesv.Geston,299F.3d1130(9thCir.2002),nicelysummarizesthedueprocess
concernsbehindthisrule. Ia.at1136(collectingcases). InGeston,theNinthconcludedthatthe
prosecutorsimproperquestioningseriouslyaIIectedtheIairness,integrity,orpublicreputation
oIjudicialproceedings,or||Iailingtoreverse|the|convictionwouldresultinamiscarriageoI
justice. Ia.(internalquotationandcitationomitted).Inacasewherewitnesscredibilitywas
paramount,itwasplainerrorIorthecourttoallowtheprosecutortopersistinaskingwitnesses
tomakeimpropercommentsuponthetestimonyoIotherwitnesses.Ia.at1137.
Notsurprisingly,itisalsoimproperIoraprosecutortointentionallyelicittestimony
precludedbyacourtsinlimineruling. SeeThomasv.Hubbara,273F.3d1164,1175-76(9th
Cir.2001),asamena.Jan.22,2002(grantingpetitionIorwritoIhabeasIrommurderconviction
when,amongotherthings,theprosecutorintentionallyignoredacourtrulingprohibiting
testimonyaboutadeIendantsprevioususeoIagun).
ItisalsounsurprisingthatitisprosecutorialmisconductIorthegovernmenttosponsor
perjuredtestimony,topermititswitnessestocommitperjury,ortoIailtorevealawitnesslies
tothedeIense. WhatissurprisingisthevehemenceoIcourtswhenconIrontedwiththisconduct.
Commonwealthv.Bowie,243F.3d1109(9thCir.2001),asamena.Mar.23,2001isa
remarkableexampleoIacourtsintoleranceIorsuchconduct.InBowie,thedeIendantwas
implicatedinaparticularlybrutalmurderintheNorthernMarianaIslands.Ia.at1111. MuchoI
thegovernmentscaseinvolvedcooperatingco-deIendants,oneoIwhomwascaughtearlyinthe
case,inajailcell,whiletryingtodiscardanincriminatingletterhandwrittenonyellowpaper.
Ia.at1112-13. Thatletterbyanunknownauthorsuggestedthattheauthori)wasactually
guiltyoIthemurder,ii)wasconspiringtoIramethedeIendant,iii)hadliedduringcooperation
beIore,andiv)hadliedtohislawyeraboutthemurder.Ia.ThelettermayhavecomeIrom
anothercooperatingwitness.
Despitethisdramaticevidence,theprosecutordidnotinvestigatetheletter,didnot
submititIorhandwritinganalysis,andneveraskedanyoIthecooperatingwitnessesaboutit.Ia.
at1114.
TheNinthCircuit(inanopinionwrittenbyIormerIederalprosecutorTrott),wastoput
itmildlylividinlightoIthestudieddecisionbytheprosecutionnottorocktheboat,but
insteadtopressIorwardwithtestimonythatwaspossiblyIalseontheapparentpremisethatall
theseaccompliceswereactuallyresponsibleIor|thevictims|murder.Ia.at1118. TheCourt
explainedthattheprosecutorsdutywasnottomerelydisclosethelettertothedeIense,butto
activelyinvestigatethemany(potentiallyexculpatory)ramiIicationsoItheevidence.Ia.at
1117-18. AprosecutorsresponsibilityanddutytocorrectwhatheknowstobeIalseandelicit
thetruth...requiresaprosecutortoactwhenputonnoticeoItherealpossibilityoIIalse
testimony.ThisdutyisnotdischargedbyattemptingtoIinessetheproblembypressingahead
withoutadiligentandagoodIaithattempttoresolveit.Aprosecutorcannotavoidthis
ProsecutorialMisconduct 20
090
obligationbyreIusingtosearchIorthetruthandremainingwillIullyignorantoItheIacts.Ia.at
1118.
TheCourtdidnotparticularlycarewhatthedeIendantactuallyaiawiththisletterduring
trial. |ThedeIendant|hascertainconstitutionalrightsthathecouldwaiveorIorIeit,buthe
couldnotwaivetheIreestandingethicalandconstitutionalobligationoItheprosecutorasa
representativeoIthegovernmenttoprotecttheintegrityoIthecourtandthecriminaljustice
system....Ia.at1122.
BowieisauseIulplacetostartwhenresearchingprosecutorialmisconductregarding
perjury.
19
First,thetoneoIthecaseiswelcomerighteousindignationincontrasttosomany
casesthatseemblandlyresignedtoprosecutorialmisconduct.ThecasealsoincludesauseIul
collectionoIauthorityregardingprosecutorialmisconductinthepresentationinevidence.
Finally, BowieemploysathoughtIuldualanalysisusingbothdueprocessandprosecutorial
misconductauthorityinarrivingatitsultimatereversal.Seeia.at1115-17.
4. ImproperClosingArguments
OneoItheleadcasesonprosecutorialmisconductduringclosingargumentsisthesource
IorthewonderIulquoteusedatthebeginningoIthisoutline- Bergerv.UniteaStates,295U.S.
78(1935). InBerger,theprosecutingattorneymisstatedevidenceduringcrossexamination,an
argumentthatwasundigniIiedandintemperate,containingimproperinsinuationsandassertions
calculatedtomisleadthejury.Ia.at86. TheCourtIoundpronouncedandpersistent
misconduct,acaseagainstthedeIendantthatwasnotstrong,andaccordinglyreversedand
remandedIoranewtrial.Ia.at89.
WhatisinterestingabouttheBergeropinionisthelackoIanalysisastotheCourts
powertoreverseinlightoIprosecutorialmisconduct.TheCourtpresumablyactedunderits
supervisorypowerapowerthatithandilydistinguishedIiIty-oneyearslaterwhenpresented
withacapitalhabeasallegingimproperclosingstatements.SeeDaraenv.Wainwright,477U.S.
168(1986). InDaraen,thedeIendanthadbeenconvictedoIanadmittedlyhorriIicmurderand
sexualassault. Ia.at172-74. Intheclosingargument,theprosecutorassertedthattheonlyway
tobesurethatthedeIendantwouldnotreturntothepublicwasthedeathpenalty. Ia.at181&
n.9. TheprosecutorarguedthatthedeIendantshouldntbeoutoIhiscellunlesshehasaleash
onhimandaprisonguardattheotherendoIthatleash.Ia. at181&n.12. Theprosecutor
wishedthatthehomicidevictimhadhadashotguninhishandwhenhewalkedinthebackdoor
andblown|thedeIendants|IaceoII. IwishthatIcouldseehimsittingherewithnoIace,blown
19
OtheruseIulcasesonperjuredtestimonyincludeUniteaStatesv.Jalentine,820F.2d
565(2dCir.1987)(reversingconvictionwhenAUSAmischaracterizedgrandjurytestimony
duringtrial),andUniteaStatesv.LaPage,231F.3d488(9thCir.2000)(reversingconviction
whenAUSAtoleratedperjuryIromcentralgovernmentwitness).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 21
091
awaybyashotgun. Ia.
20
TheCourtIoundthatthecommentsdidnotdeprivethedeIendantoIaIairtrial,settinga
testthatstillhauntsIederalreview:Theprosecutorsargumentdidnotmanipulateormisstate
theevidence,nordiditimplicateotherspeciIicrightsoItheaccusedsuchastherighttocounsel
ortherighttoremainsilent.Ia.at181-82.
ApersuasivedissentinBergerquotesaremarkablycandidpassageontheIutilityoI
condemnationswithoutremedies:
Thiscourthasseveraltimesusedvigorouslanguageindenouncinggovernmentcounsel
IorsuchconductasthatoIthe|prosecutor|here.But,eachtime,ithassaidthat,
nevertheless,itwouldnotreverse.SuchanattitudeoIhelplesspietyis,Ithink,
undesirable.ItmeansactualcondonationoIcounsel'sallegedoIIense,coupledwith
verbaldisapprobation.IIwecontinuetodonothingpracticaltopreventsuchconduct,we
shouldceasetodisapproveit.ForotherwiseitwillbeasiIwedeclaredineIIect,
'Governmentattorneys,withoutIearoIreversal,maysayjustaboutwhattheypleasein
addressingjuries,Iorourrulesonthesubjectarepretend-rules.IIprosecutorswin
verdictsasaresultoI"disapproved"remarks,wewillnotdeprivethemoItheirvictories;
wewillmerelygothroughtheIormoIexpressingdispleasure.Thedeprecatorywordswe
useinouropinionsonsuchoccasionsarepurelyceremonial.'Governmentcounsel,
employingsuchtactics,arethekindwho,eagertowinvictories,willgladlypaythesmall
priceoIaritualisticverbalspanking.ThepracticeoIthiscourtrecallingthebittertear
shedbytheWalrusasheatetheoystersbreedsadeplorablycynicalattitudetowards
thejudiciary. IbelievethisCourtmustdomorethanwringitshandswhenaStateuses
improperlegalstandardstoselectjuriesincapitalcasesandpermitsprosecutorsto
perverttheadversaryprocess.IthereIoredissent.
Ia.at206(Blackmun,J.,Brennan,J.,Marshall,J.,Stevens,J.,dissenting)(internalquotations
andcitationsomitted).
Recently,theNinthCircuitsignaledanendtothewringingoIthehands. InUnitea
Statesv.Reyes,577F.3d1069,1076-79(9thCir.2009),thecourtreversedandremandedIora
newtrialbasedontheprosecutorsremarksinclosingargument.TheNinthCircuitIoundthat
thegovernmenthadassertedmaterialIactstothejurythatitknewwereIalseorhadstrong
reasontodoubt,basedoncontradictoryevidencethatwasnotpresentedtothejury. Id. The
NinthCircuitsternlywarnedtheDOJthat,|w|edonotlightlytoleratesuchconduct,andthat
werewasnoreasontotoleratesuchmisconducthere.Ia.at1078.
Generally,however,courtsroutinelycondemnprosecutorsconduct,butreIusetogrant
20
Thedistrictcourthasobserved,Anyoneattemptingatext-bookillustrationoIa
violationoItheCodeoIProIessionalResponsibility...couldnotpossiblyimproveupon
|prosecutorWhitesIinalstatement|.Ia.at189&n.2(Blackmun,J.,Brennan,J.,Marshall,J.,
Stevens,J.,dissenting).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 22
092
anyrelieItothedeIense. In1970,Iorexample,theFirstCircuitresignedlyrepeatedwarningsit
hadmademanytimesbeIore:
Wewillrecapitulate,wehopeIorthelasttime,inthelightoIthenumberoIoccasionsit
hasbeennecessarytodoso,thebasicgroundrules. Essentially,theprosecutoristo
arguethecase. Hemaydiscusstheevidence,thewarrantableinIerences,thewitnesses,
andtheircredibility. HemaytalkaboutthedutiesoIthejury,theimportanceoIthecase,
andanythingelsethatisrelevant. HeisnottointerjecthispersonalbelieIs. The
prosecutorisneitherawitness,amentor,norathirteenthjuror....Hemustnotappeal
tothepassionorprejudiceoIthejurydirectly,orbytheintroductionoIirrelevantmatter,
indirectly.
UniteaStatesv.Cotter,425F.2d450,452(1stCir.1970). InCotter,thismeantthatitwas
improperIoraprosecutortoarguethatadeIendantswhoIailedtopayhistaxeswas
jeopardizingIuturemoonlandingstheIirstlandingwastakingplaceduringthetrial.Ia.
Absentatimelyobjection,however,theCourtdeclinedtoreverse.Ia.
ForcedtodealwithrepeatedallegationsoIprosecutorialmisconductduringclosing
arguments,IederalappellatecourtsgraduallydevelopedstringenthurdlestoovercomebeIorea
deIendantwouldbeentitledtoanyrelieI. TheSecondCircuit,Iorexample,developedathree-
parttesttodeterminewhetheraprosecutorsstatementsduringclosingamountedtomisconduct:
ThedistrictcourtcorrectlyidentiIiedthethree-prongedanalysisemployedbythisCourt
todeterminewhetherthestatementsoractionsoIaprosecutoramounttomisconduct.
ThatanalysisIocuseson:theseverityoIthemisconduct,thecurativemeasurestaken,and
thecertaintyoIconvictionabsentthemisconduct.
UniteaStatesv.Burns,104F.3d529,537(2dCir.1997). InBurns,aprosecutorclapped
(sarcastically)aIterdeIensecounselIinishedtheirclosingintears. Ia.&n.3. Thegovernment
concededonappealthatthiswasinappropriate,butthecourtreIusedtoreversethedenialoIa
newtrialmotion.Ia.
Attimes,acourtstoleranceoImisconductduringclosingargumentisbreathtaking.For
example,inahabeascasearisingIromamurderconviction,theNinthCircuitwasconIronted
withaprosecutorwhohadactuallytakenthewitnessstandduringclosingargument,testiIied
inthevoiceoIthemurdered,gay,victim,andwhoduringthissoliloquycharacterizedthevictim
asapeaceIul,gentlemanwhodidnothingtodeservehisdismalIate.Drayaenv.White,232
F.3d704,712-13(9thCir.2000). WhiletheNinthCircuitagreedthattheprosecutorhad
committedmisconduct,itreIusedtoholdthatthismisconducthadviolatedpetitionersdue
processrights. Ia.
FacedwithwhatJusticeBlackmuncharacterizedasanattitudeoIhelplesspietyIrom
mostIederalcourtsreviewingallegationsoIprosecutorialmisconduct,530Bmayprovidesome
support. TherearenoshortageoIstateandlocalethicalrulesdirectedtowardsprosecutorial
misconductinclosingarguments.AnABAModelRuleoIProIessionalConduct,Iorexample,
prohibitsanattorneyIromstatingapersonalopinionastothecredibilityoIawitness:
ProsecutorialMisconduct 23
093
RULE3.4FAIRNESSTOOPPOSINGPARTYANDCOUNSEL
Alawyershallnot:
....
(e)intrial,alludetoanymatterthatthelawyerdoesnotreasonablybelieveisrelevantor
thatwillnotbesupportedbyadmissibleevidence,assertpersonalknowledgeoIIactsin
issueexceptwhentestiIyingasawitness,orstateapersonalopinionastothefustnessof
acause,thecreaibilityofawitness,theculpabilityoIacivillitigantortheguiltor
innocenceoIanaccused;or
AppenaixE,ABAModelRuleoIProIessionalConduct3.4(2002)(emphasisadded).
Instatesthathaveadoptedthismodelrule
21
orthathaveanalogouslimitationson
closingargumentssuchbehaviorduringaIederalclosingshouldearntheprosecutorareIerral
tothestatebardisciplinarycommitteeinthispost-530Bworld.EveniIthemisconductisnot
suIIicientlyprejudicialtoentitleadeIendanttorelieI,thespecteroIapubliccensurebythestate
barshouldhelptoputsometeethintothejudicialhandwringingthatJusticeBlackmun
warnedagainstinBerger.
Notably,evenwhencourtsdonotdirectlycensureAUSAsbasedonlocalethicalrules,
themoralweightoItheserulesisgraduallymakingitswayintoIederalcaselaw.Forexample,
theSixthCircuitreversedandremandedIoranewtrialaIederalbankrobberycasewherethe
prosecutormisstatedcentraleyewitnesstestimonyduringclosing.SeeUniteaStatesv.Carter,
236F.3d777,793(6thCir.2001). InitsanalysisoIthethresholdquestion
22
oIwhetherthe
21
Anon-exhaustivelistoIstatesthathaveadoptedModelRule3-4includes
Connecticut,Kansas,Louisiana,Maryland,Montana,NewHampshire,NorthCarolina,Utah,
WestVirginia.See,e.g.,Statev.Floya,523A.2d1323(Conn.App.1987)(applyingRuleoI
ProIessionalConduct3.4toallegedethicalviolation);Statev.Pabst,996P.2d321,326(Kan.
S.Ct.2000)(same);Merrittv.Karcioglu,668So.2d469,475-76(La.App.4thCir.1996)(same);
AttorneyGrievanceComnv.Alison,709A.2d1212,1215(Md.Ct.App.1998)(same);Statev.
Stewart,833P.2d1085,1089-90(Mont.S.Ct.1992)(same);Statev.Jones,558S.E.2d97,127-
28(N.C.S.Ct.2002);Statev.Bufnowski,532A.2d1385,1387(N.H.S.Ct.1987)(same);State
v.Dibello,780P.2d1221(UtahS.Ct.1989)(same);Statev.Stephens,525S.E.2d301,424(W.
Va.S.Ct.1999)
22
TheCourtinCarterarticulatedtheSixthCircuitstwo-parttesttodeterminewhether
prosecutorialmisconducthastakenplace:
TheSixthCircuithasadoptedatwo-stepapproachIordeterminingwhen
prosecutorialmisconductwarrantsanewtrial.SeeUniteaStatesv.Carroll,26F.3d
1380,1385-87(6thCir.1994).Underthisapproach,acourtmustIirstconsiderwhether
theprosecutor'sconductandremarkswereimproper.Ia.at1387;seealsoBoylev.
Million,201F.3d711,717(6thCir.2000).IItheremarkswereimproper,thecourtmust
ProsecutorialMisconduct 24
094
AUSAsclosingwasimproper,theSixthCircuitquotedwithIavortheABAStandardstating
thattheprosecutorshouldnotintentionallymisstatetheevidenceormisleadthejuryastothe
inIerencesitmaydraw.Ia.at785(quotingABAStandardsIorCriminalJusticeProsecution
FunctionandDeIenseFunction3-5.8(a)(3ded.1993)).
OurpersonalexperienceinthisIieldalsorevealsthatthespecteroIethicalsanctionisa
powerIulweaponincombatingunethicalbehavior.AprimeexampleisUniteaStatesv.
Bluefora,312F.3d962(9thCir.2002),asamena.&furtheramena.,Nov.22,2002. Northern
DistrictAssistantFederalPublicDeIenderJoyceLeavittablylitigatedthisIeloninpossession
case. ThedeIensewhohadprovidednoticeoIanalibideIensewaspresentedwithahuge
stackoItheclientstapedconversationsIromthejail;andwasIirstpresentedwiththesetapesin
themidstoItrial.Ia.at966. TheAUSAsuggestedthathewasgoingtousethesetapesas
impeachmentmaterialrelatingtothetestimonyoIdeIensealibiwitnessesimplyingthatthe
tapesrevealedadeIendantwhowassuborningperjury. Ia.at965. DuringthetrialtheAUSA
elicitedinhiscrossoIdeIensealibiwitnessesthattheyhadspokenmuchmoreIrequentlytothe
deIendantjustbeIorethetrial. Ia.at966. Inhisclosing,theAUSAaskedthejurytoinIerthat
thedeIendantandthealibiwitnessIabricatedthealibideIensejustbeIoretrial.Ia.at967.
Inreality,however,whenthethirtyhoursoItapeswerereviewedbythedeIense(aIter
trial),theyrevealedthedeIendanttellinganalibiwitness,|A|llyougottodoistellthetruth.
Ia.Thedistrictcourtjudgewassurprisedtolearnthetapesdidnot,inIact,revealadeIendant
whowascoachingalibiwitnesses. Ia.
TheNinthCircuitreversed;ItisdecidedlyimproperIorthegovernmenttopropound
inIerencesthatitknowstobeIalse,orhasverystrongreasontodoubt,particularlywhenit
reIusestoacknowledgetheerroraIterwardstoeitherthetrialcourtorthiscourtandinstead
oIIersIar-IetchedexplanationsoIitsactions. Ia.at968.
thenconsiderandweighIourIactorsindeterminingwhethertheimproprietywasIlagrant
andthuswarrantsreversal.TheseIourIactorsareasIollows:(1)whethertheconductand
remarksoItheprosecutortendedtomisleadthejuryorprejudicethedeIendant;(2)
whethertheconductorremarkswereisolatedorextensive;(3)whethertheremarkswere
deliberatelyoraccidentallymade;and(4)whethertheevidenceagainstthedeIendant
wasstrong.Carroll,26F.3dat1385;seealsoBoyle,201F.3dat717;UniteaStatesv.
Collins,78F.3d1021,1039(6thCir.),cert.aeniea,519U.S.872,117S.Ct.189,136
L.Ed.2d127(1996).
Whenreviewingchallengestoaprosecutor'sremarksattrial,weexaminethe
prosecutor'scommentswithinthecontextoIthetrialtodeterminewhethersuch
commentsamountedtoprejudicialerror.UniteaStatesv.Young,470U.S.1,11-12,105
S.Ct.1038,84L.Ed.2d1(1985);Collins,78F.3dat1040.Insodoing,weconsider
whether,andtowhatextent,theprosecutor'simproperremarkswereinvitedbydeIense
counsel'sargument.Young,470U.S.at12,105S.Ct.1038;Collins,78F.3dat1040.
Carter,236F.3dat783.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 25
095
WhatisnotclearIromtheopinionistheenormouspublicityandcontroversythatthis
casegeneratedintheNorthernDistrictoICaliIornia.ThegovernmentandtheAUSAhimselI
devotedenormousresourcestoseekingrehearingand(later,successIulamendment)oIthe
opinionallegingprosecutorialmisconduct.Notably,theopiniondoesnotclearlyspeciIythe
AUSAinvolvedintrial. Ia. Nonetheless,theBlueforacaseandthisAUSAsinvolvementare
well-knownbyeveryIederalpractitioneranddistrictjudgeintheNorthernDistrict.Inshort,the
combinationoIaremedyIorthedeIendant(reversalandnewtrial),andevenanobliquemoral
sanctionmayhavesomeimpact.
D. BrokenPromises:BreachedPleasatSentencing
Isabrokenpleaagreementatsentencingbestanalyzedusingcontractlaw,orwhen
Iramedasprosecutorialmisconduct?Moreimportantly,doesitmattertotheclientaslongasa
remedyissecured?
TheleadcaseonbreachedpleaagreementsisSantobellov.NewYork,404U.S.257
(1971). Inthatopinion,theSupremeCourtreversedandremandedaIter(thesecond)prosecutor
inthecasereIusedtomakeasentencingrecommendationagreeduponbeIoretheplea.Ia.at
260. DespitetheIactthatthejudgedisclaimedanyrelianceontheD.A.srecommendation,the
CourtIoundthatwhenaplearestsinanysigniIicantdegreeonapromiseoragreementoIthe
prosecutor,sothatitcanbesaidtobepartoItheinducementorconsideration,suchpromise
mustbeIulIilled.Ia.at262. WhiletheCourtdidnotengageinmuchanalysisoItheethicsoIa
breachedplea,itmadenomentionoIanyprinciplesoIcontractlaw.JusticeDouglas
concurrence,however,emphasizedthatoutrightvacationisoItenappropriateaIterabreached
pleapromise,inlightoIanoutragedsenseoIIairness.Ia.at266(Douglas,J.,concurring)
(internalquotationsandcitationomitted).
WhiledeIerringtoSantobello,Iederalappellatecourtshaveroutinelyavoidedtheethical
issuesbyanalyzingpleaagreementbreachundercontractlaw.InUniteaStatesv.Grimm,170
F.3d760(7thCir.1999),Iorexample,theSeventhCircuitemployedcontractprincipleswhenan
AUSAIailedtorecommendacceptanceoIresponsibilityanddidnotdisputeagunpossession,in
violationoIthepleaagreement.Ia.at764-66. WithoutengaginginanyethicalIinger-pointing,
theCourtvacatedthesentenceandremandedIorresentencing.Ia.at765.
Ethicalovertonesinplea-breachcasesarebecomingmorecommon,however.For
example,inGunnv.Ignacio,263F.3d965(9thCir.2001),theNinthCircuitgrantedapetition
IorawritoIhabeascorpuswhenadistrictattorneybreachedapleaagreementregarding
concurrenttime.Ia.at969. BecausetheCourtgrantedrelieI,itdidnotgettothesecondissue
raisedbythePetitioneraclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselIorIailingtoobjecttothe
prosecutorialmisconductarisingIromthisbreach!Ia.at968. AlthoughGunndidnotconsider
theissue,Petitionersclaimissobering:deIensecounseltootimidtoraiseprosecutorial
misconductchallengesmayregrettheirdecisionwhenIacedwithalaterI.A.C.claim.
IIsuIIicientlydramatic,aprosecutorsbreachoIapleaagreementmayevenprompta
CourttoenIorcepromisesthatwereactuallyunIulIillable!SuchwasthecaseinPalermov.
Waraen,GreenHavenStatePrison,545F.2d286(2dCir.1976). InPalermo,thePetitionerhad
ProsecutorialMisconduct 26
096
beenpromisedthatstatedistrictattorneyswouldaggressivelylobbytheparoleboardIora
reducedsentence,inreturnIorhimleadingthemto$4millionworthoIstolenjewelry.Ia.at
289-90. Thejewelswererecovered,sympatheticletterswerewrittenbytheDAstotheparole
commissionbutatthesametime,prosecutorssandbaggedthedeIendantbycallingaparole
investigatorandanalogizingthedeIendanttoanotherparoleewhohadreceivedalenient
sentenceandthencommittedaviolentcrime.Ia.at291. Thestatescasewasnothelpedby
contractionsintheprosecutorstestimony,inconsistenciestoonumeroustomentionthat
underminedtheircredibility.Ia.at294.
Whilecontestingthehabeaspetition,thestatearguedthattheprosecutorsneverhadthe
authoritytooIIerabargainIromanotherjurisdictionthestateparolecommission.TheCourt
wasunimpressed.TheSecondCircuitproclaimedIundamentalIairnessandpublicconIidence
ingovernmentoIIicialsrequirethatprosecutorsbeheldtometiculousstandardsoIbothpromise
andperIormance.Ia.at296. TheCourtaccordinglyheld,whereadeIendantpleadsguilty
becausehereasonablyreliesonpromisesbytheprosecutorswhichareinIactunIulIillable,he
hasarighttohavethosepromisesIulIilled.Ia. Thedistrictcourtsunconditionalreleaseorder
wasaIIirmed.Ia.
ToanswerthequestionposedattheoutsetoIthissectionregardingcontractlawversus
ethicalanalysis,thescopeoIremedymaydependonwhetheraprosecutorsactioninbreaching
apleaagreementwasegregiousorintentional.UniteaStatesv.Brye,146F.3d1207,1213.
(10thCir.1998). InBrye,theTenthCircuitanalyzedabreachwheretheAUSApromisedto
deIeronamotionIoradownwarddeparture,thenundermined(albeitsubtly)thedeIendants
motionatsentencing.Ia.at1212. WhiletheCourtIoundthebreach,itobservedthatitwould
onlypermitthedeIendanttowithdrawhispleawhenthebreachwasegregiousorintentional.
Ia.at1213. BecausethegovernmentsbreachwasbasedonamisunderstandingoItheplea
agreement,thecasewasonlyremandedIorresentencing.Ia. ThelessonIromBryeisclear
whenIacedwithabreach,deIensecounselshouldarguecontractlawbutshouldalsoemphasize
theethicalviolation,tosecurebetterremediesIortheirclient.
III. Normalizing1ustice
A. TheProposedExpansionofRule16andDO1sOpposition
OnApril28,2009,JudgeEmmetSullivan,IollowingtheconclusionoIUniteaStatesv.
Stevenscase,wrotetheJudicialConIerenceAdvisoryCommitteeandurgeditsmembersto
consideranamendmenttoRule16oItheFederalRulesoICriminalProcedure.SeeAppenaixF
(Sullivan,J.Letter,April28,2009). JudgeSullivanwrote,AIederalruleoIcriminalprocedure
requiringallexculpatoryevidencetobeproducedtothedeIensewouldeliminatetheneedtorely
onaprudentprosecutordecidingtoerronthesideoItransparency, ...andwouldgoalong
waytowardsIurtheringthesearchIorthetruthincriminaltrialsandensuringthatjusticeshall
bedone.Ia. HenotedthatithasnowbeennearlythreeyearssincetheUnitedStates
AttorneysManualwasmodiIiedtoestablish||guidelinesIortheexerciseoIjudgmentand
discretionbyattorneysIorthegovernmentindeterminingwhatinIormationtodisclosetoa
criminaldeIendantpursuanttothegovernmentsdiscoveryobligationsassetoutinBraayv.
MarylanaandGigliov.UniteaStatesanditsobligationtoseekjusticeineverycase.Ia. Judge
ProsecutorialMisconduct 27
097
SullivanalsoreiteratedtheseriousBraayviolationsintheStevenscase.
Rule16currentlyrequiresthatthegovernmentproduce,uponadeIendantsrequest,
thosedocumentsandobjectsandtheresultsoIexaminationsandteststhatarematerialto
preparingthedeIense.Spivack,RothandGolden,TroublingtheHeavens,34CHAMPION24at
2. IncontrasttothegovernmentsobligationsunderBraay,thegovernmentsRule16obligation
toproduceitemsmaterialtopreparingthedeIenseextendsonlytoitemsmaterialtothe
deIendantsresponsetothegovenrmentscaseinchieI.Ia.
InOctober2009,AssistantAttorneyGeneralIortheCriminalDivisionLannyBreuer,
addressedthecommitteeanddescribedstepsthattheDepartmenthadtakenintheaItermathoI
the Stevenstrial,includingIormingaworkinggrouptostudydiscoveryincriminalproceedings
andtosuggestimprovements.HesaidthatwhiletheDepartmenttookitsobligationsseriously,
anOIIiceoIProIessionalResponsibilityreportoIallegedBradyviolationsoverthepastnine
yearsdidnotrevealevidenceoIawidespreadproblem.SeeOctober13,2009,DraItMinutes,
AdvisoryCommitteeonCriminalRules,http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Agenda20Books
/Criminal/CR2010-04.pdI(lastvisited4/9/10).
23
HeindicatedthattheDOJwouldnotobjecttoamendingRule16tocodiIyBraay
disclosurerequirementsbutwouldobjecttoanyproposedamendmentbeyondBraayobligations.
Ia.Presumably,theDOJoppositiontoanexpansionoIRule16,eveniIonlytotheextentto
whichtheUnitedStatesAtorneysManualnowprovides,isbasedonaconcernthatsuchan
expansionwouldprovidedeIendantswithanenIorceablerighttothegovernmentsdisclosure
oIanyandallexculpatorymaterial,notjusttheinIormationthatthegovernmentdeemstobe
material.SeeSpivack,RothandGolden,TroublingtheHeavens,34CHAMPION 24at10.
AccordingtothedraItminutesoItheOctober2009meeting,|a|participantsuggested
thatthetrainingoIIederalprosecutorsshouldincludepresentationsbymembersoIthedeIense
barwhocouldoIIertheirperspectiveondiscoveryissues. Ia. TherewassomediscussionoIan
open-IilepolicythathasbeenadoptedbysomeU.S.AttorneyOIIices.Onememberthought
thatthepolicyhadbeensuccessIullyusedintheNorthernDistrictoICaliIornia. However,
JudgeTallmannotedthatasanappellatejudge,heseesBraayissuesarisinginmanycasesIrom
CaliIornia,includingthatdistrict. Ia.
InalaterMarch2010meeting,materialsdistributedtothemembersincludedtheOgden
MemorandaoutliningtheDOJseIIortstoimprovediscoverypracticesbyIederalprosecutors,a
letterIromJudgeMarkWolIalsoadvocatingIoranamendmenttoRule16(seeAppenaixG,
Wolf,J.Letter,June23,2009),aproposeddraItsurveyoIallIederaljudgesdesignedbythe
23
AtanApril,2010panelsessionattheD.C.JudicialandBarConIerence,thedirector
oItheCriminalDivisionsPolicyandLegislation,JonathanWroblewski,statedthatDOJ
oIIicialswhohavereviewedavailabledataconcludethereisnowidespreadmisconductwhenit
comestoprosecutorsturningoverIavorablematerialtodeIenselawyers....
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/13/doj-deIends-against-critics-oI-prosecutors-discovery-pr
oduction/(lastvisited4/14/10)
ProsecutorialMisconduct 28
098
FederalJudicialCenterregardingdiscoverypracticesandjudicialexperiencewithBraayand
Giglio violations,andtheABAsFormalEthicsOpinion09-454.
FurtherdiscussionoItheproposedamendmentoIRule16willbeheldatthenext
meetingoItheAdvisoryCommitteeonCriminalRulesinApril,2010.
B. FortheDefenseCommentatorsOpinionsandRecommendations
FromPivack,StephenR.,TroublingtheHeavens.ProauctionofEviaenceFavorableto
DefenaantsbytheUniteaStates,THE CHAMPION,January/February2010:
24
OnemajorremedyIortheseproblemsisanamendmenttoFRCrP16,inlinewith
thatproposedbytheAdvisoryCommittee,thatprovidesdeIendantsan
enIorceablerighttothegovernmentsdisclosureoIanyandallexculpatory
material,notjusttheinIormationthatthegovernmentdeemstobematerial.
SuchanamendmentwasendorsedbyJudgeSullivanhimselIintheaItermathoI
theStevenscase,andwouldrepresentanimportantsteptowardssaIeguardingthe
rightsoIcriminaldeIendants.ItwouldcodiIythegovernmentsobligationto
provideexculpatoryandimpeachinginIormationregardlessoIitsperceived
materialityandwouldgrantdeIendantsarightthatisenIorceableincourtandis
notcurrentlyrecognizedbymostcourtsabsentashowingoImateriality. In
addition,itwouldhelptoensurethatIederalprosecutorsdonotmakedecisions
withrespecttowhatinIormationtoprovidetodeIendantsbasedonaninherently
subjectiveassessmentoIwhetheritsuseattrialwouldimpacttheoutcomeoIthe
prosecution.Perhapsmostimportantly,amendingFRCrP16wouldinsulate
deIendantsagainstIuturechangesinJusticeDepartmentpolicythatmightde-
emphasizeasagoaltheIullproductionoIallexculpatoryandimpeaching
inIormationtocriminaldeIendants.ForalloIthosereasons,amendingFRCrP16
isanimportantandnecessarystep.
....
AlongwiththeadoptionoIspeciIicnewproceduresandtheretrainingoI
prosecutorsrelativetoexistingrequirements,theDepartmentoIJusticealso
shouldmakeclearthattheIailureoIprosecutorstocomplywiththeDepartments
internalguidelineswillresultinrealandsigniIicantconsequences.
FromtheblogoIScottH.GreenIield,CriminalDeIenseAttorney
25
:
24
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsI/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923
/e11dccac91ec12b9852576Ic0073bc75?OpenDocument,(Iootnotesomitted)(lastvisited
4/12/10).
25
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/07/09/brady-violations-not-just-a-rules-issue.aspx
(lastvisited4/12/10).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 29
099
ThesolutionstotheBraayproblemIallintotwocategories.TrusttheDOJor
createanewrulethatrequirescourtstotrusttheDOJ.WhilethenewRule16
proposalhascertainvirtue,IoremostoIwhichisthatitresolvesthelong-standing
problemoIwhenthegovernmentmustdiscloseBraay,whichitnowholdstothe
verylastsecondiIit'stobedisclosedatall,renderingthedeIenseincapableoI
investigatingormakinggooduseoItheinIormation.Butitstilldoesn'taddress
thecoreissue:ThedeterminationoIwhatisBraayisleIttothediscretionoIthe
prosecution,andthedutytodiscloseitatallremainsthedecisionoItheprosecutor.
Theproposedsolutionsarethusdependentontheanswertothisquestion:Do
youtrusttheprosecutor?
IIwecanttrusttheprosecutor,eachandeveryprosecutorineverydistrict
throughoutthecountry,todiscloseBraay,toerronthesideoIdisclosure,to
disclosetimely,thenneithernewrulesnorproceduresthatcontinuetorelyonthe
discretionoIprosecutorswillsolvetheproblem.Clearly,Iormerprosecutorsand
evenjudgeswho'vebeenburnedstillseemtoputtheirIaithintheintegrityoIthe
government.Somehow,Idon'tIindthissatisIying,butthennobodyengagedin
thisdiscussionseemstothinkthatthedeIensesideoIthecourtroomshouldhave
anysayinthematter.
FromIrwinH.Schwartz,BeyonaBraay.UsingMoaelRule3.8(a)inFeaeralCourtfor
DiscoveryofExculpatoryInformation,THE CHAMPION,March,2010:
IntheaItermathoIthescandalsoI2009,AttorneyGeneralHolderandAssistant
AttorneyGeneralBreuerspokeabouttheDepartment'sIailures.Breuersaid,The
DepartmentoIJusticeiscommittedtotheveryhighestethicalstandards.Yet,
whentheDepartmentissuedits2010guidanceondiscovery,itmadenomention
oIprosecutorsdutyunderRule3.8(d).ItlistedRules16and26.2,theJencks
Act,andBraayassourcesgenerallyestablish|ing|itsdiscoveryobligations.
HowcantheDepartmentachievetheveryhighestethicalstandardswhenitdoes
notacknowledgethatRule3.8(d)establishesadutyoIdisclosureandabroader
dutythanthesourcesitlisted?Worse,theguidanceisinconsistentwithRule
3.8(d)onthecriticalmatteroIdisclosuretiming.TheABAOpinionrequires
disclosureoIexculpatoryinIormationassoonasreasonablypracticable.The
DepartmentsguidancepermitsprosecutorstodelayproductionoIexculpatory
inIormation.
AlthoughacknowledgingthatBraaypracticesvaryIromoIIicetooIIiceandeven
withinoIIices, theguidancedoesnotassureuniIormpracticeswithinthe
Department.OnewayinwhichuniIormitycouldbeaccomplishedisbymoving
BraaydiscoverytoRule16.JudgeEmmetSullivan,whotriedtheTedStevens
case,askedtheSupremeCourtAdvisoryCommitteeonCriminalRulesto
considerthisidea.TheDepartmentopposedthesuggestion,asitdidin2006.
RecentcasesshowitseIIortswerenotsuIIicient.Today,theDepartmentclingsto
anarrowviewoIitsdisclosureobligationsandcontinuestoopposerulesreIorm.
ProsecutorialMisconduct 30
100
NACDLledthewaytopassageoI28U.S.C.530BandpassageoItheHyde
Amendment.RecenteventsshowthatdeIenseattorneysneedtorolluptheir
sleevesagain--incourtandCongress.IItheDepartmentoIJusticeisunwilling
orunabletomandatecompliancewithRule3.8(d),andiIitisunwillingorunable
toassurecompliancewiththerule,thencourtsorCongressmuststepinto
mandatecompliance.Now.
FromProIessorEllenPodgorsWhiteCollarCrimeProIBlog:
InthewakeoIrecenteventsthatdemonstratediscoveryviolations,DOJhas
issuedthreenewpolicies. ItiswonderIultoseethatDOJisbeeIingupits
discoverypracticesandtakingahardlookatwhatshouldhappenintheIuture.It
alsosoundslikeabettermanagementsystemisbeingconsidered.Butthatsaid,
lookingattheactualguidancememo,hereareaIewpreliminarycomments-
AItertellingprosecutorsthattheyneedtoIamiliarizethemselveswithBraay,
Giglio andotherdiscoveryrulesandstatutes,theparagraphendswithastatement
thatthisnewmemoprovidesprospectiveguidanceonlyandisnotintendedto
havetheIorceoIlawortocreateorconIeranyrights,privileges,orbeneIits.
Yes,thisisthestandardlanguageoneIindsthroughouttheDOJmanual.Butwait
aminute--althoughDOJguidelinescanbeguidelines,thesemandatesare
constitutional,statutory,andrules-theyoItendo havetheIorceoIlaw.ThisIact
shouldbeemphasizedtoprosecutors.
Thememostates-Prosecutorsshouldneverdescribethediscoverybeing
providedasopenIile.ThememoexplainstheIearsoImissingsomething.It
seemsoddthattheDOJdoesntwantprosecutorstoacceptcreditwhentheydo
therightthingandprovidealldiscovery.Sayingnottocallitopen,IorIearoI
missingsomething,impliesthatthisisnotapolicythatrecognizesthevalueoIan
openIilesystemthatcanworkwellandprovideeIIiciency.Andtakingthisone
stepIurther--iIitisnotacknowledgedasanopendiscoverypractice,and
somethingismissed-willitsoundanybettertotheaccusedwhoIailedtoreceive
theirdiscoverymaterial?
ThememogivesnorealguidanceastowhenaprosecutorhastoturnoverJencks
material,andleavesittotheindividualoIIicestocreatetheirindividualrules.Itis
ironicthatDOJwantssentencingconsistency,butdoesntwantdiscovery
consistency.ShouldadeIendantinWyominghavediIIerentrightstowitness
statementsthanthedeIendantinNewYork?
ItisgoodtoseememorializationoIwitnessstatementsisimportant.Butonly
turningovermaterialvariancesinawitness'sstatements?Shouldntall
variancesbeturnedover?
ItisinterestinghowthememoprovidesanextensivereviewprocessoIdiscovery
material-willthisholdupgettingthematerialstodeIensecounsel?Alsowill
deIensecounselbegivenanequalamountoItimetoreviewthesematerialsand
ProsecutorialMisconduct 31
101
timetoconductadditionalinvestigationthatmaybewarrantedasaresultoIthe
materialsprovided?
Andyes,itisimportanttoprotectwitnessesandnationalsecurity-butshould
DOJbetheonedecidingwhentheythinktheycanwithholdevidence?Shouldnt
thatbeIorneutralpartieslikethejudiciary?
ItisgoodtoseeDOJtryingtodoabetterjobthanpastadministrations,butwhat
reallyneedstobedoneissettingIorthclearerrulesandstatutesbyindependent
parties,asopposedtoaworkinggroupmadeupoIseniorprosecutorsIrom
throughouttheDepartmentandIromUnitedStatesAttorneyOIIices,law
enIorcementrepresentatives,andinIormationtechnologyproIessionals,sothat
oursystemdoesdojusticeasdesiredbyAGHolder.
26
PartingThoughts
ItistheeasiestthingintheworldIorpeopletrainedintheadversarialethicto
thinkaprosecutorsjobissimplytowin....Itisnot.
UniteaStatesv.Bluefora,312F.3d962,968(9thCir.2002)asamena.&furtheramena.,Nov.
22,2002(internalquotationsandcitationsomitted).
LawenIorcementoIIicershavetheobligationtoconvicttheguiltyandtomake
suretheydonotconvicttheinnocent.Theymustbededicatedtomakingthe
criminaltrialaprocedureIortheascertainmentoIthetrueIactssurroundingthe
commissionoIthecrime.Tothisextent,ourso-calledadversarysystemisnot
adversaryatall;norshoulditbe.
UniteaStatesv.Waae,388U.S.218,256(1967)(White,J.,concurringanddissenting)(Iootnote
omitted).
ThegreatestdangerstolibertylurkininsidiousencroachmentbymenoIzeal,
well-meaningbutwithoutunderstanding.
Olmsteaav.UniteaStates,277U.S.438,479(Brandeis,J.,dissenting).
|T|heConstitutionprescribesaIloorbelowwhichprotectionsmaynotIall,rather
thanaceilingbeyondwhichtheymaynotrise.TheModelCodeoIProIessional
Responsibility,ontheotherhand,encompassestheattorneysdutytomaintain
thehigheststandardsoIethicalconduct.Preamble,ModelCodeoIProIessional
26
NewDOJDiscoveryPoliciesFallShort, http://lawproIessors.typepad.com/
whitecollarcrimeblog/2010/01/new-doj-discovery-policies.html(lastvisited4/14/10).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 32
102
Responsibility(1981). TheCodeisdesignedtosaIeguardtheintegrityoIthe
proIessionandpreservepublicconIidenceinoursystemoIjustice.
UniteaStatesv.Hammaa,858F.2d834,839(2dCir.1988).
ProsecutorialMisconduct 33
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
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 oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal; Motion For Publication OI Transcript at Public Expense,
Petition Ior In Forma Pauperis Status
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
CASE APPEAL STATEMENT
DeIendant/Appellant, Zach Coughlin, hereby Iiles this Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and
or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal; Motion For
Publication OI Transcript at Public Expense, Petition Ior In Forma Pauperis Status.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
ANALYSIS
INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE ALL LAW AND ASSERTIONS IN ATTACHED
PAPERS AND PLEADINGS AND WRITINGS IN EXHIBIT 1:
RULE 59. NEW TRIALS; AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS
(a) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any oI the parties and on all or part oI the issues Ior any oI the
Iollowing causes or grounds materially aIIecting the substantial rights oI an aggrieved party: (1) Irregularity in the
proceedings oI the court, jury, master, or adverse party, or any order oI the court, or master, or abuse oI discretion by
which either party was prevented Irom having a Iair trial; (2) Misconduct oI the jury or prevailing party; (3) Accident or
surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; (4) Newly discovered evidence material Ior the party
making the motion which the party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial; (5)
ManiIest disregard by the jury oI the instructions oI the court; (6) Excessive damages appearing to have been given under
the inIluence oI passion or prejudice; or, (7) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the party making the
motion. On a motion Ior a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment iI one has been
entered, take additional testimony, amend Iindings oI Iact and conclusions oI law or make new Iindings and conclusions,
and direct the entry oI a new judgment.
(b) Time for Motion. A motion Ior a new trial shall be Iiled no later than 10 days aIter service oI written notice oI the
entry oI the judgment.
(c) Time for Serving Affidavits. When a motion Ior new trial is based upon aIIidavits they shall be Iiled with the motion.
The opposing party has 10 days aIter service within which to Iile opposing aIIidavits, which period may be extended Ior
an additional period not exceeding 20 days either by the court Ior good cause shown or by the parties by written
stipulation. The court may permit reply aIIidavits.
(d) On Court`s Initiative; Notice; Specifying Grounds. No later than 10 days aIter entry oI judgment the court, on its
own, may order a new trial Ior any reason that would justiIy granting one on a party`s motion. AIter giving the parties
notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a timely motion Ior a new trial Ior a reason not stated in the
motion. When granting a new trial on its own initiative or Ior a reason not stated in a motion, the court shall speciIy the
grounds in its order.
(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a 1udgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be Iiled no later than 10 days
aIter service oI written notice oI entry oI the judgment.
|As amended; eIIective July 1, 2005.|
Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
2
110
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
RULE 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts oI the record and errors therein arising Irom
oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time oI its own initiative or on the motion oI any party and
aIter such notice, iI any, as the court orders. During the pendency oI an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected beIore
the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereaIter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave oI
the appellate court.
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such
terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or party`s legal representative Irom a Iinal judgment, order, or proceeding
Ior the Iollowing reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which
by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move Ior a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) Iraud (whether
heretoIore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct oI an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; or, (5) the judgment has been satisIied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is
based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that an injunction should have prospective
application. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and Ior reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 6 months
aIter the proceeding was taken or the date that written notice oI entry oI the judgment or order was served. A motion
under this subdivision (b) does not aIIect the Iinality oI a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the
power oI a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party Irom a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set
aside a judgment Ior Iraud upon the court. Writs oI coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills oI review and bills
in the nature oI a bill oI review, are abolished, and the procedure Ior obtaining any relieI Irom a judgment shall be by
motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
(c) Default 1udgments: Defendant Not Personally Served. When a deIault judgment shall have been taken against any
party who was not personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State oI Nevada or in any other
jurisdiction, and who has not entered a general appearance in the action, the court, aIter notice to the adverse party, upon
motion made within 6 months aIter the date oI service oI written notice oI entry oI such judgment, may vacate such
judgment and allow the party or the party`s legal representatives to answer to the merits oI the original action. When,
however, a party has been personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State oI Nevada or in any other
jurisdiction, the party must make application to be relieved Irom a deIault, a judgment, an order, or other proceeding
taken against the party, or Ior permission to Iile an answer, in accordance with the provisions oI subdivision (b) oI this
rule.
(d) Default 1udgments: Modification Nunc Pro Tunc. Whenever a deIault judgment or decree has been entered, the
party or parties in deIault therein may at any time thereaIter, upon written consent oI the party or parties in whose Iavor
judgment or decree has been entered, enter general appearance in the action, and the general appearance so entered shall
have the same Iorce and eIIect as iI entered at the proper time prior to the rendition oI the judgment or decree. On such
appearance being entered the court may make and enter a modiIied judgment or decree to the extent only oI showing such
general appearance on the part oI the party or parties in deIault, and it shall be entered nunc pro tunc as oI the date oI the
original judgment or decree; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the court Irom modiIying
such judgment or decree as stipulated and agreed in writing by the parties to such action, and in accordance with the terms
oI such written stipulation and agreement.
RULE 62. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT
(a) Automatic Stay. Except as stated herein, no execution shall issue upon a judgment nor shall proceedings be taken Ior
its enIorcement until the expiration oI 10 days aIter service oI written notice oI its entry.
(b) Stay on Motion for New Trial or for 1udgment. In its discretion and on such conditions Ior the security oI the
adverse party as are proper, the court may stay the execution oI or any proceedings to enIorce a judgment pending the
disposition oI a motion Ior a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment made pursuant to Rule 59, or oI a motion Ior relieI
Irom a judgment or order made pursuant to Rule 60, or oI a motion Ior judgment in accordance with a motion Ior a
judgment as a matter oI law made pursuant to Rule 50, or oI a motion Ior amendment to the Iindings or Ior additional
Iindings made pursuant to Rule 52(b).
(c) Reserved.
(d) Stay Upon Appeal. When an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay. The bond
may be given at or aIter the time oI Iiling the notice oI appeal. The stay is eIIective when the supersedeas bond is Iiled.
Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
3
111
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) Stay in Favor of the State or Agency Thereof. When an appeal is taken by the State or by any county, city or town
within the State, or an oIIicer or agency thereoI and the operation or enIorcement oI the judgment is stayed, no bond,
obligation, or other security shall be required Irom the appellant.
(f) Reserved.
(g) Power of Appellate Court Not Limited. The provisions in this rule do not limit any power oI an appellate court or oI
a judge or justice thereoI to stay proceedings during the pendency oI an appeal or to suspend, modiIy, restore, or grant an
injunction during the pendency oI an appeal or to make any order appropriate to preserve the status quo or the
eIIectiveness oI the judgment subsequently to be entered.
(h) Stay of 1udgment as to Multiple Claims or Multiple Parties. When a court has ordered a Iinal judgment under the
conditions stated in Rule 54(b), the court may stay enIorcement oI that judgment until the entering oI a subsequent
judgment or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as are necessary to secure the beneIit thereoI to the party in
whose Iavor the judgment is entered.
|As amended; eIIective July 1, 2005.|
prosecutorial misconduct (such as the D.A. withholding "exculpatory" evidence that could`ve helped your deIense)
judicial errors (such as the judge permitting evidence that should`ve been excluded or vice versa)
erroneous application oI a law or regulation improper jury instructions
ineIIective assistance oI counsel or other malpractice the evidence did not prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
I went to the Iiling oIIice at the RMC a couple times recently, including today, and sent in another written request seeking
an audio tape oI the Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176 IC 110627 RSIC but was told by a Clerk that I would need to pay Ior
the entire Trial to be transcribed, and only then would I be allowed to read it, and that I would not be allowed to access
the audio oI the hearing? Is this correct? I need to have the audio oI the Trial to Iinish my Rule 59, 60, and Motion Ior
Reconsideration Motions....I will pay Ior the audio. I have received many audio cd/dvd's Irom both Reno Justice Court
and Washoe District Court, and it was announced in court that the trial was being audio recorded, as such, I hope you will
aIIord me a copy. Today, I called the RMC and spoke with Veronica, who sounded very angry with me and dismissive. I
was summarily sentenced to 3 days in jail at the end oI the trial in this matter, even where I had been denied my Sixth
Amendment Right To Counsel, aIter a Contempt committed in the court's presence Iinding was announced, in addition to
a guilty verdict in the underlying action. Veronica inIormed me that she was at the trial and that the RMC had Iailed to
mail me or otherwise serve me with a copy oI the written Order, either Ior the guilty conviction in the underlying case or
the contempt order. I was Iorced into handcuIIs so quickly ater Judge Howard concluded issuing his oral ruling that I was
not even able to save my notes on my computer, it was literally apparently that exigent a situation to handcuII me....Then
a Iew Marshalls place some pieces oI paper in Iront oI me and demanded I sign them, and became angry, like Veronica
and like Marshall Monte, I believe, was at the arraingment, when I asked a simple question related to due process,
something many at the RMC do not seem all that enamored with. I asked iI I could even read the papers they were
demanding I sign right then and there. The curtly and loudly said no, then dragged me away beIore I could read the
papers, much less sign them. Veronica snarled at me that that was all the service oI the Order oI Contempt and Guilty
Verdict that I would get, but that she might Iax it to me, however, no Iax has arrived, despite my illustrating the
exigencies oI receiving the Order in preparing my RelieI From Judgment Motions. Veronica continue to curtly reIuse to
provide me any copy oI any oI the previously Iiled Orders oI the Court unless I paid Ior them, despite my apparently not
having been provided a copy oI such orders in the Iirst place. I have no idea what those papers were (they certainly were
not in the property given to me upon my release Irom jail) and have received nothing in the mail, despite updating the
RMC with my new address oI: 817 N. Virginia St. #2, Reno NV 89501 and Iiling an oIIicial Change oI Address with the
USPS shortly aIter I was summarily evicted (despite there being only a No Cause Summary Eviction notice against my
commercial lease, something entirely probibited against under NRS 40.253. Not only was I denied my Sixth Amendment
Right to Counsel where jail time was a possibility (and where, I, in Iact was jailed, immediately). I was denied a
continuance in this matter despite a written assent to one by Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts and despite the Iact that the
Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
4
112
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 City Attorney was given one by my supposed appointed counsel Lew Taitel (whom is "associated with"
( http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html ) an entity that I happen to be suing Nevada Court Services, incident to the same
eviction proceeding Ior which Mr. Taitel did grant, and the RMC did grant, a continuance in the other RMC case against
me, the trespass action that was set Ior trial on December 13th, because Richard G. Hill, who I am also suing in
connection with the wrongIul eviction against, was going to be on vacation and the RMC apparently Iound that a good
reason Ior a continuance, compared to the RMC Ieeling my being eviction on or around November 13th, then wrongIully
arrested in connection with the eviction, under a trespass charge, and incarcerated Ior a number oI days, all while Richard
Hill applied an unlawIul rent distraint upon many exculpatory materials that would speak to a stated and express
retaliatory motive on the part oI Walmart and the RSIC, and other exculpatory materials being wrongIully withheld under
an unlawIul rent distraint by Richard G. Hill, Esq., the same person Mr. Taitel, the Reno City Attorney, and the RMC
decided deserved such sanctity applied to his monthlong vacation Irom Thanksgiving to New Year's to grant a
continuance, with no input Irom me.
FAILURE TO AFFORD SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL OR GRANT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL;
another DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL HEREBY MADE IN EVENT OF NEW TRIAL, SIMILARLY REQUEST FOR
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS HEREBY MADE AND SUPPORTED BY ATTACHED IFP PETITION
CONCLUSION
DeIendant/Appelant Coughlin hereby respectIully requests all Orders, Convictions,
Judgments, Contempt Findings, whatever, stemming Irom the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial be Vacated
or Set Aside or Reconsidered..
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain
the social security number oI any person.
DATED this 12
th
Day oI December, 2011
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
5
113
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On December 12, 2011, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing Notice oI Appeal,
Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior
Recusal by emailing and Iaxing and or placing in the mail a true copy thereoI to:
Pamela G Roberts Company: Reno City Attorney's OIIice - Criminal Divison Address: P.O. Box
1900 Reno , NV 89505 Phone Number: 775-334-2050 Fax number: 775-334-2420 Email:
robertspreno.gov
DATED THIS12th day oI December, 2011 BY:
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
6
114
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?
cid=43084638f32f5f28&resid=43084638F32F5F28!
1031&parid=root
115
116
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.maillive.corn/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
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,
Iamengagingyouinrelationto11CR22176anyourfailuretoprovideme
accesstoorcopiesofthediscoveryfromthearrestofSeptember9,2011,not
thetrespasscase.Wewilldealwiththetrespasscaselater.Fornow,please
justaddressyourfailureofprovidecopiesofthediscoverywhenIrequested.
Canyoucheckyourphonerecords?Wouldyoulikemetocheckmine?
Howaboutyourfaxrecords.Mine?Ithinkyouwillfindthatwedefinately
didspeak.Anyways,canyouindicateyourofficesstandardoperating
procedurewhenadefendantoraccusedcallsandwritesyourofficeup
requestingdiscoverywithinadayafterthearrest?Mustyouprovide
somethingwithin48hoursofthearrest?Whataboutifthearraignmentisset
outonemonthfromthearrest?Mustanarraignmentoccurpriortothat?It
seemsrathersuspecttoassertthatyourofficedoesnothaveanyrecordsor
discoveryincidenttotheanarrestofSeptember9,2011,whentheaccused
callsandwritesrequestingdocumentationincidenttothearreston
approximatelySeptember13th,2011andagainsoonthereafter,andagain
somewhatlater,whendiscoverysubsequentlyprovidedbyPamRoberts
showsafax(onlyapartialportionofwhich,apparently,wasincludedinthe
discovery)fromSargentAvansinotoyourofficedatedSeptember12,
2011...Further,youdidnotindicatethatyourofficehadsomethingbut
wouldn'tprovideit,youindicatedthatyourofficesimplydidnothave
anything.Youmaderemarksabouthowyouweren'tgoingtotellthisand
thatpersonhowtodotheirjob,etc...Remember?Itseemspatentlyunfairfor
theprosecutortobeprovidedaccesstothisdocumentationoveronemonth
priortothedefendantbeingaffordedaccesstoit,andsufficienttimetodo
whoknowswhatwithit(severalpagesofSargentAvansino'sfaxappear
missingandtheProbableCausesheetdoesnotappeartobereviewedand
signedoffonforaprobablecausefindingbyanyMagistrate,theformis
simplyblank),particularlywereacontinuancewasatfirstagreedtoby
Robertsinwriting(onlytohaveherweaseloutofthatattrialwhilemaking
jokesaboutthedefendant'sneedtousetherestroominopencourt).Please
indicate,further,inwriting,ifyourofficereceivedanyfaxedoremailed
recordsrequestfromme,ZachCoughlin,atanytime,includingtheperiodof
1oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
117
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
timepriortotheOct10th,2011arraignment.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.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
2oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
118
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.maillive.corn/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
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,
WediddefinatelytalkonthephoneregardingthemattertowhichIdonot
haverepresentation,theRSICarrestcase11DR2217621forwhichDeputy
CityAttorneyPamRobertsistheprosecutor.IwasdeniedmySixth
Amendmentrighttocourtappointeddefensecounselinthatmatter,and
representedmyself.Assuch,thereisnoruleprecludedyoufrom
communicatingwithmeabout11DR2217621.Youdidspeakwithme
aboutthat.IcalledyouwithinacoupledaysoftheSeptember9th,2011
arrestinthatmatterdescribingmyexigentdesiretoobtainacopyofthe
discovery.Iwastransferredtoyouandwespokeatlengthaboutit,you
describingwhyyoucouldnotgiveittome.Isityourcontentionthatyour
officeortheStatedoesnothaveadutytoprovidethedefendantacopyof
certainpiecesofdiscoverywithin48hoursofarrest?
RegardingthematterforwhichMr.PuentestookthebatonfromMr.Taitel,
isitcleartoyouhowMr.Taitelwassomehow,apparently,abletoassentto
acontinuance,onlyto,apparently,findsomeneedtopassthebatontoMr.
Puentesvery,veryshortlythereafter?WhydidMr.Taitel'sstatusas
attorneyofrecordchange?Wasitduetoaconflict?Whydidn'tthat
conflictpreventMr.Taitelfromabstainingfromassentingtothe
continuanceinthetrespasscase,whichwasscheduledfortrialDecember
13,2011?
Sincerely,
3oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
119
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormationintended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are
not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that
you have received this documentin error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based
on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jorthe named
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthe namedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,delete thse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work roduct, or
otheralcablervleye.

Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:34:25 -0800
From: Hazlett-StevensC@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
Deputy City Attorney
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
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
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
4 oI7 12/12/20114:21 PM
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>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 01:48:03 -0800
Subject: your failure to propound discovery
DearMr.Hazlett-Stevens,
IamwritingtorequestacopyoIanyandalldiscovery,pleadings,documentation,
correspondences,ormediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainstmeIor
whichLewTaitelwasapparentlymycourtappointedattorney,butwhomnolongeris.
Further,Iwishtobecopiedoneverythingpastandpresentinanywayrelatedtothis
matteruntilandaIterIprocureanotherattorney.Ididnotagreetothecontinuanceyou
sought,norwasIinIormedyouwereseekingit.IIinditparticularlytroublingthata
continuancewasgrantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhoisapplyingan
unlawIulrentdistraintonbothmyclientIiles,personalproperty,ANDTHE
EXCLUPATINGEVIDENCEINEEDTODEFENDMYSELFINTHEPETIT
LARCENYCASEFORWHICHIDETAIL THECOMPLAINTSIHAVEAGAINST
YOUANDYOUROFFICE'SHANDLINGBELOW.NOCONTINUANCEWAS
GRANTEDORAGREEDTOAT TRIAL BYTHERMCORMS.ROBERTS,
PERHAPSSHEWASTOOBUSYALLEGEDLYSUBORNINGTHEPERJURYOF
RSICOFFICERKAMERONCRAWFORD.
InthediscoveryyouroIIiceprovidedinthepetitlarcenymatterMs.Robertsprosecuted
againstmethereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearsto
be"page1"Iollowedbypageswithoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...
IwanttheentirecontentsoIanythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouor
anyoneconnectedwiththeRenoCityAttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt.Further,I
wantallmediaprovidedbyWalmart,andIquestionwhyyouneeded45minuteswith
thethreewitnesswhotestiIiedattheNovember30th,2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm.
Additionally,youareherebyservedaNRCP 11motionrequiringyoutocorrectthe
perjuryyousubornedincourtwithrespecttothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyoI
OIIicerCrawIordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
5 oI7 12/12/20114:21 PM
Further,Ispokewithyou,Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,shortlyaItertheSeptember9,2011
arrestinthismatterdemandingacopyoIalldocumentationordiscoverythatIhadany
rightto.IwastoldIwouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriorto
thearraignment,whichwasnotsetIoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest.DoInothave
arighttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrestreport,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoI
thearrest?TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromtheRSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywritten
demandsandrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremetwithreIusalsto
providesuchmaterials,and,insomecase,claimsthatyouroIIicedidnotevenhavesuch
materialsandwouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment.Further,Ispokewithand
providedwrittenrequeststoRSICSargentAvansinowithin2daysaIterthearrestandhe
reIusedtoprovidethematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt.Pleasealertthecourt
toanywrongdoingonyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyortheRSICpartinthisregardin
prejudicingmyabilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingtheproductionoIessential
discovery,thenreIusingtoagreetoacontinuanceattrial,aIterearlierprovidinga
writtenagreementtosuchacontinuance.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 maycontain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only.II you
are not the intended recipient or an ag ent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, y ou are hereby notiIied
that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action
based on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jor the
named recent(s) and maycontannjormatonthat srvleyed, attorneyworkroduct or exemt jrom
dsclosure under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that any dsclosure,
coyny, dstrbutonor anyactontakenor omtted to be takennrelance onthe contentsoj thsnjormaton
srohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),
leasenotjythesender,delete thse-maljrom yourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjorm
mmedately. Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
6 oI7 12/12/20114:21 PM
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
7 oI7 12/12/20114:21 PM
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
Page 1 oI2 Nevada Court Services - Attorney
12/12/2011 http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html
Copyright1997-2011- NevadaCourtServices - AllRights Reserved
Page 2 oI2 Nevada Court Services - Attorney
12/12/2011 http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html
120
motion for continuance
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 11/11/11 1:40 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
RE: motion for continuance
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 11/16/11 3:35 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov

ThankYou,

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in
Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
RE: motion for continuance
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormationintended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are
not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that
you have received this documentin error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based
on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jorthe named
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthe namedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,delete thse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work roduct, or
otheralcablervleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 11/16/11 5:30 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not calling any
additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send you
an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam
Roberts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance

ThankYou,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at
1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
121
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
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
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and maycontain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only.II you
are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
RE: motion for continuance
RE: motion for continuance
that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action
based on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jor the
named recent(s) and maycontannjormatonthat srvleyed, attorneyworkroduct or exemt jrom
dsclosure under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that any dsclosure,
coyny, dstrbutonor anyactontakenor omtted to be takennrelance onthe contentsoj thsnjormaton
srohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),
leasenotjythesender,delete thse-maljrom yourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjorm
mmedately. Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 11/17/11 3:37 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
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
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 1:05 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
Sincerely,
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:40:44 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: colterp@reno.gov
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart
employee) and Officers Crawford and Braunworth from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the
video at the first trial date from the Walmart employee and it is available for you to view or get a copy. You
may want to view it at the City Attorney's Office as the CD doesn't seem to work on everyone's computer. Penie
Colter will be able to assist you. I am not clear on what you think my duty is, but I know what my duty is and I
will not debate it via email. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:30:36 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormationintended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are
not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that
you have received this documentin error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based
on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jorthe named
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthe namedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,delete thse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work roduct, or
otheralcablervleye.

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not calling
any additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send
you an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam
Roberts.
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance

ThankYou,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon
at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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.
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
I hope your housing situation improves. See you this afternoon. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
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
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
122
temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and maycontain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only.II
you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notiIied that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI
any action based on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended
only jor the named recent(s) and may contan njormaton that s rvleyed, attorney work roduct or
exemt jrom dsclosure under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that
anydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobe takennrelance onthe contents
oj ths njormaton s rohbted and may beunlawjul. lj you receve ths messaye n error, or are not the
namedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,delete thse-mal jromyourcomuter,and destroyanycoes
nanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojany
attorney-clent, work roduct, or otheralcable rvleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 4:06 PM
To: howardk@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov



Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd... Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
RE: motion for continuance
Zach Coughlin
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 7:18 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
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
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in
Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
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
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormationintended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are
not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that
you have received this documentin error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
verint user agreement
on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jorthe named
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthe namedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,delete thse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work roduct, or
otheralcablervleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 8:40 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
123
Re: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
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
There is anappropriate mannerinwhichtotender"motions" tothe court.Theyare tobe properly
preparedandIiled.Donotusethise-mailaddresstocommunicatedirectlywiththejudge.
KenHoward
RenoMunicipalCourtJudge
Department4
(775)326-6673
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
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



Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd... Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
Zach Coughlin
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormationintended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are
not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that
you have received this documentin error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based
on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. 1hismessageisconfidential,intendedonlyforthenamedrecipient(s)
andmaycontaininformationthatisprivileged,attorneyworkproductorexemptfromdisclosureunderapplicablelaw.Ifyouare
not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be takenin
relianceonthecontentsofthisinformationisprohibitedandmaybeunlawful.Ifyoureceivethismessageinerror,orarenotthe
namedrecipient(s),pleasenotifythesender,deletethise-mail fromyourcomputer,anddestroyanycopiesinanyform immediately.
Receiptbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecipient(s)is notawaiverofanyattorney-client,workproduct,orotherapplicable
privilege.

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
RE: motion for continuance
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 1:33 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
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.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:59:37 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
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 Judge 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 view the 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:05:28 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormationintended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are
not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that
you have received this documentin error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based
on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jorthe named
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthe namedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,delete thse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work roduct, or
otheralcablervleye.

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:40:44 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: colterp@reno.gov
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart
employee) and Officers Crawford and Braunworth from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the
video at the first trial date from the Walmart employee and it is available for you to view or get a copy. You
may want to view it at the City Attorney's Office as the CD doesn't seem to work on everyone's computer.
Penie Colter will be able to assist you. I am not clear on what you think my duty is, but I know what my duty
is and I will not debate it via email. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:30:36 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
124

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and maycontain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only.II you
are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied
that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action
based on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jor the
named recent(s) and maycontannjormatonthat srvleyed, attorneyworkroduct or exemt jrom
dsclosure under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that any dsclosure,
coyny, dstrbutonor anyactontakenor omtted to be takennrelance onthe contentsoj thsnjormaton
srohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),
leasenotjythesender,delete thse-maljrom yourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjorm
mmedately. Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not
calling any additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not
obligated to send you an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation
or interviews. Pam Roberts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...

ThankYou,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this
afternoon at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
Subject: motion for continuance
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
`` Notice``This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and maycontain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s)
only. II you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notiIied that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
FW: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
taking oI any action based on the contents oIthis inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,
ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthats rvleyed,attorneywork
roductorexemt jromdsclosure underalcable law.ljyouare notthentendedrecent(s),youare
notjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceon
the contents oj ths njormaton s rohbted and may be unlawjul. lj you receve ths messaye n error, or
are not the named recent(s), lease notjythe sender, delete thse-mal jrom yourcomuter, and
destroyanycoes nanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone otherthanthe namedrecent(s)snota
waver oj anyattorney-clent, workroduct, or other alcable rvleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
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.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

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,
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 3:37 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
125
FW: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 3:45 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us
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
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
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 OFFICERS ARE KAMERON CRAWFORD AND BRAUNWORTH, WHO CAME ACROSS A
FAR MORE COGNITIVELYIMPAIRED IN COURT THAN HE DID IN PERSON, TOAN EXTENT
THAT WOULD SUGGEST HEWASDISHONORING THELEGAL PROCESSBYHIS
"PARTICIPATION", AND ITS ALL ON TAPE.
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
discovery request;
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/07/11 1:16 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov


Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
126
RE: your failure to propound discovery


Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/08/11 3:44 PM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...



Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender, delete ths e-mal jrom yourcomuter, and destroy any coes nany jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work roduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:34:25 -0800
From: Hazlett-StevensC@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
Deputy City Attorney
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
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>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 01:48:03 -0800
Subject: your failure to propound discovery
DearMr.Hazlett-Stevens,
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
IamwritingtorequestacopyoIanyandalldiscovery,pleadings,documentation,
correspondences,ormediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainstmeIorwhich
LewTaitelwasapparentlymycourtappointedattorney,butwhomnolongeris.Further,I
wishtobecopiedoneverythingpastandpresentinanywayrelatedtothismatteruntil
andaIterIprocureanotherattorney.Ididnotagreetothecontinuanceyousought,nor
wasIinIormedyouwereseekingit.IIinditparticularlytroublingthatacontinuancewas
grantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhoisapplyinganunlawIulrentdistrainton
bothmyclientIiles,personalproperty,ANDTHEEXCLUPATINGEVIDENCEINEED
TODEFENDMYSELFINTHEPETITLARCENYCASEFORWHICHIDETAIL THE
COMPLAINTSIHAVEAGAINSTYOUANDYOUROFFICE'SHANDLING
BELOW.NOCONTINUANCEWASGRANTEDORAGREEDTOATTRIAL BY
THERMCORMS.ROBERTS,PERHAPSSHEWASTOOBUSYALLEGEDLY
SUBORNINGTHEPERJURYOFRSICOFFICERKAMERONCRAWFORD.
InthediscoveryyouroIIiceprovidedinthepetitlarcenymatterMs.Robertsprosecuted
againstmethereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearsto
be"page1"Iollowedbypageswithoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...I
wanttheentirecontentsoIanythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouoranyone
connectedwiththeRenoCityAttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt.Further,Iwantall
mediaprovidedbyWalmart,andIquestionwhyyouneeded45minuteswiththethree
witnesswhotestiIiedattheNovember30th,2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm.
Additionally,youareherebyservedaNRCP 11motionrequiringyoutocorrectthe
perjuryyousubornedincourtwithrespecttothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyoI
OIIicerCrawIordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
Further,Ispokewithyou,Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,shortlyaItertheSeptember9,2011arrest
inthismatterdemandingacopyoIalldocumentationordiscoverythatIhadanyrightto.
IwastoldIwouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriortothe
arraignment,whichwasnotsetIoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest.DoInothavea
righttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrestreport,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoIthe
arrest?TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromtheRSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywrittendemands
andrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremetwithreIusalstoprovidesuch
materials,and,insomecase,claimsthatyouroIIicedidnotevenhavesuchmaterialsand
wouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment.Further,Ispokewithandprovidedwritten
requeststoRSICSargentAvansinowithin2daysaIterthearrestandhereIusedtoprovide
thematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt.Pleasealertthecourttoanywrongdoing
onyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyortheRSICpartinthisregardinprejudicingmy
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
abilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingtheproductionoIessentialdiscovery,thenreIusing
toagreetoacontinuanceattrial,aIterearlierprovidingawrittenagreementtosucha
continuance.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 3388118
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 conIidential inIormationintended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are
not the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering itto the intended recipient, y ou are hereby notiIied that
you have received this documentin error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based
on the contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited. Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jorthe named
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s), you are notjed that anydsclosure, coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontaken oromttedtobe takennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthe namedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,delete thse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent, work roduct, or
otheralcablervleye.

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
127
128
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
129
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 7 of 7
11 cr 22176 2I
x
Judge Howard
Zachary Barker Coughlin
November 30, 2011
1pm
Zach Coughlin
29th November 2011
"Ellis" or "John", Customer Service Manager or ASM W. 7th St. Walmart 89503
Loss prevention manager and
130
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
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 3 of 19 Pg ID 3 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 4 of 19 Pg ID 4
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 5 of 19 Pg ID 5 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 6 of 19 Pg ID 6
131
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 7 of 19 Pg ID 7 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 8 of 19 Pg ID 8
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 9 of 19 Pg ID 9 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 10 of 19 Pg ID 10
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 11 of 19 Pg ID 11 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 12 of 19 Pg ID 12
132
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 13 of 19 Pg ID 13 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 14 of 19 Pg ID 14
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 15 of 19 Pg ID 15 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 16 of 19 Pg ID 16
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 17 of 19 Pg ID 17 2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 18 of 19 Pg ID 18
133
134
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?
cid=43084638f32f5f28&resid=43084638F32F5F28!1031&parid=root
135
136
137
138
139
140

l LBSC ND. JJL ZZJ1D

2 LCl. 4 0t
! '
O
+
D
O
J
_.
0D U
1
D%
lN H MUNllPL LU Ll H lY Ll LNL
LUNY Ll YPMLL, P Ll NVPP
O Ll11 L NL,
>
JU
JJ
J2
J3
14
16
It
.
l5
I
20
ZJ
Z.
.,
Z
Z'
Z\
Z
Z^
BIDlIP,
VS.
PLMP1 PhL LLLLMLlN,
LCCR0BDl.

L
LD NDVCRDCI , ZJJ, LCCD0BD LDUgDD WBS DUD0 gUly D lDC
DCRSC D Cll LBICCDy B VIDBIDD D NL .J.4. HCICBCI, PCBDl IC0 HIS
NDlCC D PCB DD LCCCRDCI J, ZJJ. P00IIDDBy, LCCD0BRl LDUgDlID lC0 B
NDlDD D VBCBlC BD0/DI C PSI0C, NDlIDD DI CCDDSI0CIBlIDD, NDDR DI CCUSB
BR0 NDIDD DI UDICBIDD D IBRSCIIl Bl UDlC LXCDSC.
PCBD LDUgHR
ICUCSC0 HB HC DC IDV0C0 lHC lIB lIBRSCI Bl UDC CXCRSC DD lDC DBSS HBl
DC WBS R0IgCD. LD NDVCRDCI J4, ZJJ, LCCD0BDl LDUgHID IC0 B NDDD lD
IDCCC0 lR |DIRB BUCIS WDCICR DC SCCKS B WBIVCI D CCIBD CCS 0UC D DIS
BSSCIlC0 ID0IgCRCC.
P. lPlLUL L LLLY V lY PLNY
VICR RDlDRS BIC lD DC SCIVC0 UDD CBCH D lDC BICS. N
J1.DZ. CIVICC UDR lDC BllDIRCy DI UDR B BIly RUSl DC RB0C R lHC RBRRCI
IDVI0C0 |D CIVI BCIDRS. N J1.D4.
!

141
I
2
3
6
J0
IJ
J2
J3
I^
.6
.t
lJ
1O
J
2
?1
22
23
24
26
2t
Z
Z`


PCBDl DBS CDDSCD lD SCIVC lDC LIly PllDIDCy WIlD lDCSC VBIIDUS
CB0IDgS VIB CCClIDDIC RBI. JDCIC IS DD IDVISIDD ID lDC NCVB0B CVISC0 lBlUlCS DI
lDC UCS D LDUIl WDICD 0CDDlCS C|CClIDDIC RBI BS BD BIDIIBlC RCBDS D SCDICC
D IDCCSS. DS BlDDC S B DBSIS DI DDDCDDSI0CIBlDD/0CDB D PCBDlS VBIIDUS
ICqUCSlS.
. MLlLN lL ULlPlLN Ll PNl P ULl N R0
MLLN L L lN lLMP PUl
LCCD0BDl LDUgDID CIlCS lD N JZ.JD BS BUlDDIIly DI B|DWIDg DIR lD
ISSUC `BDy, DCCCSSBIy WIIl, IDCCSS, CB0Dg DI BCI WIlDDUl CDBIgC, WIlD lDC
CXCClIDD D jUIy CCS DCCBUSC BCK SUICICD DBDCB BDlly lD IDCCC0 WIlDDUl lDIS
WBIVCI.
PCBDl LDUgDIDS ICCICDCC lD N JZ.JD IS RISBCC0 BS lDBl
IDVISIDD ICCIS lD CIVI IDCC0UIC. MC CIlCS DD DlDCI BUlDDIIly DI DIS ICUCSl.
`DIS CBSC DBS gDDC D VCI0C BD0 DC 0CCD0BD WBS DUD0 gUIly. IS
0CUl lD SCC WDBl B00IlIDDB CDSlS WI DC DCUIIC0 Dy PCBDl LDUgDID DlDCI lDBD
lDC lIIB| lIBDSCIIl. JDS IS DDl B CDR|CX CBSC WIlD DURCIDUS BClUB DI CgB ISSUCS.
NI. LDUgRID S B ICCDSC0 BllDIDCy-Bl-BW WDD IRIC0 0UIIDg lIIBl lDBl
D|S IDCBlCC|BlDD D| CDDlCRl WDU0 B0VCISCly BCCl D\S CCDlS. Cl, NI. LDUgDID, lD
DIS `BPI0BVIl D DVCIly 0DCS DDl D0ICBlC BDy DCDRC IDR DIS IBClICC D BW. L
DDlC, NI. LDUgDlID DSlC0 CBSD DBI 0UIDg lDC IlIgBlIDD D lDC IDSlBDl RBllCI.
JDS LDUIl DBS DDl DCCD IDV0C0 SUPICICDl DDIRBlIDD lD 0ClCIRIDC NI.
LDUgDDS D0gCDCy SlBlUS BD0 W DDl gIBDl DR CBlC DBDCDC BUlRDIly lD CDDlIRUC
lDC SDIDg CXC0IlIDD DC CDD0UClC0 0UIIDg lDC lIIB D lDIS RBllCI. PCBDlS RDlIDD
lD UIlDCI UISUC lDIS RBllCI Bl UDIC CXCDSC |S 0CD|C0.
Z
142
J
2
c

D

7
U
3
J
JJ
I2
J3
J4
I6
lt
I
Io
I5
2
2J
22
2,
ZA
ZD
2t
2
28


. MLlLN L VPP PN/L MLlLN lL
LNlP lLN PN MLlLN lL UPL
HCSC RDIDDS W DD DC B00ICSSC0 BS LCCD0BD LDUgHID HBS DD
SUDRIllC0 B DBSS D| lHCI CDRSI0C|BDR.
l1 l MLL1 LLLLL HB LCCD0BD LDUgHlIRS NDIDD D |DCCC0
D DIRB BUC|IS BD0 NDlIDD DI UDICBIDD D J|BRSC|Il Bl UDIC LXCDSC S
LLMlLL.
J l\J\L L LL LL HB DC NDIDD D VBCBC BR0Dl C
PS0C, NDDR D| CCDRS0C|BIDR BD0 NDlDR D| CCUSB BIC ICSCDy LLNlLL.
G
LPJLL DS 0By D LCCCRDC|, Z .
O
143
J
2
c
4
6
6
7
o
5
I
IJ
J2
Jc
I4
J6
Jt
J
.o
J3
2
2J
22
23
24
26
2t
2
25


LH111LA1 O1 bHY1L
uiSu3B! !0 L 3(D), 1 0cIl] !b3l J d 3B cm0ycc 0 !bc cB0 uB0 L0uI!,
cB0, cV3d3, 3nd lb3! 0n lbIS d3!c SctVcd 3 !tuc 3nd 00ttc0! CC} 0I Uc \0tcg0IBg d00umcB!,
j 0B Ibc 3ily|IcS) Scl I0il Dcl0W.

!30IBg S3Id d000mcB! IB 3 Sc3lcd cBVcl0c !30cd I0i 00llc0!IBg 3Bd m3I!IBg IB !bc
!BI!cd O!3lcS m3I 3! cB0 ]cV3d3 ]0Sl3gc ic3Id, I0!!0WIBg 0IdIB3iy DuSIBcSS
f30!I0cS.
30SImI!c !0 .
cB0/L3IS0B cSScBgci OcIVI0c.
cdcI3! XicSS 0i 0IcI 0VcHIgbl dclIVcIy.
BBci-0II0c m3I! 0!0WIBg 0idIB3iy DuSIBcSS i30!I0cS.
ciS0B3 LcIVcf}.
LI!y !I0IBcyS L0c
!0S! L0c 0X 1V
cB0, cV3d3 V3V
/30b3Iy L0ugblIB
1J . NIigIBI3 Olicc!, 2
cB0, cV3d3 V31
L/ JLL lbIS _ d3y 0I Lc0 mDci, ZU 1

144
2
J
1

!!H l/L1J\
cBU \Jly /l!UUcy
mc! '. UbctIS
LcuIy \\Iy PI\UHcy
PcVd bIIc I PU. 111
USl \H10c UX 1U
cBU, PcVd 'U'

` X||orncy:or 1/ain|i[

7



I1
2
!`
11
1'
I
11
1
l
2u
21
22
2J
21
2'
2
2`
2
Hcn0 !lj AlI0rncy
.t. 0X 7
Hcn0, ^Y 7
N 1H MUN1CPA COLRT OI TH CTY OI RNO,
COUN1Y OI VASHO, S1A1 OI NVAUA
\JX \ P\,
liBli_ \/bt P\. \ 11-U27
VS. L)t. P\. 1
Z/\t/ \\l'!1P,
Lc!cBdBl.

NOTC OI UN1A) OI SRV1C
!HBl! \1|y U! cBU by Bd !h:Uu_ JUBB l8d10, cBU \Iy PIlUHcy Bd Ucl '.
UbcIIS, LcuI \JIy /IIUDcy UcS IBS PUIICc U! LcBJ! U! bcIVJ0c.
!!B!J! \Iy U! cBU (BcfcJBHcI IBc \JIyj JS B!UDncd Bd bcJcVcS |I UB UI bUuI
LcCcmbcl \3, 20\! LtcnuBl ZchHly \Uu_h1B |hcIc\nHcl `\Uu_B\n ScBI cm\ !U
Bd !UlUcI cBU wUBJ0J \UuII /dmJBJSIIIUI wII !Sk l
3ce Lc0!fIJUB U! !Uc '. UbctIS. \Uu_B!JB Sub5cqucBIy !UIWfd IBI
cU8) !U LcQu\y\I\y/\\UDcyUc'.Ubcf\ShcIc\BHHct ` L\/ U0cIIS ).I
\UBI)Bcd w}p IBc cUi \U0_BJB ScBl IU Bd !UHcI
cBU wUB0 \U0II /0U!BSIIlUI wII ISK l Bd !UtWIdcd lU L\/
UbcI\S IS \hc c_IIUB.
LL L cLVlLL
| CH3!CG 3 CDy D D!S D 3D DDCIS DI DC l3!P!l L|y
|
145
Z
+
0
D
J

V
1
11
1Z
1.
1
10
1D
1J

1V
Z
Z1
ZZ
Z^
Z
Z0
ZD
ZJ
Z
Krn0!y A0lucy
.U.B0x1V
Vru0. ^NV55


D HD DH llS 0Bl, B IU BD0 CDffC CDpy BD0 UIHI
HBll HIB CDyDB lP 1Z 11 11 N\DH [SlC] DI NW
IlB, lC. ySll0By lD.
Ham0Ia U HOb0H


N


LDHpBHy. HD Lly PlDIHyS \C~ LIlHlDB
lVSDH [SlC]
P00fSS. |.\ DX 1900 DD, NV dJ0
DDD NUHDI` JJ-334-Z00
BXHUHDI. JJ-334-Z4Z0
|Bl.
!d huS Il 3C8tS lh8l \0ugh\u IS m8KIBg lhC 8Cg8\\0u \h8l IC \I\ h8S DCCu SCtVCd WIlh
S0mC lyC 0I m0lI0u 0t 3 uCW UI3.
JhCfC IS u0 t0VISI0u u lhC CV3d3 CVISCd bl3lulCS, Cu0 NuuIUI3 \0dC 0t .N.\..
WhIUh I0VIdCS 0l SCfVIUC 0 m0lI0uS 0t 0lhCI !C3dIugS VI3 Cm3!. S-- CV3d3 CVISCd
bl3lulCS, Cu0 NuuIUI3! \0CC 3ud lhC .N.\.. udCCd, \0ugh!Iu h3S OCCu IuI0tmCd Dy \P
0DCIlS lh3l lhC \Ily WI u0l 3UUCl SCtVIUC 0 3uy m0I!0uS 0I 0lhCt !C3dIugS VI3 Cn3I!. S--
CU!3I3lI0u 0 3mC3 I. 0DCllS.
JhC \IIy h3S u0l DCCu I0Cty SCIVCd Dy \0ghIu WIlh m0lI0uS 0l 0lCt C3dIug 0t
l1IugS Iu IhIS U3SC SIuUC \0ughIuS U0uVIUlI0u 0t Cl!l 3tUCuy 0u 0VCmDCt J, Z11.
3ICd lhIS d3y 0 CUCmDCt, Z11
_=
JL J. PL\
Cu0 \Ily Pll0DCy
8mC3 I. 0DCi1S
CuIy \Ily PlIOHCy
\.\. 0X
Cu0, CV3d3 V00
tora-vs ):r P/oiot((
146


ULLARATN AMLA G. RRT5
Z !. d 8 LCuy \ly 1ll0HCy J0I lhC \Ily 0 CB0, fCV8u8.
3
Z. LCCBd8Bl Z80h8ij \0u_h!IB W8S 0uBu \uIIly 0 ClI 8f0CBy y lhC 0B0f8!C Juu_0
!CBBClh 0W8fd 8UCl 8 JiI8 0B CuBCSd8y, f0VCmCt 30, Z01i.
3. IB N0Bu8y LC0CmCI , Z011, 0CBCu 8B Cm8I H0m LCCBd8Bl \0u_hIB 8Bu tC!ICu u
hIm 58IB_ lh8l W0uu B0l tCS0Bd l0 8By 00IICS0BuCB0C f0m hlm VI8 Cm8I! 8Bu lh8l h0
! BCCuCu 0 !C 8By m0lI0BS 0t B0lI0CS IB 8000td8B0C WIlh lhC 3!I080lC fu!CS 0 lhC \0ufl,
8
4. Jh8l dCSIlC my 8um0BII0B 0 LCCBu8Bl \0u_h!IB hC h8S SCBl 8l !C8Sl lhfCC m0fC Cm8l!S,
V
S0mC 0 WhI0h 00uu C 00BStuCd 8S 3B 8llCml l0 SCIVC mC WIlh 8 m0I0B.
\
. JhC 80fCmCBlI0BCd Cm8IS 00Bl3IB !IBKS 8Bd 8ll80hmCBlS h8 hC \Ily 8Bd WI! B0l 0CB 8S
1
WC h8VC 00B0CHS 80ul 00muCl VIfuSCS.
IZ
. 8IBllJ \lly 0 CB0 IS IB0ImCu 8Bu C!ICVCS lh8 0B 0l 80ul LC0Cm0CI 13, Z1
_ LCCBd8Bl Z80h8ty \0u_h!IB (hCtCIB8!lCt \0u_h!IB| SCBl 8B Cm8l! l0
1+
1
1
I7
l8
!V
Z
Z1
ZZ
Z3
Z4
Z
Z
Z7
Z
HruuLlIyAII0rnry
F.L. o\ 1V0
Hrn0PV50S
8Bd 0fmCf CB0 NuBl0I8! \0ufI /dmIBISl!8l0t N8Il ISK 8l
\0u_h!IB SuSCQuCBly 0fW8fd lh8l Cm8II l0 mC.
J.
\0Bl8IBCd wJlhIB lhC Cm8l \0u_h\IB SCBI l0 8Bu 0ImCl CB0
NuBI0I3! \0ufl /umIBISlf8l0I N8l ISK 8 8Bu 0IW8fdCu l0 mC IS lhC
8!!C_8ll0B`
///
/l
!! !l CLVlLL.
0B|0 B 0D|y D R|S D lBD DDIS lDI D BlH!|!! L|ly Dl 0D DH R|S 0B!, B !IU
BH0 0DII0 0D|y BH0 !UI!HI HB| |I B O|y Dl B 2 1 N!|DH [S|0j DI W
HB, 0. yS!I0By D.
H8m6l8 U H006U5
N
LD0BHy. HD Lly PDlHy`S !l0 LI|D|0B L|V|SDH [S|0]
N P00ISS. .!. DX 1UUU HD, NV UOUO
N DDP NU0Dl O-4-2UOU
N BX PU0DI. /O-4-242U
N C0BII.
--
147
Z
J
+
0

J

V
J
J
JZ
\.
J+
D
J
JJ
J
JV
Z
ZJ
ZZ
ZJ
Z
Z0
Z
ZJ
Z
RraoItyA!t0rnry
F.L. UX V
HcnU. PY0
.


Jhc LI!y h8S B0! UccB ScfVcd Uy c!cBd8B! L0BgDIh WI!h m0!I0nS 0l 0!hcl Qc8dIBg 0!
IIIBgS IB IHIS C8Sc Uy m8I 0f QclS0B8 SclVICc S!BCc L0ughJBS t0hVICII0B 0l lc!I! L8lCcBy
0B ^0VcmDcl J ZJJ.
lufSu8B! !0 O 0J.+0, dcC8lc uBdcl QcB8!y 0 Qcquly !h8! IDc !0lcg0IBg IS !luc 8Bd
C0llcC!. |XcCu!cd 0B cCcmUcl 1 Z1J.
-4-
8mc8 U. 0Ucl!S
cQu!y LI!y .!!0Dcy
148
Z
3
+
0

J

V
J

1Z
3
J+
13
J
JJ
1
1V
Z
Z1
ZZ
Z3
Z+
Z0
Z
ZJ
Z
Htu0 Ly A0I'ucy
! 0V
Hun. NV55
N

LLRTLA1L 5LRYLL
CCIII IhdI d 3R CmQ0CC 0J IhC Cu0 \I lI0UC, Cu0, CV3dd, dud IDdI 0u IhC
'
ddy 0 CCCmDCI, ZJ1 dcQ0SIICd J0I m3IJIug 3I Cu0, CVddd, IISI Cd55 Q0SldgC
QICQdId, d IIuC 3ud C0IICCI C0Qy 0J IhC !0ICg0Iug d0CumC0I dddICSSCd l0`
dChdry \0ughiu
J! . NIIgIRId bIICCI FZ
Cu0 CVdd3 V0J

J
149

J



l



'

: !

!`
'
|
'
.


i
.
10`
'
'


'


'

i
l







'


! '

'
! I

j' | j
|'+`

|
o
^

"
r.
.
o-co-

12011

r ,. Blt :q. R> C; At>:ney,
IA^C:7753 =.
+
re t+tItr.|IJ
61 ! V|r|uia hI B2
1eue, ^ 6V1
\01 0 22V-
4. VV 42
7a.h+eag||ia|etmai|.cem
!ev!a m !e: z
J: 8n Nmc a Cuxt

Ia: emad appre drng ] De Dam C: 71j21oj

.
Numr ctyag dug ee-e- .Ieer 2

OgJ wnoI w.
R.

CQ w - Ceugn RMC lJ CR 221721


wa m
W
QClm1l 8CtV1ng gCVCDmUnl
!l 8 yCu8C1 VJ CmI! YI
`


| ''
t
||i

'


!
'
OIn00|0y,

IZ16II I:4laz [. I
{ [( ; . '' ~` ~
ZUh LCugh1n 8Q.

'

|,



|
|
' l

.
'

' '


'`
'

!
eI l1
150

|
!

i

' l
|.

|
I

!
i
t t
t+ .
815J5` -J7 ebd1Jec~6 5c JZba
] |]





.


7+:| eaghlia, Bs.

!V !e. V

Vitgiaia 8t 4^

1eae,!V kv:o
1e|e,

7:-^^96

JX' V--U2
7a:h
Pte I Deteaaaa./ A eliaa.


'

l|~\ 1\as
P
i

a
L JHL tICIA! CUX ! HL CJY ! KL^,
CU^JY ! VPoHL, oJPJL ! ^LVPP
9
t
CJ\ iPBNO,

.,


I `,
.'

` P^1 COuCu!
| LCm anI.
..
\
.
:r
'
17
:a

:9

! ccOlLcNl OlbcIV0c L OtON C Ol

O| 8 A!D A"uO1"|I8
!
!
J
+ase!e:II+1^^ |6^'
J
Det !e: Jaage uewata
J
!
J
et !eti:e et Dea|a| et
J
J
J
1 O! O1
!
1
J
I
1
OlO 0c c uc8OIL 0
ot l1

_ "ae V ee ram 1e|et.s teviaea m het Diseevety e|e+t|y saews Va|-Mat.s Ptea.iae e:aas

.

'
|at aetxite!y |aaaiag a :a te 18|+ O^i:ets Btaaawet|h +aa +tawteta at .|e cea:|asiea ef
,, |
t
^
e

st m questieo. ueweve:, |e|ieve a|| \0f00 D0n \08\\10O U8\ nO OlD0f V\O0O 0X\s\0O t0\0Vml
`
!


c
'
'1
27
-
:asa.|ea et +ttest et|ec taaa t|e ta.ecreat|ea teem v|aee, w||:| was s:||I mn
[
.|e
ge ef t|e :a hetweea Iteatiae aaa .ae 18+ Ofi:e:s. Iat||et, 18+ Of:et +t-weta :aa
:|ea:l he seea ia .|e iateneatiea teem viaees te.eivia a acive:s !i:ease ttem +ea||ia aaa :a||ia
^D 0tD L5 U` I O
151
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 radio, despite CrawIord, testiIying, under oath, at trial, that Coughlin was arrested, in large
part, because he did not produce a physical driver's license and the inIormation which would be
contained thereon and necessary to write a citation. CrawIord testiIied that this lack oI producing a
drivers license (and the dispatch records can clearly show the running oI Coughlin's drivers license
number, which Coughlin hereby declares under penalty oI perjury he has never committed to memory
in his entire liIe). Further, in direct contradiction to the sworn testimony oI both Frontino and
CrawIord, the UPC Ior the cough drops does appear on both the allegedly stolen items $14.00 receipt
and the $80.00 receipt oI items purchased immedately prior to the arrest. Both Frontino and
CrawIord swore that the UPC did not appear on both.
ANALYSIS
Winston Products v. DeBoer, 122 Nev. Adv.Op. 48, 134 P. 3rd 726 (2006);'In resolving this motion,
we revisit the method used to compute the time Ior Iiling motions Ior judgment as a matter oI law and
Ior a new trial and the tolling period to Iile a notice oI appeal when these motions are served by mail
or electronic means. The Nevada Rules oI Civil Procedure (NRCP) require these so-called tolling
motions to be Iiled within 10 days Irom the date a judgment is Iiled and served. However, the 2004
amendments to the NRCP changed the computation oI time where the prescribed period is less than
11 days to exclude Saturdays, Sundays and nonjudicial days. Where, as here, the time to Iile a
tolling motion is 10 days, we conclude that the 'period oI time prescribed in NRCP 6(a) does not
include the 3-day allowance Ior service by mail under NRCP 6(e). ThereIore, the Iiling period Ior a
tolling motion is computed Iirst under NRCP 6(a), and then 3 additional days are added under NRCP
6(e) when service was made by mail or electronic means. Using this computation method, we
conclude that appellant's tolling motions were timely Iiled in the district court. Accordingly, we
deny respondent's motion to dismiss this appeal. Further, although this issue was not addressed by
2 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
152
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
the parties, we conclude that the tolling motions also tolled the time to appeal Irom the post-judgment
order awarding attorney Iees and costs.
FACTS
The Iinal judgment aIter a jury verdict in Iavor oI respondent was Iiled on April 18, 2005.
Respondent served appellant with notice oI entry oI the district court's Iinal judgment via Iacsimile
and mail on April 21, 2005. FiIteen days later, on May 6, 2005, appellant moved the district court
Ior judgment as a matter oI law under NRCP 50(b) or Ior a new trial pursuant to NRCP 59.
Respondent opposed appellant's motions in the district court, arguing, in part, that they were not
timely Iiled.
BeIore resolving the motions, on June 9, 2005, the district court entered a post-judgment order
awarding attorney Iees and costs in Iavor oI respondent. Notice oI entry oI the order was served on
appellant on June 10, 2005. On June 27, 2005, the district court entered its order denying
appellant's motion Ior judgment as a matter oI law or Ior a new trial. The district court determined
that appellant's motions had been timely Iiled but concluded that appellant was not entitled to any
relieI. On July 29, 2005, within 30 days aIter service oI notice oI entry oI the June 27 order
resolving the motions, appellant Iiled a notice oI appeal Irom that order, the Iinal judgment, and the
post-judgment order awarding attorney Iees and costs.
Respondent has Iiled a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that appellant's motions Ior judgment as
a matter oI law and Ior a new trial were not timely and thereIore did not toll the time to appeal.
Appellant opposes the motion.
DISCUSSION
3 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
153
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
This court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal that is Iiled beyond the time allowed under
NRAP 4(a).
1
A timely Iiled motion Ior judgment as a matter oI law under NRCP 50(b) or Ior a new
trial under NRCP 59 tolls the time Ior Iiling an appeal until no later than 30 days aIter a party serves
written notice that the order resolving such motions has been entered.
2
A tolling motion under
NRCP 50(b) or NRCP 59 is timely iI it is Iiled within 10 days aIter a party serves written notice that a
judgment has been entered.
3
Three additional days are added to this Iiling deadline when service
was made by mail or electronic means.
4

In the motion to dismiss, respondent argues that our prior case law requires that the 3-day allowance
Ior mailing be added directly to the 10-day period to Iile tolling motions beIore computing the Iiling
deadline under NRCP 6(a). Employing this rationale subjects these tolling motions to a 13-day time
period. Under NRCP 6(a), intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and nonjudicial days would be included
in the computation oI the 13-day period. Applying this approach to this case results in the thirteenth
day Irom service oI notice oI entry Ialling on May 4, 2005. In this scenario, because appellant's
motions were not Iiled until May 6, 2005, they would be untimely and would not eIIectively toll the
time to appeal.
Appellant encourages us to adopt the opposite approach to that suggested by respondent. Instead oI
Iirst adding the 3 days Ior service by mail to reach a 13-day time period, appellant contends that
sound judicial policy Iavors adding the 3-day allowance only aIter computing the 10-day Iiling period
and excluding intermediate nonjudicial days under NRCP 6(a). Appellant argues that this method oI
computing the time period is consistent with Iederal court interpretation oI the analogous Iederal rule,
FRCP 6, and Iurthers the intent oI NRCP 6(e) by allowing Ior more time when service is made by
4 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
154
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
mail. Using this method in this case, appellant argues that its motions Ior judgment as a matter oI
law and Ior a new trial were timely Iiled and eIIectively tolled the time to appeal.
Rule 6oI the Nevada Rules oI Civil Procedure governs time:
(a)Computation. In computing any period oI time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local
rules oI any district court, by order oI court, or by any applicable statute, the day oI the act, event, or
deIault Irom which the designated period oI time begins to run shall not be included. The last day
oI the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a nonjudicial day, in
which event the period runs until the end oI the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a
nonjudicial day, or, when the act to be done is the Iiling oI a paper in court, a day on which weather
or other conditions have made the oIIice oI the clerk oI the district court inaccessible, in which event
the period runs until the end oI the next day which is not one oI the aIorementioned days. When the
period oI time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and
nonjudicial days shall be excluded in the computation except Ior those proceedings Iiled under Titles
12 or 13 oI the Nevada Revised Statutes.

(e)Additional Time AIter Service by Mail or Electronic means. Whenever a party has the right or
is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period aIter the service oI a
notice or other paper, other than process, upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the
party by mail or by electronic means, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.
(Emphases added.) This court has previously considered in two cases the issue oI computing time
periods under NRCP 6 when service was made by mail. In Ross v. Giacomo, this court concluded
that in calculating the time to Iile a tolling motion, the 3-day allowance Ior service by mail is added
5 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
155
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
directly to the 10-day period-resulting in a 13-day Iiling period.
5
More recently, in Custom Cabinet
Factory oI New York v. District Court, a 2003 case involving the 30-day time period to Iile a request
Ior trial de novo aIter arbitration, we aIIirmed the computation method employed in Ross and held
that the 3-day allowance Ior service by mail 'should be added to the time allotted by statute or rule
Iirst and then the time period should be computed under NRCP 6(a).
6
We reasoned that the
alternative method oI computing time under Rule 6(a) oI adding the 3 days Ior service by mail aIter
computing the Iiling deadline 'would potentially result in an additional Iive to seven days to Iile
motions which was 'complicated and absurd.
7
Instead, we believed at the time that using the
method oI Iirst adding the 3 days Ior service by mail to the time allotted by statute or rule and then
computing the time period, was a simpler and speedier computation scheme.
8

However, in 2004, aIter our decisions in Ross and Custom Cabinet, we amended NRCP 6 to be
consistent with the 1985 amendments to the Iederal rule.
9
That amendment made the exclusion oI
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days applicable in computing time periods oI less
than 11 days.
10
BeIore the 2004 amendment, NRCP 6(a) only excluded intermediate nonjudicial
days in computing periods oI less than 7 days. Several Iederal courts have considered the intent
behind FRCP 6(e)'s 3-day mailing allowance in interpreting the 1985 amendment to the computation
provision oI FRCP 6(a).
11
In computing time periods in those cases, the Iederal decisions have
Iocused on the 'period oI time prescribed and determined that it does not include the 3 additional
days Ior mailing under Rule 6(e). Those Iederal courts have thereIore Iound that the less-than-11-
day provision oI Rule 6(a) is applicable to 10-day periods even when service is made by mail.
In the Iirst seminal case aIter the 1985 amendment to FRCP 6, a Iederal district court in Nalty v.
Nalty Tree Farm recognized that the amendment 'was intended to extend the response time allowed
6 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
156
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
under various rules prescribing ten day limits.
12
The Nalty court observed, however, that adding
additional time Ior mailing under Rule 6(e) to create a 13-day time period ultimately resulted in the
same amount oI time that was allowed beIore the 1985 amendment because at that time, nonjudicial
days were not excluded Irom the computation oI 10-day periods.
13
The court determined that
'|s|uch a result cannot be consistent with the obvious intentions oI the advisory committee and
declared that '|t|he mailing rule should provide three extra days, in addition to whatever period the
party would otherwise have, to reIlect the presumed lapse in notice because oI service by mail.
14

The Nalty court thus held that the 3-day allowance Ior mailing should be added only aIter computing
the time period under Rule 6(a).
15

Likewise, in Lerro v. Quaker Oats Co.,
16
the Seventh Circuit Court oI Appeals addressed this same
issue in the context oI an objection to a magistrate judge's report and concluded that 'the period oI
time in Rule 6(a) was not the sum oI all allowable periods. The court noted that Rule 6(e) is
'designed to give a litigant approximately the same eIIective time to respond whether papers are
served by hand or by mail.
17
And the court reasoned that '|t|he only way to carry out Rule 6(e)'s
Iunction oI adding time to compensate Ior delays in mail delivery is to employ Rule 6(a) Iirst.
18

In Tushner v. United States District Court Ior Central District oI CaliIornia, the Ninth Circuit Court
oI Appeals concluded that the 10-day period prescribed Ior Iiling a jury demand did not become a 13-
day period Ior purposes oI Rule 6(a) as a result oI the service-by-mail provision oI Rule 6(e).
19
The
court stated that Rule 6(e) should not be 'construed to render prescribed periods oI less than eleven
days ineligible Ior beneIicial treatment under Rule 6(a) and concluded that it 'would be anomalous
to interpret the rules so that a litigant served by mail would have less time Ior action than a litigant
served personally.
20
Instead, the court held that '|t|he period is calculated Iirst by applying the
7 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
157
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
less-than-eleven-day provision oI Rule 6(a), thereby excluding any intervening weekends and legal
holidays. AIter this computation, three additional days are added Ior mail service under Rule 6(e).
21

As we noted in Custom Cabinet, Iederal decisions are not binding on this court.
22
However, '|w|e
have previously recognized that Iederal decisions involving the Federal Rules oI Civil Procedure
provide persuasive authority when this court examines its rules.
23
On the particular issue oI
computing time under NRCP 6, the Iederal decisions discussed above in regard to the Iederal rule are
logically compelling.
Our decisions in Custom Cabinet and Ross reIlect the court's desire to maintain a simple, eIIicient
and uniIorm system Ior computing time periods under NRCP 6.
24
However, neither oI those cases
considered the impact that their computation scheme would have on Iiling periods subject to the
provision in NRCP 6(a) Ior the exclusion oI intermediate nonjudicial days. In light oI our recent
amendment to NRCP 6(a), which made the nonjudicial-day exclusion applicable to longer time
periods, we can no longer reconcile the utility oI Ross and Custom Cabinet with the stiIling eIIect
that they have on the intent behind Rule 6(e). Rule 6(e) is intended to provide litigants with
additional time when service is made by mail. The computation method we employed in Custom
Cabinet and Ross works contrary to that intent. Using the method employed in those cases aIter the
amendment to Rule 6(a), when a 10-day time period is involved, the party personally served would
always have more time to act than a party served by mail.
For example, NRCP 59(b) provides that '|a| motion Ior a new trial shall be Iiled no later than 10 days
aIter service oI written notice oI the entry oI the judgment. II a party is personally served with
notice oI entry, that party has 14 calendar days to Iile a motion because under NRCP 6(a), the
8 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
158
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
intermediate nonjudicial days would be excluded Irom the computation. But under the Ross and
Custom Cabinet computation scheme, iI that party had been served by mail, that party would only
have 13 calendar days to Iile the same motion because the intermediate nonjudicial days would be
included in the computation. And aIter taking into account the actual time Ior delivery oI mail, a
party served by mail would certainly have even less than 13 calendar days to act. This result deIeats
the purpose oI Rule 6(e) and essentially makes the amendment to Rule 6(a) a nullity by converting
10-day time periods into 13-day periods that do not garner the beneIit oI the amendment. As the
Seventh Circuit observed in Lerro, '|i|nteractions within a complex set oI rules sometimes can have
unexpected and unwelcome eIIects, but we should not create them when the text readily can bear
another meaning.
25
We should not do so here in interpreting NRCP 6.
We thereIore reverse our decisions in Custom Cabinet and Ross to the extent that they require that
Iiling periods be computed by adding the 3 days Ior service by mail under NRCP 6(e) to the
prescribed period beIore applying NRCP 6(a). Consistent with the compelling Iederal cases
discussed above, we hold that the 10-day time period Ior Iiling motions Ior judgment as a matter oI
law and Ior a new trial should be calculated Iirst under NRCP 6(a), excluding intermediate Saturdays,
Sundays and nonjudicial days. II service was made by mail or electronic means, 3 days should
thereaIter be added pursuant to NRCP 6(e).
In this case, notice oI the judgment's entry was served by mail on Thursday, April 21, 2005.
Computing the 10-day time period Irom this date and excluding intermediate nonjudicial days under
NRCP 6(a), extended the deadline Ior tolling motions to Thursday, May 5, 2005. Adding 3 days at
that point Ior service by mail made Monday, May 9, 2005, the Iinal deadline to Iile motions Ior
judgment as a matter oI law or Ior a new trial. Appellant's motions were Iiled beIore that date, and
thereIore they were timely Iiled and eIIectively tolled the time to appeal. ThereaIter, appellant
9 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
159
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
timely Iiled a notice oI appeal within 30 days aIter service oI written notice oI entry oI the order
resolving the tolling motions.
26

Finally, although the motion to dismiss and opposition did not address whether appellant's tolling
motions tolled the time to appeal Irom the post-judgment order awarding attorney Iees, because oI the
ambiguous nature oI this area oI law and the potential pitIall that it may present to practitioners, we
elect to address it sua sponte.
27
The precise issue is whether a tolling motion directed at the Iinal
judgment also tolls the time to appeal Irom a special order aIter Iinal judgment. This is an issue oI
Iirst impression in Nevada.
An order awarding attorney Iees and costs is substantively appealable as a special order aIter Iinal
judgment.
28
Special orders aIter Iinal judgment are appealable because they aIIect the rights oI a
party growing out oI the Iinal judgment.
29
Like an appeal Irom a Iinal judgment, an appeal Irom an
order awarding attorney Iees and costs must be Iiled no more than 30 days Irom the date that notice
oI the order's entry is served.
30

Here, notice oI entry oI the order awarding attorney Iees and costs was served on appellant on June
10, 2005. However, appellant did not Iile its notice oI appeal until July 29, 2005-well beyond the
30-day time limit allowed under NRAP 4(a)(1). Accordingly, this court only has jurisdiction to
consider issues relating to the attorney Iees and costs order iI the time to appeal Irom that order was
tolled by appellant's motions Ior judgment as a matter oI law and Ior a new trial.
NRAP 4(a)(4) provides that when a tolling motion is Iiled, 'the time to Iile a notice oI appeal runs Ior
all parties Irom entry oI an order disposing oI the last such remaining motion. This court's
decisions have evaluated tolling motions in the context oI appeals Irom Iinal judgments.
31
However,
10 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
160
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
because NRAP 4(a)(4) does not speciIy Irom which orders the time to appeal may be tolled, its
applicability to post-judgment orders awarding attorney Iees and costs is unclear.
In this case, the order awarding attorney Iees to respondent was predicated on the Iinal judgment in
respondent's Iavor. There is thus a close connection between the Iinal judgment and the special
order aIter Iinal judgment in that a change to the Iinal judgment would likely result in a change to the
special order aIter Iinal judgment. By deIinition, any special order aIter Iinal judgment must be
closely related to the judgment. This close connection leads us to conclude that the tolling motions
enumerated in NRAP 4(a)(4) apply to both types oI orders. Any other interpretation oI NRAP 4(a)
(4) would result in the appeal oI a post-judgment order proceeding in this court while the underlying
judgment was still subject to change during the pendency oI tolling motions in the district court.
Such an eIIect would not only impede judicial economy and result in piecemeal litigation,
32
but it
would also likely be counterintuitive to many legal practitioners and create signiIicant conIusion over
the time Ior Iiling appeals Irom special orders aIter Iinal judgment. As we have previously
explained, '|t|he Iiling oI a simple notice oI appeal was intended to take the place oI more
complicated procedures to obtain review, and the notice should not be used as a technical trap Ior the
unwary draItsman.
33
Our interpretation oI NRAP 4(a)(4) tolling motions should reIlect our intent
to preserve a simple and eIIicient procedure Ior Iiling a notice oI appeal.
We thereIore hold that a timely Iiled tolling motion under NRAP 4(a)(4) tolls the time to appeal
Irom both Iinal judgment and special orders entered aIter Iinal judgment. Accordingly, this court
has jurisdiction to consider the merits oI any issues raised in this appeal relating to the award oI
attorney Iees and costs in the district court's June 9, 2005, order.
CONCLUSION
11 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
161
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
We reverse our decisions in Custom Cabinet and Ross to the extent that they require that Iiling
periods be computed by adding 3 days Ior service by mail under NRCP 6(e) to the prescribed time
period beIore applying NRCP 6(a). Further, we hold that the 'period oI time prescribed does not
include the 3-day allowance Ior service by mail under NRCP 6(e) and that time periods should be
calculated Iirst under NRCP 6(a) beIore adding time under NRCP 6(e). Using this method oI
computation, we conclude that appellant's motions Ior judgment as a matter oI law and Ior new trial
were timely Iiled and thus eIIectively tolled the time to appeal. As a result, appellant's notice oI
appeal was timely Iiled. Accordingly, we deny respondent's motion to dismiss.
We Iurther hold that timely motions listed under NRAP 4(a)(4) toll both the time to appeal Irom the
Iinal judgment and the time to appeal Irom a special order entered aIter Iinal judgment.
Accordingly, this court also has jurisdiction to consider the merits oI appellant's appeal Irom the
district court's order awarding attorney Iees and costs in Iavor oI respondent.
FOOTNOTES
1. See NRAP 3(a); Alvis v. State, Gaming Control Bd., 99 Nev. 184, 660 P.2d 980 (1983).
2. NRAP 4(a)(4).
3. NRCP 50(b); NRCP 59(b).
4. NRCP 6(e).
5. 97 Nev. 550, 553 nn. 1 & 2, 635 P.2d 298, 300 nn. 1 & 2 (1981).
6. 119 Nev. 51, 54-55, 62 P.3d 741, 743 (2003).
7. Id. at 54, 62 P.3d at 742-43.
8. Id.
12 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
162
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. See NRCP 6 draIter's note (2004).
10. Id.
11. See, e.g., Nalty v. Nalty Tree Farm, 654 F.Supp. 1315 (S.D.Ala.1987); Tushner v. U.S. Dist.
Court Ior Cent. Dist. oI Cal., 829 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1987); Lerro v. Quaker Oats Co., 84 F.3d 239
(7th Cir.1996).
12. 654 F.Supp. at 1317.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 1317-18.
16. 84 F.3d 239, 242.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. 829 F.2d at 855-56.
20. Id. (citing Nalty, 654 F.Supp. at 1317).
21. Id. at 855-56.
22. 119 Nev. at 54, 62 P.3d at 742-43.
23. Nelson v. Heer, 121 Nev. 832, 122 P.3d 1252, 1253 (2005).
24. Custom Cabinet, 119 Nev. at 55, 62 P.3d at 743.
25. 84 F.3d at 242.
26. NRAP 4(a)(4).
13 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
163
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
27. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 122 Nev. 409, 132 P.3d 1022 (2006); McNair v.
Rivera, 110 Nev. 463, 468 n. 6, 874 P.2d 1240, 1244 n. 6 (1994); Bradley v. Romeo, 102 Nev. 103,
105, 716 P.2d 227, 228 (1986); Western Indus., Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 91 Nev. 222, 229-30, 533
P.2d 473, 478 (1975).
28. Smith v. Crown Financial Services, 111 Nev. 277, 289 n. 2, 890 P.2d 769, 771 n. 2 (1995).
29. See Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 59 P.3d 1220 (2002).
30. NRAP 4(a)(1).
31. See, e.g., Matter oI Application oI Duong, 118 Nev. 920, 922-23, 59 P.3d 1210, 1212 (2002)
(concluding that a timely Iiled motion to amend or make additional Iindings oI Iact tolled the time to
appeal Irom a Iinal judgment denying a petition to seal criminal records); Chapman Industries v.
United Insurance, 110 Nev. 454, 457, 874 P.2d 739, 741 (1994) (concluding that timely Iiled tolling
motions tolled the time to appeal Irom the Iinal judgment); Able Electric, Inc. v. KauIman, 104 Nev.
29, 31-32, 752 P.2d 218, 220 (1988) (concluding that a motion to alter or amend tolled the time to
appeal Irom the Iinal judgment).
32. See, e.g., HallicraIters Co. v. Moore, 102 Nev. 526, 728 P.2d 441 (1986).
33. Forman v. Eagle ThriIty Drugs & Markets, 89 Nev. 533, 536, 516 P.2d 1234, 1235 (1973),
overruled on other grounds by Garvin v. Dist. Ct., 118 Nev. 749, 751, 59 P.3d 1180, 1181 (2002).
Winston Products v. DeBoer, 122 Nev. Adv.Op. 48, 134 P. 3rd 726 (2006);
The above, admittedly extended citation, applies to this issues at hand. WhereIore, the
udnersigned seeks a copy oI the Order Irom the 11 30 , 2011 Trial, including any Contempt Order,
which must set Ior the with speciIicity pursuant to Houston v. Eight Judicial Distirct Court when
Judge Pomeranze put Houston in cuIIs Ior about 30 minutes, a case I am somewhat aware oI:
Coughlin Mandamus:
http://caseinIo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID22746
Houston Mandamus:
http://caseinIo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID14052
DATED this December 16th, 2011
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
14 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
164
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. I am the DeIendant in this action.
2. I am not sure exactly what Judge Howard Ordered at the conclusion oI the November 20
th
,
20ll Trial
3. I have not been entirely sure what the diIIerence is between emails and Iaxes, as many people
send Iaxes Irom their computers, like email, and it is my understanding that all electronic
transmissions, whether text, sound, video, whatever, are ultimately just converted to series oI
1's and 0's....Nonetheless, I have read the RMCR Rule 5 on service oI motions by Iascimile
and made reasonable attempts to comply with Ms. Roberts request that I interpret that rule to
mean a transmission oI 1's and 0's that is not 'email based. As such, I Iax her Irom a Iax
number oI mine, 949-667-7402 and have Iaxed her the December 13
th
Motion Ior a New Trial,
etc. to Ms. Roberts at her Iax number. I know oI know rule that allows Ms. Roberts, a public
employee, to all the sudden declare a citizen is not allowed to email her, much less opposing
counsel in a case.
4. Attorneys in private practice, as Iar as I know, manage to open attachments, use Spybot,
Malwarebytes, SuperAntiSpyware, whatever....they make it happen without a super bloated
governmental salary and don't claim a 'Iear oI viruses should dictate everything, in my
opinion.
5. At the conclusion oI the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial, indeed, several hours prior to its
conclusion even, I was extremely Iaint and it was very diIIicult to Iunction at the level
necessary to put on a deIense. I do not wish to go into the why's and whereIores oI this, it
15 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
165
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
may involved ADA/privacy issues/medical issues, but, suIIice to say, I in no way could have
imagined that the RMC would see Iit to hold everyone there, many getting paid quite a bit oI
overtime, in some incredible eIIort to make sure this one little old petit larceny trial got done
super, super Iast. I could have never imagined that the Trial would continue until almost 9 pm
at night, why, in my experience, government employees generally leave their oIIice buildings
as soon aIter 5 pm as humanly possible. As such, I was in no way prepared,
physically/mentally/medically, etc. to continue on that late into the evening.
6. Apparently, at the close oI Trial, Judge Howard made a ruling. I have received conIlicting
reports as to whether the RMC is asserting that I entered a guilty plea (I do not believe that
assertion comports with reality in any way) or whether Judge Howard made a Iinding oI
Contempt committed in the presence oI the Court 22.030 and summarily sentenced me to
three days in jail, with no possibility oI stay or appellate review, despite Judge Howard having
denied me my Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, assuring me he would not order any
incarceration. I outlined to Judge Howard what a devastating eIIect his ruling might have on
my clients cases to the extent he was not aIIording me any opportunity to help them make
other arrangements to avoid prejudicing their cases, and Judge Howard agreed that he was sad
about that then angrily leIt the bench aIter exclaiming something like 'we are oII the record.
7. At that point Judge Howard's team oI Marshalls (I think about Iour oI the Marshalls, at least
were working at overtime wages at that point in the night to insure that the Wal-Mart clerk
would not be burdened by having to return to court during normal business hours should a
continuance have been granted) stormed up to me and demanded I assume a handcuIIed
position, despite my passionate pleas that I needed to be able to hit the 'save button on my
notes Irom the trial on my netbook computer. The Marshals told me that was not allowed to
16 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
166
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 the 'save button and that they didn't care about my notes being lost. Its really was quite
remarkable the extent to which these Marshals treated me like I just knocked oII a liquor store
with a Iirearm, pistol whipped the cashier, then happened upon them in the parking lot aIter
they witnessed the entire event.
8. I was taken back to a holding cell Ior several minutes, whereupon I was summoned back into
the court room and Judge Howards presence where he talked some more. As I recall, Judge
Howard mentioned a 10 day limitations period or deadline that would be running Irom the
notice oI entry oI his Verdict and Contempt Finding. Judge Howard mentioned that, given
that he was incarcerating me Ior the next 3 days, he was going to extend all deadlines which
might apply to any notices oI appeal or motions seeking a new trial, to set aside the judgment,
vacate, etc an additional three days aIter the normal time on which those limitations periods
would run. Judge Howard seemed to explain that this would have the eIIect oI giving me
more time to undertake to Iile these pleadings, motions, and notices iI I so choose so that the
summary incarceration (which Judge Howard was sure to point out would not be bailable or
otherwise circumvented by any attempts to access justice) would not prejudice my ability to
do so. As I understood it this meant lengthening the time I had to Iile such papers, not
shortening it, and Judge Howard seemed to indicate that the period to Iile such things would
still be adjudged to be within the 11 days or less cited in NRCP 6(a), and, as such, non
judicial days would not count towards the 10 days within which I must Iile the various post
Verdict papers I might want to Iile. Judge Howard seemed to indicate that the three additional
days he was granting me would be added on aIter the expiration oI those 10 non judicial days
Irom notice oI entry oI Judge Howard's Order was Iiled with the RMC and served upon me.
17 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
167
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. It is my recollection that Judge Howard then leIt the courtroom and I was leIt alone with
about 4 Marshals, all collecting overtime. At that point the got a bit rough with me and
started speaking in very hostile, ominous tones, shoving some papers in Iront oI my Iace, but
not long enough Ior me to be able to read them or discern what they related to. The Marshals
began demanding that I sign these papers. I asked them iI they were mortgage documents or
perhaps some student loan agreements or other sorts oI documents Ior which any reasonable
person would want an opportunity to review prior to signing. This made the Marshals even
more angry than they normally seem, and they typically seem very, very angry most oI the
time, to me at least. In Iact, Marshal Mentzel, at My October 11
th
, 2011 arraignment had
become enraged with me Ior askign questions about my Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. I
reported this to the court and even made a notation about it, I believe, on the document
Marshal Mentzel demanded I sign on that day. That same day Marshal Mentzel criticized me
to my Iace aIter I appeared beIore Judge Gardner Ior the arraignment. Mentzel told me I had
asked Judge Gardner stupid questions, and I believe he made some other insulting and
threatening remarks to me at that time, but I am a bit aIraid to get into here in much detail.
10. So, on November 30
th
, 2011, aIter Judge Howard leIt the courtroom the Marshals would not
let me read the papers they wanted me to sign Ior more than a second or two beIore they
began hounding me to sign them in angry and threatening tones. I was so distraught Irom the
various irregularities I perceived in the Trial, and that was only compounded by the thuggish
behavior oI the Marshals, who quickly inIormed me that they didn't have time Ior me to read
anything and dragged me away to the 3 days oI incarceration I Iaced, while my car was sure
to get towed (especially considering the Deputees at the Washoe County Jail saw Iit to reIuse
to allow me to make more than, I believe, a single phone call, shortly aIter arriving at the jail,
18 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
168
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
whereupon they went into their usual routine oI retaliating against one who reIuses to divulge
their religious preIerence or one who cannot answer all oI their highly invasive questions with
the exact degree oI speciIicity they demand. This retaliation, in my case, included Iorcing me
into some sort oI position on my knees extremely close to the crotches oI several WCSO
Deputees in some sort oI sadistic Iorced simulation oI my perIorming oral sex upon them, at
least Irom my point oI view. I was placed in a Ireezing cold room, with a cement Iloor, by
myselI, in retaliaton Ior Iailing to disclose my religious preIerence and indicating that I was
not exactly sure how much money I made each month given the variable nature oI my
compensation. I was place alone in a holding cell with nothing but a wooden bench, and the
ice cold cement Iloor due to the cell being sequestered away Irom the buildings heat sources,
including other people. My dog was leIt to Iend Ior itselI. My dog was Ieature in this
December's Nevada Lawyer magazine, Jackson Pawluck, a 3 year old Pekingnese.
11. 3 Days later when I was release Irom jail, the personal property returned to me did not
included any Verdict or Contempt Finding/Order related to the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial in
RMC 11 CR 22176. I called several times in the days Iollowing my release and spoke with
Veronica Lopez (though it took several days to ascertain her last name given that neither she
nor anyone associated with the RMC would divulge it to me) whom inIormed me that I had
been served Judge Howard's Order at the conclusion oI the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial. Ms.
Lopez immediately took a bullying, hostile, aggressive tone with me that seem completely out
oI place coming Irom her given the position oI authority the public has entrusted her with and
what I Ieel is a duty on her part to attempt to come across as 'judicial rather than tyrannical.
12. I inIormed Ms. Lopez that I did not Ieel I had been served at all, and that I was not at all sure
what she was reIerring to, but that I would deIinitely like to get a copy oI any Order
19 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
169
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
immediately, as well as a copy oI the audio oI the Trial. I believe Ms. Lopez inIormed me
that I would not be allowed a copy oI the audio, but that I would need to pay Ior a transcript to
be made. I am sure, however, that a Iemale RMC Iiling oIIice counter employee told me on
or about the same day that I would not ever be provided a copy oI the audio recording oI the
trial but that I would need to pay to have a transcript made, and that I could only use Pam
Longoni, the RMC's OIIicial Transcriptist.
13. I called Ms. Longoni and when I Iinally got ahold oI her she inIormed me that she would need
the RMC to allow her access to the audio (despite her being 'linked to the RMC's systems),
and that until that was done, she could not quote me an estimate Ior the transcript cost, nor
could she accept any payment Iorm me. I believe Ms. Longoni Iurther indicated to me that I
would not be able to get a copy oI the actual audio recording either
14. I have sent several written communications and had several verbal communications with D.
Ballard and other RMC personnel expressing my exigent desire to get a copy oI the audio oI
the Trial, and how necessary it was to preparing Iilings/motions/pleadings Ior which I had a
very limited period oI time to craIt.
15. BeIore, while, and aIter speaking with Ms. Ballard, a gentleman whose name escapes me but
who is a Iiling counter clerk at the RMC told me I would need to get a subpoena to get a copy
oI the RMC docket in my case, and that he couldn't give me copies oI anything in my case,
certainly not the Order stemming Irom the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial, that he did not have
access to such, and even iI he did, would not provide it, and that his system did not show
entry oI anything in connection with the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial. He Iurther veriIied that
there had not been any entry in his 'docket Ior RMC 11 CR22176 2I and that no Notice oI
Entry oI Order or Entry oI Order existed in his sytem or computer Ior that matter Iollowing
20 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
170
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
the Trial. He did indicate that 'they said the Motion Ior New Trial that I had recently Iiled
was timely, and I believe he said 'they said the day he and I were currently speaking was
'the last day they gave you to Iile, which I believe Tuesday, December 13
th
, and given the
'additional 3 days language that I recall Judge Howard mentioning he was adding on to
allow me more time to Iile, would mean that 'they (I took 'they to be 'Veronica, whom
the gentleman clerk steadIastly reIused to identiIy by last name and Ior which the phone
number he wrote down Ior me in his own handwriting with 'Veronica written out turned out
to be a disconnected number) had assumed service was appropriately perIormed at the
conclusion oI the Trial, and that 13 days began running on the Iollowing day, that the halI a
day the RMC is open on Fridays would count as a Iull judicial day, and that non judicial days
would be included in counting towards this 13 days given the way 'they or 'Veronica had
interpreted Judge Howard's Order, apparently in a way that made the time I had to Iile these
various papers shorter than it would have been had Judge Howard simply not granted an
additional three days given the dictates oI not counting non judicial days in NRCP 6(e). It is
my understanding, however, the I have not even been served this Verdict/Order, and that any
limitations period must not even begin running until I am appropriately served. Veronica
admitted to me on the phone, I believe on Monday or Tuesday when I called her Irom the
Iree phone in the Washoe County Law library with law libarian employee Linda Blakeley
sitting within earshot, that the RMC Ielt it had appropriately served me the Order at the
conlcusion oI the trial and had Iailed to otherwise send me a copy in the mail or by Iax. I
asked Ms. Lopez iI I could get a copy oI the Order, as well as any other Orders that had been
issued in the case. She agree to Iax me only the Order Irom the conclusion oI the November
30
th
, 2011 Trial, reIusing to provide any other Orders. As oI yet, despite reading back to her
21 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
171
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
my Iax number at least twice, I have yet to receive a Iax containing anything Irom the RMC,
much less the Order Iollowing the November 30, 2011 Trial.
APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COST
This is an Application Ior DeIerral oI Court Fees and Costs.
STATEMENTS MADE TO THE COURT UNDER OATH. I swear or aIIirm that the inIormation in this application is
true and correct. I make this statement under the penalty oI prosecution Ior perjury iI it is determined that I did not tell the
truth.
I am requesting a deIerral or waiver oI the Iollowing Iees and costs in my case:
xAny or all oI the Iollowing: All Iiling Iees; Iees Ior the issuance oI either a summons and subpoena;
xFees Ior obtaining one certiIied copy oI a temporary order in a domestic relations case or a Iinal order, judgment
or decree in all criminal proceedings.
xFees Ior service oI process by a sheriII, marshal, constable or law enIorcement. Fees Ior service by publication.
XFiling Iees and photocopy Iees Ior the preparation oI the record on appeal.
XCourt reporter`s Iees oI reporters or transcribers employed by the court Ior the preparation oI the transcript.
The basis Ior the request is:
1. WAIVER: I am permanently unable to pay. My income and liquid assets are insuIIicient or barely suIIicient to meet
the daily essentials oI liIe and unlikely to change in the Ioreseeable Iuture.
2. DEFERRAL:
a. My income is insuIIicient or is barely suIIicient to meet the daily essentials oI liIe, and includes no allotment that could
be budgeted Ior the Iees and costs that are required to gain access to the court.
b. I do not have the money to pay the court Iees and costs now. I do not know iI I can pay the Iees and costs at a later
date.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain
the social security number oI any person.
Pursuant to NRS 53.045, I declare under penalty oI perjury that the Ioregoing is true and correct. Executed on December
16, 2011
DATED this December 16th, 2011
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
22 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
172
'





i





' I


.




!
.

84!33J!T

l07c1 33a6cJca




,




, '
N

`

|
, Z8CU LDUgUIu 0cC8l.
1 .
tI0BI z4ckcov'1

Z161 !:1aa . Z1 of Z1
| L LcCcmDcl 1, 211, ,
| '
'
md !Dg 8 \luc CDQy |DclcD \D
D
I. Z8UU LDdgD!D 8clVc0 \Uc DlcgDIDg 0DUumcDl Uy cm8tIDg
8mc 8 L HDOm(8, L8Q.
.
HcDD

!|y P\|CDcy'8 L1Cc - LI!mD8 LV!8DD
A.U UDX 1> HcuD , IN >J3

U0D UmDcl 3--23
'
8 D mDcl. 3-^-242
DV
L t 1U 08y D LcCcmUcl, Z\1 U
::
:



| '

,




' '
:
-


|t
|

:
'' l

'
'
:

:
:



'


| l
|3

'

I l

.


' ' | .





o!cDI0 `
173
174
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
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
Tele: 775-229-6737
Fax: 949-667-7402
Pro per DeIendant/Appellant
JUSTICE COURT RENO TOWNSHIP
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
CITY OF RENO;
PlaintiII.
)
)
v.
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN
DeIendant.
)
)
)
Case No:11 CR 22176 2I
Dept No: Judge Howard
)
) SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal,
) Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59,
) JCRCP 60, Motion Ior Reconsideration;
Motion Ior Recusal; Motion to Strike
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
1
175
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 oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal; Motion For Publication OI Transcript at Public Expense,
Petition Ior In Forma Pauperis Status
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
CASE APPEAL STATEMENT
DeIendant/Appellant, Zach Coughlin, hereby Iiles this Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and
or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal; Motion For
Publication OI Transcript at Public Expense, Petition Ior In Forma Pauperis Status.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I wasi
ANALYSIS
INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE ALL LAW AND ASSERTIONS IN ATTACHED
PAPERS AND PLEADINGS AND WRITINGS IN EXHIBIT 1:
RMCR Rule 6: Continuances No continuance shall be granted, including a stipulated continuance,
except Ior good cause. A motion or stipulation Ior continuance must state the reason thereIore and
whether or not any continuance has previously been sought or granted.
RMCR Rule 9: Appeals to District Court Except as otherwise provided in NRS 177.015 a
deIendant in a criminal action tried beIore a Municipal Court Judge may appeal Irom the Iinal
judgment therein to the Second Judicial District Court, at any time within 10 days Irom the date that
judgment is rendered. The right to counsel in trial courts was signiIicantly expanded in another case when the Court,
in Argersinger v. Hamlin, extended the right to counsel to all misdemeanor state proceedings where there is a potential
loss oI liberty. The deIendant could have Iaced up to six months in jail Ior this oIIense under either said code or statue.
I do not mean to be disrespectIul in contacting the court via email. I have been so
stamped out by the events oI the last Iew months that its all I can do to try to protect
my rights to get inIormation and media to the court in my attempts to access justice.
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
2
176
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 Lopez told me on the phone on Monday oI this week that she would Iax me a copy oI the
Order and Contempt Iinding Irom the 11 30, 2011 Trial, yet I have not received any such Iax. I have
not received any order in any Iorm, not on my release Irom the 3 days summary incarceration, not
ever. The RMC conIirmed there has been no Notice oI Entry oI any order in their docket or anything,
etc.
The RMC and Reno City Attorney improperly asserted jurisidction over this matter. It occurred on
Indian lands. The RSIC oIIicers did not ascertain my race. There exists a question as to whether
jurisdiction was properly asserted by the RMC. Reno City Attorney wrote to me oI approving oI a
continuance, only to back out at Trial. Good cause was shown Ior a continuance and I showed up to
the Iirst trial date, I was not brought into the court room. I do not believe, as such, any continuance
was ever granted previously. Further, the RMC Iailed to bring me into court on November 14
th
,
2011. Due to court personnel reIusing to provide me a copy oI the order or be up Iront with respect
to service, this Iiling is more haphazard than it would otherwise be.
I believe the Iollowing should be added to record and presents a strong argument Ior a
conIlict oI interest or other 60(b) basis Ior setting aside the verdict and contempt Order
in RMC 11 CR 22176 2I. I did not plead guilty in that case, and any RMC record that
suggests that is completely inaccurate. Please let me know iI your records indicate I
plead guilty in that matter. Further, I have never been provided a copy oI the Guilty
Verdict/Order in this matter, I requested on to be emailed to me and sent in the USPS
mail. Please serve me a copy oI the order, preIerably by email and USPS mail.
Further, the "RMC's oIIicial court transcriptionist" inIormed me yesterday that she
could not quote me or accept an money Irom me Ior the transcript on appeal. Further I
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
3
177
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
have been told by court staII that I would never be provided access to the audio
recording oI the Trial oI 11 30, 2011. I believe I have a right to it, and need it on an
exigent basis in connection with the various motions I have, will, or intend to to Iile
challenging the decision in this case. The RMC Iiling oIIice inIormed me there has
been no Notice oI Entry oI Order in this matter at this point.
The Reno City Attorney has a vested interest in getting a conviction in RMC 11 CR
22176 2I with respect to anticipated litigation in connection with the wrongIul arrest
and police misconduct shown in the videos below, as such a NRCP 60(b) basis exists
Ior setting aside any verdict entered in RMC 11 CR 22176 2I:
I ask that all the videos at the youtube account linked to below be added to the record
and considered.http://youtu.be/5PR7q4OI5b0
http://www.youtube.com/user/anonymousprivacy?Ieaturewatch
prosecutorial misconduct (such as the D.A. withholding "exculpatory" evidence that could`ve helped my deIense)
judicial errors (such as the judge permitting evidence that should`ve been excluded or vice versa)
erroneous application oI a law or regulation improper jury instructions
ineIIective assistance oI counsel or other malpractice the evidence did not prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
I went to the Iiling oIIice at the RMC a couple times recently, including today, and sent in another written request seeking
an audio tape oI the Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176 IC 110627 RSIC but was told by a Clerk that I would need to pay Ior
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
4
178
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 be transcribed, and only then would I be allowed to read it, and that I would not be allowed to access
the audio oI the hearing? Is this correct? I need to have the audio oI the Trial to Iinish my Rule 59, 60, and Motion Ior
Reconsideration Motions....I will pay Ior the audio. I have received many audio cd/dvd's Irom both Reno Justice Court
and Washoe District Court, and it was announced in court that the trial was being audio recorded, as such, I hope you will
aIIord me a copy. Today, I called the RMC and spoke with Veronica, who sounded very angry with me and dismissive. I
was summarily sentenced to 3 days in jail at the end oI the trial in this matter, even where I had been denied my Sixth
Amendment Right To Counsel, aIter a Contempt committed in the court's presence Iinding was announced, in addition to
a guilty verdict in the underlying action. Veronica inIormed me that she was at the trial and that the RMC had Iailed to
mail me or otherwise serve me with a copy oI the written Order, either Ior the guilty conviction in the underlying case or
the contempt order. I was Iorced into handcuIIs so quickly ater Judge Howard concluded issuing his oral ruling that I was
not even able to save my notes on my computer, it was literally apparently that exigent a situation to handcuII me....Then
a Iew Marshalls place some pieces oI paper in Iront oI me and demanded I sign them, and became angry, like Veronica
and like Marshall Monte, I believe, was at the arraingment, when I asked a simple question related to due process,
something many at the RMC do not seem all that enamored with. I asked iI I could even read the papers they were
demanding I sign right then and there. The curtly and loudly said no, then dragged me away beIore I could read the
papers, much less sign them. Veronica snarled at me that that was all the service oI the Order oI Contempt and Guilty
Verdict that I would get, but that she might Iax it to me, however, no Iax has arrived, despite my illustrating the
exigencies oI receiving the Order in preparing my RelieI From Judgment Motions. Veronica continue to curtly reIuse to
provide me any copy oI any oI the previously Iiled Orders oI the Court unless I paid Ior them, despite my apparently not
having been provided a copy oI such orders in the Iirst place. I have no idea what those papers were (they certainly were
not in the property given to me upon my release Irom jail) and have received nothing in the mail, despite updating the
RMC with my new address oI: 817 N. Virginia St. #2, Reno NV 89501 and Iiling an oIIicial Change oI Address with the
USPS shortly aIter I was summarily evicted (despite there being only a No Cause Summary Eviction notice against my
commercial lease, something entirely probibited against under NRS 40.253. Not only was I denied my Sixth Amendment
Right to Counsel where jail time was a possibility (and where, I, in Iact was jailed, immediately). I was denied a
continuance in this matter despite a written assent to one by Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts and despite the Iact that the
Reno City Attorney was given one by my supposed appointed counsel Lew Taitel (whom is "associated with"
( http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html ) an entity that I happen to be suing Nevada Court Services, incident to the same
eviction proceeding Ior which Mr. Taitel did grant, and the RMC did grant, a continuance in the other RMC case against
me, the trespass action that was set Ior trial on December 13th, because Richard G. Hill, who I am also suing in
connection with the wrongIul eviction against, was going to be on vacation and the RMC apparently Iound that a good
reason Ior a continuance, compared to the RMC Ieeling my being eviction on or around November 13th, then wrongIully
arrested in connection with the eviction, under a trespass charge, and incarcerated Ior a number oI days, all while Richard
Hill applied an unlawIul rent distraint upon many exculpatory materials that would speak to a stated and express
retaliatory motive on the part oI Walmart and the RSIC, and other exculpatory materials being wrongIully withheld under
an unlawIul rent distraint by Richard G. Hill, Esq., the same person Mr. Taitel, the Reno City Attorney, and the RMC
decided deserved such sanctity applied to his monthlong vacation Irom Thanksgiving to New Year's to grant a
continuance, with no input Irom me.
FAILURE TO AFFORD SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL OR GRANT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL;
another DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL HEREBY MADE IN EVENT OF NEW TRIAL, SIMILARLY REQUEST FOR
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS HEREBY MADE AND SUPPORTED BY ATTACHED IFP PETITION
Custom Digest - 10 Headnotes
Rudin v. State, 86 P.3d 572
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110k911 k. Discretion oI court as to new trial.
Nev.,2004
Trial court exercises discretion when considering a motion Ior new trial.
Mortensen v. State, 986 P.2d 1105
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
5
179
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
Nev.,1999
Grant or denial oI a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is within the discretion oI
the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse oI that discretion.
Rippo v. State, 946 P.2d 1017
Nev.,1997
Whether to grant or deny motion Ior new trial is within trial court's discretion.
Domingues v. State, 917 P.2d 1364
Nev.,1996
Decision to grant or deny motion Ior new trial rests within sound discretion oI trial court and
will not be disturbed on appeal absent palpable abuse.
State v. Carroll, 860 P.2d 179
Nev.,1993
Generally, district court enjoys discretion in granting or denying motions Ior new trials.
State v. Sorenson, 315 P.2d 508
Nev.,1957
The discretion to set aside a judgment or to grant a new trial, aIter conviction, on ground oI
error which has resulted in a miscarriage oI justice or has actually prejudiced the deIendant in
respect to a substantial right, is vested in the trial court aIter its examination oI the entire case.
N.R.S. 169.110.
State v. Varga, 205 P.2d 803
Nev.,1949
In prosecution Ior homicide, denial oI deIendant's motion Ior new trial was within sound discretion
oI the court and was justiIied in view oI the evidence produced at the trial.
N.C.L.1929, 11032, as amended.
State v. St. Clair, 16 Nev. 207
Nev.,1881
The grant or reIusal oI a new trial Ior misconduct oI jurors is discretionary.
State v. Salge, 2 Nev. 321
Nev.,1866
Motion Ior new trial is addressed to trial court's sound discretion.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Rippo v. State, 946 P.2d 1017
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
6
180
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 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 913 Grounds Ior New Trial in General
110k913(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1997
Criminal deIendant's unsupported allegation that he learned aIter trial that trial judge had relationship
with business partner oI victim did not support Iinding that judge abused his discretion
in reIusing to disqualiIy himselI; accordingly, deIendant was not entitled to new trial.
Code oI Jud.Conduct, Canon 3 comment.
State v. Walker, 857 P.2d 1
Nev.,1993
Under Nevada law as it existed prior to eIIective date oI statute permitting entry oI judgment
oI acquittal iI evidence is insuIIicient to support conviction, district judge could grant new trial
Iollowing return oI guilty verdict where he or she disagreed with jury's resolution oI conIlicting
evidence, but not where there was insuIIicient evidence to support guilty verdict.
N.R.S. 175.381 , 176.515 ; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5 .
Hatten v. State, 435 P.2d 495
Nev.,1967
Appearance oI newspaper article aIter deIendants Iiled motion Ior new trial wherein mention
was made oI deIendants' request to discharge their attorney and wherein it was reported that
sheriII had said that he had not seen any signs oI withdrawal by one deIendant Irom narcotics
or alcoholism did not entitle deIendants to new trial. N.R.S. 175.535.
ReIerences
INCOMPETENT PRINCIPALS, COMPETENT THIRD PARTIES, AND THE LAW OF
AGENCY 61 Indiana Law Journal 115 (1986)
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Laney v. State, 466 P.2d 666
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110k915 k. DeIects in indictment or inIormation as ground Ior new trial.
Nev.,1970
Judgment will not be set aside or new trial granted in criminal case unless accused is able to
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
7
181
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
aIIirmatively demonstrate that inIormation is so insuIIicient that it results in miscarriage oI
justice or actually prejudices him in respect to a substantial right. N.R.S. 173.075 .
Garden v. State, 318 P.2d 652
Nev.,1957
In prosecution Ior statutory rape oI 12 year old girl, although evidence Iixed date oI crime as
May 21 rather than May 20 as charged in the inIormation, variance was not material and was
not ground Ior new trial where no attempt had been made to show newly discovered evidence.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
George v. State, 127 P.3d 1055
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 918 Errors and Irregularities in Conduct oI Trial
110k918(1) k. In general.
Nev.,2006
Indigent deIendant was entitled to transcripts oI trial Ior purposes oI direct appeal Irom multiple
convictions Ior sexual assault and lewdness with minor, and thereIore, destruction oI
transcripts and trial evidence by State necessitated new trial.
Domingues v. State, 917 P.2d 1364
Nev.,1996
Trial court's denial oI deIendant's motion Ior new trial which was based on remarks made by
deIendant's girlIriend during trial that deIendant had eluded law enIorcement in the past did
not constitute abuse oI discretion; statements were spontaneously uttered and there was no bad
Iaith on part oI prosecution regarding their elicitation, and admission oI statements was harmless
beyond reasonable doubt in light oI other admissible evidence that deIendant had several
previous encounters with law enIorcement oIIicials.
Lopez v. State, 769 P.2d 1276
Nev.,1989
Absence oI trial transcript Ior one day oI trial due to malIeasance oI court reporter did not
warrant new trial where testimony oI six witnesses who testiIied that day was reconstructed
through combination oI notes taken by two state trial counsel and was accepted by trial court
as Iair representation oI witnesses' testimony. Rules App.Proc., Rule 10(c) .
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
8
182
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
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Ouanbengboune v. State, 220 P.3d 1122
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 918 Errors and Irregularities in Conduct oI Trial
110k918(2) k. Irregularities aIIecting witnesses.
Nev.,2009
A non-English-speaking deIendant who discovers interpreter inaccuracies in the translation oI
trial testimony may Iile a post-trial motion to challenge the alleged inaccuracies made by the
court-appointed interpreter; iI there is a challenge to the interpreter's translation oI the trial
testimony, the challenging party should either move Ior a new trial, iI the translation inaccuracies
are discovered within the applicable time Irame, or, in the alternative, move to modiIy
or correct the trial record on appeal. West's NRSA 176.515 ; Rules App.Proc., Rule 10(c) .
Ouanbengboune v. State, 220 P.3d 1122
Nev.,2009
As Iirst oI three steps involved on a non-English-speaking deIendant's motion Ior new trial
based on alleged inaccuracies oI his translated trial testimony, each party should have its own
interpreter review the translated testimony Ior discrepancies; iI discrepancies exist, the deIendant
has the burden oI demonstrating the inaccuracy oI the translated testimony and that it
Iundamentally altered the substance oI his actual testimony. West's NRSA 176.515 .
Ouanbengboune v. State, 220 P.3d 1122
Nev.,2009
As second oI three steps involved on a non-English-speaking deIendant's motion Ior new trial
based on alleged inaccuracies oI his translated trial testimony, the district court should appoint
an independent and, iI available, certiIied court interpreter to review the translations; to determine
whether the deIendant has met his burden oI demonstrating the inaccuracy oI the
translated testimony, the district court must consider the disputed versions oI the testimony to
determine whether the alleged inaccuracies or omissions Iundamentally altered the context oI
the deIendant's testimony and whether the inaccuracies prejudiced the deIendant such that a
new trial is warranted. West's NRSA 176.515 .
ReIerences
Condition interIering with accused's view oI witness as violation oI right oI conIrontation 19
American Law Reports 4th 1286 (1983)
SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
9
183
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
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Walker v. State, 594 P.2d 710
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 918 Errors and Irregularities in Conduct oI Trial
110k918(3) k. Summoning, impaneling, and oath oI jury.
Nev.,1979
Determination oI what result should Iollow Iailure oI a juror to answer Iully a question touching
upon his qualiIications turns upon whether he was guilty oI an intentional concealment.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Kinna v. State, 447 P.2d 32
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 918 Errors and Irregularities in Conduct oI Trial
110k918(5) k. Remarks by judge.
Nev.,1968
Harassment oI counsel, prejudicial to his client, may require new trial.
ReIerences
Gestures, Iacial expressions, or other nonverbal communication oI trial judge in criminal case
as ground Ior relieI 45 American Law Reports 5th 531 (1997)
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Hartley, 40 P. 372
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 918 Errors and Irregularities in Conduct oI Trial
110k918(9) k. Absence oI deIendant or counsel.
Nev.,1895
Where the court permits the jury, on request oI deIendant, to view the premises where the
homicide is alleged to have occurred, the absence oI deIendant during the view by the jury is
no ground Ior new trial, iI deIendant made no request to be present.
10 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
184
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
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Steese v. State, 960 P.2d 321
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 919 Misconduct oI Counsel Ior Prosecution
110k919(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1998
Requirement that new trial be granted when witness intimidation by a prosecutor results in a
denial oI the deIendant's due process right to a Iair trial applies with equal Iorce to cases
where a prosecutor attempts to dissuade a witness Irom testiIying by misrepresenting the Iacts
oI the case. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 .
Roever v. State, 901 P.2d 145
Nev.,1995
Having Iound discovery violations by state, trial court was required to determine whether
state's Iailure to provide or advise deIendant as to existence oI copies or transcripts oI tape recorded
conversations with deIendant that it had in its possession and that were potentially exculpatory
prejudiced deIendant's right to Iair trial on Iirst-degree murder and marijuana possession
charges, so as to require new trial.
Hanley v. SheriII oI Clark County, 460 P.2d 162
Nev.,1969
Instruction by prosecutor to his witness to withhold signiIicant evidence Iavorable to accused
requires setting aside oI verdict.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Carroll, 860 P.2d 179
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 919 Misconduct oI Counsel Ior Prosecution
110k919(2) k. In examination oI witnesses.
Nev.,1993
Although prosecutor's reIerences to deIendant's in-custody status during prosecutor's
crossexamination
11 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
185
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
oI deIense witnesses were wholly inappropriate, especially in light oI district
court's grant oI motion in limine ordering state not to reIer to deIendant's pretrial incarceration,
trial court abused its discretion in granting new trial to deIendant, convicted oI lewdness
with a minor, since evidence oI deIendant's guilt was overwhelming; child did not waiver
Irom her allegations during direct or cross-examination, deIendant had spent several years in
prison Ior molesting seven-year-old girl, deIendant admitted, during police interview, that he
watched nine and ten-year-old girls because he Iound them sexually attractive, and deIendant's
Iormer co-worker testiIied that deIendant commented about sexual attractiveness oI young
girls.
ReIerences
Prejudicial eIIect oI statement by prosecutor that verdict, recommendation oI punishment, or
other Iinding by jury is subject to review or correction by other authorities 10 American Law
Reports 5th 700 (1993)
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
State v. Green, 400 P.2d 766
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 919 Misconduct oI Counsel Ior Prosecution
110k919(3) k. In argument in general.
Nev.,1965
Statement oI prosecutor to jury that they might inIer guilt oI robbery Irom Iact that deIendant
had $95, about one-halI oI proceeds oI robbery, in his possession immediately aIter crime did
not warrant new trial.
State v. Green, 400 P.2d 766
Nev.,1965
Argument oI district attorney that testimony oI state's witnesses had not been contradicted was
not ground Ior new trial as amounting to statement that deIendant could have brought in witnesses
but did not.
State v. Orr, 122 P. 73
Nev.,1912
The remarks oI a district attorney in his argument that deIendant lived with a prostitute, when
not justiIied by the evidence, held ground Ior a new trial.
12 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
186
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
ReIerences
Prejudicial eIIect oI statement by prosecutor that verdict, recommendation oI punishment, or
other Iinding by jury is subject to review or correction by other authorities 10 American Law
Reports 5th 700 (1993)
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Jukich, 242 P. 590
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110k920 k. Incompetency or neglect oI counsel Ior deIense.
Nev.,1926
New trial should not be granted Ior incompetency or neglect oI accused's counsel, unless accused
is prejudiced and deprived oI Iair trial.
ReIerences
Modern status oI rule as to test in Iederal court oI eIIective representation by counsel 26
American Law Reports, Federal 218 (1976)
Modern status oI rules and standards in state courts as to adequacy oI deIense counsel's
representation
oI criminal client 2 American Law Reports 4th 27 (1980)
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Harvey v. State, 375 P.2d 225
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 922 Instructions and Failure or ReIusal to Instruct
110k922(7) k. Objections and exceptions at trial.
Nev.,1962
New trial is warranted iI jury is misled by conIlicting instructions.
Custom Digest - 5 Headnotes
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
13 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
187
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
110 923 Competency oI Jurors and Challenges
110k923(2) k. Previous opinion, prejudice, or declaration.
Nev.,2003
Jurors who Iail to disclose inIormation or give Ialse inIormation during voir dire commit juror
misconduct, which, iI discovered aIter the verdict, may be grounds Ior a new trial under the
standards established Ior juror misconduct.
Echavarria v. State, 839 P.2d 589
Nev.,1992
Finding that juror had not intentionally concealed his prior involvement as victim oI assault
was not abuse oI discretion, so that deIendant was not entitled to new trial on ground oI juror
misconduct, where juror indicated that he considered prior incident, not as assault, but as Iight
between himselI and other participants.
Hall v. State, 513 P.2d 1244
Nev.,1973
That home oI one oI jurors was burglarized during Iirst day oI trial oI burglary case and that
such Iact had been communicated to another juror did not entitle accused to new trial, absent
showing oI prejudice on part oI any juror. N.R.S. 16.050 , 16.050 , subd. 1(g), 16.060,
175.071, 175.121, subd. 4.
State v. Marks, 15 Nev. 33
Nev.,1880
It is no ground Ior a new trial that, aIter a verdict oI guilty, the accused ascertains that a juror,
beIore the impaneling, had Iormed and expressed an opinion oI guilt.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
State v. Harvey, 148 P.2d 820
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 923 Competency oI Jurors and Challenges
110k923(9) k. Necessity oI objections at trial.
Nev.,1944
Objection to competency oI a juror cannot be taken by accused Ior Iirst time aIter verdict and
relied upon as ground oI motion Ior new trial. Comp.Laws, 10940, 11032.
State v. Harvey, 148 P.2d 820
14 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
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
Nev.,1944
Where accused Ior Iirst time in his motion Ior new trial challenged juror because oI previous
conviction oI Ielony, motion Ior new trial was properly denied, since challenge was not timely
made, notwithstanding that such Iact was not known to accused until aIter verdict, where juror
did not endeavor to conceal disqualiIication. Comp.Laws, 10940, 11032.
State v. Anderson, 4 Nev. 265
Nev.,1868
II deIendant accepts a juror without objection, whom he knows or might have known to have
Iormed and expressed an unqualiIied opinion as to his guilt, he cannot, aIter verdict, raise an
objection on that account.
Custom Digest - 19 Headnotes
Zana v. State, 216 P.3d 244
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110 925 In General
110k925(1) k. In general.
Nev.,2009
To justiIy a new trial on the ground oI juror misconduct, a deIendant must, through admissible
evidence, demonstrate the nature oI the juror misconduct and that there is a reasonable probability
that it aIIected the verdict.
Valdez v. State, 196 P.3d 465
Nev.,2008
A new trial must be granted due to intrinsic juror misconduct unless it appears, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that no prejudice has resulted Irom the jury misconduct.
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
Not every incidence oI juror misconduct requires the granting oI a motion Ior a new trial,
since each case turns on its own Iacts, and on the degree and pervasiveness oI the prejudicial
inIluence possibly resulting.
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
15 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
189
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
Once a deIendant has established occurrence oI juror misconduct and a showing that the misconduct
was prejudicial, the trial court should grant a motion Ior new trial; prejudice is shown
whenever there is a reasonable probability or likelihood that the juror misconduct aIIected the
verdict.
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
The Iactors used to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that juror misconduct
aIIected a verdict are instructive only and not dispositive.
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
The district court, Ior purposes oI a claim oI juror misconduct, must determine whether the
average, hypothetical juror would be inIluenced by the juror misconduct.
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100
Nev.,2002
Not every incidence oI juror misconduct requires a new trial; iI it appears beyond a reasonable
doubt that no prejudice occurred, a new trial is unnecessary.
Tanksley v. State, 946 P.2d 148
Nev.,1997
Not every incidence oI juror misconduct requires grant oI new trial; new trial need not be
granted iI it appears beyond reasonable doubt that no prejudice occurred.
White v. State, 926 P.2d 291
Nev.,1996
Remarks reportedly made by juror during penalty deliberations, likening deIendant to a
'gorilla, a baboon, a native tribesman, did not require that jury's verdict in guilt phase be set
aside.
Roever v. State, 901 P.2d 145
Nev.,1995
Not every incidence oI contact between jurors and witnesses requires granting oI motion Ior
new trial.
Lane v. State, 881 P.2d 1358
Nev.,1994
Not every incidence oI jury misconduct requires granting oI motion Ior new trial.
Lane v. State, 881 P.2d 1358
16 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
190
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
Nev.,1994
New trial on ground oI juror misconduct must be granted unless it appears beyond reasonable
doubt that no prejudice has resulted and it is Ior trial court to determine in the Iirst instance
whether juror misconduct has resulted in prejudice to litigant and its judgment thereon will
not be overturned unless abuse oI discretion is maniIest.
Lopez v. State, 769 P.2d 1276
Nev.,1989
Failure oI jurors in prosecution Ior murder by torture oI Iour-year-old stepdaughter to disclose
on voir dire that they had been abused as children did not constitute misconduct warranting
new trial where there was no intentional concealment, despite contention that jurors would not
accept as correct deIense theory that child's mother, as abused child herselI, became abuser oI
the victim.
Hui v. State, 738 P.2d 892
Nev.,1987
Not every instance oI juror misconduct requires granting motion Ior new trial oI criminal
charges.
State v. Thacker, 596 P.2d 508
Nev.,1979
A motion Ior new trial may be premised on juror misconduct where such misconduct is readily
ascertainable Irom objective Iacts and overt conduct without regard to the state oI mind
and mental processes oI any juror.
Barker v. State, 594 P.2d 719
Nev.,1979
Not every incident oI jury misconduct requires granting oI a motion Ior new trial.
Lewis v. State, 588 P.2d 541
Nev.,1978
DeIendants were not entitled to a new trial because three jurors discussed the testimony and
evidence adduced at trial beIore the case had been submitted to them Ior deliberation, where
the three jurors, at hearing on new trial motion, testiIied that his or her decision was based
solely on the evidence presented at trial, and where the record Iailed to indicate that a discussion
either aIIected the jurors' deliberations or otherwise prejudiced deIendants' right to a Iair
trial.
Parsons v. State, 329 P.2d 1070
17 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
191
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
Nev.,1958
In murder prosecution, where no objection was made during trial and jury was duly cautioned
by court not to separate, nor to allow any person to talk to them about case, Iact that deputy
sheriII had not been administered oIIicial oath Ior his care oI jury during adjournment Ior
meals, or until night case was committed to jury, did not obligate court to set aside verdict and
grant new trial as matter oI law.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Murray v. State, 2009 WL 3190366
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110 925 5 Considering Matters Not in Evidence
110k925.5(1) k. In general.
Nev.,2009
DeIendant was not entitled to new trial in prosecution Ior attempted murder with the use oI a
deadly weapon and discharging a weapon at a vehicle based on alleged jury misconduct; juror's
unique purported knowledge, as to Iact that incident was allegedly gang related event, did
not constitute juror misconduct.
Rowbottom v. State, 779 P.2d 934
Nev.,1989
Juror misconduct in Iirst-degree murder trial, in which juror conducted independent investigation
to determine whether victim could have exited vehicle with her hands bound as deIendant
claimed, measured driving times between various locations to determine whether deIendant at
one point could have returned to his apartment, visited murder scene and compared gravel
there with that depicted in pictures oI victim's body, and engaged in communication with victim's
parents, was prejudicial error which entitled deIendant to new trial, even though juror allegedly
did not share her Iindings with other jurors until penalty phase oI trial.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Rowbottom v. State, 779 P.2d 934
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
18 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
192
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
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110 925 5 Considering Matters Not in Evidence
110k925.5(2) k. Visiting or viewing place oI crime.
Nev.,1989
Juror misconduct in Iirst-degree murder trial, in which juror conducted independent investigation
to determine whether victim could have exited vehicle with her hands bound as deIendant
claimed, measured driving times between various locations to determine whether deIendant at
one point could have returned to his apartment, visited murder scene and compared gravel
there with that depicted in pictures oI victim's body, and engaged in communication with victim's
parents, was prejudicial error which entitled deIendant to new trial, even though juror allegedly
did not share her Iindings with other jurors until penalty phase oI trial.
Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693
Nev.,1987
Juror's act oI visiting accident scene some 17 months aIter accident, and relating her observations
that deIendant's theory, that rough road and poor conditions oI truck would have resulted
in accident regardless oI whether deIendant was drinking, was unbelievable, constituted juror
misconduct, inasmuch as juror essentially became witness Ior prosecution not subject to
crossexamination
regarding weather and road conditions, and thus new trial Ior deIendant convicted
oI Ielony driving while under inIluence was warranted.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Bushnell v. State, 599 P.2d 1038
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110 925 5 Considering Matters Not in Evidence
110k925.5(3) k. Statements by jurors during deliberation.
Nev.,1979
Where, during deliberations and in response to jurors' questions, judge sent note to Ioreman
explaining that jury was conIined to record and instructions given and that it would be improper
Ior court to advise jurors on matters oI evidence or testimony, iI, as alleged, the Ioreman
read note silently and then inIormed other jurors that judge's answer was that, iI deIendant
19 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
193
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
was present during robbery, he should be convicted, deIendant would be entitled to new
trial, unless it appeared beyond reasonable doubt that no prejudice resulted. N.R.S. 48.025 ,
50.065 , subd. 2.
Walker v. State, 594 P.2d 710
Nev.,1979
Denying motion Ior new trial based on juror misconduct was not error, notwithstanding that
juror remarked during deliberations that he had been involved in a situation where robbers had
ordered him to lie on Iloor, where juror had not intentionally concealed a material Iact relating
to his qualiIications, but had given truthIul responses on voir dire, and where statement attributed
to juror during deliberations did not improperly inIluence jury or taint its verdict.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Sollars v. State, 319 P.2d 139
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110 925 5 Considering Matters Not in Evidence
110k925.5(4) k. Access to or reading newspapers.
Nev.,1957
In murder prosecution, where prejudice resulted Irom the action oI the trial court upon the
ground oI prejudicial newspaper coverage at the trial, it was a proper subject oI motion Ior
new trial, and a motion Ior mistrial was not a necessary prerequisite.
State v. Anderson, 4 Nev. 265
Nev.,1868
During the progress oI a murder trial, and while the court had taken a recess, the jury were in
the court house in charge oI the sheriII, and one oI the jurymen, standing near a window, saw
a newspaper in the hands oI a person near the window on the outside oI the court house, and
asked him Ior it. The party addressed handed up the paper to the juror saying no more than
'You are welcome. The juror glanced over the paper and then handed it back. Held, that this
was not such misconduct in the juror as would entitle deIendant to a new trial.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408
20 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
194
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 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110k926 k. Use oI intoxicating liquors.
Nev.,1872
The use oI intoxicating liquors by the jury, or a juror, is not ground Ior a new trial, in the absence
oI any showing that injurious consequences resulted thereIrom.
State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408
Nev.,1872
A judge at nisi prius should never hesitate to set aside a verdict, in a criminal case, where
there is even a suspicion that any juror was in the least aIIected by intoxicating liquor during
the progress oI the trial or the deliberation upon the verdict.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Parsons v. State, 329 P.2d 1070
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110 927 Separation
110k927(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1958
Where state established that there was no tampering with or misconduct on part oI juror, separation
oI jurors during murder trial was not suIIicient ground Ior new trial.
Sollars v. State, 319 P.2d 139
Nev.,1957
Fact oI communication to a jury which has been permitted to separate should be brought to the
attention oI the trial court through appropriate motion Ior relieI.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Harris, 12 Nev. 414
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
21 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
195
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 Separation
110k927(2) k. Separation aIter submission oI case.
Nev.,1877
The mere Iact that a juror was temporarily separated Irom the jury during their deliberations is
not ground Ior a new trial iI deIendant could not have been prejudiced thereby.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Parsons v. State, 329 P.2d 1070
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110 927 Separation
110k927(5) k. Presumptions and burden oI prooI as to eIIect oI separation.
Nev.,1958
II jury in murder case is allowed to separate under conditions indicating possibility oI improper
communication, burden is upon state to show that such separation was not prejudicial.
Sollars v. State, 319 P.2d 139
Nev.,1957
No prejudice could result or be presumed Irom separation oI jury in a murder prosecution in
the absence oI a communication.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Roever v. State, 901 P.2d 145
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110k928 k. Communications by or with jurors.
Nev.,1995
New trial was required on Iirst-degree murder and marijuana possession charges as result oI
contact between jurors and prosecution witness, in light oI district court's Iinding that it could
not be said with any degree oI certainty that contacts had no eIIect on verdicts.
Roever v. State, 901 P.2d 145
Nev.,1995
22 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
196
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
New trial must be granted based upon contact between jurors and witnesses, unless it appears,
beyond reasonable doubt, that no prejudice has resulted.
Roever v. State, 901 P.2d 145
Nev.,1995
In determining whether contact between jurors and witnesses warrants new trial, the trial court
determines whether litigant has been prejudiced, and its judgment will not be overturned unless
abuse oI discretion is maniIest.
ReIerences
Stranger's alleged communications with juror, other than threat oI violence, as prejudicial in
Iederal criminal prosecution 131 American Law Reports, Federal 465 (1996)
Threats oI violence against juror in criminal trial as ground Ior mistrial or dismissal oI juror 3
American Law Reports 5th 963 (1992)
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Larkin, 11 Nev. 314
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110k930 k. Misconduct oI bystanders.
Nev.,1876
That the audience in the court room once commenced to applaud the district attorney, which
the presiding judge promptly suppressed, is not a ground Ior reversing a conviction, no prejudice
being shown.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Sollars v. State, 319 P.2d 139
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110k931 k. Necessity oI objection at trial.
Nev.,1957
In murder prosecution, where prejudice resulted Irom the action oI the trial court upon the
ground oI prejudicial newspaper coverage at the trial, it was a proper subject oI motion Ior
23 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
197
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
new trial, and a motion Ior mistrial was not a necessary prerequisite.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Jones v. State, 2010 WL 4514363
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 924 Misconduct oI or AIIecting Jurors
110k932 k. EIIect as to result.
Nev.,2010
DeIendant convicted oI burglary was not entitled to new trial aIter allegedly discovering juror's
vote to convict was inIluenced by overhearing police oIIicer reIer to deIendant's criminal
history, where there was overwhelming evidence oI deIendant's guilt, and deIendant Iailed to
demonstrate that juror in question was actually exposed to prejudicial extrinsic evidence.
West's NRSA 176.515 .
State v. Green, 400 P.2d 766
Nev.,1965
Statement oI unidentiIied juror, aIter rendition oI verdict and dismissal oI jury, that 'the dirty
nigger got what he deserved was not 'misconduct oI jury'tending to prevent Iair and due
consideration oI case within statute providing Ior new trials in criminal cases. N.R.S.
175.535, subd. 3.See publication Words and Phrases Ior other judicial constructions and deIinitions.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Hargrove v. State, 686 P.2d 222
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110k933 k. Irregularities or deIects in verdict as ground Ior new trial.
Nev.,1984
A deIendant whose guilt is predicated upon a verdict may raise a postconviction challenge to
the verdict's validity by means oI a motion Ior new trial, and has the right to appeal Irom an
order reIusing such relieI. N.R.S. 177.015 .
Isbell v. State, 626 P.2d 1274
Nev.,1981
AIter jury has given its verdicts, has been polled in open court and has been discharged, individual
24 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
198
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
juror's change oI mind or claim that he was mistaken or unwilling to assent to verdict
comes too late and does not warrant granting oI new trial.
Custom Digest - 14 Headnotes
Yowell v. State, 2010 WL 4537749
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 935 Verdict Contrary to Evidence
110k935(1) k. Weight and suIIiciency oI evidence in general.
Nev.,2010
District court did not abuse its discretion by denying deIendant's motion Ior new trial on basis
oI conIlicting evidence in prosecution Ior robbery with the use oI a deadly weapon, kidnapping
in the Iirst degree with the use oI a deadly weapon, and sexual assault with the use oI a
deadly weapon, although some oI the evidence could have been conIlicting; evidence was not
so at odds with the verdict that the totality oI evidence Iailed to prove the deIendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evans v. State, 926 P.2d 265
Nev.,1996
'Other grounds Ior grant oI new trial exist where trial judge Iinds that evidence oI guilt is
conIlicting, and aIter independent evaluation oI evidence disagrees with jury's verdict oI
guilty. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 4.See publication Words and Phrases Ior other judicial constructions
and deIinitions.
Evans v. State, 926 P.2d 265
Nev.,1996
ConIlict oI evidence warranting grant oI new trial occurs where there is suIIicient evidence
presented at trial which, iI believed, would sustain conviction, but evidence is contested and
district judge, in resolving conIlicting evidence diIIerently Irom jury, believes totality oI evidence
Iails to prove deIendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 4.
Evans v. State, 926 P.2d 265
Nev.,1996
District court lacks authority to grant new trial based on insuIIiciency oI evidence, and when
there is truly insuIIicient evidence to convict, deIendant must be acquitted. N.R.S. 176.515 ,
subd. 4.
25 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
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
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276
Nev.,1994
There was conIlict in the evidence so as to permit trial court to grant new trial to deIendant
convicted on charges oI lewdness with minor and sexual assault where victim's testimony was
state's only evidence and the deIense, on cross-examination, brought out inconsistencies in
victim's testimony, put on its own witnesses to testiIy about victim's untruthIulness and her
motivation to lie about deIendant with whom she and her mother lived so that victim could go
live with her Iather, and introduced evidence showing lack oI opportunity Ior deIendant to
have committed crimes at time and in manner that victim described. N.R.S. 176.515 .
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276
Nev.,1994
Totality oI the evidence evaluation is standard Ior district court to use in deciding whether to
grant new trial based on independent evaluation oI conIlicting evidence. N.R.S. 176.515 .
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276
Nev.,1994
In contrast to conIlicting evidence as basis Ior granting new trial, insuIIiciency oI the evidence
as basis Ior granting new trial occurs when prosecution has not produced minimum
threshold oI evidence upon which conviction may be based, even iI such evidence were believed
by jury. N.R.S. 176.515 .
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276
Nev.,1994
Under amended statute stating that court may set aside verdict and enter judgment oI acquittal
iI evidence is insuIIicient to sustain conviction, district court may not grant new trial based on
Iinding that there is insuIIicient evidence to support jury verdict; iI there is truly insuIIicient
evidence, deIendant must be acquitted. N.R.S. 175.381 .
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276
Nev.,1994
Although district court termed evidence 'insuIIicient, thorough reading oI its decision revealed
that district court did not Iind evidence insuIIicient as a matter oI law to support verdict,
but instead Iound that it was conIlicting and that verdict was not based on substantial
evidence and thus, district court's order granting new trial was proper. N.R.S. 176.515 .
State v. Walker, 857 P.2d 1
Nev.,1993
26 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
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
Under Nevada law as it existed prior to eIIective date oI statute permitting entry oI judgment
oI acquittal iI evidence is insuIIicient to support conviction, district judge could grant new trial
Iollowing return oI guilty verdict where he or she disagreed with jury's resolution oI conIlicting
evidence, but not where there was insuIIicient evidence to support guilty verdict.
N.R.S. 175.381 , 176.515 ; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5 .
Washington v. State, 655 P.2d 531
Nev.,1982
Trial judge was not compelled by law to deny motion Ior new trial Ior insuIIiciency oI evidence.
N.R.S. 176.515 , 176.515 , subds. 1, 3, 4.
Azbill v. State, 495 P.2d 1064
Nev.,1972
II there is substantial evidence to support a jury verdict, neither trial court nor Supreme Court
may disturb it.
State v. Lewis, 91 P.2d 820
Nev.,1939
In prosecution Ior involuntary manslaughter, where victim was struck by automobile driven
by deIendant and evidence tended to show that deIendant was guilty oI several traIIic law violations,
Supreme Court could not say that reIusal oI new trial was an abuse oI trial court's
discretion.
Custom Digest - 34 Headnotes
Mortensen v. State, 986 P.2d 1105
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 938 In General
110k938(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1999
Newly discovered evidence, that a State witness/police oIIicer had explained his alleged behavior
in coercing a Iemale arrestee to perIorm an illicit sex act by stating that he was 'evil or
an 'evil man did not warrant a new trial Ior a murder deIendant who claimed that the witness
was the shooter, and that aIter the shooting the witness had described himselI as 'evil; statement
had no connection to the circumstances oI the murder, it neither exculpated deIendant
27 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
201
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 inculpated witness, its admissibility was questionable, and the arrestee had changed her
story about her arrest several times.
Mortensen v. State, 986 P.2d 1105
Nev.,1999
To establish a claim Ior a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the deIendant must
show that the evidence is: newly discovered; material to the deIense; such that even with the
exercise oI reasonable diligence it could not have been discovered and produced Ior trial;
noncumulative;
such as to render a diIIerent result probable upon retrial; not only an attempt to
contradict, impeach, or discredit a Iormer witness, unless the witness is so important that a
diIIerent result would be reasonably probable; and the best evidence the case admits.
Mortensen v. State, 986 P.2d 1105
Nev.,1999
Newly discovered evidence, that a third party/police oIIicer had heard a State witness/police
oIIicer reIer to himselI as 'evil did not warrant a new trial Ior a murder deIendant who
claimed that the witness was the shooter, and that aIter the shooting the witness had described
himselI as 'evil; statement had no connection to the circumstances oI the murder, it neither
exculpated deIendant nor inculpated witness, and its admissibility was questionable.
Mortensen v. State, 986 P.2d 1105
Nev.,1999
Newly discovered evidence, a letter and two notes written by the State's Iirearms expert, did
not justiIy a new trial in a murder prosecution; even iI the letter showed that the expert
provided conIusing testimony, introduction oI the letter at a new trial would simply have been
an attempt to discredit the expert, and the notes, even iI they indicated the possible existence
oI another gun, would not have rendered a diIIerent result probable on retrial, as deIendant
testiIied that his gun was the murder weapon.
Mortensen v. State, 986 P.2d 1105
Nev.,1999
Newly discovered evidence, the testimony oI a police oIIicer beIore a Iederal jury, stating that
an oIIicer who was a State witness in deIendant's murder trial 'had mentioned several times
the Iact about going and doing a drive-by or something like that nature, did not warrant a
new trial, despite deIendant's theory that the witness was the shooter; all oI the eyewitnesses
testiIied that the passenger in a truck was the actual shooter, and it was undisputed that deIendant
28 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
202
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
was the passenger, and it was undisputed that the murder weapon was deIendant's oIIduty
gun.
Hennie v. State, 968 P.2d 761
Nev.,1998
Grant or denial oI a new trial on the ground oI newly discovered evidence is within the discretion
oI the trial court. N.R.S. 176.515 .
Hennie v. State, 968 P.2d 761
Nev.,1998
General standard Ior a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is that: (1) the evidence
must be newly discovered; (2) it must be material to the deIense; (3) it could not have been
discovered and produced Ior trial even with the exercise oI reasonable diligence; (4) it must
not be cumulative; (5) it must indicate that a diIIerent result is probable on retrial; (6) it must
not simply be an attempt to contradict or discredit a Iormer witness; and (7) it must be the best
evidence the case admits. N.R.S. 176.515 .
Walker v. State, 944 P.2d 762
Nev.,1997
Grant or denial oI new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence is within discretion oI
trial court.
Walker v. State, 944 P.2d 762
Nev.,1997
To establish basis Ior a new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence, the evidence must
be: newly discovered; material to the deIense; such that even with the exercise oI reasonable
diligence it could not have been discovered and produced Ior trial; non-cumulative; such as to
render a diIIerent result probable upon retrial; not only an attempt to contradict, impeach, or
discredit a Iormer witness, unless the witness is so important that a diIIerent result would be
reasonably probable; and the best evidence the case admits.
Funches v. State, 944 P.2d 775
Nev.,1997
Grant or denial oI new trial on basis oI newly-discovered evidence is within trial court's discretion
and will not be reversed on appeal absent its abuse. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 1.
Funches v. State, 944 P.2d 775
Nev.,1997
For new trial on basis oI newly-discovered evidence, the evidence must be newly discovered;
29 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
203
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
material to deIense; incapable oI discovery and production even with exercise oI reasonable
diligence; non-cumulative; capable oI rendering diIIerent result probable upon retrial; more
than attempt to contradict, impeach, or discredit Iormer witness, unless witness is so important
that diIIerent result would be reasonably probable; and the best evidence case admits. N.R.S.
176.515 , subd. 1.
Jones v. State, 837 P.2d 1349
Nev.,1992
Evidence that codeIendant would have testiIied on deIendant's behalI had police not coerced
his silence constituted newly discovered evidence on which deIendant's motion Ior new trial
should have been granted. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 1.
Sanborn v. State, 812 P.2d 1279
Nev.,1991
Grant or denial oI new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence is within trial court's discretion
and will not be reversed on appeal absent its abuse. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 1.
Sanborn v. State, 812 P.2d 1279
Nev.,1991
To establish basis Ior new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence, evidence must be:
newly discovered; material to the deIense; such that even with the exercise oI reasonable diligence
it could not have been discovered and produced Ior trial; noncumulative; such as to
render a diIIerent result probable upon retrial; not only an attempt to contradict, impeach, or
discredit a Iormer witness, unless the witness is so important that a diIIerent result would be
reasonably probable; and the best evidence the case admits. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 1.
Young v. State, 737 P.2d 512
Nev.,1987
Denial oI deIendant's motion Ior new trial based on claim oI newly discovered evidence about
alleged accomplice in murder was not abuse oI discretion, where deIendant knew oI accomplice's
alleged involvement prior to trial, and evidence was not likely to produce diIIerent results
upon retrial.
McCabe v. State, 655 P.2d 536
Nev.,1982
In prosecution Ior murder, trial court did not err in reIusing to grant deIendant new trial on
basis oI newly discovered evidence where evidence proIIered by deIendant did not satisIy
requirements
30 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
204
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
Ior new trial.
Cutler v. State, 596 P.2d 216
Nev.,1979
Testimony oI deIendant's companion was cumulative, partially inculpatory, and would not
cause jury to reach diIIerent result, and thus it was not abuse oI discretion Iollowing conviction
Ior Iirst-degree murder to deny deIendant's motion Ior new trial based on alleged newly
discovered evidence.
McLemore v. State, 577 P.2d 871
Nev.,1978
For new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence, evidence must be newly discovered,
must be material to movant's deIense, must be such that it could not with reasonable diligence
have been discovered and produced Ior trial, must not be cumulative, must be such as to
render diIIerent result probable upon retrial, must not attempt only to contradict Iormer witness
or impeach or discredit him, unless such witness is so important that diIIerent result must
Iollow, and such Iacts must be shown by the best evidence the case admits.
Porter v. State, 576 P.2d 275
Nev.,1978
Where evidence proIIered by deIendant in support oI new trial motion, even iI material, was
not newly discovered but could have been presented at trial by the exercise oI reasonable diligence
and where the evidence was cumulative and corroborative and not such as to render a
diIIerent result probable upon retrial, evidence did not require a new trial. N.R.S. 176.515 .
Porter v. State, 576 P.2d 275
Nev.,1978
Where alleged newly discovered evidence, adduced in support oI new trial motion, consisted
essentially oI a purported polygraph examination in which a third party allegedly truthIully
admitted committing the robbery Ior which deIendant was convicted and the aIIidavit oI a
court-appointed investigator stating that the third party had admitted committing the robbery,
alleged newly discovered evidence did not meet guidelines Ior granting a new trial. N.R.S.
176.515 .
Porter v. State, 576 P.2d 275
Nev.,1978
Whether to grant a new trial on grounds oI newly discovered evidence is discretionary and tri-
al court's decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse oI discretion. N.R.S.
31 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
205
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
176.515 .
LightIord v. State, 538 P.2d 585
Nev.,1975
Granting a new trial in criminal cases on the ground oI newly discovered evidence is largely
discretionary with the trial court and that court's determination will not be reversed on appeal
unless abuse oI discretion is clearly shown.
LightIord v. State, 538 P.2d 585
Nev.,1975
To establish basis Ior new trial, newly discovered evidence must be newly discovered, material
to the deIense, such that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and
produced Ior trial, not cumulative, such as to render a diIIerent result probable upon retrial,
not based upon contradiction or impeachment oI a Iormer witness unless the witness impeached
is so important that a diIIerent result must Iollow, and the best evidence oI which the
case admits.
LightIord v. State, 538 P.2d 585
Nev.,1975
Newly discovered evidence which showed that deIendant, who was convicted oI unlawIul
possession oI heroin, was merely Iurnished with an opportunity to commit the crime by husband
oI person to whom deIendant had Iurnished narcotics on at least Iive or six occasions did
not entitle deIendant to new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence oI entrapment.
Oliver v. State, 456 P.2d 431
Nev.,1969
To justiIy new trial, newly discovered evidence must be (1) newly discovered, (2) material to
deIense, (3) such that it could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced
Ior trial, (4) not cumulative, (5) such as to render diIIerent result probable on retrial,
and (6) not an attempt only to contradict Iormer witness or impeach or discredit him, unless
witness impeached is so important that diIIerent result must Iollow. N.R.S. 176.515 .
Oliver v. State, 456 P.2d 431
Nev.,1969
DeIendant in narcotics possession prosecution was not entitled to new trial on basis oI testimony
by witness, who had pleaded guilty to same oIIense had not yet been sentenced, that
witness, Ior Iear oI jeopardizing his probation possibilities, had not testiIied but would have
testiIied that he had obtained heroin Irom third person, where third person testiIied on motion
32 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
206
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 had not given heroin to witness, since it was not shown that evidence could not have
been discovered with reasonable diligence and diIIerent result was not probable. N.R.S.
176.515 .
Oliver v. State, 456 P.2d 431
Nev.,1969
DeIendant was not entitled to new trial in narcotics prosecution on ground that witness, who
had pleaded guilty to same oIIense but had not yet been sentenced, had been unwilling to give
exonerating testimony Ior Iear oI jeopardizing probation possibilities and had instead claimed
privilege, where deIendant did not make eIIort to test correctness oI witness's assertion oI
privilege.
State v. Crockett, 444 P.2d 896
Nev.,1968
Trial court properly exercised its discretion granting a new trial on basis oI newly discovered
evidence to deIendant convicted oI murder where aIter trial individual, who could not be
Iound by police during trial, revealed that he was the person seen leaving murder site with a
gun rather than deIendant as witnesses had testiIied. N.R.S. 175.535, subd. 7.
Burton v. State, 437 P.2d 861
Nev.,1968
To satisIy statute allowing new trial on basis oI newly discovered evidence there must be a
Iactual showing that newly discovered evidence could not have been obtained through diligence
prior to trial, and that it would have the probable eIIect oI a diIIerent verdict on retrial.
N.R.S. 175.535.
Burton v. State, 437 P.2d 861
Nev.,1968
DeIendant charged with robbery was not entitled to a new trial on grounds oI newly discovered
evidence, which allegedly consisted oI admission by codeIendant which purported to
exculpate deIendant, as well as an aIIidavit oI deIendant's attorney relating to circumstances
and time oI discovery oI the new evidence, since Iact that codeIendant was known beIore and
during trial to all other parties and their counsel as a source oI evidence as to commission oI
the robberies could not be reIuted Irom the record. N.R.S. 175.535.
Pacheco v. State, 408 P.2d 715
Nev.,1965
Statute authorizing court to grant new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence requires
33 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
207
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
Iactual showing that evidence is newly discovered, material to deIense and could not with
reasonable diligence have been discovered and procured Ior trial and conclusions will not suIIice.
N.R.S. 175.535. subd. 7.
Pacheco v. State, 408 P.2d 715
Nev.,1965
Motion Ior new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence calls Ior exercise oI discretion
by trial court and, on review, inquiry is whether an abuse oI discretion has occurred. N.R.S.
169.110, 175.535, subd. 7.
State v. McNeil, 4 P.2d 889
Nev.,1931
Motion Ior new trial Ior newly discovered evidence is addressed to court's discretion.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Servin v. State, 32 P.3d 1277
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 938 In General
110k938(2) k. What constitutes newly discovered evidence in general.
Nev.,2001
InIormation in possession oI one witness that an admitted accomplice in murder, who also
testiIied at deIendant's trial, had conIessed to the murder, was not newly discovered evidence
entitling deIendant to new trial, despite deIendant's contention that accomplice's testimony
was so crucial that his impeachment would have necessitated diIIerent verdict, and that he had
been precluded Irom subpoenaing witness to testiIy, where state disclosed accomplice's admission
to witness nearly nine months prior to trial. N.R.S. 176.515 .
Biondi v. State, 699 P.2d 1062
Nev.,1985
AIIidavit Irom codeIendant stating that he alone stabbed victim and that he had lied at trial
when he disclaimed any responsibility Ior the killing did not constitute 'newly discovered
evidence or evidence which would probably change result at trial, so as to entitle deIendant
to new trial, where codeIendant's statements exculpating deIendant had been presented to the
jury and had been rejected. N.R.S. 176.515(1) .See publication Words and Phrases Ior other
34 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
208
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
judicial constructions and deIinitions.
Mannon v. State, 645 P.2d 433
Nev.,1982
Testimony by deIendant's girl Iriend in which she admitted that she had been one who Iurnished
marijuana to boys did not constitute newly discovered evidence that entitled deIendant
to a new trial where deIense counsel had been given this inIormation on night oI Iirst trial day
but was asked 'not to tell because girl Iriend was aIraid deIendant would be angry with her
Ior her disclosure. N.R.S. 176.515 .
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Hilt v. State, 541 P.2d 645
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 938 In General
110k938(3) k. Facts within knowledge oI deIendant.
Nev.,1975
DeIendant was not entitled to new trial on basis oI newly discovered evidence consisting oI
statements made by prosecution witness against deIendant, inasmuch as deIense counsel had
been well aware oI the Iacts during trial and some oI the statements had been made to deIendant.
N.R.S. 176.515 .
State v. Fouquette, 221 P.2d 404
Nev.,1950
ReIusal oI court to grant new trial upon ground oI newly discovered evidence was proper
where such evidence related to mental and physical condition oI accused long prior to murder
which was known to accused and his counsel beIore trial.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
D'Agostino v. State, 915 P.2d 264
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 939 Diligence
35 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
209
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
110k939(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1996
To merit new trial, newly discovered evidence must be evidence that could not have been discovered
through reasonable diligence either beIore or during trial.
Callier v. Warden, Nevada Women's Correctional Center, 901 P.2d 619
Nev.,1995
In assessing cases involving possible perjury at trial, whether in context oI new trial motion or
habeas petition, trial court should order new trial based on witness recantation only iI the Iollowing
criteria are met: (1) court is satisIied that trial testimony oI material witnesses was
Ialse; (2) evidence showing that Ialse testimony was introduced at trial is newly discovered;
(3) evidence could not have been discovered and produced Ior trial even with exercise oI reasonable
diligence; and (4) it is probable that had Ialse testimony not been admitted, diIIerent
result would have occurred at trial.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
State v. McNeil, 4 P.2d 889
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110k940 k. Materiality.
Nev.,1931
Mere admissibility oI newly discovered evidence is not suIIicient to justiIy new trial iI it does
not appear that evidence possesses requisite materiality.
State v. Soares, 296 P. 1081
Nev.,1931
DeIendant held not entitled to new trial Ior robbery on ground oI newly discovered evidence
to eIIect that prosecuting witness believed deIendant's associate robbed witness on spur oI
moment and that deIendant had nothing to do with robbery.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Pacheco v. State, 408 P.2d 715
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
36 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
210
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
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 941 Cumulative Evidence
110k941(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1965
Newly discovered evidence which is cumulative may not be enough to warrant another trial.
N.R.S. 175.535, subd. 7.
O'Briant v. State, 295 P.2d 396
Nev.,1956
In prosecution Ior arson based on allegedly incendiary origin oI Iire in rear room oI deIendant's
store, denial oI new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence that polishing cloths
stored in rear room were subject to spontaneous combustion was not abuse oI discretion, since
such evidence was merely cumulative in view oI Iact that jury was well aware that inIlammable
and combustible materials were present in room and oI deIendant's theory that such materials
caused Iire.
State v. Randolph, 242 P. 697
Nev.,1926
New trial Ior newly discovered cumulative evidence properly reIused.
Custom Digest - 11 Headnotes
O'Neill v. State, 2008 WL 6102001
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 942 Impeachment oI Witness
110k942(1) k. In general.
Nev.,2008
DeIendant was not entitled to new trial on charges oI possession oI Iorged instruments based
on alleged newly discovered evidence concerning probation oIIicer's Ialse report oI receipt oI
negative urine sample Irom deIendant and his subsequent Iiring, as evidence was impeachment
evidence which could not Iorm the basis Ior a new trial.
Hennie v. State, 968 P.2d 761
Nev.,1998
Newly discovered impeachment evidence may be suIIicient to justiIy granting a new trial iI
37 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
211
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 witness impeached is so important that impeachment would necessitate a diIIerent verdict.
N.R.S. 176.515 .
Hennie v. State, 968 P.2d 761
Nev.,1998
Evidence that witnesses who testiIied against deIendant accused oI burglary, grand larceny,
and theIt, conspired with each other to murder witness' ex-wiIe and that one witness was substantially
in debt to the other, was not cumulative but justiIied a new trial; deIendant claimed
he was Iramed by witnesses, deIendant was largely convicted based on the testimony oI the
witnesses, jury was under the mistaken impression that witnesses were neutral, and knowledge
oI the conspiracy was critical to deIendant's deIense. N.R.S. 176.515 .
D'Agostino v. State, 915 P.2d 264
Nev.,1996
DeIendant convicted oI Iirst-degree murder based, at least in part, on testimony oI his estranged
wiIe was not entitled to new trial based on evidence which he discovered aIter trial as
to state's dismissal oI criminal charges against wiIe; question oI wiIe's alleged cooperation
with state was explored in great detail at deIendant's trial, at which deIense attorney pointed
out the pendency oI criminal charges that were later dismissed and questioned wiIe as to her
receipt oI money Irom secret witness Iund, and evidence oI deIendant's guilt was overwhelming.
D'Agostino v. State, 915 P.2d 264
Nev.,1996
DeIendant cannot obtain new trial based on newly discovered evidence which merely contradicts,
impeaches or discredits witness at deIendant's trial, unless witness' testimony was so important
that diIIerent result would be reasonably probable.
King v. State, 596 P.2d 501
Nev.,1979
Newly discovered impeachment evidence may be suIIicient to justiIy granting a new trial iI
the witness impeached is so important that impeachment would necessitate a diIIerent verdict.
King v. State, 596 P.2d 501
Nev.,1979
Where review oI the evidence at murder trial revealed that testimony oI deIendant's
15-year-old stepdaughter was not so crucial that a diIIerent result would be required iI the
stepdaughter were impeached and where, at hearing on deIendant's motion Ior a new trial
based on alleged newly discovered evidence consisting oI stepdaughter's statement that she
38 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
212
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
had lied at the trial, the stepdaughter aIIirmed her original trial testimony and denied having
told a private investigator that she had lied at the trial, the district court did not abuse discretion
in denying the new trial motion.
Riley v. State, 567 P.2d 475
Nev.,1977
Conviction obtained by knowing use oI perjured testimony is Iundamentally unIair and must
be set aside iI there is any reasonable likelihood that Ialse testimony could have aIIected judgment
oI jury. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5 .
State v. McNeil, 4 P.2d 889
Nev.,1931
New trial Ior newly discovered evidence impeaching in character held properly denied.
State v. Willberg, 200 P. 475
Nev.,1921
Newly discovered impeaching evidence is not ground Ior new trial.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Funches v. State, 944 P.2d 775
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 942 Impeachment oI Witness
110k942(2) k. Contradictory statements by witness.
Nev.,1997
Newly discovered evidence oI codeIendant's statement to jailhouse inIormants that codeIendant
killed victim did not entitle deIendant to new trial in prosecution Ior Iirst-degree murder.
N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 1.
Callier v. Warden, Nevada Women's Correctional Center, 901 P.2d 619
Nev.,1995
In assessing cases involving possible perjury at trial, whether in context oI new trial motion or
habeas petition, trial court should order new trial based on witness recantation only iI the Iollowing
criteria are met: (1) court is satisIied that trial testimony oI material witnesses was
Ialse; (2) evidence showing that Ialse testimony was introduced at trial is newly discovered;
(3) evidence could not have been discovered and produced Ior trial even with exercise oI reasonable
39 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
213
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
diligence; and (4) it is probable that had Ialse testimony not been admitted, diIIerent
result would have occurred at trial.
Callier v. Warden, Nevada Women's Correctional Center, 901 P.2d 619
Nev.,1995
Finding that trial testimony was indeed Ialse is essential in evaluating whether new trial
should be granted in alleged perjury cases, and trial court should Iirst address Ialsity issue.
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Clem v. State, 760 P.2d 103
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110k943 k. ConIlicting or contradicted evidence.
Nev.,1988
Evidence which contradicted witness' prior testimony in criminal trial was insuIIicient to support
grant oI new trial on newly discovered evidence grounds, especially where the new evidence,
a witness who stated he was at scene oI crime, could no longer be located.
King v. State, 596 P.2d 501
Nev.,1979
In absence oI any prooI that deIendant's 15-year-old stepdaughter committed perjury at deIendant's
murder trial and where the setting in which the recorded conversation took place was
not such as to ensure truthIulness, the Iact that a detective working Ior the deIense had
secretly recorded a conversation wherein the stepdaughter stated that she lied at the trial was
not suIIicient to create a due process requirement that deIendant be given a new trial.
U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5 , 14 .
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
McLemore v. State, 577 P.2d 871
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110k944 k. Credibility.
Nev.,1978
40 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
214
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
In view oI lack oI evidence other than hearsay to indicate that black man identiIied by deIense
investigator was in Iact black man identiIied by bartender as second man who robbed tavern
and who was in vehicle when license number was taken, Iailure oI bartender to identiIy such
individual Irom photographic lineup was immaterial to her credibility in positively identiIying
deIendant as robber, and in view oI Iact that bartender's testimony identiIying deIendant was
not in any way put in doubt and since closing argument aIIorded counsel appropriate means to
address any claimed weaknesses in eyewitness identiIication, trial court on motion Ior new trial
on ground oI newly discovered evidence properly reIused to interIere with province oI jury
in determining credibility oI bartender's testimony. N.R.S. 176.515 , 193.165 , 200.380 .
Custom Digest - 6 Headnotes
D'Agostino v. State, 915 P.2d 264
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 945 SuIIiciency and Probable EIIect
110k945(1) k. Probable eIIect oI new evidence, in general.
Nev.,1996
To merit new trial, newly discovered evidence must be such as to render diIIerent result probable
on retrial.
Callier v. Warden, Nevada Women's Correctional Center, 901 P.2d 619
Nev.,1995
In assessing cases involving possible perjury at trial, whether in context oI new trial motion or
habeas petition, trial court should order new trial based on witness recantation only iI the Iollowing
criteria are met: (1) court is satisIied that trial testimony oI material witnesses was
Ialse; (2) evidence showing that Ialse testimony was introduced at trial is newly discovered;
(3) evidence could not have been discovered and produced Ior trial even with exercise oI reasonable
diligence; and (4) it is probable that had Ialse testimony not been admitted, diIIerent
result would have occurred at trial.
Armstrong v. State, 605 P.2d 1142
Nev.,1980
In prosecution Ior inIamous crime against nature Ior commission oI an act oI sodomy against
a 17-year-old, trial court, in considering deIendant's motion Ior new trial, properly concluded
41 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
215
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 laboratory report which deIendant intended to use to impeach victim but which State had
not made available would not have aIIected the outcome especially where another report conIirmed
that an act oI sodomy had occurred. N.R.S. 201.190 .
State v. Crockett, 444 P.2d 896
Nev.,1968
Credibility is not test oI motion Ior new trial and trial judge must instead review circumstances
in their entire light and then decide whether new evidence will probably change result
oI trial.
Pacheco v. State, 408 P.2d 715
Nev.,1965
To warrant new trial alleged newly discovered evidence must be such as to render diIIerent
result probable on retrial. N.R.S. 169.110, 175.535, subd. 7.
Custom Digest - 5 Headnotes
King v. State, 2009 WL 3189007
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 945 SuIIiciency and Probable EIIect
110k945(2) k. Particular evidence or cases.
Nev.,2009
DeIendant convicted oI Iirst-degree murder by means oI child abuse was not entitled to new
trial based on newly discovered evidence in the Iorm oI a blanket the inIant victim was
wrapped in on the night oI his death, which both sides had unsuccessIully attempted to Iind
prior to trial; although deIendant argued that blanket corroborated his testimony that inIant
died Irom choking on his own vomit rather than blunt head trauma, Iorensic pathologist, who
testiIied at trial that he could not determine a cause oI death, still could not establish a cause
oI death, even with the blanket, evidence oI blood and vomit on the blanket would not necessarily
impeach witnesses who said they did not see blood or vomit, and autopsy evidence remained
the best evidence in the case.
O'Neill v. State, 2008 WL 6102001
Nev.,2008
Alleged newly discovered evidence that search oI deIendant was based on Iabricated evidence
42 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
216
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
did not warrant new trial on charges oI possession oI Iorged instruments, as deIendant did not
show that a diIIerent result would be probable on retrial.
Walker v. State, 944 P.2d 762
Nev.,1997
DeIendant convicted oI Iirst-degree murder was not entitled to new trial on ground oI newly
discovered evidence that he purchased pure-grain alcohol on day oI the murder, supporting his
argument that he was too drunk to commit Iirst-degree murder, as it was not reasonably probable
that the new evidence would have led to a diIIerent result.
Simmons v. State, 912 P.2d 217
Nev.,1996
Even iI suppressed testimony oI murder victim's neighbor that he had not heard gun shots on
night oI murder could be categorized as newly discovered evidence that might entitle deIendant
to new trial, it was not oI such quality that, when considered by jury, would probably result
in diIIerent outcome iI new trial were permitted where evidence had been presented to jury
that neighbors heard nothing unusual, and physical evidence overwhelmingly indicated that
victim was shot in his residence, rather than being shot somewhere else and then taken to his
home.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Stanley, 4 Nev. 71
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 949 Form and Requisites in General
110k949(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1868
An application Ior new trial, on the ground that the jury received evidence out oI the trial, that
they separated contrary to instructions, or because the verdict was reached by casting lots, or
some other unIair means, may be presented by aIIidavit, without either statement or bill oI
exceptions.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Layton v. State, 510 P.2d 864
43 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
217
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 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110k950 k. Jurisdiction.
Nev.,1973
It was neither necessary nor proper to apply in Iirst instance to Supreme Court Ior leave to
move Ior new trial based on newly discovered evidence; rather, such a motion was required to
be made in district court. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 3.
Custom Digest - 9 Headnotes
King v. State, 2009 WL 3425661
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 951 Time Ior Making
110k951(1) k. In general.
Nev.,2009
Trial court properly dismissed motion Ior new trial that was not based on newly discovered
evidence and was Iiled more than eight years aIter entry oI the judgment oI conviction. West's
NRSA 176.515 (4).
Watts v. State, 2008 WL 6124788
Nev.,2008
Trial court could deny deIendant's motion Ior new trial as untimely; the motion was not based
upon newly discovered evidence and was not Iiled within seven days aIter the jury's verdict.
West's NRSA 176.515 (4).
Browning v. State, 91 P.3d 39
Nev.,2004
DeIendant's motion Ior a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was untimely, where
the motion was made more than two years aIter his conviction. West's NRSA 176.515 , subd.
3.
D'Agostino v. State, 915 P.2d 264
Nev.,1996
Motion Ior new trial that was not Iiled until more than two years aIter jury returned verdict oI
44 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
218
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
guilty and deIendant was sentenced to death was not Iiled in timely Iashion, under Nevada
statute providing that whenever motion Ior new trial is based on newly discovered evidence,
motion must be Iiled within two years aIter verdict or Iinding oI guilt; trial court properly rejected
deIendant's contention that two-year window should begin to run, in capital case, only
aIter conclusion oI all appeals. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 3.
DePasquale v. State, 803 P.2d 218
Nev.,1990
District court did not err in not hearing murder deIendant's motion Ior new trial, Iiled one day
late. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 4.
Snow v. State, 779 P.2d 96
Nev.,1989
Statute requiring that motions Ior new trial based on newly discovered evidence be brought
within two years aIter verdict did not violate equal protection clause oI Fourteenth Amendment
on basis oI distinguishing between those prisoners who bring their motions within the
two years and those who do not, where deIendant has avenue, through petition Ior habeas corpus,
by which he may present his allegedly exculpating, newly discovered evidence more than
two years aIter the verdict. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 3; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 .
Snow v. State, 779 P.2d 96
Nev.,1989
Although important private interest exists in right not to be executed erroneously, two-year
statute oI limitations on motion Ior new trial based on newly discovered evidence did not violate
death penalty deIendant's due process rights, where deIendant had option oI presenting
newly discovered evidence in petition Ior writ oI habeas corpus. N.R.S. 176.515 , subd. 3;
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 .
Hargrove v. State, 686 P.2d 222
Nev.,1984
Both a motion Ior a new trial and a motion to withdraw a guilty plea may be made aIter conviction.
N.R.S. 176.165 , 176.515 .
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Pacheco v. State, 408 P.2d 715
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
45 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
219
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
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 954 Statement oI Grounds
110k954(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1965
Conclusory statement in moving papers that new evidence has been discovered, material to
deIense, by deIendant, and that it could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered
and procured at the trial was not suIIicient to warrant granting oI new trial. N.R.S. 169.110,
175.535, subd. 7.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Bauer, 122 P. 76
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 955 Bill oI Exceptions or Statement oI Case
110k955(1) k. Necessity Ior bill oI exceptions.
Nev.,1912
Where a motion Ior a new trial is based on matters transpiring beIore the court, it may be
made without a bill oI exceptions.
Custom Digest - 8 Headnotes
Ouanbengboune v. State, 220 P.3d 1122
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 956 AIIidavits and Other ProoIs in General
110k956(1) k. In general.
Nev.,2009
As Iirst oI three steps involved on a non-English-speaking deIendant's motion Ior new trial
based on alleged inaccuracies oI his translated trial testimony, each party should have its own
interpreter review the translated testimony Ior discrepancies; iI discrepancies exist, the deIendant
has the burden oI demonstrating the inaccuracy oI the translated testimony and that it
Iundamentally altered the substance oI his actual testimony. West's NRSA 176.515 .
46 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
220
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
Ouanbengboune v. State, 220 P.3d 1122
Nev.,2009
As second oI three steps involved on a non-English-speaking deIendant's motion Ior new trial
based on alleged inaccuracies oI his translated trial testimony, the district court should appoint
an independent and, iI available, certiIied court interpreter to review the translations; to determine
whether the deIendant has met his burden oI demonstrating the inaccuracy oI the
translated testimony, the district court must consider the disputed versions oI the testimony to
determine whether the alleged inaccuracies or omissions Iundamentally altered the context oI
the deIendant's testimony and whether the inaccuracies prejudiced the deIendant such that a
new trial is warranted. West's NRSA 176.515 .
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
The portion oI sheriII's aIIidavit relating to letter alleged to have been written by deIendant
while in county jail to woman in Utah requesting that hacksaw blades be sent him, although it
would have been relevant at trial to show consciousness oI guilt and Iear oI consequences,
was not proper Ior that purpose aIter the trial upon motion Ior new trial upon ground oI insuIIiciency
oI evidence to justiIy the verdict.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
No evidence would be proper upon a motion Ior new trial that was proper, relevant, or material
to issues at the trial, involving guilt or innocence oI deIendant, and not there introduced.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
Only the evidence admitted at trial, and beIore case was Iinally submitted to jury, can be considered
upon a motion Ior new trial in determining suIIiciency oI evidence to justiIy the verdict.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
The portion oI sheriII's aIIidavit narrating deIendant's attempted escape Irom county jail while
waiting trial, when admitted upon hearing oI deIendant's motion Ior new trial, was admissible
only to show criminal and desperate character oI deIendant Ior purpose oI showing reasonable
necessity Ior keeping him handcuIIed at time oI the trial, and Iailure to restrict use oI aIIidavit
Ior such purpose was erroneous.
State v. Stanley, 4 Nev. 71
47 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
221
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
Nev.,1868
An application Ior new trial on the ground that deIendant was not present during the trial may
be presented simply by aIIidavit, without either statement or bill oI exceptions.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Sorenson, 315 P.2d 508
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 956 AIIidavits and Other ProoIs in General
110k956(2) k. Necessity Ior aIIidavits in general.
Nev.,1957
Trial court's Iailure, in granting new trial aIter conviction, to require compliance with statutory
requirement that motion Ior new trial based on misconduct be supported by aIIidavit
would not be determined erroneous where trial court granted said motion on additional ground
which did not require support by aIIidavit. N.R.S. 169.110.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Isbell v. State, 626 P.2d 1274
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 956 AIIidavits and Other ProoIs in General
110k956(10) k. SuIIiciency oI prooIs as to disqualiIication oI jurors.
Nev.,1981
Evidence supported trial court's Iinding that juror had not maintained a bias against deIendant
which she had concealed on voir dire.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
48 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
222
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
110 956 AIIidavits and Other ProoIs in General
110k956(11) k. Misconduct oI or aIIecting jurors in general.
Nev.,2003
In claims oI jury misconduct based on intrinsic inIluences and extrinsic material that does not
generally raise a presumption oI prejudice, the deIendant must, through admissible evidence,
demonstrate the nature oI the juror misconduct and that there is a reasonable probability that it
aIIected the verdict.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 956 AIIidavits and Other ProoIs in General
110k956(13) k. SuIIiciency oI prooIs as to misconduct oI or aIIecting jurors.
Nev.,1987
Although procedure Ior alleging juror misconduct on motion Ior new trial usually involved
submission oI aIIidavits oI jurors, detailing misconduct oI other jurors, so that district judge
could then call hearing to question aIIiant about matter, under circumstances oI case, there
was no inIirmity in procedure utilized by deIense counsel oI submitting his own aIIidavit alleging
juror misconduct.
Little v. State, 625 P.2d 572
Nev.,1981
Though aIIidavits were admitted Ior limited purpose oI showing concealment oI actual bias on
part oI jurors, where nothing in record compelled a Iinding oI intentional concealment by jurors,
trial court acted well within its discretion in determining that a new trial was not warranted.
Parsons v. State, 329 P.2d 1070
Nev.,1958
In murder prosecution, evidence sustained implied Iinding that separations oI jurors were not
prejudicial.
Custom Digest - 14 Headnotes
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
49 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
223
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 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 957 Statements, AIIidavits, and Testimony oI Jurors
110k957(1) k. In general.
Nev.,2003
Because claims oI juror misconduct based on intrinsic inIluences can rarely be proven without
resort to inadmissible juror aIIidavits that delve into the jury's deliberative process, only in extreme
circumstances will intrinsic inIluences justiIy a new trial. West's NRSA 50.065 .
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
The district court, Ior purposes oI a claim oI juror misconduct, must apply an objective test in
evaluating the impact oI the extrinsic material or intrinsic misconduct on the verdict and
should not investigate the subjective eIIects oI any extrinsic evidence or misconduct on the
jurors.
Tinch v. State, 946 P.2d 1061
Nev.,1997
As general rule, jurors may not impeach their own verdict.
Bushnell v. State, 599 P.2d 1038
Nev.,1979
Nevada law allows juror testimony regarding objective Iacts or overt conduct constituting juror
misconduct.
Walker v. State, 594 P.2d 710
Nev.,1979
Where it is claimed that a juror has answered Ialsely on voir dire about a matter oI potential
bias or prejudice, an exception is made to general rule that a juror's statements will not be received
to impeach the verdict.
Cook v. State, 359 P.2d 483
Nev.,1961
Jurors could not impeach their own verdict.
Pinana v. State, 352 P.2d 824
Nev.,1960
Personal testimony oI jurors, as to asserted misconduct, proIIered as attempt to have jurors
50 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
224
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
impeach their own verdict by showing that they had answered questions on voir dire examination
improperly and that they had considered Iacts outside record was properly reIused.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
Generally, jurors may testiIy to any Iacts showing the existence oI an outside inIluence, but
they cannot give evidence to the eIIect any such outside inIluence may have had on their
minds in arriving at a verdict.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
Generally, aIIidavits or testimony oI jurors are admissible when oIIered by prosecution Ior
purpose oI sustaining the verdict.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
AIIidavits by jurors that they were not inIluenced by reading newspaper articles, or by improper
arguments oI prosecuting attorney, or by improper evidence or exhibits introduced in
the jury room, or that they did not pay any attention to Iact that instruction delivered to them
was marked 'reIused, cannot be considered.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
AIIidavits oI jurors, in which they stated they were not inIluenced by Iact that deIendant was
shackled during course oI trial, was not competent evidence to show absence oI any prejudicial
inIluence upon their minds as result oI shackling oI deIendant, and admission oI such
evidence on deIendant's motion Ior new trial was improper.
State v. Lewis, 91 P.2d 820
Nev.,1939
Verdicts cannot be impeached by jurors' aIIidavits.
State v. Stewart, 9 Nev. 120
Nev.,1874
Juror's aIIidavit is inadmissible to impeach verdict.
ReIerences
Impeachment oI verdict by juror's evidence that he was coerced or intimidated by Iellow juror
39 American Law Reports 4th 800 (1985)
9 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice 2d Fed. R. Evid. 606 (1998)
51 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
225
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
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
Tinch v. State, 946 P.2d 1061
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 957 Statements, AIIidavits, and Testimony oI Jurors
110k957(2) k. Denying or explaining assent to verdict.
Nev.,1997
Juror's testimony, prior to penalty phase oI murder trial, to eIIect that she had told bailiII prior
to reading oI verdict that she wanted to change her verdict and that bailiII had told her that she
could not do so, did not require declaration oI mistrial, where juror did not repudiate her verdict
at time jury was polled and bailiII's testimony as to his conversation with juror conIlicted
with juror's testimony.
Echavarria v. State, 839 P.2d 589
Nev.,1992
Statements oI juror during posttrial interview that she had voted Ior death penalty only because
she thought that verdict would be overturned on appeal was not admissible to impeach
jury's verdict.
State v. Lewis, 91 P.2d 820
Nev.,1939
AIIidavits oI jurors to show misconduct oI jury and that verdict was coerced as a result oI
misrepresentation and deceit oI Iellow jurors, were valueless as being contrary to Iacts shown
by record and as not disclosing the name oI any juror who misrepresented any Iacts.
Custom Digest - 13 Headnotes
Valdez v. State, 196 P.3d 465
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 957 Statements, AIIidavits, and Testimony oI Jurors
110k957(3) k. Misconduct oI jurors, in general.
Nev.,2008
52 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
226
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
On a motion Ior mistrial based on intrinsic juror misconduct, the deIendant must prove the
nature oI the jury misconduct and that there is a reasonable possibility that the misconduct aIIected
the verdict; the deIendant may only prove the misconduct using objective Iacts and not
the state oI mind or deliberative process oI the jury.
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
ProoI oI juror misconduct must be based on objective Iacts and not the state oI mind or deliberative
process oI the jury. West's NRSA 50.065 .
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
Juror aIIidavits that delve into a juror's thought process cannot be used to impeach a jury verdict
based on misconduct and must be stricken. West's NRSA 50.065 .
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
BeIore a deIendant can prevail on a motion Ior a new trial based on a claim oI juror misconduct,
the deIendant must present admissible evidence suIIicient to establish: (1) the occurrence
oI juror misconduct, and (2) a showing that the misconduct was prejudicial.
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
AIIidavits or statements by jurors about the actual eIIect oI juror misconduct on the deliberations
or their individual decisions are not admissible to determine the impact oI the misconduct
upon a verdict. West's NRSA 50.065 .
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
District court did not abuse its discretion, Ior purposes oI claim oI juror misconduct brought
by sexual assault deIendant, in striking portion oI juror aIIidavits that included reIerences regarding
side eIIects oI victim's Accutane medication, which had been told to jury by juror
who researched the medication, and reIerences regarding the eIIect sentencing discussions had
on mental process oI two oI the jurors, even though deIendant claimed excluded portions were
determinative oI misconduct claim, as deIendant alleged at trial that physical marks on victim's
body were caused by a reaction to victim's Accutane medication or Ialling; record revealed
that the stricken portions oI the juror aIIidavits outlined the eIIect that the alleged misconduct
had upon some oI the jurors, or how the jury conducted its deliberations. West's
53 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
227
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
NRSA 50.065 .
Little v. State, 625 P.2d 572
Nev.,1981
When it is claimed a juror has answered Ialsely on voir dire about a matter oI potential bias or
prejudice, aIIidavits oI other jurors revealing such improper conduct may be received to impeach
their verdict.
Bushnell v. State, 599 P.2d 1038
Nev.,1979
Juror's aIIidavit to eIIect that jury Ioreman misstated to other jurors the judge's response to
jurors' questions during deliberation was competent evidence impeaching verdict, since it was
testimony regarding an objective Iact constituting juror misconduct and was admissible.
N.R.S. 48.025 , 50.065 , subd. 2.
Barker v. State, 594 P.2d 719
Nev.,1979
Where court excluded Irom its consideration oI jury misconduct those portions oI aIIidavit
which did deal with mental processes or eIIect upon jurors oI alleged misconduct, and only relied
upon those portions oI aIIidavits oI testimony dealing with the conduct and the statements
to the jury oI the Ioreman, these were objective Iacts over and capable oI ascertainment by
any observer and the court, thereIore, proceeded properly under applicable rule. N.R.S. 50.065
, subd. 2.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
Though jurors may be permitted to testiIy as to whether any particular act alleged as misconduct
on part oI jurors occurred, or as to existence oI any Iact militating against Iair trial, they
are not permitted to give evidence, either orally or by aIIidavit, upon motion Ior new trial, as
to eIIect such misconduct or prejudicial act had upon their minds.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
The jurors are competent to rebut allegations oI bias and misconduct, but, where act oI misconduct
is admitted, it cannot be shown by jurors that accused suIIered no prejudice by reason
thereoI, since under such circumstances the presumption oI prejudice is conclusive.
State v. Crutchley, 12 P. 113
Nev.,1886
54 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
228
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 aIIidavit oI a trial juror, in a trial Ior murder, purporting to give a statement made by another
juror aIter the jury has retired to consider their verdict, is not generally evidence oI misconduct
which the court can consider in support oI a motion Ior a new trial.
ReIerences
Prejudicial eIIect oI jury's procurement or use oI book during deliberations in criminal cases
35 American Law Reports 4th 626 (1985)
Propriety oI juror's tests or experiments in jury room 31 American Law Reports 4th 566
(1984)
Custom Digest - 6 Headnotes
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 957 Statements, AIIidavits, and Testimony oI Jurors
110k957(5) k. Consideration by jury oI matters not in evidence.
Nev.,2003
To determine whether there is a reasonable probability that juror misconduct aIIected a verdict,
a court may consider a number oI Iactors, which include how the extraneous inIormation
was introduced to the jury, the length oI time it was discussed by the jury, the timing oI its
introduction,
whether the inIormation was ambiguous, vague, or speciIic in content, whether the
inIormation was cumulative oI other evidence adduced at trial, whether the inIormation involved
a material or collateral issue, whether the inIormation involved inadmissible evidence,
and in addition, the trial court must make a consideration oI the extrinsic inIluence in light oI
the trial as a whole and the weight oI the evidence.
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447
Nev.,2003
The district court's Iactual inquiry Ior purposes oI a claim oI juror misconduct is limited to
determining
the extent to which jurors were exposed to the extrinsic or intrinsic evidence.
Pinana v. State, 352 P.2d 824
Nev.,1960
55 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
229
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
AIIidavits concerning hearsay statements oI one oI the jurors, and amounting to indirect way
oI permitting juror to impeach his own verdict, were not entitled to consideration on motion
Ior new trial.
Pinana v. State, 352 P.2d 824
Nev.,1960
Personal testimony oI jurors, as to asserted misconduct, proIIered as attempt to have jurors
impeach their own verdict by showing that they had answered questions on voir dire examination
improperly and that they had considered Iacts outside record was properly reIused.
State v. McKay, 165 P.2d 389
Nev.,1946
AIIidavits by jurors that they were not inIluenced by reading newspaper articles, or by im-
proper arguments oI prosecuting attorney, or by improper evidence or exhibits introduced in
the jury room, or that they did not pay any attention to Iact that instruction delivered to them
was marked 'reIused, cannot be considered.
ReIerences
Juror's reading oI newspaper account oI trial in state criminal case during its progress as
ground Ior mistrial, new trial, or reversal 46 American Law Reports 4th 11 (1986)
Prejudicial eIIect oI jury's procurement or use oI book during deliberations in criminal cases
35 American Law Reports 4th 626 (1985)
Jury's discussion oI parole law as ground Ior reversal or new trial 21 American Law Reports
4th 420 (1983)
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Lewis v. State, 596 P.2d 854
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 958 AIIidavits and Evidence as to Newly Discovered Evidence
110k958(1) k. In general.
Nev.,1979
Trial Court did not err in denying new trial in murder prosecution on basis oI allegedly newly
discovered evidence contained in aIIidavit executed by codeIendant exculpating deIendant
Irom any participation in the crime.
56 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
230
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
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Lopez v. State, 769 P.2d 1276
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 958 AIIidavits and Evidence as to Newly Discovered Evidence
110k958(6) k. SuIIiciency oI prooIs in general.
Nev.,1989
Trial court did not err in reIusing mistrial in prosecution Ior murder by torture based upon alleged
perjured testimony oI key witness Ior prosecution; alleged perjury, that witness was in
Iact brother oI victim's mother, was not proved.
Pacheco v. State, 408 P.2d 715
Nev.,1965
Facts bearing upon reasonable diligence to procure evidence Ior trial must be shown by best
evidence possible on motion Ior new trial. N.R.S. 175.535, subd. 7.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Libby v. State, 975 P.2d 833
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110k959 k. Hearing and rehearing in general.
Nev.,1999
Evidentiary hearing regarding claim oI gender discrimination in jury selection was not meaningless,
so as to warrant a new trial, even though almost eight years had passed since the jury
selection; while prosecutor was unable to remember every detail, such as each potential juror's
clothing or exact demeanor, the deIense had ample opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutor
to challenge both his credibility and his memory, and the determination that he could suIIiciently
recall and articulate his reasons Ior exercising his peremptory challenges was not an
abuse oI discretion.
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
57 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
231
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
Rudin v. State, 86 P.3d 572
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110k961 k. Determination.
Nev.,2004
Murder deIendant's naked allegations that trial court's decision to deny her motion Ior new trial
was colored by bias or lack oI impartiality were insuIIicient to establish any impropriety;
deIendant had burden oI setting Iorth Iacts, but Iailed to do so.
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276
Nev.,1994
District court which granted new trial to deIendant clearly identiIied the conIlict in the evidence
when it noted in its opinion that evidence as to deIendant's guilt was conIlicting and then
stated its general impression with regard to each count, as well as its reasons Ior disagreeing
with jury verdict. N.R.S. 176.515 .
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276
Nev.,1994
Although district court termed evidence 'insuIIicient, thorough reading oI its decision revealed
that district court did not Iind evidence insuIIicient as a matter oI law to support verdict,
but instead Iound that it was conIlicting and that verdict was not based on substantial
evidence and thus, district court's order granting new trial was proper. N.R.S. 176.515 .
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Ouanbengboune v. State, 220 P.3d 1122
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110k964 k. Order granting or reIusing new trial.
Nev.,2009
As Iinal step involved on a non-English-speaking deIendant's motion Ior new trial based on
alleged inaccuracies oI his translated trial testimony, the district court should preserve copies
oI translations Ior the record on appeal. West's NRSA 176.515 .
58 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
232
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
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Bell v. Coughlin, 820 F.Supp. 780
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 913 Grounds Ior New Trial in General
110k913(1) k. In general.
S.D.N.Y.,1993
Police oIIicer's Ialse testimony concerning his knowledge oI ballistics tests other than one to
which he testiIied, condition oI two oI six bullets and one oI six cartridge shells Iound at
crime scene, and whether he took those bullets and shell with him to conduct ballistics tests
did not require new trial, notwithstanding deIendants' contention that disclosure oI oIIicer's
perjury would have bolstered their argument at trial that state would have gone to any lengths
to convict deIendants oI murder oI two police oIIicers and shaken jury's Iaith in ballistics results;
there was no evidence that prosecutors knew that oIIicer's testimony was Ialse, Ialse
testimony did not undercut identiIication oI gun in deIendants' possession as murder weapon
based on other shells and bullets, and, even without gun identiIication, prosecution's case was
extremely strong.
Smitherman v. State, 521 So.2d 1050
Ala.Crim.App.,1987
Fact that Iormer police oIIicer and primary witness, in sale oI controlled substances trial, was
not only source oI inculpatory evidence Ior State, most notably deIendant's statements upon
arrest, was signiIicant in deciding whether deIendant was entitled to new trial, aIter primary
witness' credibility had been later undermined by charges oI perjury and improprietous actions
in other drug investigations.
ReIerences
INCOMPETENT PRINCIPALS, COMPETENT THIRD PARTIES, AND THE LAW OF
AGENCY 61 Indiana Law Journal 115 (1986)
Custom Digest - 6 Headnotes
U.S. v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 919 Misconduct oI Counsel Ior Prosecution
59 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
233
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
110k919(1) k. In general.
C.A.2.N.Y.,2009
Denial oI drug deIendant's motion Ior new trial was not abuse oI discretion, notwithstanding
deIendant's contention that testiIying police oIIicers committed perjury, inasmuch as it was
within purview oI jury to assess oIIicers' credibility, and oIIicers' testimony was not so patently
incredible or deIiant oI physical realities as to justiIy intrusion upon jury's verdict. Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act oI 1970, 401, 21 U.S.C.A. 841 ;
Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 33, 18 U.S.C.A .
Harris v. U.S., 9 F.Supp.2d 246
S.D.N.Y.,1998
Lending oIIicer's civil depositions Iailed to establish perjury by her in testiIying Ior government
in prosecution oI borrowers' chieI executive oIIicer (CEO) Ior deIrauding lenders in
connection with speculative oil trading through another company owned by CEO, Ior purposes
oI CEO's entitlement to new trial or correction oI sentence; oIIicer merely stated in deposition
that she lacked inIormation on company's activities. 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 ; Fed.Rules
Civ.Proc.Rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A .
Harris v. U.S., 9 F.Supp.2d 246
S.D.N.Y.,1998
Knowledge or perceptions oI oIIicers oI banks other than bank Ior which government witness
worked as lending oIIicer was not directly probative oI witness' knowledge or perceptions and
thus whether she committed perjury in testiIying against borrowers' chieI executive oIIicer
(CEO) in prosecution Ior deIrauding lenders, Ior purposes oI determining CEO's entitlement
to new trial or correction oI sentence. 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 ; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 33, 28
U.S.C.A .
U.S. v. Chin, 910 F.Supp. 889
E.D.N.Y.,1995
DeIendant Iound guilty oI being Ielon in possession oI weapon was not entitled to new trial,
even though deIendant claimed that inconsistencies between earlier testimony oI police oIIicer
and trial testimony were so numerous as to indicate perjury rather than memory lapses
or other non-perjurious causes oI conIlict; inconsistencies related to chase oI deIendant, and
not his alleged discarding oI weapon as he ran down an alleyway, which was central to deIendant's
theory that police 'planted weapon.
U.S. v. Pandozzi, 878 F.2d 1526
60 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
234
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.A.1.R.I.,1989
Failure to disclose state police oIIicer's memorandum on interview with witness did not warrant
new trial on charge oI perjury beIore grand jury where deIendant could have obtained
same inIormation with reasonable diligence and where Iailure to disclose the memo would not
have made a diIIerence in the trial's outcome.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Com. v. Cornish, 547 N.E.2d 948
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 919 Misconduct oI Counsel Ior Prosecution
110k919(3) k. In argument in general.
Mass.App.,1989
New trial was properly granted deIendant convicted on possession oI marijuana and traIIicking
in cocaine due to judge's concerns with trustworthiness oI evidence, Iairness, and interests
oI justice; evidence presented serious question as to whether police oIIicer who was Commonwealth's
chieI witness had committed perjury, oIIicer was improperly allowed to oIIer
opinion oI deIendant's guilt, and prosecutor improperly sought in closing to have jury draw inIerence
adverse to deIendant Ior Iailing to call as witness codeIendant whose trial had been
severed.
ReIerences
Prejudicial eIIect oI statement by prosecutor that verdict, recommendation oI punishment, or
other Iinding by jury is subject to review or correction by other authorities 10 American Law
Reports 5th 700 (1993)
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Com. v. Cornish, 547 N.E.2d 948
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110k921 k. Rulings on evidence.
Mass.App.,1989
New trial was properly granted deIendant convicted on possession oI marijuana and traIIicking
in cocaine due to judge's concerns with trustworthiness oI evidence, Iairness, and interests
61 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
235
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
oI justice; evidence presented serious question as to whether police oIIicer who was Commonwealth's
chieI witness had committed perjury, oIIicer was improperly allowed to oIIer
opinion oI deIendant's guilt, and prosecutor improperly sought in closing to have jury draw inIerence
adverse to deIendant Ior Iailing to call as witness codeIendant whose trial had been
severed.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Com. v. Cornish, 547 N.E.2d 948
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 935 Verdict Contrary to Evidence
110k935(1) k. Weight and suIIiciency oI evidence in general.
Mass.App.,1989
New trial was properly granted deIendant convicted on possession oI marijuana and traIIicking
in cocaine due to judge's concerns with trustworthiness oI evidence, Iairness, and interests
oI justice; evidence presented serious question as to whether police oIIicer who was Commonwealth's
chieI witness had committed perjury, oIIicer was improperly allowed to oIIer
opinion oI deIendant's guilt, and prosecutor improperly sought in closing to have jury draw inIerence
adverse to deIendant Ior Iailing to call as witness codeIendant whose trial had been
severed.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Harris v. U.S., 9 F.Supp.2d 246
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 938 In General
110k938(2) k. What constitutes newly discovered evidence in general.
S.D.N.Y.,1998
Trial exhibits or documents readily accessible to borrowers' chieI executive oIIicer (CEO)
(bank statements, borrowing base reports, and daily activity reports) were not newly discovered
evidence on question whether manager oI lender's commodities division committed
perjury in testiIying Ior government in prosecution Ior deIrauding lenders in connection with
62 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
236
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
speculative oil trading, Ior purposes oI determining CEO's entitlement to new trial or correction
oI sentence. 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 ; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A .
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
U.S. v. Harvey, 540 F.2d 1345
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 939 Diligence
110k939(1) k. In general.
C.A.8.Ark.,1976
Court's denial oI deIendant's posttrial motions, on claim that a FBI 302 statement to an agent
by telephone company security oIIicer was 'newly discovered evidence oI perjury by such
security oIIicer that had been knowingly suppressed by prosecution, was not error, since any
inconsistency between testimony and FBI 302 report oI statement during investigation was
readily discoverable at time oI trial and there was no evidence oI suppression or knowing use
oI perjured testimony by Government.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Corso v. U.S., 389 F.Supp. 659
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110k940 k. Materiality.
S.D.N.Y.,1974
In absence oI any prosecutorial misconduct and Iact that the Ialse testimony oI oIIicers with
respect to their denial oI knowledge oI existence oI illegal wiretaps was not material to the issue
oI guilt, there was no basis to grant new trial based on government witnesses' perjury.
Custom Digest - 9 Headnotes
U.S. v. St. Vallier, 404 Fed.Appx. 651
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
63 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
237
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
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 942 Impeachment oI Witness
110k942(1) k. In general.
C.A.3.N.J.,2010
District court did not abuse its discretion in denying deIendant's motion Ior new trial in cocaine
importation prosecution, despite deIendant's contention that government witness's perjury
about calls deIendant made to Trinidad could have aIIected jury's judgment, where witness's
testimony regarding deIendant's purported use oI phone to call Trinidad was not indispensable
to his conviction, and deIendant's conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence
Irom other sources, including testimony by law enIorcement oIIicers and deIendant's coconspirator.
Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 33, 18 U.S.C.A .
U.S. v. Vogel, 251 Fed.Appx. 399
C.A.9.Cal.,2007
Caselaw providing Ior new trial based on critical witness' perjury or complete lack oI reliability
did not warrant new trial Ior conspiracy and money laundering in connection with drug
activity based on co-conspirator's subsequent conviction Ior obstruction oI oIIicial proceeding
arising Irom co-conspirator's lies to his probation oIIicer.
Conley v. U.S., 164 F.Supp.2d 216
D.Mass.,2001
Evidence discovered during civil trial that prosecution witness identiIied persons other than
deIendant at photo line-up as persons that he saw near scene oI police oIIicer's beating warranted
new trial Ior deIendant convicted oI perjury and obstruction oI justice based upon his
grand jury testimony during investigation oI the assault; evidence was not disclosed by prosecutors
despite deIendant's speciIic request, and it was material since it could have been used
to impeach witness' trial testimony that deIendant was one oI the persons he saw near scene oI
assault, which could have resulted in acquittal. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5 ; Fed.Rules
Cr.Proc.Rule 33, 18 U.S.C.A .
U.S. v. Custis, 988 F.2d 1355
C.A.4.Md.,1993
Subsequent indictment oI two police oIIicer witnesses Ior perjury did not warrant new trial;
indictment involved unrelated case with issues that had no bearing on deIendant's trial,
charges against oIIicers were mere allegations, indictments were dismissed, and oIIicers' account
oI events leading to deIendant's arrest was corroborated by testimony oI third oIIicer
64 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
238
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
and, to some extent, testimony oI deIendant himselI.
U.S. v. Harvey, 540 F.2d 1345
C.A.8.Ark.,1976
Court's denial oI deIendant's posttrial motions, on claim that a FBI 302 statement to an agent
by telephone company security oIIicer was 'newly discovered evidence oI perjury by such
security oIIicer that had been knowingly suppressed by prosecution, was not error, since any
inconsistency between testimony and FBI 302 report oI statement during investigation was
readily discoverable at time oI trial and there was no evidence oI suppression or knowing use
oI perjured testimony by Government.
Tyler v. State, 501 S.W.2d 189
Mo.App.,1973
Mere variance between the testimony oI police oIIicers at deIendant's criminal trial and civil
trial against the oIIicers to recover Ior alleged brutality were not suIIicient to warrant vacation
oI judgment and new trial on ground oI perjury. V.A.M.R. Crim. Rule 27.26.
State v. Brazil, 504 P.2d 76
Ariz.App.Div.1,1972
Where inconsistencies in testimony oI police oIIicer witness were not oI such nature as to
convince court that witness was committing or had committed perjury, new trial was not required.
Martin v. U. S., 154 F.2d 269
C.A.6.Ohio,1946
In prosecution Ior causing a girl to be transported in interstate commerce with intent to induce
her to engage in immoral practices in violation oI White Slave Act, reIusal oI motion Ior new
trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence, consisting oI aIIidavits oI police oIIicer and oI
Iather and uncle oI girl allegedly transported in interstate commerce tending to show that girl
committed perjury touching material Ieatures oI her testimony, did not constitute an abuse oI
discretion. White Slave Act 2, 18 U.S.C.A. 2421 .
Custom Digest - 5 Headnotes
State v. Greco, 862 So.2d 1152
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110 942 Impeachment oI Witness
65 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
239
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
110k942(2) k. Contradictory statements by witness.
La.App.4.Cir.,2003
State witnesses' recantation testimony at post-conviction hearing that they were Iorced by detective
and district attorney's investigator to testiIy Ialsely at murder trial that they heard deIendant,
rather than accomplice, testiIy he was going to 'roll victim, and that they were
threatened with criminal charges iI they spoke with deIense counsel or testiIied otherwise,
supported Iindings that oIIicers suborned perjury and that credibility oI detective's and investigator's
testimony regarding circumstances oI taking witnesses' statements deIendant's
conIession, in which detective admitted paraphrasing certain statements and omitting others,
was suIIiciently undermined and called into doubt validity oI statements and conIession, thus
entitling deIendant to new trial.
Com. v. Waters, 571 N.E.2d 399
Mass.,1991
Denial oI deIendant's motion Ior new trial based on newly discovered evidence oI police oIIicer's
alleged knowingly Ialse testimony at deIendant's trial as part oI oIIicer's alleged participation
in unlawIul police protection payment scheme, was not an abuse oI discretion, despite
oIIicer's contrary testimony at intervening perjury trial oI oIIicer who allegedly acted as
middleman in protection payment scheme, particularly as motion judge was also trial judge.
U.S. v. Mackin, 561 F.2d 958
C.A.D.C.,1977
Facts that key government witness told her probation oIIicer, when partially recanting her prior
testimony at murder and robbery trial, that she wanted to 'get right with God and she realized
that she had committed perjury at trial, and that when witness talked to her attorney she
knew she was exposing herselI to prosecution Ior perjury did not establish that witness was
now a credible witness Ior purpose oI satisIying 'Larrison test Ior new trial.
State v. Morrow, 528 P.2d 612
Ariz.,1974
New trial was not required where inconsistencies in police oIIicer's testimony in prosecution
Ior kidnapping and lewd and lascivious conduct were not oI such a nature as to convince court
that witness was committing or had committed perjury.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Arnold v. State, 402 S.E.2d 312
66 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
240
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 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110k943 k. ConIlicting or contradicted evidence.
Ga.App.,1991
Inconsistencies in testimony oI police oIIicers were not shown to be perjury and did not entitle
deIendant to new trial; record did not disclose that oIIicers gave wilIully and knowingly
Ialse testimony. O.C.G.A. 24-9-85 .
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
People v. Marzed, 613 N.Y.S.2d 826
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
110k944 k. Credibility.
N.Y.City.Crim.Ct.,1993
Weapon possession deIendant was entitled to new trial on ground oI newly discovered evidence
that oIIicer, who had been People's primary witness at trial, had been indicted Ior perjury
allegedly committed in unrelated criminal prosecution; evidence that oIIicer had lied to
grand jury in another case would probably have changed verdict at trial, which turned on credibility
oI oIIicer versus deIendant. McKinney's CPL 330.30, subd. 3 .
U.S. v. Custis, 786 F.Supp. 533
D.Md.,1992
New trial was necessitated, in interest oI justice, by arresting oIIicers' indictments Ior perjury
in unrelated cases; presence or absence oI reasonable doubt in jurors' minds could be aIIected
by knowledge oI Iacts that aIIected credibility oI arresting oIIicers. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule
33, 18 U.S.C.A .
Custom Digest - 4 Headnotes
U.S. v. Regan, 47 Fed.Appx. 57
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 937 Newly Discovered Evidence
67 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
241
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
110 945 SuIIiciency and Probable EIIect
110k945(2) k. Particular evidence or cases.
C.A.2.N.Y.,2002
District court's denial oI new trial Iollowing police oIIicer's conviction Ior perjury was not
abuse oI discretion, despite newly discovered evidence that oIIicers oI city's anti-crime unit
had not engaged in misconduct, and that government did not have suIIicient evidence to pursue
action against anti-crime unit oIIicers under investigation; subject matter oI oIIicer's trial
had been limited to whether or not he perjured himselI beIore grand jury investigating alleged
misconduct, and government had limited itselI at trial to that issue. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule
33, 18 U.S.C.A .
U.S. v. Huddleston, 23 F.Supp.2d 72
D.Me.,1998
Assuming that appropriate standard Ior determining whether new trial was warranted by
newly discovered evidence that government witnesses, unbeknownst to prosecutor, perjured
themselves was whether there was reasonable likelihood that verdict could have been diIIerent
with the newly discovered evidence, deIendant was not entitled to new trial based on government
witnesses' perjury concerning their country oI origin in drug trial in which deIendant alleged
that he cooperated with witnesses not to distribute drugs but to set up export business;
evidence against deIendant, including incriminating comments he made to law enIorcement
oIIicers aIter his arrest, was overwhelming.
U.S. v. Custis, 786 F.Supp. 533
D.Md.,1992
New trial was necessitated, in interest oI justice, by arresting oIIicers' indictments Ior perjury
in unrelated cases; presence or absence oI reasonable doubt in jurors' minds could be aIIected
by knowledge oI Iacts that aIIected credibility oI arresting oIIicers. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule
33, 18 U.S.C.A .
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Hill, 631 A.2d 150
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 951 Time Ior Making
68 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
242
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
110k951(1) k. In general.
N.J.Super.App.,1993
Motorist who had been convicted in Municipal Court oI DWI oIIense based on testimony oI
police oIIicer who later began to IalsiIy breathalyzer readings Iailed to present clear, convincing
and satisIactory evidence oI any perjury by oIIicer in his case, such as might entitle motorist
to new trial more than two years aIter he was convicted. R. 7:4-7.
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
State v. Joseph, 95 N.E.2d 771
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 957 Statements, AIIidavits, and Testimony oI Jurors
110k957(6) k. Misconduct oI others aIIecting jurors.
Ohio.App.2.Dist.Franklin.Co.,1950
In prosecution Ior subornation oI perjury, where judge, jurors and oIIicers placed in charge
oI jury, aIter submission oI case but beIore deliberation, dined together, deIendant had Iull
right to take aIIidavits or testimony oI jurors as to what transpired, iI he believed that he was
prejudiced by action oI trial judge, since rule that aIIidavits or testimony oI jurors will not be
received to impeach their verdict, unless evidence aliunde oI irregularity in deliberations oI
jury or in return oI verdict is Iirst shown, has no application where such irregularity is due to
misconduct oI judge or oIIicer oI court. Gen.Code, 13448-1.
ReIerences
Communication between court oIIicials or attendants and jurors in criminal trial as ground Ior
mistrial or reversal--post-Parker cases 35 American Law Reports 4th 890 (1985)
Disruptive conduct oI spectators in presence oI jury during criminal trial as basis Ior reversal,
new trial, or mistrial 29 American Law Reports 4th 659 (1984)
Emotional maniIestations by victim or Iamily oI victim during criminal trial as ground Ior reversal,
new trial, or mistrial 31 American Law Reports 4th 229 (1984)
Propriety oI attorney's communication with jurors aIter trial 19 American Law Reports 4th
1209 (1983)
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
69 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
243
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
Wilson v. State, 677 N.E.2d 586
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110 958 AIIidavits and Evidence as to Newly Discovered Evidence
110k958(6) k. SuIIiciency oI prooIs in general.
Ind.App.,1997
Newly discovered evidence, particularly recantation by victim's Iormer boyIriend oI his testimony
that he had seen deIendant point Iirearm at victim, warranted new trial on weapons
charges, despite claim that new evidence was merely impeaching, and that boyIriend's aIIidavit
was not worthy oI credit; aIIidavit was credible because it exposed boyIriend to criminal
conviction Ior perjury, and moreover, it was corroborated by two other aIIidavits stating that
boyIriend and victim had 'expressed surprise that police oIIicer's testimony had corroborated
their own.
People v. Bossert, 772 P.2d 618
Colo.,1989
Movant Iailed to establish that police report allegedly contradicting police oIIicer's testimony
and establishing perjury by oIIicer was newly discovered evidence; motion did not state
when movant learned oI report or whether it was discoverable beIore trial. Rules Crim.Proc.,
Rule 35(c), (c)(2)(V, VI) .
Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
Com. v. Bortner, 98 Dauph. 81
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XXI Motions Ior New Trial
110 948 Application Ior New Trial
110k961 k. Determination.
Pa.Com.Pl.,1976
The court denied motions Ior a new trial and in arrest oI judgment aIter conviction oI deIendants,
a police oIIicer and tow truck owner and operator allegedly involved in making kickbacks
or payoIIs Irom tow truck operators Ior the reIerral oI towing business, oI perjury beIore
the Pennsylvania Crime Commission, aIter Iinding no merit to their various contentions
including those relating to consolidation oI indictments Ior trial, lack oI authority by the Commission
70 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
244
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 administer oaths, variance between the indictment and the evidence as to the purpose
oI the payments, admissibility oI testimony oI deIendants given beIore the Commission
and denial oI deIendant's pretrial application Ior discovery oI notes oI testimony oI all witnesses
beIore the Commission.
Com. v. Wood, 20 Chest. 158
Pa.Com.Pl.,1972
DeIendant, Iollowing conviction by a jury oI the crime oI perjury in concert with a codeIendant
(already sentenced), by reason oI having Ialsely and maliciously charged two police
oIIicers with a criminal oIIense, moved Ior a new trial and in arrest oI judgment. DeIense
counsel argued that: the verdict was not supported by the law or the evidence, charge oI the
trial judge had Iailed to distinguish between credibility and perjury, the deIendant should
have been permitted to rebut testimony adduced on cross examination oI a commonwealth
witness, and the content oI the Assistant District Attorney's closing argument and the Iact oI
dual representation oI both deIendants by the same counsel constituted speciIic violations oI
deIendant's constitutional rights. The court careIully reviewed the pertinent evidence oI record
and the charge oI the court (both speciIically and read as a whole), and, applying the rules outlined
above, held that the deIendant's motions must be denied.
CONCLUSION
DeIendant/Appelant Coughlin hereby respectIully requests all Orders, Convictions,
Judgments, Contempt Findings, whatever, stemming Irom the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial be Vacated
or Set Aside or Reconsidered..
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain
the social security number oI any person.
DATED this 15
th
Day oI December, 2011
Zach Coughlin
/s/ Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
71 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
245
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
72 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
246
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On December 12, 2011, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing Notice oI Appeal,
Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior
Recusal by emailing and Iaxing and or placing in the mail a true copy thereoI to:
Pamela G Roberts Company: Reno City Attorney's OIIice - Criminal Divison Address: P.O. Box
1900 Reno , NV 89505 Phone Number: 775-334-2050 Fax number: 775-334-2420 Email:
robertspreno.gov
DATED THIS15th day oI December, 2011 BY:
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
73 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
247
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
INDEX TO EXHIBITS:
1. EXHIBIT 1.
74 SUPPLEMENTAL TO Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
248
249
250
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
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Berry v. Equitable Gold Min. Co., 91 P. 537
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228k271 k. Authority to enter.
Nev.,1907
A decree Ior a perpetual injunction entered by the clerk was void on its Iace, where it was unsupported
either by the verdict rendered or by an order oI the judge directing its entry.

Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
State ex rel. Newitt v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court in and Ior Elko County, 121 P.2d 442
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228k272 k. Time Ior entry in general.
Nev.,1942
The premature entry oI a judgment is not a jurisdictional deIect and does not avoid the judgment,
but at most makes it 'irregular and 'voidable.See publication Words and Phrases Ior
other judicial constructions and deIinitions.
Schultz v. Winter, 7 Nev. 130
Nev.,1871
An order made in the trial oI an issue at law, iI a Iinal judgment, may be entered in term or vacation;
but such an order, made in vacation, can have no vitality until, at least, it is delivered
to the clerk Ior Iiling.

Custom Digest - 7 Headnotes
McClintock v. McClintock, 138 P.3d 513
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228 273 Entry Nunc Pro Tunc
228k273(1) k. In general.
Nev.,2006
District court may not use a nunc pro tunc order to change a judgment actually rendered to
one which the court neither rendered nor intended to render.
Smith v. Epperson, 294 P.2d 362
Nev.,1956
Object and purpose oI nunc pro tunc order is to make record speak truth concerning acts
already done. Rules oI Civil Procedure, rule 60(a, b).
Allen v. Allen, 270 P.2d 671
Nev.,1954
Question whether nunc pro tunc order should be made depends upon circumstances oI particular
case, and it is to be granted or reIused as justice may require.
Finley v. Finley, 189 P.2d 334
Nev.,1948
The object oI a 'nunc pro tunc order is to make a record speak the truth concerning acts
done, and such order cannot be made use oI nor resorted to to supply omitted action.See publication
Words and Phrases Ior other judicial constructions and deIinitions.
Finley v. Finley, 189 P.2d 334
Nev.,1948
The power to order entry oI judgment nunc pro tunc cannot be used to correct judicial errors
or omissions, nor to change judgment actually rendered to one which the court neither
rendered nor intended to render.
Talbot v. Mack, 169 P. 25
Nev.,1917
The object and purpose oI a nunc pro tunc order is to make a record speak the truth concerning
acts already done, and not to supply an omitted action.

2 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
251
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
Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Ewing v. Jennings, 15 Nev. 379
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228 273 Entry Nunc Pro Tunc
228k273(2) k. Failure to enter judgment at time oI rendition.
Nev.,1880
Where a clerk Iails to enter a judgment ordered by the court, it is within the power oI the court
to order the judgment to be entered nunc pro tunc.

Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Finley v. Finley, 189 P.2d 334
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228 273 Entry Nunc Pro Tunc
228k273(3) k. Errors or irregularities in previous entry.
Nev.,1948
Court, in entering a judgment nunc pro tunc, may in its discretion rely on its memory as to
what was actually done and may reIresh its memory Irom any source it deems reliable.

Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Ewing v. Jennings, 15 Nev. 379
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228 273 Entry Nunc Pro Tunc
228k273(4) k. Existence oI previous judgment or order.
Nev.,1880
A judgment roll containing the agreement and order Ior judgment and the minutes oI the court
is competent evidence, tending to establish the Iacts necessary to authorize the court to enter a
judgment nunc pro tunc.

Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Culinary and Hotel Service Workers Union, Local No. 226 v. Haugen, 357 P.2d 113
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228k276 k. Proceedings Ior entry.
Nev.,1960
District court rule was entitled to encouragement oI Supreme Court; but correction oI notice
oI entry oI judgment, by lining out 'April with typewriter and inserting 'May, did not destroy
eIIectiveness oI notice, even iI such correction constituted an 'interlineation in violation
oI district court rule. District Court Rules, rules 2, subd. 6, 19; Supreme Court Rules, rule 2,
subd. 8; NRCP 6(b).

Custom Digest - 3 Headnotes
First Nat. Bank v. Abel, 41 P.2d 1061
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228 277 Judgment Roll or Record
228k279 k. Matters included.
Nev.,1935
Copy oI judgment, striking amended complaint and dismissing action, Iiled by the clerk became
part oI 'judgment roll. Comp.Laws 1929, 8829.See publication Words and Phrases
Ior other judicial constructions and deIinitions.
Glock v. Elges, 159 P. 629
Nev.,1916
Judgment roll includes pleadings and judgment.
3 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
252
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

Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Burbank v. Rivers, 18 P. 753
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228k286 k. DeIects and objections.
Nev.,1888
Where the clerk, in entering an order overruling deIendant's motion Ior a new trial, enters deIendant's
name as 'Henry Rives and 'Henry Rivers, instead oI 'Frank Rivers, deIendant is
bound to take notice that the order was meant Ior his case.

Custom Digest - 2 Headnotes
Blasdel v. Kean, 8 Nev. 305
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228k287 k. EIIect oI entry and record as between parties in general.
Nev.,1873
Finding and recital oI a legal service oI summons in a judgment is as much a part oI the record,
and entitled to the same credence, as the Iile marks oI the clerk anterior to such service.

Custom Digest - 6 Headnotes
Bowers v. Edwards, 385 P.2d 783
228 JUDGMENT
228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
228k289 k. ConIlict in record.
Nev.,1963
Where there is conIlict between minute order and judgment, the judgment prevails.
Bushard v. Washoe County, 229 P.2d 156
Nev.,1951
Where minute order oI decision oI trial court is at variance with Iormal judgment Iiled thereaIter,
the Iormal judgment must prevail.
Mortimer v. PaciIic States Sav. & Loan Co., 145 P.2d 733
Nev.,1944
Where there is conIlict between a minute order and a judgment, the latter prevails.
Mortimer v. PaciIic States Sav. & Loan Co., 145 P.2d 733
Nev.,1944
A Iormal written order allowing Iees to a receiver's attorney and reserving to trial court the
right to consider any additional allowance was not ambiguous so as to be governed by minute
order allowing Iees Ior the calendar year and reserving to trial court the right to Iix Iuture Iees
Ior Iuture services.
Blasdel v. Kean, 8 Nev. 305
Nev.,1873
Every legal intendment is in Iavor oI the validity oI a judgment, where there is a conIlict in
the record as to due service oI summons.

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition
Database updated November 2011
Judgments
Christina (Uranza) Crimi, J.D.; Laura Hunter Dietz, J.D.; Tracy Farrell, J.D.; Alan J. Jacobs,
J.D.; Rachel Kane, J.D.; William Lindsley, J.D.; JeII J. Shampo, J.D.; Eric Surette, J.D.; and
Suzanne L. Bailey, J.D., Thomas J. Czelusta, J.D., and John R. Kennel, J.D. oI the National
Legal Research Group, Inc.
II. Rendition
A. General Considerations
1. In General
Topic Summary Correlation Table ReIerences
4 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
253
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
59. Manner oI pronouncement
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Federal Civil Procedure 2621
West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 191, 215
A rendition oI judgment can occur in more than one manner.|1| In some jurisdictions,
rendition oI judgment is the court's pronouncement by spoken word in open court or by written
order Iiled with the clerk oI its decision upon the matter submitted to it Ior adjudication.|2
| It is also said that rendition oI judgment occurs when the court makes an oral pronouncement
in open court and accompanies that pronouncement with a notation on the trial docket or, in
the alternative, when some written notation oI the judgment is Iiled in the records oI the
court.|3| Accordingly, in some jurisdictions an oral maniIestation oI the decision is regarded
as suIIicient Ior a judgment at law to become operative.|4| For the trial court to eIIectively
render judgment in open court, it must do so in spoken word, not in mere cognition,|5| and the
trial court's oral pronouncement must clearly indicate the intent to render judgment at the time
the words are expressed.|6| Where oral rendition oI a judgment is proper, iI the trial court
signs a judgment on an issue without Iirst making an oral pronouncement in open court, the
act oI signing the judgment is the oIIicial act oI rendering judgment.|7| When a trial court orally
renders a judgment that disposes oI some oI the issues in a party's pleading, but is silent
on others, a later signed judgment that disposes oI an additional issue, while only a "written
memorandum" oI the oral judgment, is a rendition oI judgment on the issue addressed Ior the
Iirst time in the written judgment.|8|
Caution:
An announcement oI judgment in open court merely constitutes a rendering oI the judgment,
not an entry oI judgment.|9|
46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments 59
In other jurisdictions, however, mere oral pronouncement by the court oI its decision is not
the rendition oI a judgment,|10| and it has been said that a trial court's oral pronouncement is
not a judgment until it is put in writing and entered as the judgment,|11| that a judge does not
render the judgment until he or she signs a written notation oI the relieI granted or denied,|12|
and that a judgment is not rendered until it is signed.|13| Among the reasons stated Ior not recognizing
an oral pronouncement by the court as the rendition oI judgment are that: (1) there
is no practical manner in which to execute an oral judgment; (2) an oral judgment cannot be
Iiled in the court oI another county or state; and (3) there is no mechanism by which an oral
judgment can become a lien on the property oI the judgment debtor.|14|
Observation:
Prior to the entry oI a Iinal judgment, a court remains Iree to reconsider and issue a written
judgment diIIerent Irom its oral pronouncement.|15|
CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT
Cases:
The mere oral announcement oI a judgment without an entry on the trial docket is not the
rendition oI a judgment, Ior the purposes oI appeal; Ior a Iinal judgment to exist, there must be
an order that is both signed by the court and Iiled stamped and dated by the clerk oI the court.
Kilgore v. Nebraska Dept. oI Health and Human Services, 277 Neb. 456, 763 N.W.2d 77
(2009).
|END OF SUPPLEMENT|
|FN1| Hornig v. Martel LiIt Systems, Inc., 258 Neb. 764, 606 N.W.2d 764 (2000).
|FN2| Jones v. Hubbard, 356 Md. 513, 740 A.2d 1004 (1999); Barton v. Gillespie,
2005 WL 1540156 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2005).
|FN3| Hornig v. Martel LiIt Systems, Inc., 258 Neb. 764, 606 N.W.2d 764 (2000).
Although a judgment is rendered and exists as such when it is orally announced Irom
the bench, and beIore it has been reduced to writing and entered by the clerk, as a general
rule a judgment must be reduced to writing. Bauman v. Maple Valley Community
School Dist., 649 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa 2002).
|FN4| U.S. v. Hunt, 513 F.2d 129 (10th Cir. 1975); Gordon v. Gordon, 390 S.W.2d
583 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965); Wittau v. Storie, 145 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App. Fort Worth
2004).
5 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
254
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
|FN5| James v. Hubbard, 21 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2000).
|FN6| In re A.B., 125 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2003), review denied, (Mar.
19, 2004).
|FN7| Wittau v. Storie, 145 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2004).
|FN8| Wittau v. Storie, 145 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2004).
|FN9| Santana v. Santana, 614 S.E.2d 438 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
As to entry oI judgment distinguished, see 60.
|FN10| Rust v. Clark County School Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380, 44 Ed. Law
Rep. 736 (1987); Montano v. Encinias, 103 N.M. 515, 709 P.2d 1024 (1985); Sparkle
Laundry & Cleaners, Inc. v. Kelton, 595 S.W.2d 88, 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1531 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 1979).
|FN11| Stoker v. Bellemeade, LLC, 272 Ga. App. 817, 615 S.E.2d 1 (2005), cert.
denied, (Sept. 19, 2005).
|FN12| Mumin v. Hart, 9 Neb. App. 404, 612 N.W.2d 261 (2000).
|FN13| State ex rel. A.S.K., 775 So. 2d 1101 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000).
|FN14| McAteer v. Stewart, 696 P.2d 72 (Wyo. 1985).
As to judgment liens, see 342 to 384.
|FN15| Rust v. Clark County School Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380, 44 Ed. Law
Rep. 736 (1987).
2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S.
Govt. Works. All rights reserved.
AMJUR JUDGMENTS 59

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition
Database updated November 2011
New Trial
John R. Kennel, J.D., oI the staII oI the National Legal Research Group, Inc.
V. Procedure
B. Time Ior Making Application
3. Under Federal Rules oI Civil Procedure
Topic Summary Correlation Table ReIerences
379. Commencement oI period
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, New Trial 116.2
A.L.R. Library
Motions Ior new trial:time limitations under Rule 59(b) oI Federal Rules oI Civil Procedure,
45 A.L.R. Fed. 104
The 10-day period under the provision oI the Federal Rules oI Civil Procedure pertaining
to the time Ior making new trial motions|1| commences to run Irom the entry oI a Iinal judgment,|
2| not Irom the rendition oI an interlocutory judgment.|3|
Practice Guide:
The 10-day period is to be computed in accordance with the provision oI the Federal Rules oI
Civil Procedure governing the computation oI time generally.|4|
An amended judgment supersedes a prior judgment, so that the 10-day period begins to
run anew aIter entry oI the amended judgment.|5|
|FN1| Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b).
|FN2| Sawyer v. Atlantic Discount Corp., 442 F.2d 349 (4th Cir. 1971); Ishikawa v.
Acheson, 90 F. Supp. 713 (D. Haw. 1950).
The 10-day period Ior the serving oI a motion Ior a new trial began to run upon entry
or docketing oI the judgment, rather than Irom the Iiling oI the judgment. Tijerina v.
Plentl, 984 F.2d 148, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1289 (5th Cir. 1993).
58 Am. Jur. 2d New Trial 379
|FN3| Warner v. Rossignol, 513 F.2d 678 (1st Cir. 1975); Manos v. Trans World Airlines,
Inc., 324 F. Supp. 470 (N.D. Ill. 1971).
|FN4| Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).
|FN5| Cornist v. Richland Parish School Bd., 479 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1973).
6 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
255
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
2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S.
Govt. Works. All rights reserved.
AMJUR NEWTRIAL 379

Corpus Juris Secundum
Database updated December 2011
Judgments
Francis C. Amendola, J.D., Paul M. ColtoII, J.D., John Glenn, J.D., Janice Holben, J.D., John
R. Kennel, J.D., oI the staII oI the National Legal Research Group, Inc., Eric Larsson, J.D.,
Stephen Lease, J.D., Jack K. Levin, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Lucas Martin, J.D., Eric
Mayer, J.D., Tom Muskus, J.D., Karl Oakes, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D., Alan Wasserstrom,
J.D., Alan Weinstein, J.D.
VII. Rendition, Entry, Record, and Docketing
B. Entry oI Judgment
Topic Summary ReIerences Correlation Table
144. Necessity
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 270
West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 293
Although as between the parties a duly rendered judgment may be valid and eIIective
without entry, and its enIorcement does not always depend on its entry, Ior many purposes
judgments are not complete, perIect, and eIIective until they are entered.
As a general rule, the decisions oI all courts must be preserved in writing in some record
provided Ior that purpose.|1|
As between the parties, a judgment duly rendered may be valid and eIIective, although not
entered, that is, the clerk's neglect or Iailure to make a proper entry oI the judgment, or deIective
or inaccurate entry oI it, at least in the absence oI statute to the contrary, will not deprive it
oI the Iorce oI a judicial decision.|2| The enIorcement oI a judgment does not depend on its
entry.|3|
However, Ior many purposes a judgment is not complete, perIect, and eIIective until it has
been duly entered.|4| Thus, it has been broadly held that judgments take eIIect only Irom the
date oI entry|5| and that there is no judgment until it is entered oI record.|6|
A rule governing rendition and entry oI judgments and orders obliterates any distinction
between the ministerial act oI entry and the judicial act oI rendition oI judgment and makes
the operative event the act oI the judge.|7|
Entry oI a judgment may be required within which the judgment may be enIorced, as considered|
8| or Ior the creation oI a judgment lien.|9|
49 C.J.S. Judgments 144
A judgment is not Iinal, in the sense that it cannot be withdrawn or changed by the court,
until it has been entered.|10| On entry, a judgment passes beyond control oI the court, except
to vacate or modiIy it in accordance with the usual rules.|11|
In order that a judgment may be admitted as evidence in another action, it is necessary that
it should Iirst have been entered oI record.|12|
|FN1| Fla.Magnant v. Peacock, 156 Fla. 688, 24 So. 2d 314 (1945).
Ky.National LiIe & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Hedges, 233 Ky. 840, 27 S.W.2d 422 (1930).
Miss.Evans v. State, 144 Miss. 1, 108 So. 725 (1926).
N.J. Lyczak v. Margulies, 8 N.J. Misc. 549, 151 A. 64 (Sup. Ct. 1930), aII'd, 109
N.J.L. 352, 162 A. 590 (N.J. Ct. Err. & App. 1932).
As to necessity Ior entry oI judgments by conIession, see 218.
As to necessity Ior writing, see 106.
|FN2| Ga.Deck v. Deck, 193 Ga. 739, 20 S.E.2d 1 (1942).
Ill.Cirro Wrecking Co. v. Roppolo, 153 Ill. 2d 6, 178 Ill. Dec. 750, 605 N.E.2d 544
(1992).
Ind.Tancos v. A.W., Inc., 502 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).
Mo.Marsden v. Nipp, 325 Mo. 822, 30 S.W.2d 77 (1930).
Ohio Hower Corp. v. Vance, 144 Ohio St. 443, 30 Ohio Op. 38, 59 N.E.2d 377
7 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
256
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
(1945).
Okla.Depuy v. Hoeme, 1989 OK 42, 775 P.2d 1339 (Okla. 1989).
Tex.MayIield v. San Jacinto Sav. Ass'n, 788 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. App. Houston 14th
Dist. 1990), writ denied, (July 3, 1990).
|FN3| Conn.D'Andrea v. Rende, 123 Conn. 377, 195 A. 741 (1937).
Kan.Gates v. Gates, 160 Kan. 428, 163 P.2d 395 (1945).
|FN4| U.S.In re Bunt, 165 B.R. 894 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1994)In re Cimarron Nursing
Center, 143 B.R. 578, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 965 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1992).
Ark. Koelzer v. Bagley, 13 Ark. App. 48, 680 S.W.2d 111, 22 Ed. Law Rep. 574
(1984).
Cal.In re Marriage oI Micalizio, 199 Cal. App. 3d 662, 245 Cal. Rptr. 673 (4th Dist.
1988).
Fla.Cincinnati Equitable Ins. Co. v. Hawit, 933 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d
Dist. 2006).
Ga.Zeitman v. McBrayer, 201 Ga. App. 767, 412 S.E.2d 287 (1991).
Ill.O'Grady v. Cook County SheriII's Merit Bd., 204 Ill. App. 3d 258, 149 Ill. Dec.
530, 561 N.E.2d 1226 (1st Dist. 1990).
Kan.Matter oI Marriage oI Wilson, 13 Kan. App. 2d 291, 768 P.2d 835 (1989), judgment
aII'd, 245 Kan. 178, 777 P.2d 773 (1989).
OhioLamar v. Marbury, 69 Ohio St. 2d 274, 23 Ohio Op. 3d 269, 431 N.E.2d 1028
(1982).
Tex.Ranier v. Brown, 623 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1981).
|FN5| Ariz.Southwestern Freight Lines v. ShaIer, 57 Ariz. 111, 111 P.2d 625 (1941)
.
Cal.Lind v. Baker, 48 Cal. App. 2d 234, 119 P.2d 806 (4th Dist. 1941).
N.M.State v. Capital City Bank, 31 N.M. 430, 246 P. 899 (1926).
As to date oI judgment, see 149.
|FN6| AlaskaWallace v. Turner, 2004 WL 1588225 (Alaska 2004).
Fla.Magnant v. Peacock, 156 Fla. 688, 24 So. 2d 314 (1945).
Ga.Titelman v. Stedman, 277 Ga. 460, 591 S.E.2d 774 (2003).
Ill.In Interest oI K.S., 250 Ill. App. 3d 862, 189 Ill. Dec. 530, 620 N.E.2d 498 (4th
Dist. 1993).
Ky.Batts v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 217 S.W.3d 881 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
Md.Tierco Maryland, Inc. v. Williams, 381 Md. 378, 849 A.2d 504 (2004).
Miss.Smith v. Parkerson Lumber, Inc., 890 So. 2d 832 (Miss. 2003).
N.C.Hilliard v. Hilliard, 146 N.C. App. 709, 554 S.E.2d 374 (2001).
Neb.Rosen Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Jordan, 15 Neb. App. 1, 720 N.W.2d 911 (2006).
N.M.Quintana v. Vigil, 46 N.M. 200, 125 P.2d 711 (1942) (overruled by, Evans Financial
Corp. v. Strasser, 99 N.M. 788, 664 P.2d 986 (1983)).
Ohio Hower Corp. v. Vance, 144 Ohio St. 443, 30 Ohio Op. 38, 59 N.E.2d 377
(1945).
Or.Patrick v. Otteman, 158 Or. App. 175, 974 P.2d 217 (1999).
Pa.Clinton v. Giles, 719 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
Tenn.Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2008).
Tex.In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., 209 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist.
2006).
W.Va. State ex rel. West Virginia Dept. OI Health And Human Resources, Child
Support EnIorcement Division v. Varney, 221 W. Va. 517, 655 S.E.2d 539 (2007).
EIIect oI Iailure
The rule governing proposed orders or judgments submitted Ior the court's signature,
and providing that a Iailure to submit a judgment timely is deemed abandonment,
speaks to the period within which a proposed order or judgment reIlecting the disposition
oI a motion or matter must be drawn by a party, and does not apply to service oI
the judgment with notice oI entry upon an opposing party.
N.Y.Cox v. City OI Niagara Falls, 289 A.D.2d 978, 734 N.Y.S.2d 802 (4th Dep't
2001).
8 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
257
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
|FN7| Ala.Smith v. Jackson, 770 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. 2000).
|FN8| 1265, 1369, 1370.
|FN9| 776.
|FN10| Cal.In re Marriage oI Micalizio, 199 Cal. App. 3d 662, 245 Cal. Rptr. 673
(4th Dist. 1988).
Ill.In re Marriage oI Dwan, 108 Ill. App. 3d 808, 64 Ill. Dec. 340, 439 N.E.2d 1005
(1st Dist. 1982).
Nev.Rust v. Clark County School Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380, 44 Ed. Law
Rep. 736 (1987).
N.M.Quintana v. Vigil, 46 N.M. 200, 125 P.2d 711 (1942) (overruled by, Evans Financial
Corp. v. Strasser, 99 N.M. 788, 664 P.2d 986 (1983)).
OhioAtkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 37 Ohio St. 3d 80, 523 N.E.2d 851 (1988).
Okla.Depuy v. Hoeme, 1989 OK 42, 775 P.2d 1339 (Okla. 1989).
|FN11| Okla.Depuy v. Hoeme, 1989 OK 42, 775 P.2d 1339 (Okla. 1989).
Tenn. Broadway Motor Co. v. Public Fire Ins. Co., 12 Tenn. App. 278, 1930 WL
1696 (1930).
|FN12| Ala.Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Union Springs Guano Co., 229 Ala. 91,
155 So. 716 (1934).
Neb.Luikart v. Bredthauer, 132 Neb. 62, 271 N.W. 165 (1937).
Okla.Depuy v. Hoeme, 1989 OK 42, 775 P.2d 1339 (Okla. 1989).
Westlaw. 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
CJS JUDGMENTS 144

Corpus Juris Secundum
Database updated December 2011
Appeal and Error
Paul M. ColtoII, J.D., John Glenn, J.D., Glenda K. Harnad, J.D. oI the staII oI the National
Legal Research Group, Inc., John R. Kennel, J.D., oI the staII oI the National Legal Research
Group, Inc., Michele Hughes, J.D., Anne Knickerbocker, J.D., Jack K. Levin, J.D., Thomas
Muskus, J.D., Kimberly C. Simmons, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D., Barbara Van Arsdale, J.D.,
Elizabeth Williams, J.D.
VIII. Requisites and Proceedings Ior TransIer oI Cause
G. Entry or Docketing
Topic Summary ReIerences Correlation Table
500. Generally
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Appeal and Error 431
Under some statutes or rules oI court, the appeal or writ oI error must be properly entered,
recorded, or docketed in order to perIect the appellate proceedings.
Under some statutes or rules, entry, recording, or docketing in the appellate court is necessary
to perIect the appeal.|1|
The requirement oI docketing is not jurisdictional|2| and where an appellant has done all
that is required oI him or her to procure an entry oI the appeal, the clerk's Iailure to enter it
will not cause a dismissal or otherwise aIIect the appellant's rights.|3|
An appellee may waive the required diligence in entering or docketing the appeal.|4|
Waiver oI an insuIIicient entry, or oI delay in entering or docketing may be implied Irom subsequent
action on the appellee's part inconsistent with an intention to take advantage oI the insuIIiciency
or delay.|5| An estoppel to claim an insuIIicient entry may be established by such
words or acts on the part oI appellee as will reasonably justiIy the appellant, through reliance
on the words or acts, in reIraining Irom entering his or her appeal.|6|
|FN1| Fla.Brooks v. Miami Bank & Trust Co., 115 Fla. 141, 155 So. 157 (1934).
La.Queen Ins. Co. oI America v. Blomenstiel, 160 So. 169 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir.
1935).
Mass.Marshall v. Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 51 Mass. App. Ct. 667, 749 N.E.2d
4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error 500
698 (2001).
9 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding Deadline
Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
258
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
Filing
Me.Persson v. Department oI Human Services, 2001 ME 124, 775 A.2d 363 (Me.
2001).
|FN2| Ala.H.C. Schmieding Produce Co., Inc. v. Cagle, 529 So. 2d 243, 7 U.C.C.
Rep. Serv. 2d 676 (Ala. 1988).
|FN3| Colo.People ex rel. Denver Engineers' Supply Co. v. District Court oI City
and County oI Denver, 33 Colo. 416, 80 P. 1069 (1905).
N.C.Simmons v. Allison, 119 N.C. 556, 26 S.E. 171 (1896).
|FN4| Fla.Garrison v. Parsons, 41 Fla. 143, 25 So. 336 (1899).
|FN5| Minn.In re Brady's Estate, 70 Minn. 437, 73 N.W. 145 (1897).
|FN6| Minn.In re Brady's Estate, 70 Minn. 437, 73 N.W. 145 (1897).
OhioKing v. Penn, 43 Ohio St. 57, 1 N.E. 84 (1885).
Westlaw. 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
CJS APPEALERR 500

Corpus Juris Secundum
Database updated December 2011
Executions
Glenda K. Harnad, J.D., oI the staII oI the National Legal Research Group, Inc., Alan J. Jacobs,
J.D., Eric Mayer, Tom Muskus, J.D., Karl Oakes, J.D., JeIIrey J. Shampo, J.D.
I. In General
B. Judgment, Decree, or Order as Basis oI Writ
Topic Summary ReIerences Correlation Table
22. Rendition and entry oI docketing
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Execution 9
While in some jurisdictions an oIIicial entry or docketing is a condition precedent to the
right to the writ, in others such entry or docketing is not essential to enable a party to issue an
execution on a judgment that has been duly rendered.
While the entry or docketing oI a judgment is necessary to create a lien,|1| at common law
an execution is issuable on the signing oI a Iinal judgment and beIore its entry oI record,
providing there is no writ oI error pending or agreement to the contrary,|2| and, in many jurisdictions,
such entry or docketing is not essential to enable a party to issue an execution thereon
iI the judgment otherwise has been duly rendered.|3| Moreover, the Iailure oI the clerk to
enter oI record the judgment rendered within any particular time does not render invalid an
execution valid when issued.|4| Where statutes so provide, entry oI the verdict in the minutes
will sustain an execution issued beIore entry oI the judgment.|5|
In some jurisdictions, on the other hand, by virtue oI statutes or otherwise, an oIIicial
entry or docketing is a condition precedent to the right to the writ,|6| especially where the
judgment is by conIession.|7| Statutes requiring entry oI judgment as a condition precedent do
not, however, include making up the judgment roll,|8| and the general rule is that execution
may issue beIore Iiling or making up the judgment roll,|9| but such a requirement is not universal.|
10| II the statute merely requires an entry oI the judgment, it has been Iound that it
need not be docketed.|11|
Time oI entry and eIIect oI Iailure to enter.
The time when the judgment must be entered, where necessary, is generally regulated by
statutory provisions, and Iiling within such time will permit issuance oI execution.|12| An
entry nunc pro tunc is suIIicient to support and validate an execution, and the irregularity oI
issuing execution beIore entry oI judgment generally may be cured by subsequent entry oI the
judgment.|13| In addition, Ior the purpose oI the validity oI an execution, a judgment entered
33 C.J.S. Executions 22
in term time will be presumed to have been entered during the actual session oI the court,|14|
and a Iailure to make Iormal entry is an irregularity that may be waived by Iailing to make a
motion to vacate until several months aIter the execution has been issued.|15| Generally, the
Iailure Iormally to enter or docket the judgment beIore issuing execution renders the execution
voidable only,|16| although where the entry is essential to the existence oI a valid judgment,
10 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
259
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 execution issued prior thereto is void.|17|
DeIective entry.
Where the amount oI the judgment inadvertently is omitted Irom the judgment entry, a
correction nunc pro tunc validates an execution previously issued.|18|
Registered judgment.
Where a judgment is registered Ior the purpose oI creating a lien, the execution is nevertheless
issued on the original judgment.|19|
|FN1| C.J.S., Judgments 562.
|FN2| N.M.Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 103 N.M. 157, 703 P.2d 934 (Ct. App. 1985).
|FN3| La.Montelepre, Inc. v. PIister, 355 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978).
Mo.Fielder v. Fielder, 671 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1984).
|FN4| Ill.People ex rel. Holbrook v. Petit, 266 Ill. 628, 107 N.E. 830 (1915).
|FN5| N.J.Epps v. Bowen, 118 N.J.L. 50, 191 A. 110 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1937).
|FN6| U.S.Henry v. First Nat. Bank oI Clarksdale, 595 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1979).
IowaArbie Mineral Feed Co., Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 462 N.W.2d 677
(Iowa 1990).
|FN7| Ill.Knights v. Martin, 155 Ill. 486, 40 N.E. 358 (1895).
|FN8| Mont.Burton v. Kipp, 30 Mont. 275, 76 P. 563 (1904).
|FN9| Cal.Sharp v. Lumley, 34 Cal. 611, 1868 WL 736 (1868).
|FN10| N.Y.BlashIield v. Smith, 27 Hun 114 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1882).
|FN11| Wis.Hyman v. Landry, 135 Wis. 598, 116 N.W. 236 (1908).
|FN12| U.S.In re Bhatti, 126 B.R. 229 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1991).
Ala.JeIIerson County Sav. Bank v. Miller, 145 Ala. 237, 40 So. 513 (1906).
|FN13| IowaDoughty v. Meek, 105 Iowa 16, 74 N.W. 744 (1898).
|FN14| Ill.Hansen v. Schlesinger, 125 Ill. 230, 17 N.E. 718 (1888).
|FN15| N.Y.Bowman v. Tallman, 19 Abb. Pr. 84, 26 N.Y. Super. Ct. 633, 28 How.
Pr. 482, 1864 WL 3730 (1864).
|FN16| S.C. Mason & Risch Vocalion Co. v. Killough Music Co., 45 S.C. 11, 22
S.E. 755 (1895).
|FN17| Ill.Knights v. Martin, 155 Ill. 486, 40 N.E. 358 (1895).
|FN18| IowaBrooks v. Owen, 200 Iowa 1151, 202 N.W. 505 (1925), opinion modiIied
on other grounds on denial oI reh'g, Brooks v. Owen., 206 N.W. 149 (Iowa 1925).
Memorandum oI judgment invalid
A memorandum oI judgment Iiled by the assignee oI the judgment creditor was invalid,
and could not be used as the basis Ior a levy sale oI the judgment debtor's property
on a judgment lien, where the memorandum contained an inaccurate judgment amount
in that it Iailed to apply the $7,000 judgment the debtor paid on the judgment.
Ill.Northwest DiversiIied, Inc. v. Desai, 353 Ill. App. 3d 378, 288 Ill. Dec. 818, 818
N.E.2d 753 (1st Dist. 2004).
Interest on judgment
The clerk's Iailure to compute interest owing on the judgment, and to enter it on the
copy oI a judgment he received Irom the court, was a mere clerical error that did not
impair the judgment or prevent the judgment creditor Irom executing thereon Iollowing
an amendment to correct the clerk's omission.
N.Y. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Whitestone General Hosp., 142 Misc. 2d 67, 536
N.Y.S.2d 373 (Sup 1988).
|FN19| Ala.JeIIerson County Sav. Bank v. Miller, 145 Ala. 237, 40 So. 513 (1906).
Westlaw. 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
CJS EXECUTIONS 22

Corpus Juris Secundum
Database updated December 2011
Judgments
Francis C. Amendola, J.D., Paul M. ColtoII, J.D., John Glenn, J.D., Janice Holben, J.D., John
R. Kennel, J.D., oI the staII oI the National Legal Research Group, Inc., Eric Larsson, J.D.,
Stephen Lease, J.D., Jack K. Levin, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Lucas Martin, J.D., Eric
11 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
260
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
Mayer, J.D., Tom Muskus, J.D., Karl Oakes, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D., Alan Wasserstrom,
J.D., Alan Weinstein, J.D.
XIV. Collateral Attack
D. Grounds
3. Errors and Irregularities
Topic Summary ReIerences Correlation Table
737. DeIects in entry or contents oI judgment
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 504(3)
West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 504(4)
West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 505
Mere irregularities in the rendition or entry oI judgments, including judgments by conIession
or consent, are not grounds Ior collateral attack.
A decree rendered in advance oI the period at which the court may lawIully acquire jurisdiction
over the deIendant is subject to collateral attack.|1| However, where no question oI
jurisdiction is raised, a judgment or decree cannot be collaterally impeached because it was
prematurely rendered,|2| or not rendered within the time required by statute,|3| or because it
was based on deIective Iindings by the court, or given without any Iindings at all|4| or is inconsistent
with the Iindings or conclusions oI law.|5| Moreover, a judgment may not be attacked
collaterally because it appears Irom the record or the opinion oI the court that there
was a mistake, and that the judgment should have been diIIerent Irom that actually rendered,|6
| or because oI any irregularity in the entry, record, or docketing oI the judgment,|7| or Ior
any inIormality or incompleteness in the judgment itselI, provided its deIects or omissions are
not such as to render it absolutely unintelligible and thereIore void Ior uncertainty.|8|
The alleged noncompliance oI a judgment with a settlement agreement does not render it
subject to collateral attack.|9|
Judgment beyond pleadings and issues.
According to some authority, where the court goes beyond and outside the pleadings and
issues and assumes to adjudicate a matter not within the issues made up in the pleadings, and
50 C.J.S. Judgments 737
the judgment is to that extent void, the judgment may be attacked collaterally.|10|
Excessive recovery or relieI.
Where a judgment is merely erroneous because it is excessive,|11| either as being greater
than the amount demanded,|12| greater than the Iacts or the evidence would justiIy,|13| or as
improperly including interest,|14| penalties,|15| costs,|16| or counsel Iees,|17| or as allowing
excessive interest|18| or costs,|19| it may not be impeached in a collateral proceeding.
|FN1| D.C.Morse v. U.S., 29 App. D.C. 433, 1907 WL 19758 (App. D.C. 1907).
|FN2| Colo.Netland v. Baughman, 114 Colo. 148, 162 P.2d 601 (1945).
Or.Booth v. Heberlie, 137 Or. 354, 2 P.2d 1108 (1931).
Tenn.Davis v. Mitchell, 27 Tenn. App. 182, 178 S.W.2d 889 (1943).
As to the Iorm, contents, rendition, entry, record, and docketing oI judgment, see
104 to 130, 136 to 169.
Judgment erroneously or irregularly entered
A party to a proceeding will be bound by the judgment in the case when collaterally attacking
it, even though the judgment was irregularly or erroneously entered.
Neb.State v. Head, 276 Neb. 354, 754 N.W.2d 612 (2008).
Voidable judgment
A 'voidable judgment is one entered erroneously by a court having jurisdiction, and
is not subject to collateral attack.
Ill. In re Marriage oI Mitchell, 181 Ill. 2d 169, 229 Ill. Dec. 508, 692 N.E.2d 281
(1998).
|FN3| S.D.Harker v. Cowie, 42 S.D. 159, 173 N.W. 722 (1919).
|FN4| Ark.Brooks v. Baker, 208 Ark. 654, 187 S.W.2d 169 (1945).
N.Y.Shaul v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. oI Maryland, 131 Misc. 401, 227 N.Y.S. 163
(Sup 1928), aII'd, 224 A.D. 773, 230 N.Y.S. 910 (3d Dep't 1928).
Or.Glickman v. Solomon, 140 Or. 358, 12 P.2d 1017 (1932).
12 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
261
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
Collateral attack on Iinding
Where the court had jurisdiction in a Ioreclosure suit, its Iinding as to the land covered
by the mortgage could not be collaterally attacked.
Tex. Sederholm v. City oI Port Arthur, 3 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. Civ. App. Beaumont
1928), writ granted, (Oct. 17, 1928) and aII'd, 13 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. Comm'n App.
1929) and aII'd, 13 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1929).
|FN5| Ark.Brooks v. Baker, 208 Ark. 654, 187 S.W.2d 169 (1945).
Cal.Wellborn v. Wellborn, 55 Cal. App. 2d 516, 131 P.2d 48 (1st Dist. 1942).
Tex. Permian Oil Co. v. Smith, 129 Tex. 413, 73 S.W.2d 490, 111 A.L.R.1152
(1934).
|FN6| U.S.Iselin v. La Coste, 147 F.2d 791 (C.C.A. 5th Cir. 1945).
Cal.McAllister v. Superior Court in and Ior Alameda County, 28 Cal. App. 2d 160,
82 P.2d 462 (1st Dist. 1938).
Miss.McIntosh v. Munson Road Machinery Co., 167 Miss. 546, 145 So. 731 (1933).
|FN7| Fla.State ex rel. McGuire v. Mayo, 128 Fla. 699, 175 So. 732 (1937).
Neb.State ex rel. Ritthaler v. Knox, 217 Neb. 766, 351 N.W.2d 77, 18 Ed. Law Rep.
434 (1984).
Tenn.Whitson v. Johnson, 22 Tenn. App. 427, 123 S.W.2d 1104 (1937).
UtahIntermill v. Nash, 94 Utah 271, 75 P.2d 157 (1938).
Order entered out oI session
That an order taxing the plaintiII with the deIendant's costs was signed and entered out
oI session did not make the order void, so as to allow the plaintiII to collaterally attack
it, where the trial judge adequately made and announced a decision to tax the plaintiII
in the district during the session in which motion was made, and determined and announced
at a hearing the nature oI the penalty to be assessed against the plaintiII.
N.C.Daniels v. Montgomery Mut. Ins. Co., 320 N.C. 669, 360 S.E.2d 772 (1987).
|FN8| U.S.Prichard v. Nelson, 137 F.2d 312 (C.C.A. 4th Cir. 1943).
Fla.State ex rel. Warren v. City oI Miami, 153 Fla. 644, 15 So. 2d 449 (1943).
Tex.Bridgman v. Moore, 143 Tex. 250, 183 S.W.2d 705 (1944).
Vices Ior which judgment can be annulled
Vices as to the Iorm oI a judgment Ior which the judgment can be annulled are
'absolute nullities and can be asserted at any time, in a collateral proceeding, and beIore
any court.
La. Champagne and Rodgers Realty Co., Inc. v. Henning, 947 So. 2d 39 (La. Ct.
App. 5th Cir. 2006), writ denied, 949 So. 2d 440 (La. 2007).
|FN9| Tex. Greiner v. Jameson, 865 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. App. Dallas 1993), writ
denied, (Mar. 23, 1994).
|FN10| Mo.WeatherIord v. Spiritual Christian Union Church, 163 S.W.2d 916 (Mo.
1942).
N.Y.Coles v. Carroll, 273 N.Y. 86, 6 N.E.2d 107 (1937).
OhioBinns v. Isabel, 39 Ohio L. Abs. 225, 12 Ohio Supp. 113 (C.P. 1942), aII'd, 72
Ohio App. 222, 27 Ohio Op. 87, 39 Ohio L. Abs. 237, 51 N.E.2d 501 (2d Dist. Franklin
County 1943).
|FN11| Or.Linn County v. Rozelle, 177 Or. 245, 162 P.2d 150 (1945).
|FN12| Cal.Wallace v. Wallace, 111 Cal. App. 500, 295 P. 1061 (4th Dist. 1931).
Ga.Hardin v. Dodd, 176 Ga. 119, 167 S.E. 277 (1932).
Or.Linn County v. Rozelle, 177 Or. 245, 162 P.2d 150 (1945).
|FN13| Ill. People ex rel. Anderson v. Village oI Bradley, 367 Ill. 301, 11 N.E.2d
415 (1937).
Mich.Morris v. Barker, 253 Mich. 334, 235 N.W. 174 (1931).
Or.Linn County v. Rozelle, 177 Or. 245, 162 P.2d 150 (1945).
|FN14| U.S.Huddleston v. Dwyer, 145 F.2d 311 (C.C.A. 10th Cir. 1944).
Cal. Wells Fargo & Co. v. City and County oI San Francisco, 25 Cal. 2d 37, 152
P.2d 625 (1944).
|FN15| U.S.Huddleston v. Dwyer, 145 F.2d 311 (C.C.A. 10th Cir. 1944).
|FN16| Cal.Wells Fargo & Co. v. City and County oI San Francisco, 25 Cal. 2d 37,
13 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
262
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
152 P.2d 625 (1944).
Or.Linn County v. Rozelle, 177 Or. 245, 162 P.2d 150 (1945).
|FN17| UtahMary Jane Stevens Co. v. Foley, 67 Utah 578, 248 P. 815 (1926).
|FN18| Kan.Dickson v. Patterson, 106 Kan. 794, 189 P. 912 (1920).
|FN19| Or.National Surety Corp. v. Smith, 168 Or. 265, 123 P.2d 203 (1942).
Westlaw. 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
CJS JUDGMENTS 737

Corpus Juris Secundum
Database updated December 2011
Judgments
Francis C. Amendola, J.D., Paul M. ColtoII, J.D., John Glenn, J.D., Janice Holben, J.D., John
R. Kennel, J.D., oI the staII oI the National Legal Research Group, Inc., Eric Larsson, J.D.,
Stephen Lease, J.D., Jack K. Levin, J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Lucas Martin, J.D., Eric
Mayer, J.D., Tom Muskus, J.D., Karl Oakes, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D., Alan Wasserstrom,
J.D., Alan Weinstein, J.D.
VII. Rendition, Entry, Record, and Docketing
A. Rendition
Topic Summary ReIerences Correlation Table
136. Generally
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 191
West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 192
The rendition oI a judgment is the judicial act oI the court in pronouncing the sentence oI
the law on the Iacts in controversy as ascertained by the pleadings and verdict or Iindings, as
distinguished Irom the ministerial act oI entering the judgment.
The rendition oI a judgment is the judicial act oI the court|1| in pronouncing the sentence
oI the law on the Iacts in controversy as ascertained by the pleadings and verdict or Iindings,|
2| as distinguished Irom the oIIicial entry oI the judgment.|3|
'Rendition oI judgment is the act by which the court declares the decision oI the law
upon the matters at issue|4| and it is the substance and eIIect oI an adjudication that is determinative
oI whether it is a judgment, not the Iorm oI the decree.|5|
On its rendition, and without entry, a judgment is Iinal, valid, and enIorceable as between
the parties|6| in the absence oI a statute to the contrary.|7|
Under some authority, the court's practice does not Iavor the termination oI proceedings
without a determination oI the merits oI the controversy where that can be brought about with
due regard to necessary rules oI procedure.|8|
Accordingly, the law does not Iavor the termination oI proceedings without a determination
oI the merits oI the controversy when that can be brought about with due regard to necessary
rules oI procedure, and Ior that reason, the trial court should make every eIIort to adjudicate
the substantive controversy beIore it and, when practicable, should decide a procedural
49 C.J.S. Judgments 136
issue so as not to preclude hearing the merits oI an appeal.|9|
|FN1| Ala.Smith v. Jackson, 770 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. 2000).
Cal.People v. Frontier PaciIic Ins. Co., 83 Cal. App. 4th 1289, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 433
(3d Dist. 2000).
Md.Davis v. Davis, 335 Md. 699, 646 A.2d 365 (1994).
Mo.Cozart v. Mazda Distributors (GulI), Inc., 861 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D.
1993).
Neb.National Account Systems oI Omaha, Inc. v. McIntyre, 2 Neb. App. 884, 518
N.W.2d 158 (1994).
Okla. Peoples Elec. Co-op. v. Broughton, 1942 OK 233, 191 Okla. 229, 127 P.2d
850 (1942).
|FN2| Md.Davis v. Davis, 335 Md. 699, 646 A.2d 365 (1994).
Neb.National Account Systems oI Omaha, Inc. v. McIntyre, 2 Neb. App. 884, 518
N.W.2d 158 (1994).
14 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
263
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
Okla. Presbyterian Hosp., Inc. v. Board oI Tax-Roll Corrections oI Oklahoma
County, 1984 OK 93, 693 P.2d 611 (Okla. 1984).
Tenn.Christopher v. Spooner, 640 S.W.2d 833 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).
Tex.Arriaga v. Cavazos, 880 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1994).
W.Va.Echard v. City oI Parkersburg, 187 W. Va. 350, 419 S.E.2d 14 (1992).
Decision or Iindings by court, generally, see C.J.S., Trial 602 to 606, 609 to 612.
Verdict or Iindings by jury, generally, see C.J.S., Trial 485.
|FN3| Ariz. American Sur. Co. oI N.Y. v. Mosher, 48 Ariz. 552, 64 P.2d 1025
(1936).
Mo.In re Marriage oI Huey, 716 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1986).
Tenn.Christopher v. Spooner, 640 S.W.2d 833 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).
Tex.Bakali v. Bakali, 830 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. App. Dallas 1992).
W.Va.Echard v. City oI Parkersburg, 187 W. Va. 350, 419 S.E.2d 14 (1992).
As to entry, generally, see 143.
|FN4| Tex.Stallworth v. Stallworth, 201 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. App. Dallas 2006).
Va.JeIIerson v. Com., 269 Va. 136, 607 S.E.2d 107 (2005).
|FN5| Cal. Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway, 158 Cal. App. 4th
796, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 434 (4th Dist. 2008).
|FN6| Ala.Du Pree v. Hart, 242 Ala. 690, 8 So. 2d 183 (1942).
Cal.Bank One Texas v. Pollack, 24 Cal. App. 4th 973, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 510 (2d Dist.
1994).
Ill.Wickiser v. Powers, 324 Ill. App. 130, 57 N.E.2d 522 (3d Dist. 1944).
Neb.Pontiac Imp. Co. v. Leisy, 144 Neb. 705, 14 N.W.2d 384 (1944).
As to execution beIore entry see C.J.S., Executions 13.
As to necessity oI entry, see 144.
|FN7| Ark.McConnell v. Bourland, 175 Ark. 253, 299 S.W. 44 (1927).
Del.Hazzard v. Alexander, 36 Del. 512, 178 A. 873 (Super. Ct. 1935).
Or.Haberly v. Farmers' Mut. Fire RelieI Ass'n, 135 Or. 32, 287 P. 222 (1930).
|FN8| Conn.Rocco v. Garrison, 268 Conn. 541, 848 A.2d 352 (2004);
Pietraroia v. Northeast Utilities, 254 Conn. 60, 756 A.2d 845 (2000).
|FN9| Conn. Fedus v. Planning and Zoning Com'n, 278 Conn. 751, 900 A.2d 1
(2006); Olympia Mortg. Corp. v. Klein, 61 Conn. App. 305, 763 A.2d 1055 (2001).
Westlaw. 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
CJS JUDGMENTS 136

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The video Pam Roberts provided in her Discovery clearly shows Wal-Marts Frontino perhaps
making, but deIinitely handing a cd to RSIC OIIicers Braunworth and CrawIord at the conclusion oI
the arrest in question. However, I believe all three men testiIied that no other video existed relevant
to the accusation or arrest other than the interrogation room video, which was still Iilming the
exchange oI the cd between Frontino and the RSIC OIIicers. Further, RSIC OIIicer CrawIord can
clearly be seen in the interrogation room videos receiving a drivers license Irom Coughlin and calling
it in on his radio, despite CrawIord, testiIying, under oath, at trial, that Coughlin was arrested, in large
part, because he did not produce a physical driver's license and the inIormation which would be
15 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
264
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
contained thereon and necessary to write a citation. CrawIord testiIied that this lack oI producing a
drivers license (and the dispatch records can clearly show the running oI Coughlin's drivers license
number, which Coughlin hereby declares under penalty oI perjury he has never committed to memory
in his entire liIe). Further, in direct contradiction to the sworn testimony oI both Frontino and
CrawIord, the UPC Ior the cough drops does appear on both the allegedly stolen items $14.00 receipt
and the $80.00 receipt oI items purchased immedately prior to the arrest. Both Frontino and
CrawIord swore that the UPC did not appear on both.
ANALYSIS
Winston Products v. DeBoer, 122 Nev. Adv.Op. 48, 134 P. 3rd 726 (2006);'In resolving this motion,
we revisit the method used to compute the time Ior Iiling motions Ior judgment as a matter oI law and
Ior a new trial and the tolling period to Iile a notice oI appeal when these motions are served by mail
or electronic means. The Nevada Rules oI Civil Procedure (NRCP) require these so-called tolling
motions to be Iiled within 10 days Irom the date a judgment is Iiled and served. However, the 2004
amendments to the NRCP changed the computation oI time where the prescribed period is less than
11 days to exclude Saturdays, Sundays and nonjudicial days. Where, as here, the time to Iile a
tolling motion is 10 days, we conclude that the 'period oI time prescribed in NRCP 6(a) does not
include the 3-day allowance Ior service by mail under NRCP 6(e). ThereIore, the Iiling period Ior a
tolling motion is computed Iirst under NRCP 6(a), and then 3 additional days are added under NRCP
6(e) when service was made by mail or electronic means. Using this computation method, we
conclude that appellant's tolling motions were timely Iiled in the district court. Accordingly, we
deny respondent's motion to dismiss this appeal. Further, although this issue was not addressed by
the parties, we conclude that the tolling motions also tolled the time to appeal Irom the post-judgment
order awarding attorney Iees and costs.
16 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
265
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
FACTS
The Iinal judgment aIter a jury verdict in Iavor oI respondent was Iiled on April 18, 2005.
Respondent served appellant with notice oI entry oI the district court's Iinal judgment via Iacsimile
and mail on April 21, 2005. FiIteen days later, on May 6, 2005, appellant moved the district court
Ior judgment as a matter oI law under NRCP 50(b) or Ior a new trial pursuant to NRCP 59.
Respondent opposed appellant's motions in the district court, arguing, in part, that they were not
timely Iiled.
BeIore resolving the motions, on June 9, 2005, the district court entered a post-judgment order
awarding attorney Iees and costs in Iavor oI respondent. Notice oI entry oI the order was served on
appellant on June 10, 2005. On June 27, 2005, the district court entered its order denying
appellant's motion Ior judgment as a matter oI law or Ior a new trial. The district court determined
that appellant's motions had been timely Iiled but concluded that appellant was not entitled to any
relieI. On July 29, 2005, within 30 days aIter service oI notice oI entry oI the June 27 order
resolving the motions, appellant Iiled a notice oI appeal Irom that order, the Iinal judgment, and the
post-judgment order awarding attorney Iees and costs.
Respondent has Iiled a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that appellant's motions Ior judgment as
a matter oI law and Ior a new trial were not timely and thereIore did not toll the time to appeal.
Appellant opposes the motion.
DISCUSSION
This court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal that is Iiled beyond the time allowed under
NRAP 4(a).
1
A timely Iiled motion Ior judgment as a matter oI law under NRCP 50(b) or Ior a new
trial under NRCP 59 tolls the time Ior Iiling an appeal until no later than 30 days aIter a party serves
17 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
266
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
written notice that the order resolving such motions has been entered.
2
A tolling motion under
NRCP 50(b) or NRCP 59 is timely iI it is Iiled within 10 days aIter a party serves written notice that a
judgment has been entered.
3
Three additional days are added to this Iiling deadline when service
was made by mail or electronic means.
4

In the motion to dismiss, respondent argues that our prior case law requires that the 3-day allowance
Ior mailing be added directly to the 10-day period to Iile tolling motions beIore computing the Iiling
deadline under NRCP 6(a). Employing this rationale subjects these tolling motions to a 13-day time
period. Under NRCP 6(a), intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and nonjudicial days would be included
in the computation oI the 13-day period. Applying this approach to this case results in the thirteenth
day Irom service oI notice oI entry Ialling on May 4, 2005. In this scenario, because appellant's
motions were not Iiled until May 6, 2005, they would be untimely and would not eIIectively toll the
time to appeal.
Appellant encourages us to adopt the opposite approach to that suggested by respondent. Instead oI
Iirst adding the 3 days Ior service by mail to reach a 13-day time period, appellant contends that
sound judicial policy Iavors adding the 3-day allowance only aIter computing the 10-day Iiling period
and excluding intermediate nonjudicial days under NRCP 6(a). Appellant argues that this method oI
computing the time period is consistent with Iederal court interpretation oI the analogous Iederal rule,
FRCP 6, and Iurthers the intent oI NRCP 6(e) by allowing Ior more time when service is made by
mail. Using this method in this case, appellant argues that its motions Ior judgment as a matter oI
law and Ior a new trial were timely Iiled and eIIectively tolled the time to appeal.
Rule 6oI the Nevada Rules oI Civil Procedure governs time:
18 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
267
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
(a)Computation. In computing any period oI time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local
rules oI any district court, by order oI court, or by any applicable statute, the day oI the act, event, or
deIault Irom which the designated period oI time begins to run shall not be included. The last day
oI the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a nonjudicial day, in
which event the period runs until the end oI the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a
nonjudicial day, or, when the act to be done is the Iiling oI a paper in court, a day on which weather
or other conditions have made the oIIice oI the clerk oI the district court inaccessible, in which event
the period runs until the end oI the next day which is not one oI the aIorementioned days. When the
period oI time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and
nonjudicial days shall be excluded in the computation except Ior those proceedings Iiled under Titles
12 or 13 oI the Nevada Revised Statutes.

(e)Additional Time AIter Service by Mail or Electronic means. Whenever a party has the right or
is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period aIter the service oI a
notice or other paper, other than process, upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the
party by mail or by electronic means, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.
(Emphases added.) This court has previously considered in two cases the issue oI computing time
periods under NRCP 6 when service was made by mail. In Ross v. Giacomo, this court concluded
that in calculating the time to Iile a tolling motion, the 3-day allowance Ior service by mail is added
directly to the 10-day period-resulting in a 13-day Iiling period.
5
More recently, in Custom Cabinet
Factory oI New York v. District Court, a 2003 case involving the 30-day time period to Iile a request
Ior trial de novo aIter arbitration, we aIIirmed the computation method employed in Ross and held
that the 3-day allowance Ior service by mail 'should be added to the time allotted by statute or rule
19 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
268
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
Iirst and then the time period should be computed under NRCP 6(a).
6
We reasoned that the
alternative method oI computing time under Rule 6(a) oI adding the 3 days Ior service by mail aIter
computing the Iiling deadline 'would potentially result in an additional Iive to seven days to Iile
motions which was 'complicated and absurd.
7
Instead, we believed at the time that using the
method oI Iirst adding the 3 days Ior service by mail to the time allotted by statute or rule and then
computing the time period, was a simpler and speedier computation scheme.
8

However, in 2004, aIter our decisions in Ross and Custom Cabinet, we amended NRCP 6 to be
consistent with the 1985 amendments to the Iederal rule.
9
That amendment made the exclusion oI
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days applicable in computing time periods oI less
than 11 days.
10
BeIore the 2004 amendment, NRCP 6(a) only excluded intermediate nonjudicial
days in computing periods oI less than 7 days. Several Iederal courts have considered the intent
behind FRCP 6(e)'s 3-day mailing allowance in interpreting the 1985 amendment to the computation
provision oI FRCP 6(a).
11
In computing time periods in those cases, the Iederal decisions have
Iocused on the 'period oI time prescribed and determined that it does not include the 3 additional
days Ior mailing under Rule 6(e). Those Iederal courts have thereIore Iound that the less-than-11-
day provision oI Rule 6(a) is applicable to 10-day periods even when service is made by mail.
In the Iirst seminal case aIter the 1985 amendment to FRCP 6, a Iederal district court in Nalty v.
Nalty Tree Farm recognized that the amendment 'was intended to extend the response time allowed
under various rules prescribing ten day limits.
12
The Nalty court observed, however, that adding
additional time Ior mailing under Rule 6(e) to create a 13-day time period ultimately resulted in the
same amount oI time that was allowed beIore the 1985 amendment because at that time, nonjudicial
days were not excluded Irom the computation oI 10-day periods.
13
The court determined that
20 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
269
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
'|s|uch a result cannot be consistent with the obvious intentions oI the advisory committee and
declared that '|t|he mailing rule should provide three extra days, in addition to whatever period the
party would otherwise have, to reIlect the presumed lapse in notice because oI service by mail.
14

The Nalty court thus held that the 3-day allowance Ior mailing should be added only aIter computing
the time period under Rule 6(a).
15

Likewise, in Lerro v. Quaker Oats Co.,
16
the Seventh Circuit Court oI Appeals addressed this same
issue in the context oI an objection to a magistrate judge's report and concluded that 'the period oI
time in Rule 6(a) was not the sum oI all allowable periods. The court noted that Rule 6(e) is
'designed to give a litigant approximately the same eIIective time to respond whether papers are
served by hand or by mail.
17
And the court reasoned that '|t|he only way to carry out Rule 6(e)'s
Iunction oI adding time to compensate Ior delays in mail delivery is to employ Rule 6(a) Iirst.
18

In Tushner v. United States District Court Ior Central District oI CaliIornia, the Ninth Circuit Court
oI Appeals concluded that the 10-day period prescribed Ior Iiling a jury demand did not become a 13-
day period Ior purposes oI Rule 6(a) as a result oI the service-by-mail provision oI Rule 6(e).
19
The
court stated that Rule 6(e) should not be 'construed to render prescribed periods oI less than eleven
days ineligible Ior beneIicial treatment under Rule 6(a) and concluded that it 'would be anomalous
to interpret the rules so that a litigant served by mail would have less time Ior action than a litigant
served personally.
20
Instead, the court held that '|t|he period is calculated Iirst by applying the
less-than-eleven-day provision oI Rule 6(a), thereby excluding any intervening weekends and legal
holidays. AIter this computation, three additional days are added Ior mail service under Rule 6(e).
21

21 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
270
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
As we noted in Custom Cabinet, Iederal decisions are not binding on this court.
22
However, '|w|e
have previously recognized that Iederal decisions involving the Federal Rules oI Civil Procedure
provide persuasive authority when this court examines its rules.
23
On the particular issue oI
computing time under NRCP 6, the Iederal decisions discussed above in regard to the Iederal rule are
logically compelling.
Our decisions in Custom Cabinet and Ross reIlect the court's desire to maintain a simple, eIIicient
and uniIorm system Ior computing time periods under NRCP 6.
24
However, neither oI those cases
considered the impact that their computation scheme would have on Iiling periods subject to the
provision in NRCP 6(a) Ior the exclusion oI intermediate nonjudicial days. In light oI our recent
amendment to NRCP 6(a), which made the nonjudicial-day exclusion applicable to longer time
periods, we can no longer reconcile the utility oI Ross and Custom Cabinet with the stiIling eIIect
that they have on the intent behind Rule 6(e). Rule 6(e) is intended to provide litigants with
additional time when service is made by mail. The computation method we employed in Custom
Cabinet and Ross works contrary to that intent. Using the method employed in those cases aIter the
amendment to Rule 6(a), when a 10-day time period is involved, the party personally served would
always have more time to act than a party served by mail.
For example, NRCP 59(b) provides that '|a| motion Ior a new trial shall be Iiled no later than 10 days
aIter service oI written notice oI the entry oI the judgment. II a party is personally served with
notice oI entry, that party has 14 calendar days to Iile a motion because under NRCP 6(a), the
intermediate nonjudicial days would be excluded Irom the computation. But under the Ross and
Custom Cabinet computation scheme, iI that party had been served by mail, that party would only
have 13 calendar days to Iile the same motion because the intermediate nonjudicial days would be
included in the computation. And aIter taking into account the actual time Ior delivery oI mail, a
22 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
271
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
party served by mail would certainly have even less than 13 calendar days to act. This result deIeats
the purpose oI Rule 6(e) and essentially makes the amendment to Rule 6(a) a nullity by converting
10-day time periods into 13-day periods that do not garner the beneIit oI the amendment. As the
Seventh Circuit observed in Lerro, '|i|nteractions within a complex set oI rules sometimes can have
unexpected and unwelcome eIIects, but we should not create them when the text readily can bear
another meaning.
25
We should not do so here in interpreting NRCP 6.
We thereIore reverse our decisions in Custom Cabinet and Ross to the extent that they require that
Iiling periods be computed by adding the 3 days Ior service by mail under NRCP 6(e) to the
prescribed period beIore applying NRCP 6(a). Consistent with the compelling Iederal cases
discussed above, we hold that the 10-day time period Ior Iiling motions Ior judgment as a matter oI
law and Ior a new trial should be calculated Iirst under NRCP 6(a), excluding intermediate Saturdays,
Sundays and nonjudicial days. II service was made by mail or electronic means, 3 days should
thereaIter be added pursuant to NRCP 6(e).
In this case, notice oI the judgment's entry was served by mail on Thursday, April 21, 2005.
Computing the 10-day time period Irom this date and excluding intermediate nonjudicial days under
NRCP 6(a), extended the deadline Ior tolling motions to Thursday, May 5, 2005. Adding 3 days at
that point Ior service by mail made Monday, May 9, 2005, the Iinal deadline to Iile motions Ior
judgment as a matter oI law or Ior a new trial. Appellant's motions were Iiled beIore that date, and
thereIore they were timely Iiled and eIIectively tolled the time to appeal. ThereaIter, appellant
timely Iiled a notice oI appeal within 30 days aIter service oI written notice oI entry oI the order
resolving the tolling motions.
26

23 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
272
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
Finally, although the motion to dismiss and opposition did not address whether appellant's tolling
motions tolled the time to appeal Irom the post-judgment order awarding attorney Iees, because oI the
ambiguous nature oI this area oI law and the potential pitIall that it may present to practitioners, we
elect to address it sua sponte.
27
The precise issue is whether a tolling motion directed at the Iinal
judgment also tolls the time to appeal Irom a special order aIter Iinal judgment. This is an issue oI
Iirst impression in Nevada.
An order awarding attorney Iees and costs is substantively appealable as a special order aIter Iinal
judgment.
28
Special orders aIter Iinal judgment are appealable because they aIIect the rights oI a
party growing out oI the Iinal judgment.
29
Like an appeal Irom a Iinal judgment, an appeal Irom an
order awarding attorney Iees and costs must be Iiled no more than 30 days Irom the date that notice
oI the order's entry is served.
30

Here, notice oI entry oI the order awarding attorney Iees and costs was served on appellant on June
10, 2005. However, appellant did not Iile its notice oI appeal until July 29, 2005-well beyond the
30-day time limit allowed under NRAP 4(a)(1). Accordingly, this court only has jurisdiction to
consider issues relating to the attorney Iees and costs order iI the time to appeal Irom that order was
tolled by appellant's motions Ior judgment as a matter oI law and Ior a new trial.
NRAP 4(a)(4) provides that when a tolling motion is Iiled, 'the time to Iile a notice oI appeal runs Ior
all parties Irom entry oI an order disposing oI the last such remaining motion. This court's
decisions have evaluated tolling motions in the context oI appeals Irom Iinal judgments.
31
However,
because NRAP 4(a)(4) does not speciIy Irom which orders the time to appeal may be tolled, its
applicability to post-judgment orders awarding attorney Iees and costs is unclear.
24 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
273
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
In this case, the order awarding attorney Iees to respondent was predicated on the Iinal judgment in
respondent's Iavor. There is thus a close connection between the Iinal judgment and the special
order aIter Iinal judgment in that a change to the Iinal judgment would likely result in a change to the
special order aIter Iinal judgment. By deIinition, any special order aIter Iinal judgment must be
closely related to the judgment. This close connection leads us to conclude that the tolling motions
enumerated in NRAP 4(a)(4) apply to both types oI orders. Any other interpretation oI NRAP 4(a)
(4) would result in the appeal oI a post-judgment order proceeding in this court while the underlying
judgment was still subject to change during the pendency oI tolling motions in the district court.
Such an eIIect would not only impede judicial economy and result in piecemeal litigation,
32
but it
would also likely be counterintuitive to many legal practitioners and create signiIicant conIusion over
the time Ior Iiling appeals Irom special orders aIter Iinal judgment. As we have previously
explained, '|t|he Iiling oI a simple notice oI appeal was intended to take the place oI more
complicated procedures to obtain review, and the notice should not be used as a technical trap Ior the
unwary draItsman.
33
Our interpretation oI NRAP 4(a)(4) tolling motions should reIlect our intent
to preserve a simple and eIIicient procedure Ior Iiling a notice oI appeal.
We thereIore hold that a timely Iiled tolling motion under NRAP 4(a)(4) tolls the time to appeal
Irom both Iinal judgment and special orders entered aIter Iinal judgment. Accordingly, this court
has jurisdiction to consider the merits oI any issues raised in this appeal relating to the award oI
attorney Iees and costs in the district court's June 9, 2005, order.
CONCLUSION
We reverse our decisions in Custom Cabinet and Ross to the extent that they require that Iiling
periods be computed by adding 3 days Ior service by mail under NRCP 6(e) to the prescribed time
25 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
274
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
period beIore applying NRCP 6(a). Further, we hold that the 'period oI time prescribed does not
include the 3-day allowance Ior service by mail under NRCP 6(e) and that time periods should be
calculated Iirst under NRCP 6(a) beIore adding time under NRCP 6(e). Using this method oI
computation, we conclude that appellant's motions Ior judgment as a matter oI law and Ior new trial
were timely Iiled and thus eIIectively tolled the time to appeal. As a result, appellant's notice oI
appeal was timely Iiled. Accordingly, we deny respondent's motion to dismiss.
We Iurther hold that timely motions listed under NRAP 4(a)(4) toll both the time to appeal Irom the
Iinal judgment and the time to appeal Irom a special order entered aIter Iinal judgment.
Accordingly, this court also has jurisdiction to consider the merits oI appellant's appeal Irom the
district court's order awarding attorney Iees and costs in Iavor oI respondent.
FOOTNOTES
1. See NRAP 3(a); Alvis v. State, Gaming Control Bd., 99 Nev. 184, 660 P.2d 980 (1983).
2. NRAP 4(a)(4).
3. NRCP 50(b); NRCP 59(b).
4. NRCP 6(e).
5. 97 Nev. 550, 553 nn. 1 & 2, 635 P.2d 298, 300 nn. 1 & 2 (1981).
6. 119 Nev. 51, 54-55, 62 P.3d 741, 743 (2003).
7. Id. at 54, 62 P.3d at 742-43.
8. Id.
9. See NRCP 6 draIter's note (2004).
10. Id.
26 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
275
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. See, e.g., Nalty v. Nalty Tree Farm, 654 F.Supp. 1315 (S.D.Ala.1987); Tushner v. U.S. Dist.
Court Ior Cent. Dist. oI Cal., 829 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1987); Lerro v. Quaker Oats Co., 84 F.3d 239
(7th Cir.1996).
12. 654 F.Supp. at 1317.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 1317-18.
16. 84 F.3d 239, 242.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. 829 F.2d at 855-56.
20. Id. (citing Nalty, 654 F.Supp. at 1317).
21. Id. at 855-56.
22. 119 Nev. at 54, 62 P.3d at 742-43.
23. Nelson v. Heer, 121 Nev. 832, 122 P.3d 1252, 1253 (2005).
24. Custom Cabinet, 119 Nev. at 55, 62 P.3d at 743.
25. 84 F.3d at 242.
26. NRAP 4(a)(4).
27. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 122 Nev. 409, 132 P.3d 1022 (2006); McNair v.
Rivera, 110 Nev. 463, 468 n. 6, 874 P.2d 1240, 1244 n. 6 (1994); Bradley v. Romeo, 102 Nev. 103,
105, 716 P.2d 227, 228 (1986); Western Indus., Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 91 Nev. 222, 229-30, 533
P.2d 473, 478 (1975).
28. Smith v. Crown Financial Services, 111 Nev. 277, 289 n. 2, 890 P.2d 769, 771 n. 2 (1995).
27 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
276
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
29. See Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 59 P.3d 1220 (2002).
30. NRAP 4(a)(1).
31. See, e.g., Matter oI Application oI Duong, 118 Nev. 920, 922-23, 59 P.3d 1210, 1212 (2002)
(concluding that a timely Iiled motion to amend or make additional Iindings oI Iact tolled the time to
appeal Irom a Iinal judgment denying a petition to seal criminal records); Chapman Industries v.
United Insurance, 110 Nev. 454, 457, 874 P.2d 739, 741 (1994) (concluding that timely Iiled tolling
motions tolled the time to appeal Irom the Iinal judgment); Able Electric, Inc. v. KauIman, 104 Nev.
29, 31-32, 752 P.2d 218, 220 (1988) (concluding that a motion to alter or amend tolled the time to
appeal Irom the Iinal judgment).
32. See, e.g., HallicraIters Co. v. Moore, 102 Nev. 526, 728 P.2d 441 (1986).
33. Forman v. Eagle ThriIty Drugs & Markets, 89 Nev. 533, 536, 516 P.2d 1234, 1235 (1973),
overruled on other grounds by Garvin v. Dist. Ct., 118 Nev. 749, 751, 59 P.3d 1180, 1181 (2002).
Winston Products v. DeBoer, 122 Nev. Adv.Op. 48, 134 P. 3rd 726 (2006);
The above, admittedly extended citation, applies to this issues at hand. WhereIore, the
udnersigned seeks a copy oI the Order Irom the 11 30 , 2011 Trial, including any Contempt Order,
which must set Ior the with speciIicity pursuant to Houston v. Eight Judicial Distirct Court when
Judge Pomeranze put Houston in cuIIs Ior about 30 minutes, a case I am somewhat aware oI:
Coughlin Mandamus:
http://caseinIo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID22746
Houston Mandamus:
http://caseinIo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID14052
DATED this December 16th, 2011
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
28 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
277
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. I am the DeIendant in this action.
2. I am not sure exactly what Judge Howard Ordered at the conclusion oI the November 20
th
,
20ll Trial
3. I have not been entirely sure what the diIIerence is between emails and Iaxes, as many people
send Iaxes Irom their computers, like email, and it is my understanding that all electronic
transmissions, whether text, sound, video, whatever, are ultimately just converted to series oI
1's and 0's....Nonetheless, I have read the RMCR Rule 5 on service oI motions by Iascimile
and made reasonable attempts to comply with Ms. Roberts request that I interpret that rule to
mean a transmission oI 1's and 0's that is not 'email based. As such, I Iax her Irom a Iax
number oI mine, 949-667-7402 and have Iaxed her the December 13
th
Motion Ior a New Trial,
etc. to Ms. Roberts at her Iax number. I know oI know rule that allows Ms. Roberts, a public
employee, to all the sudden declare a citizen is not allowed to email her, much less opposing
counsel in a case.
4. Attorneys in private practice, as Iar as I know, manage to open attachments, use Spybot,
Malwarebytes, SuperAntiSpyware, whatever....they make it happen without a super bloated
governmental salary and don't claim a 'Iear oI viruses should dictate everything, in my
opinion.
5. At the conclusion oI the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial, indeed, several hours prior to its
conclusion even, I was extremely Iaint and it was very diIIicult to Iunction at the level
necessary to put on a deIense. I do not wish to go into the why's and whereIores oI this, it
29 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
278
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
may involved ADA/privacy issues/medical issues, but, suIIice to say, I in no way could have
imagined that the RMC would see Iit to hold everyone there, many getting paid quite a bit oI
overtime, in some incredible eIIort to make sure this one little old petit larceny trial got done
super, super Iast. I could have never imagined that the Trial would continue until almost 9 pm
at night, why, in my experience, government employees generally leave their oIIice buildings
as soon aIter 5 pm as humanly possible. As such, I was in no way prepared,
physically/mentally/medically, etc. to continue on that late into the evening.
6. Apparently, at the close oI Trial, Judge Howard made a ruling. I have received conIlicting
reports as to whether the RMC is asserting that I entered a guilty plea (I do not believe that
assertion comports with reality in any way) or whether Judge Howard made a Iinding oI
Contempt committed in the presence oI the Court 22.030 and summarily sentenced me to
three days in jail, with no possibility oI stay or appellate review, despite Judge Howard having
denied me my Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, assuring me he would not order any
incarceration. I outlined to Judge Howard what a devastating eIIect his ruling might have on
my clients cases to the extent he was not aIIording me any opportunity to help them make
other arrangements to avoid prejudicing their cases, and Judge Howard agreed that he was sad
about that then angrily leIt the bench aIter exclaiming something like 'we are oII the record.
7. At that point Judge Howard's team oI Marshalls (I think about Iour oI the Marshalls, at least
were working at overtime wages at that point in the night to insure that the Wal-Mart clerk
would not be burdened by having to return to court during normal business hours should a
continuance have been granted) stormed up to me and demanded I assume a handcuIIed
position, despite my passionate pleas that I needed to be able to hit the 'save button on my
notes Irom the trial on my netbook computer. The Marshals told me that was not allowed to
30 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
279
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 the 'save button and that they didn't care about my notes being lost. Its really was quite
remarkable the extent to which these Marshals treated me like I just knocked oII a liquor store
with a Iirearm, pistol whipped the cashier, then happened upon them in the parking lot aIter
they witnessed the entire event.
8. I was taken back to a holding cell Ior several minutes, whereupon I was summoned back into
the court room and Judge Howards presence where he talked some more. As I recall, Judge
Howard mentioned a 10 day limitations period or deadline that would be running Irom the
notice oI entry oI his Verdict and Contempt Finding. Judge Howard mentioned that, given
that he was incarcerating me Ior the next 3 days, he was going to extend all deadlines which
might apply to any notices oI appeal or motions seeking a new trial, to set aside the judgment,
vacate, etc an additional three days aIter the normal time on which those limitations periods
would run. Judge Howard seemed to explain that this would have the eIIect oI giving me
more time to undertake to Iile these pleadings, motions, and notices iI I so choose so that the
summary incarceration (which Judge Howard was sure to point out would not be bailable or
otherwise circumvented by any attempts to access justice) would not prejudice my ability to
do so. As I understood it this meant lengthening the time I had to Iile such papers, not
shortening it, and Judge Howard seemed to indicate that the period to Iile such things would
still be adjudged to be within the 11 days or less cited in NRCP 6(a), and, as such, non
judicial days would not count towards the 10 days within which I must Iile the various post
Verdict papers I might want to Iile. Judge Howard seemed to indicate that the three additional
days he was granting me would be added on aIter the expiration oI those 10 non judicial days
Irom notice oI entry oI Judge Howard's Order was Iiled with the RMC and served upon me.
31 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
280
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. It is my recollection that Judge Howard then leIt the courtroom and I was leIt alone with
about 4 Marshals, all collecting overtime. At that point the got a bit rough with me and
started speaking in very hostile, ominous tones, shoving some papers in Iront oI my Iace, but
not long enough Ior me to be able to read them or discern what they related to. The Marshals
began demanding that I sign these papers. I asked them iI they were mortgage documents or
perhaps some student loan agreements or other sorts oI documents Ior which any reasonable
person would want an opportunity to review prior to signing. This made the Marshals even
more angry than they normally seem, and they typically seem very, very angry most oI the
time, to me at least. In Iact, Marshal Mentzel, at My October 11
th
, 2011 arraignment had
become enraged with me Ior askign questions about my Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. I
reported this to the court and even made a notation about it, I believe, on the document
Marshal Mentzel demanded I sign on that day. That same day Marshal Mentzel criticized me
to my Iace aIter I appeared beIore Judge Gardner Ior the arraignment. Mentzel told me I had
asked Judge Gardner stupid questions, and I believe he made some other insulting and
threatening remarks to me at that time, but I am a bit aIraid to get into here in much detail.
10. So, on November 30
th
, 2011, aIter Judge Howard leIt the courtroom the Marshals would not
let me read the papers they wanted me to sign Ior more than a second or two beIore they
began hounding me to sign them in angry and threatening tones. I was so distraught Irom the
various irregularities I perceived in the Trial, and that was only compounded by the thuggish
behavior oI the Marshals, who quickly inIormed me that they didn't have time Ior me to read
anything and dragged me away to the 3 days oI incarceration I Iaced, while my car was sure
to get towed (especially considering the Deputees at the Washoe County Jail saw Iit to reIuse
to allow me to make more than, I believe, a single phone call, shortly aIter arriving at the jail,
32 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
281
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
whereupon they went into their usual routine oI retaliating against one who reIuses to divulge
their religious preIerence or one who cannot answer all oI their highly invasive questions with
the exact degree oI speciIicity they demand. This retaliation, in my case, included Iorcing me
into some sort oI position on my knees extremely close to the crotches oI several WCSO
Deputees in some sort oI sadistic Iorced simulation oI my perIorming oral sex upon them, at
least Irom my point oI view. I was placed in a Ireezing cold room, with a cement Iloor, by
myselI, in retaliaton Ior Iailing to disclose my religious preIerence and indicating that I was
not exactly sure how much money I made each month given the variable nature oI my
compensation. I was place alone in a holding cell with nothing but a wooden bench, and the
ice cold cement Iloor due to the cell being sequestered away Irom the buildings heat sources,
including other people. My dog was leIt to Iend Ior itselI. My dog was Ieature in this
December's Nevada Lawyer magazine, Jackson Pawluck, a 3 year old Pekingnese.
11. 3 Days later when I was release Irom jail, the personal property returned to me did not
included any Verdict or Contempt Finding/Order related to the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial in
RMC 11 CR 22176. I called several times in the days Iollowing my release and spoke with
Veronica Lopez (though it took several days to ascertain her last name given that neither she
nor anyone associated with the RMC would divulge it to me) whom inIormed me that I had
been served Judge Howard's Order at the conclusion oI the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial. Ms.
Lopez immediately took a bullying, hostile, aggressive tone with me that seem completely out
oI place coming Irom her given the position oI authority the public has entrusted her with and
what I Ieel is a duty on her part to attempt to come across as 'judicial rather than tyrannical.
12. I inIormed Ms. Lopez that I did not Ieel I had been served at all, and that I was not at all sure
what she was reIerring to, but that I would deIinitely like to get a copy oI any Order
33 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
282
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
immediately, as well as a copy oI the audio oI the Trial. I believe Ms. Lopez inIormed me
that I would not be allowed a copy oI the audio, but that I would need to pay Ior a transcript to
be made. I am sure, however, that a Iemale RMC Iiling oIIice counter employee told me on
or about the same day that I would not ever be provided a copy oI the audio recording oI the
trial but that I would need to pay to have a transcript made, and that I could only use Pam
Longoni, the RMC's OIIicial Transcriptist.
13. I called Ms. Longoni and when I Iinally got ahold oI her she inIormed me that she would need
the RMC to allow her access to the audio (despite her being 'linked to the RMC's systems),
and that until that was done, she could not quote me an estimate Ior the transcript cost, nor
could she accept any payment Iorm me. I believe Ms. Longoni Iurther indicated to me that I
would not be able to get a copy oI the actual audio recording either
14. I have sent several written communications and had several verbal communications with D.
Ballard and other RMC personnel expressing my exigent desire to get a copy oI the audio oI
the Trial, and how necessary it was to preparing Iilings/motions/pleadings Ior which I had a
very limited period oI time to craIt.
15. BeIore, while, and aIter speaking with Ms. Ballard, a gentleman whose name escapes me but
who is a Iiling counter clerk at the RMC told me I would need to get a subpoena to get a copy
oI the RMC docket in my case, and that he couldn't give me copies oI anything in my case,
certainly not the Order stemming Irom the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial, that he did not have
access to such, and even iI he did, would not provide it, and that his system did not show
entry oI anything in connection with the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial. He Iurther veriIied that
there had not been any entry in his 'docket Ior RMC 11 CR22176 2I and that no Notice oI
Entry oI Order or Entry oI Order existed in his sytem or computer Ior that matter Iollowing
34 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
283
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
the Trial. He did indicate that 'they said the Motion Ior New Trial that I had recently Iiled
was timely, and I believe he said 'they said the day he and I were currently speaking was
'the last day they gave you to Iile, which I believe Tuesday, December 13
th
, and given the
'additional 3 days language that I recall Judge Howard mentioning he was adding on to
allow me more time to Iile, would mean that 'they (I took 'they to be 'Veronica, whom
the gentleman clerk steadIastly reIused to identiIy by last name and Ior which the phone
number he wrote down Ior me in his own handwriting with 'Veronica written out turned out
to be a disconnected number) had assumed service was appropriately perIormed at the
conclusion oI the Trial, and that 13 days began running on the Iollowing day, that the halI a
day the RMC is open on Fridays would count as a Iull judicial day, and that non judicial days
would be included in counting towards this 13 days given the way 'they or 'Veronica had
interpreted Judge Howard's Order, apparently in a way that made the time I had to Iile these
various papers shorter than it would have been had Judge Howard simply not granted an
additional three days given the dictates oI not counting non judicial days in NRCP 6(e). It is
my understanding, however, the I have not even been served this Verdict/Order, and that any
limitations period must not even begin running until I am appropriately served. Veronica
admitted to me on the phone, I believe on Monday or Tuesday when I called her Irom the
Iree phone in the Washoe County Law library with law libarian employee Linda Blakeley
sitting within earshot, that the RMC Ielt it had appropriately served me the Order at the
conlcusion oI the trial and had Iailed to otherwise send me a copy in the mail or by Iax. I
asked Ms. Lopez iI I could get a copy oI the Order, as well as any other Orders that had been
issued in the case. She agree to Iax me only the Order Irom the conclusion oI the November
30
th
, 2011 Trial, reIusing to provide any other Orders. As oI yet, despite reading back to her
35 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
284
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
my Iax number at least twice, I have yet to receive a Iax containing anything Irom the RMC,
much less the Order Iollowing the November 30, 2011 Trial. Also, the Contempt Order is not
suIIiciently speciIic, and Judge Howards lack the jurisdiction to prevent a citizen Irom
contacting any RMC employee be email Ior 'any reason. It is that sort oI evident
impartiality and 'not very judicial behavior that augurs toward setting aside this Verdict, in
addition to Judge Howard's established pattern oI denying motions beIore the time Ior the
City Atty to even respond has barely even begun. The City atty was Iaxed the 12 13 11
motion. Further Tom, oI the RMC Iiling desk told Coughlin to email his speciIic question to
Judge Howard and the RMC administrative assistant.
APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COST
This is an Application Ior DeIerral oI Court Fees and Costs.
STATEMENTS MADE TO THE COURT UNDER OATH. I swear or aIIirm that the inIormation in this application is
true and correct. I make this statement under the penalty oI prosecution Ior perjury iI it is determined that I did not tell the
truth.
I am requesting a deIerral or waiver oI the Iollowing Iees and costs in my case:
xAny or all oI the Iollowing: All Iiling Iees; Iees Ior the issuance oI either a summons and subpoena;
xFees Ior obtaining one certiIied copy oI a temporary order in a domestic relations case or a Iinal order, judgment
or decree in all criminal proceedings.
xFees Ior service oI process by a sheriII, marshal, constable or law enIorcement. Fees Ior service by publication.
XFiling Iees and photocopy Iees Ior the preparation oI the record on appeal.
XCourt reporter`s Iees oI reporters or transcribers employed by the court Ior the preparation oI the transcript.
The basis Ior the request is:
1. WAIVER: I am permanently unable to pay. My income and liquid assets are insuIIicient or barely suIIicient to meet
the daily essentials oI liIe and unlikely to change in the Ioreseeable Iuture.
2. DEFERRAL:
a. My income is insuIIicient or is barely suIIicient to meet the daily essentials oI liIe, and includes no allotment that could
be budgeted Ior the Iees and costs that are required to gain access to the court.
b. I do not have the money to pay the court Iees and costs now. I do not know iI I can pay the Iees and costs at a later
date.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain
36 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
285
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
the social security number oI any person.
Pursuant to NRS 53.045, I declare under penalty oI perjury that the Ioregoing is true and correct. Executed on December
16, 2011
DATED this December 19th, 2011
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
37 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
286
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On December 19, 2011, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing document by and Iaxing a
true copy thereoI to:
Pamela G Roberts, Esq.
Reno City Attorney's OIIice - Criminal Divison
AP.O. Box 1900 Reno , NV 89505
Phone Number: 775-334-2050
Fax number: 775-334-2420
Email: robertspreno.gov
and emailing to the RMC and Iaxing to the RMC (D. Ballard approved email Iiling).
Reno Municipal Court
renomunirecordsreno.gov
Clerk/Administrator
Reno Municipal Court
One South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
Fax: 775 326 5105
DATED THIS19th day oI December, 2011 BY:
-----------------------------
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
38 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
287
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
index to exhbits:
1. collection oI papers relevant to setting aside, including, inventory oI property returned to
Coughlin upon release Irom 3 days jailing on 12/2/11, uninitiliaed, yet Iiled stamped 11 30 11
Order, no signature oI Coughlin on Order, inconclusive whether 'reIused on signature means
reIused to sign, reIused to hold, etc. Marshals kept order or otherwise did not allow Coughlin
to do anything, like save computer notes Iorm trial, much less put a paper in his bag....RMC
'rec'd date stamped discovery that RMC told Coughlin it did not have despite numerous
written requests Irom Coughlin Ior it. 8 (eight) pages
2. Sample oI Coughlin's recent work as an attorney, Ior which he has been paid a grand total oI
$250 so Iar Carpentier v. Aames CV08-1709,
3. Another sample oI Coughlin's work, Ior which he was paid $250: Cadle V Keller AP in BK
39 Notice oI Denial oI Service; Opposition City oI Reno's Notice oI Denial oI Service; Request Ior ClariIication Regarding
Deadline Ior Filing Motion For New Trial, Other Tolling Motions, etc
288
EXHIBIT 1
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
EXHIBIT 2
298

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE
Nevada is one oI the Western States oI the US that are Non-Judicial States. In these
states, Ioreclosures are governed by State Civil Code. These homeowners have it the
toughest being in a non-judicial state, Lenders need not prove anything. They can simply
notiIy the homeowner oI the deIault, then aIter a certain number oI days, as deIined
under State Civil Code, the property then proceeds to a Trustee sale at a public auction.
The only option available to you iI you are a Non-Judicial State resident is Ior you to
Iile a civil action against your lender to compel them to provide prooI oI claim, and
thereIore standing. The other option is to declare bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, generally
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 1
$
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
Tele: 775-229-6737
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Joni and James Carpentier
JAMES CARPENTIER, ET AL,
PlaintiII
v.
AAMES FUNDING CORP ETAL,
DeIendant

Case No: CV08-01709
Dept No: 7
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET
ASIDE; MOTION FOR SANTIONS
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
299
speaking, you have two options, Chapter 7 (no asset) or a Chapter 13 (asset). What some
homeowners do is to declare Chapter 7 and list their property as an unsecured asset and
wait Ior the lender to object. This then puts the burden oI prooI on the lender. II your
loan was closed with lender A and is being Ioreclosed on by Lender B or C ... there must
be (by law) a valid chain oI assignment to show that Lender C is the real and beneIicial
party oI interest. Because oI the problem oI securitization, this is never done. This
creates a real problem Ior the Lender (who is Irankly doing this Iraudulently anyway,
allegedly). For those with a lot oI assets (such as equity in their homes), they can do a
Chapter 13. Under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you can Iile an Adversary Proceeding
where you sue your lender to compel them to produce valid prooI oI claim. The beauty
with Bankruptcy Court is that you have the law on your side. Rule 3001 (d) oI the
Federal Code oI Bankruptcy requires that your lender provide evidence oI "perIected
title." II you choose to Iile a civil action against your lender, you better have prooI. The
best prooI you can bring is a securitization audit to prove that your loan has been
securitized. Then, work with your lawyer to build an argument around the points
outlined in this book. UnIortunately, this will set you back at the minimum $5000, and
more likely closer to $10,000 to $25,000. Another option you could do is to do a "quick
reconveyance method" as discussed in Chapter 4. This can be very eIIective in stopping
your servicer's ability to Ioreclose because it closes out the Deed oI Trust/Mortgage.
This method is only applicable when you have clear evidence oI movement or
securitization. You can Iind out more about this method on our website under the
Products tab. Alternatively, iI you cannot aIIord a lawyer, you could try to do this
yourselI. Great places to start are LivingLies.com and stopIoreclosureIraud.com. These
are blogs with lots oI articles, sample pleadings and lots oI other resources I used during
my research. Another option is to join our Ioreclosure deIense membership program.
We realized that there are SO MANY homeowners needing help. That is why we
developed a coaching membership program with speciIic inIormation and resources to
help homeowners with their Ioreclosure deIense. Our membership program has sample
pleadings, sample responses, Iorms and procedures others have used in their Ioreclosure
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 2
300
deIense. You will also be able to network with other homeowners local to you ... meet
with them to have coIIee, and support each other. For more inIormation about this
program, come to our website at: http://www.consumerdeIenseprograms.com A good
place to start, iI you are in a Non-Judicial State, is to start writing to your lender to
demand that they produce valid prooI oI claim. You can Iind a couple oI sample letters
on our site. This will be a good place to get started.
COME NOW, PlaintiIIs JAMES S. CARPENTIER and JOAN E.
CARPENTIER, by and through their attorney, Zach Coughlin, Esq, as and Ior their
claims Ior relieI and hereby alleges and avers as Iollows. On July 15, 2011 a Notice
oI Entry oI Order was entered in the court's docket showing an Order granting
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS INC, AND QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Counsel Coughlin
admits at the outset that this motion is somewhat thrown together in a rush.
However, Coughlin only just became counsel oI record in this case with a very
limited number oI hours to Iile this motion. To that extent, Coughlin has herein cited
to Federal authority Ior basic things, such as the standard Ior a Motion Ior
Reconsideration (and barely, iI any tolling authority to get past the 20 day
requirement oI WDCR 13(7) and Rule 12 is included herein, however, Coughlin
commits to curing such deIiciencies in short order and to make great eIIorts not to
prejudice opposing counsel with unsupported argument or allegations whilst still
zealously protecting his clients rights. This is easier said than done given the the
inordinately vexatious conduct the undersigned has been subjected to lately incident
to a wrongIul eviction stemming Irom a Commercial Lease where non-payment oI
rent was not alleged, yet a Summary Eviction Proceeding took place anyway, and to
top it oII, a rent escrow deposit was Iorced upon the undersigned to the tune oI
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 3
301
$2,276 in the middle oI the Summary Eviction Proceeding, in direct violation oI NRS
40.253(6), and JCRCP 83. I in preparing this Iiling and in relation to the date oI the
Trustee's sale, set Ior December 21, 2011 (opposing counsel Schuler-Hintz did send
an email to the undersigned late in the night oI December 18, 2011, asserting that the
Trustee Sale has been postponed again to early February, 2012, and, not to impugn
Ms. Schuler-Hintz credibility, but there does seem to be authority to suggest to
Trustee Sales and the attendant scheduling changes, especially those not reduced to a
written stipulation, are a very hard thing to pin down). This is the second time the
undersigned has sent opposing counsel some eleventh hour correspondence, only to
me told, basically, 'oh, the sale was moved a couple days ago despite the Iact that
neither the undersigned or either oI his clients (the timing oI whose divorce
dovetailed quite nicely with this Ioreclosure matter) was EVER inIormed oI either oI
these postponements oI the scheduled Trustee's Sales and where the undersigned has
no reason to believe that these sales are being postponed Ior any reason other than the
undersigned's squawking, and where opposing counsel has continually Iailed to
provide any prooI that these postponements occurred prior to said squawking (the
undersigned does recognize that it is possible that such postponements are a matter oI
the public record and that such a hunch by the undersigned might be just plain
wrong).
The undersigned hereby requires the trustee to veriIy a comprehensive list oI
issues related to the legal nature oI the Ioreclosure proceedings enacted by the lender,
which as a byproduct, Carpentier as homeowner still retains Iull ownership oI the
property and lives there. The Trustee assumes the liability in auctioning the property,
and should not Ioreclose on the property iI there is a potential violation pointed out
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 4
302
to them prior to the Auction Sale Date as they could Iace sanctions and ultimately
lose their license. To that end, the undersigned seeks a deIinite extension oI time to
veriIy these matters (and the overcome the deleterious eIIect wrought on the
undersigned liIe and law practice by the wrongIul eviction and alleged application oI
an unlawIul rent distraint and other bad Iaith conduct by the deIendant and his
counsel in Reno Justice Court case Rev2011-001708. While Trustees are incredibly
busy and generating huge proIits and oIten continually postpone the sale date to
provide themselves adequate time to research and respond to the issues raised by the
undersigned to protect themselves, such has not been reduced to a written stipulation,
as such this Iiling is necessary.
FACTS
1. At all times mentioned herein, PlaintiIIs James S. Carpentier and Joan E.
Carpentier, hereinaIter collectively reIerred to as 'CARPENTIER, are husband and
wiIe residing in the County oI Washoe, State oI Nevada.
2. DeIendants, DOES I through XX are Iictitious names; that PlaintiIIs are
ignorant oI the true names oI the individuals, corporations, co-partnerships, and
associations so designated by said Iictitious names, and when the true names are
discovered, PlaintiIIs will seek leave to amend this Complaint and proceedings
herein to substitute the true name oI said DeIendants. PlaintiIIs believe that each oI
the DeIendants designated herein as DOE is negligent or responsible in some manner
Ior the events herein reIerred to and negligently, carelessly, recklessly and in a
manner that was grossly negligent and willIul and wanton, caused damages
proximately thereby to the PlaintiIIs as herein alleged.
3. At all times mentioned herein, CARPENTIER is the owner oI certain real
property commonly known as 2873 Sunny Slope Drive, Sparks Nevada 89434,
Washoe County Assessors Parcel Number 030-091-12, hereinaIter reIerred to as the
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 5
303
'PROPERTY, and more particularly described as Iollow:
LOT 6 OF LEWIS HOMES-SPARKS NO. 5-A, ACCORDING TO THE MAP
THEREOF, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
WASHOE COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA ON JULY19, 1976, AS FILE NO.
417319 AND AS TRACT MAP NO. 1587.
4. On or about May 4, 2005, CARPENTIER had an existing mortgage
against the PROPERTY in the approximate principal amount oI $150,000.00
5. On or about May 4, 2005, CARPENTIER was in deIault and in Iinancial
trouble with regard to the existing Iirst Deed oI Trust in that James S. Carpentier
became injured, was unable to work, was receiving only workman`s compensation
payments, and Joan E. Carpentier at that time was unemployed.
6. On or about May 4, 2005, CARPENTIER was unable to meet their
current obligations under the Iirst Note and Deed oI Trust.
7. CARPENTIER received a mail solicitation to reIinance their property
Irom DeIendant Aames Funding Corporation dba Aames Home Loan, hereinaIter
reIerred to as 'AAMES.
8. CARPENTIER contacted DeIendant AAMES, AAMES did represent to
them that AAMES could cure their Iinancial troubles by reIinancing the existing Iirst
obligation on the PROPERY, that they would qualiIy Ior such a loan, and that they
would generate suIIicient Iunds to meet their obligations even though Joan E.
Carpentier was unemployed and James S. Carpentier received only disability income.
9. In Iurtherance oI the reIinance, DeIendant AAMES was required to make
a loan application. Said loan application was Iilled out by the representatives by
DeIendant AAMES and intentionally misstated the income oI CARPENTIER to be
in excess oI $6,000.00 per month.
10. The true Iact was CARPENTIER received only $2400.00 per month, and
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 6
304
the true Iact was known to DeIendant AAMES.
11. DeIendant AAMES made a loan to CARPENTIER in the amount oI
$170,800.00.
12. The loan made by DeIendant AAMES was an adjustable rate which
would require payments in excess oI $1400.00 per month.
13. At the time oI making the loan and Iilling out the loan application by
DeIendant AAMES, DeIendant AAMES made the loan without determining or using
any commercially reasonable means or mechanism to determine CARPENTIER`s
ability to repay the loan and in Iact knew or should have known that CARPENTIER
did not have the ability to repay the loan.
14. The $170,800.00 loan closed on or about May 4, 2005, and, on or about
that date, CARPENTIER did make, execute and deliver a Deed oI Trust securing
repayment oI the new loan. Said Deed oI Trust having been given to DeIendant
Windsor Management Co., a CaliIornia corporation, as Trustee by James S.
Carpentier and Joan E. Carpentier, husband and wiIe as joint tenants, as Trustors in
Iavor oI DeIendant Aames Funding Corporation dba Aames Home Loan, as
BeneIiciary. Said Deed oI Trust was recorded May 4, 2005 as Document No.
3208651, OIIicial Records oI Washoe County.
15. Since the recordation oI said Deed oI Trust, CARPENTIER has been
unable to make all payments called Ior under the terms and conditions oI the Deed oI
Trust and Promissory Note which it secures and have made known their inability to
pay to DeIendant AAMES.
16. DeIendant AAMES has assigned the right to collect under the terms and
conditions oI the Promissory Note and the Deed oI Trust to DeIendant Residential
Credit Solutions, Inc., hereinaIter reIerred to as 'RESIDENTIAL, as oI May 31,
2007.
17. CARPENTIER has contacted DeIendants AAMES and RESIDENTIAL
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 7
305
in an attempt to again reIinance but inIormed DeIendants AAMES and
RESIDENTIAL oI their inability to qualiIy, and DeIendants AAMES and/or
RESIDENTIAL oIIered to provide them with Ialse and Iraudulent W2 Forms in order
to meet Iinancial requirements. CARPENTIER declined to participate in this loan
Iraud.
18. As a direct result oI CARPENTIER`s inability to make payments called
Ior under the reIinanced loan, Quality Loan Service Corp on behalI oI DeIendant
RESIDENTIAL and on Iurther behalI oI DeIendant AAMES did record a Notice oI
Breach and DeIault and oI Election to Cause Sale oI Real Property Under Deed oI
Trust on March 12, 2008 as Document No. 3629741, OIIicial Records oI Washoe
County.
19. Subsequent to the recordation oI the Notice oI Breach and DeIault,
DeIendant AAMES has recorded a Notice oI Trustee`s Sale scheduling sale on the
PROPERTY Ior July 9, 2008 at the hour oI 11:00am at the County Court House
located at Virginia Street and Court Street in the City oI Reno. The Notice oI
Trustee`s Sale was recorded June 19, 2008 as Document No. 3661497, OIIicial
Records oI Washoe County.
20. The actions oI DeIendant AAMES in Iailing to make a determination oI
CARPENTIER`s ability to repay the loan and inducing them to enter into said loan
constitutes an unIair lending practice pursuant to the provisions oI NRS 598D.100.
21. CARPENTIER has been damaged as a direct and proximate result oI
unIair lending practices oI DeIendants AAMES and RESIDENTIAL, and
CARPENTIER is entitled to damages and treble damages pursuant to the provisions
oI NRS 598D.110.
22. CARPENTIER is entitled to their attorney Iees pursuant to the provisions
oI NRS 598D.110(2)(b).
23. CARPENTIER is Iurther entitled to an oIIset against all sums owed under
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 8
306
the Promissory Note secured by the Deed oI Trust as herein alleged pursuant to the
provisions oI NRS 598D.110(3).
24. CARPENTIER is Iurther entitled to have this court cure any existing
deIault oI the home loan and cancel the pending Ioreclosure and Trustee`s Sale
pursuant to the provisions oI NRS 598D.110(3).
25. 1PlaintiIIs incorporate herein by this reIerence all papers and pleadings on
Iile in this action.
26. As a direct and proximate result oI the actions oI DeIendants AAMES
and RESIDENTIAL, CARPENTIER is in danger oI loosing their interest in unique
real property by virtue oI the Ioreclosure sale.
27. CARPENTIER is entitled to a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction and permanent injunction precluding DeIendants Irom conducting a
Ioreclosure sale oI the PROPERTY.
28. CARPENTIER lacks adequate remedy oI law due to the unique character
oI their interest in real estate.
29. CARPENTIER received a Notice oI Sale indicating that their lender would
sel1 their home at auction on October 21, 2011, Iollowing their deIault in their
mortgage payments. The home remains occupied by the title owner. The Notice oI
Sale did not give Joni or James Carpentier the requisite notice oI the date oI the
Ioreclosure sale. Pursuant to NRS 107.080, the Ioreclosure trustee must record a
Notice oI Sale and give notice oI the time and place oI the sale by (1) personally
serving or mailing the notice by registered or certiIied mail to homeowner and others
"entitled to notice"; (2) posting the notice in a public place where the property is
located Ior 20 successive days; (3) publishing a copy oI the notice 3 times (once a
week Ior three weeks); AND (4) posting the notice on the property 15 days beIore the
sale date. The Notice oI Sale was recorded on October 3 with a sale date oI October
21. This is only an 18 day notice period. This Iails to comply with at least section (2)
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 9
307
above, and perhaps section (4) should they Iail to post the notice on the property on
or beIore October 6, depending upon whether section (4) requires that action to occur
within 90 days or to occur only aIter the passing oI 90 days.
30. The substitution oI Quality Loan Servicing as the Ioreclosure trustee was not
recorded. Under the Deed oI Trust Recorded on April 18, 2005, Windsor
Management Co. was named as the Trustee. No document could be Iound with the
Recorder's OIIice indicating any entity substituted Quality Loan Servicing as the
Ioreclosure trustee under the Deed oI Trust.
31. DeIendant's have substantially departed Irom the notice, manner oI service,
and process requirements oI various law, including, but not limited to NRS 107.080.
When inquiry was made with DeIendant's as to the basis, reasoning, and justiIications
Ior the departures, PlaintiII's were told that 'its your word against ours and
otherwise responded to in a hostile, aggressive, and deceptive manner. More
discovery is in order in this regard.
32. However, as Mr. Zimbelman provided, the April 2009 Bankruptcy Iiling in Delaware
by Zimbelman's client listed, in the Creditor Matrix, a 'Creditor Notice Name oI Walsh,
Baker, & Rosevear, the Carpentiers then Iormer attorney, as James Walsh's Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel had been granted by this court On January 22, 2009, with Walsh
Iiling a Notice oI Entry oI that Order on January 26, 2009, in plenty oI time Ior
Zimbelman's client to update the 'Creditor Notice Name and address to reIlect the Iact that
Walsh was not attorney oI record Iro the Carpentiers anymore, and that those notices should
have been sent directly to the Carpentiers.
33. Indeed, Mr. Zimbelman's CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), Ior
his May 19, 2009 Iiling oI NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY FILING AND AUTOMATIC
STAY reads: 'I certiIy that I am an employee oI PEEL BRIMLEY LLP and that on this
19th day oI May, 2009 I caused the above and Ioregoing document entitled NOTICE OF
BANKRUPTCY FILING AND AUTOMATIC STAY to be served as Iollows: x by placing
same to be deposited Ior mailing in the United States Mail, in a sealed envelope upon which
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 10
308
Iirst class postage was prepaid in Las Vegas, Nevada; and/or x to be sent via Iacsimile; to
the party(ies) and/or attorney(s) listed below at the address and/or Iacsimile number
indicated below:
James M. Walsh, Esq.
Walsh, Baker & Rosevear, P.C .
9468 Double R Blvd. Suite A
Reno, Nevada 89521
Attorneys Ior James S. Carpentier and Joan E. Carpentier
34. Further, Ms. Schuler-Hintz Iailed to respond appropriately to the Order Granting
Walsh's Withdrawal as Attorney oI Record, and the subsequent Notice oI Entry oI that
Order on January 26, 2009. Hintz' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative For Summary
Judgment listed Walsh Ior the ProoI oI Service as well: ' I hereby certiIy that on the 4th day
oI June a true and correct copy oI DEFENDANT's RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS,
INC., AND QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was Iorwarded by US Mail with
postage prepaid to the addresses listed below:
James M. Walsh
Walsh, Baker & Rosevear
9468 Double R Blvd. Suite A
Reno, Nevada 89521 Attorney Ior PlaintiII
Further, the caption on Ms. Hintz Motion indicates the case is in Department 4, despite
the Iact that pm February 11, 2009, a Case Assignment NotiIication Entry was entered in
the docket Ior this case CV08-01709, indicating this CASE REASSIGNED TO
DEPARTMENT 7 FROM DEPARTMENT 4 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.
35. Then, Ior some reason that is not quite clear, despite his co counsel Schuler-Hintz
having Iiled a Motion Ior Summary Judgment on June 4
th
, 2009 in the Second Judicial
District Court Ior Washoe County in this action, CV08-01709, Christoper Hunter, Esq.
Filed a somewhat similar Motion Ior Summary Judgment in CV09-01709, (bold emphasis
added) in a Motion which bears a Iront page heading, above the caption, that reads:
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 11
309
'DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
Further, the caption on Mr. Hunter's June 23
rd
, 2010, Motion For Summary Judgment
indicates the case is in Department 4, despite the Iact that February 11, 2009, a Case
Assignment NotiIication Entry was entered in the docket Ior this case CV08-01709 (much
less the Iugitive or Iictitious case CV09-01709 that Mr. Hunter listed in the Caption, in a
Clark County District Court case Iiled in Washoe County), indicating this CASE
REASSIGNED TO DEPARTMENT 7 FROM DEPARTMENT 4 PER
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. So, the Carpentiers were burdened with both attorneys
sending important pleadings to one who was no longer Attorney oI Record Ior the
Carpentiers, despite a Notice oI Entry oI that Order Granting Withdrawal oI James Walsh,
Esq., in addition to Mr. Hunter putting the wrong court and the wrong case number on a
Motion Ior Summary Judgment that would have nonetheless
36. Again, in his August 5, 2009 CertiIicate oI Service Ior his Motion Ior Summary
Judgment, Mr. Hunter puts in the caption the wrong case number and the wrong Department
number, listing CV09-01709 and Department 4 where CV08-01709 and Department 7
should be. Further, the June 9, 2009 Notice oI Lodgement was sent to only Zimbelman.
Further in her CertiIicate oI Service Ior that Notice oI Lodgement, Iiled separately on
August 5, 2009, Ms. Hintz puts in the caption the wrong case number and the wrong
Department number, listing CV09-01709 and Department 4 where CV08-01709 and
Department 7 should be. Interestingly, Exhibit 6 to Hunter's June 23, 2010 Motion Ior
Summary Judgment, while containing the text oI the Delaware Court's Order removing the
stay, doesn't contain the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's ProoI oI Service Ior that Order upon
the Carpentiers....
37. Next, on July 12
th
, 2010 REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANTS`
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS , INC. AND QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION`S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Hunter again puts
Department 4 in the case caption where Department 7 should be.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 12
310
38. Finally, on July 15, 2011 this Court granted District Court Rule 13 (3) provides,
"Failure oI the opposing party to serve and Iile his written opposition may be construed as
an admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the same." Thus, in
this case, the court construes PlaintiIIs', JAMES S. CARPENTIER and JOAN E.
CARPENTIER, and DeIendants', AAMES FUNDING CORPORATION and WINDSOR
MANAGEMENT COMPANY'S Iailure to oppose DeIendants' RCS and QLS's Motion/or
Summary Judgment as admission that the Motion is meritorious.
39. The July 15, 2010 Notice oI Entry oI Order incorrectly list Department 4 instead oI
Department 7 in the caption.
40. The Washoe County Recorder's web site does not list a Notice oI Trustee
Sale Ior the alleged Trustee sale that was set to take place on December 21
st
, 2001
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
I. The Order Granting Summary 1udgment Entered Against Plaintiff
Should be Set Aside or Vacated Due to it being Void For Lack of 1urisdiction
Given the Numberous Deficiencies in Service of Essential Pleadings and Notices
Upon the Plaintiffs, Excusable Neglect, Fraud on The Court, an Intervening
Decision of the Nevada Supreme Court, Two of them, from 1uly 7, 2011, and
The Overly Long Passing of Time Between Now and the Granting of the
Summary 1udgment Order.
The excusable neglect argument is quite strong given Hitnz and Zimbleman's
continual Iailure to appropriately address their ProoI's oI Service Ior very, very
important documents. Might be a voidness basis Ior Setting Aside the Order As
Well. Further, the Order granting Summary Judgment is void given the lack oI
jurisdiction possessed by this Court where so many essential deIiciencies exists in
this matter related to the most pertinent Iilings and notices possible.
'Accordingly, when this court issues an intervening decision that constitutes a
change in controlling law, courts may depart Irom the decided law oI the case and
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 13
311
apply the new rule oI law. Hsu v. County oI Clark. See, e.g., Hopkins v. Dyer, 104
Ohio St.3d 461, 820 N.E.2d 329, 333 (2004) (holding that an intervening opinion
issued by the Ohio Supreme Court constituted a change in controlling law
necessitating departure Irom the law oI the case doctrine); Dedge v. State, 832 So.2d
835, 836 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002) (noting that a decision by the Florida Supreme
Court to enact a new procedural rule constituted a change in controlling law).
'Because we determine that the change in controlling law exception to the law oI the
case doctrine applies, we do not consider whether this court should also Iormally
adopt the 'substantial new evidence or 'clear error resulting in maniIest injustice
exceptions to the law oI the case doctrine. However, we observe that, despite the
landowners' contentions, discovery oI a relatively minor Iactual error in our order in
Hsu I suggesting that the landowners' had obtained a 50-Ioot height variance Ior
construction oI a billboard on their property does not constitute 'substantial new
evidence that justiIies departure Irom the law oI the case doctrine. Our
determination in Hsu I that the landowners had not demonstrated the Iutility oI
exhausting their administrative remedies rested on several pieces oI evidence besides
the erroneous 'billboard variance, indicating that this 'new evidence would have
little bearing on our previous decision. See Suel v. Secretary oI Health and Human
Services, 192 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed.Cir.1999) (stating that 'the new evidence relied
upon to override |the| law oI the case must be substantial, even conclusive, beIore it
is appropriate to reopen a judgment on which subsequent phases oI the case have
been decided (citing 18 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure
4478, at 800 (2d ed.1981))). We likewise reject the proposition that our decision
in Hsu I was based on clear error such that adherence to the decision would work a
maniIest injustice. See In re City oI Philadelphia Litigation, 158 F.3d 711, 720 (3d
Cir.1998) (noting that iI a decision is not clearly erroneous, enIorcement oI that
decision will not generally work a maniIest injustice).As this appeal and our decision
in Hsu I are part oI a single continuous suit, we also reject the County's assertion that
the doctrine oI res judicata prohibits this court Irom revisiting the merits oI the
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 14
312
landowners' takings claim. See Florida Dept. oI Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101,
105 (Fla.2001) ('Where successive appeals are taken in the same case there is no
question oI res judicata, because the same suit, and not a new and diIIerent one, is
involved. Under these circumstances, the doctrine oI the law oI the case applies.
(citation omitted)).
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a
party's legal representative Irom a Iinal judgment, order, or proceeding Ior the
Iollowing reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in
time to move Ior a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) Iraud (whether heretoIore
denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct oI an
adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; or, (5) the judgment has been satisIied,
released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed
or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that an injunction should have
prospective application. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and Ior
reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 6 months aIter the proceeding was taken or the
date that written notice oI entry oI the judgment or order was served. In some
instances 'tolling may be applicable to the 6 month limitations period.
The Nevada Supreme Court recently addressed a critical issue involving the
Foreclosure Mediation Rules in the case oI Leyva v. National DeIault Servicing
Corp., App. No. 55216, Appeal Irom the Clark Co. District Court, A-10-600-651,
127Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 40, July 7, 2011). The issue relates to the
obligation oI the lender to bring documents to the mediation that reveal who is the
owner oI the deed oI trust and mortgage note. The Court`s ruling in this case will
immediately arm homeowners with a serious weapon against the big banks and their
servicers. Used in the correct way, many Ioreclosures may be stopped because oI this
recent opinion.
The State oI Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program was created in 2009. Facing
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 15
313
Ioreclosure, the homeowner may request mediation through which a modiIication to
home loan may be achieved. Once the homeowner requests mediation, no Iurther
action may be taken to exercise the power oI sale until the completion oI the
mediation. The Nevada Supreme Court created the Foreclosure Mediation Rules
('FMR) to govern those mediations.
The Leyva case presented the Nevada Supreme Court with an opportunity to
interpret a critical portion oI the mediation program requirements. NRS 107.086(4)
and FMR 5 (8) (a) both provide: 'In addition to the documents required by Rule 8
herein, the beneIiciary |usually the lending bank| must bring to the mediation
program the original or a certiIied copy oI the deed oI trust, the mortgage note and
each assignment oI the deed oI trust and the mortgage note. NRS 107.084(5)
provides that '|i|I the beneIiciary oI the deed oI trust or the representative Iails to
attend the mediation, Iails to participate in the mediation in good Iaith or does not
bring to the mediation each document required by section 4 or does not have
authority or access to person with authority required by section 4, the mediator shall
prepare and submit to the Mediation Administrator a petition and recommendation
concerning imposition oI sanctions against the beneIiciary oI the deed oI trust or the
representative, as the court deems appropriate, including, without limitation,
requiring a loan modiIication in the manner determined proper by the court.
The Nevada Supreme Court Iaced the issue oI whether the lender`s Iailure to
bring the required assignments and other documents as required by NRS 107.086(4)
constituted bad Iaith under NRS 107.086(5). The answer to the question is not clear
Irom the language oI the statute or the FMR.
At the mediation in Leyva, the lender Iailed to deliver the assignments oI the
deed oI trust and the mortgage note. However, the mediator did not Iind that the
lender`s Iailure to provide the documents or other actions constituted a bad Iaith.
Leyva disagreed and appealed the decision oI the mediator to the Clark County
District Court, Judge Donald Mosely. Ultimately, Judge Mosely agreed with the
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 16
314
lender and entered an order Iinding that 'there is a lack oI showing oI bad Iaith.
Leyva appealed the decision oI Judge Mosely to the Nevada Supreme Court. The
Nevada Supreme Court issued its ruling on July 7, 2011 and rejected the lender`s
arguments that it had participated in the mediation in good Iaith. The Nevada
Supreme Court determined that since the statute used the word 'shall in reIerence to
the obligation to bring certain documents to the mediation, strict compliance, not
substantial compliance, was required. The Supreme Court went on the write 'The
legislative intent behind requiring a party to produce the assignments oI the deed oI
trust and mortgage note is to ensure that whoever is Ioreclosing actually owns the
note` and has the authority to modiIy the loan.
The Supreme Court did not stop there. It Ielt compelled to then discuss what
constitutes a valid assignment oI deeds oI trust and mortgage notes. By reaching this
issue, the Supreme Court set the obligations Ior each lender with regards to their
obligation to produce documents at mediation.
The Supreme Court then discussed the law regarding the assignment oI a deed oI
trust. Since an assignment oI an interest in land must be in writing, the Supreme
Court concluded that 'to prove that MortgageIt properly assigned its interest in land
via the deed oI trust to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo needed to provide a signed writing
Irom MortageIt demonstrating that transIer oI interest.
The Supreme Court then analyzed the method by which the interest in a mortgage
note may be transIerred and looked to Nevada`s UniIorm Commercial Code
Negotiable Instruments. The Supreme Court wrote '|t|he obligor on the note has the
right to know the identity oI the entity that is 'entitled to enIorce the mortgage note
under Article 3, see NRS 104.3301, '|o|therwise, the |homeowner| may pay Iunds to
a stranger in the case. (Citation omitted.)
The Supreme Court rejected the arguments oI Wells Fargo that mere possession
oI the mortgage note was suIIicient. '|W|e conclude that Article 3 clearly requires
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 17
315
Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than mere possession oI the original note to be able
to enIorce a negotiable instrument under the Iacts oI this case. To meet its
obligation under the UniIorm Commercial Code, Wells Fargo had to show both
endorsement oI the mortgage note to it by the original lender and possession oI the
note.
Alternatively, Wells Fargo could have also demonstrated a transIer oI the note to
it. To demonstrate a transIer, Wells Fargo was obligated to prove that it was given
the mortgage note Ior the purpose oI enIorcing it.
The Supreme Court then concluded that since Wells Fargo had Iailed to produced
documents to demonstrate either a valid endorsement or transIer, Wells Fargo had
neither demonstrated that it was entitled to Ioreclose on the property nor that it had
authority to mediate with regards to the note. The Supreme Court, relying on its other
opinion issued the same day, Pasillas v. HSBC Bank, 127Nev. , P.3d , Adv.
Op. 39, July 7, 2011), ruled that the Iailure oI Wells Fargo to bring the required
documents 'is a sanctionable oIIense under NRS 107.086 and the FMRs. The
Supreme Court then remanded the case to the district court Ior determination oI the
appropriate sanction.
This opinion seems to indicate that the 'too big to Iail banks have met their
match with the Nevada Supreme Court. The ramiIications oI this opinion will make
the huge banks think twice beIore they allow the Nevada Supreme Court to hear any
other issues concerning their Ioreclosure processes. This opinion arms homeowners,
and especially their counsel, and creates an opportunity to stop the banks and their
servicers Irom moving Iorward with a Ioreclosure with less that the Iull
documentation proving their ownership oI the mortgage note, and the authority to
Ioreclose under the terms oI the deed oI trust.
The true scope and impact oI the Leyva and Pasilla opinions on the Ioreclosure
and mediation process in Washoe County will not be revealed any time soon. The
banks will likely take any steps necessary avoid sanction as well as prevent the
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 18
316
Nevada Supreme Court issuing any other opinions regarding the Ioreclosure process
or the mediation program.
the Supreme Court oI Nevada issued two opinions on July 7, 2011 which Iinally
compel Ioreclosing parties in Nevada to produce material documentation as to chain
oI title to the Note and Deed oI Trust in order to be permitted to continue with a
Ioreclosure action when mediation is requested. in Leyva v. National DeIault
Servicing et al., No. 55216, 127 Nev. Advance Opinion 40, the Supreme Court held
that strict compliance is required with Nevada statutes governing the production oI
certain documents including any assignment oI the Deed oI Trust; that a Ioreclosing
party`s Iailure to do so 'is a sanctionable oIIense; and the district court is prohibited
Irom allowing the Ioreclosure process to proceed. Wells Fargo was also the culprit
in this case.
SigniIicantly, in discussing the transIer oI the Note, the Supreme Court oI
Nevada cited to the recent In Re Veal decision Irom the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy
Appeals Panel (which was previously discussed on this website), holding that the
borrower 'has the right to know the identity oI the entity that is entitled to enIorce`
the mortgage note under Article 3 (oI the UniIorm Commercial Code). The Court
concluded that Article 3 'clearly requires Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than mere
possession oI the original note to be able to enIorce a negotiable instrument. The
court Iound that there was no endorsement and no assignment, and reversed the
District Court.
The opinion in Leyva cited to the Court`s opinion in Pasillas v. HSBC Bank as
Trustee, No. 56393, 127 Nev. Advance Opinion 39 (also decided July 7, 2011),
which also reversed the District Court and also cited to Veal , setting Iorth the
requirements Ior production oI evidence oI chain oI title to the note and Deed oI
Trust in a Ioreclosure.
The multiple citations to Veal, which is a Federal Bankruptcy appellate court
opinion, by the state Supreme Court oI Nevada, is more than important. It
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 19
317
demonstrates that simply because a Ioreclosure issue is decided by a Bankruptcy
court does not mean that it is not applicable to a non-Bankruptcy (or non-Federal)
Ioreclosure case. Time and again, when we argue that an issue in a state Ioreclosure
case has already been decided by a Bankruptcy court in the Ioreclosure context,
attorneys representing Ioreclosing 'lenders and servicers argue 'Well, Judge, that
was a Bankruptcy case, and we are not in Bankruptcy Court. Leyva and Pasillas
have now put that argument to bed. II a Federal Bankruptcy decision is good enough
Ior the Supreme Court oI Nevada in two separate opinions, it should be good enough
Ior any state court.
Attorney Misconduct May Support Setting Aside the Order, For a Good
Faith Basis for Changing the Law May Auger Toward Holding Opposing
Counsel's Failur to Withdraw the Motion for Summary 1udgment or Otherwise
Alert the Court as to the Likely Effect of Very Proximate Time Release of two
Mandatory and Controlling Nevada Supreme Court Decisions Issued One Week
Before This Court's Order May Rise to Positive Misconduct Given the Primacy
of the Subject Matter of This Litigation to these, At That Time, Pro Se
Litigants.
In Staschel v. Weaver Brothers, Ltd., 98 Nev. 559, 655 P.2d 518 (1982),
the Nevada Supreme Court held that attorney neglect amounting to misconduct is not
properly imputed to the client in determining whether a deIault judgment should be
set aside. ("To characterize |the attorney's| Iailure to represent his client as
'inexcusable neglect' would be charitable but hardly candid. His dereliction oI the
proIessional obligations owed appellant constituted actual misconduct."). See
generally, S. Bernstein, Annotation, Attorney's Inaction as Excuse Ior Failure to
Timely Prosecute Action, 15 A.L.R.3d 674 (1968). CaliIornia acknowledged this
problem in the 1960s, and concluded that inaction and sloth by an attorney should not
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 20
318
be grounds Ior a circuit court to inIlict suIIering upon an innocent client oI the
attorney, by dismissing the client's case. In Davey v. County oI Butte, 227
Cal.App.2d 380, 38 Cal.Rptr. 693 (1964), an intermediate court oI appeals examined
a situation where the DeIendant's lawyer Iiled a lawsuit, and then dawdled Ior nearly
two years, only sporadically doing discovery or Iiling pleadings. When the
DeIendant's lawyer Iailed to show up Ior several scheduled court hearings, the circuit
court dismissed the DeIendant's complaint due to inactivity. The court recognized the
general rule - similar to that in this State that the "general doctrine charges the client
with the neglect oI his attorney but gives him redress against the latter." 227
Cal.App.2d at 391, 38 Cal. Rptr. at 700. However, the court went on to alter this
harsh rule, holding that "there are exceptional cases in which the client, relativel Iree
Irom personal neglect, will be relieved oI a deIault or dismissal attributable to the
inaction or procrastination oI his counsel. " Id. The court Iound that the DeIendant's
attorney's neglect was inexcusable and extreme, amounting to positive misconduct.
|The attorney's| consistent and long continued inaction was so visibly and inevitably
disastrous, that his client was eIIectually and unknowingly deprived oI
representation. By his reIusal to get on with the lawsuit or get out oI it, |the
DeIendant's |attorney| inIlicted severe damage on his client's case. She had legal
representation only in a nominal and technical sense.
Under these unusual circumstances, where the client was unknowingly
deprived oI eIIective representation, she will not be charged with responsibility Ior
the misconduct oI her nominal counsel oI record. 227 Cal.App.2d at 391-92, 38
Cal.Rptr. at 700. The court then stated the rule - known as the "positive misconduct"
rule - that where an attorney's inaction rises to a level oI active, positive misconduct,
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 21
319
the "attorney's authority to bind his client does not permit him to impair or destroy
the client's cause oI action." 227 Cal.App.2d at 391, 38 Cal. Rptr. at 700. The
reasoning Ior such a rule is obvious: Clients should not be Iorced to act as hawk like
inquisitors oI their counsel, suspicious oI every step and quick to switch lawyers.
The proIession knows no worse headache than the client who mistrusts their
attorney. The lay litigant enters a temple oI mysteries whose ceremonies dark,
complex and unIathomable. Pretrial procedures are cabalistic rituals oI the lawyers
and judges who serve as priests and high priests. knows nothing oI their tactical
signiIicance.
He knows only that his case remains in limbo while the priests and high
priests chant their lengthy an arcane pretrial rites. He does know this much: that
several years Irequently elapse between the commencement and trial oI lawsuits.
Since the law impose this state oI puzzled patience on the litigant, it should permit
him to si back in peace and conIidence without suspicious inquiries and incessant
checking on counsel. 227 Cal.App.2d at 391-92, 38 Cal.Rptr. at 700-701. The
CaliIornia Supreme Court adopted the positive misconduct rule stated in Da~ey in
Carro~~ v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 654 P.2d 775 (1982). The court stated the
general rule that a client is charged with the neglect oI his counsel, and that the
client's usual redress Ior that neglect is an action Ior malpractice. However, an
exception to this general rule has developed. Excepted Irom this rule are those
instances where the attorney's neglect is oI that extreme degree amounting to positive
misconduct, and the person seeking relieI is relatively Iree Irom negligence. The
exception is premised upon the concept the attorney's conduct, in eIIect, obliterates
the existence oI the attorney-client relationship, and Ior this reason his negligence
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 22
320
should not be imputed to th client. 654 P.2d at 778 (emphasis in original). The court
went on to state that "|t|he issue, thereIore, becomes whether counsel's conduct
amounted to 'positive misconduct' by which DeIendant was 'eIIectually and
unknowingly deprived oI representation.'" Id.
In accord, Lords v. Newman, 688 P.2d 290, 294-95 (Mont. 1984) (holding
that when case is dismissed due to attorney negligence, "no great abuse oI discretion
need be shown to warrant reversal" because the ~court has been hesitant to impute
the neglect oI an attorney to his client; and has been loathe to permit this neglect to
bar a hearing on the merits."); Staschel v. Weaver Bros. Ltd., 655 P.2d 518, 519
(Nev. 1982) ("To characterize |the attorney's| Iailure to represent his client as
'inexcusable neglect' would be charitable but hardly candid. His dereliction oI the
proIessional obligations owed appellant constituted actual misconduct."). See
generally, S. Bernstein, Annotation, Attorney's Inaction as Excuse Ior Failure to
Timely Prosecute Action, 15 A.L.R.3d 674 (1968). (James Mi~ton Covington and
Jera~dine I. Covington v. Michael John Smith, Walter Lee Forbis, Ryder Truck
Rental, Inc. and D.T.F. Trucking, Inc. (Case 30734, Sup. Ct oI Appeals, West
Virginia July, 11, 2003) . order and/or judgement that was clearly erroneous and
contrary to law on the 60(b) motion which PlaintiIIs submitted to this court to set
aside judgement and/or order oI the 60(b) motion Ior excusable neglect predicated on
multiple medical issues and the precedent setting case oI Pioneer Investment Services
v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership et.al. 507 U.S. 380: 113 S.Ct. 1489;
123 L. Ed 2d 74;1993 U.S. LEXIS 2402; 61 U.S.L.W. 4263; 25 Fed R.Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 401; Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P75, 157A; 28 Collier Bankr.Cas. 2d (MB)
267;24 Bankr Ct Dec.63; 93 Cal Daily Op Service 2096; 93 DAR 3705; 7 FLA L.
Weekly Fed. S 101.
The particular Iacts and circumstances oI the Carpentier's case deserve closer
consternation, particularly in light oI the Iact that Leyva and Pasilla actually were
issued prior to this Court's July 15, 2011 Order granting Summary Judgment, the
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 23
321
maniIest injustice that results Irom leaving the Order as it is and allowing the
Trustee's Sale to go Iorward. Further, Pursuant to NRS 107.080, the requisite
statutory 20 days notice is, on its Iace, not present in the notice to the Carpentiers.
Further, the assignments have arguably not been produced or attested to in the
manner required by law, and the bald Iace arrogance oI the lender's and trustee's
street level employees in telling the Carpentier's that, basically, they are in a Iight
with a big ugly bully and its 'our word against yours you little puny pathetic so to be
no longer homeowners.
CARPENTIER received a Notice oI Sale indicating that their lender
would sel1 their home at auction on October 21, 2011, Iollowing their deIault in their
mortgage payments. The home remains occupied by the title owner. The Notice oI
Sale did not give Joni or James Carpentier the requisite notice oI the date oI the
Ioreclosure sale. Pursuant to NRS 107.080, the Ioreclosure trustee must record a
Notice oI Sale and give notice oI the time and place oI the sale by (1) personally
serving or mailing the notice by registered or certiIied mail to homeowner and others
"entitled to notice"; (2) posting the notice in a public place where the property is
located Ior 20 successive days; (3) publishing a copy oI the notice 3 times (once a
week Ior three weeks); AND (4) posting the notice on the property 15 days beIore the
sale date. The Notice oI Sale was recorded on October 3 with a sale date oI October
21. This is only an 18 day notice period. This Iails to comply with at least section (2)
above, and perhaps section (4) should they Iail to post the notice on the property on
or beIore October 6, depending upon whether section (4) requires that action to occur
within 90 days or to occur only aIter the passing oI 90 days.
The substitution oI Quality Loan Servicing as the Ioreclosure trustee was
not recorded. Under the Deed oI Trust Recorded on April 18, 2005, Windsor
Management Co. was named as the Trustee. No document could be Iound with the
Recorder's OIIice indicating any entity substituted Quality Loan Servicing as the
Ioreclosure trustee under the Deed oI Trust.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 24
322
DeIendant's have substantially departed Irom the notice, manner oI service, and
process requirements oI various law, including, but not limited to NRS 107.080.
When inquiry was made with DeIendant's as to the basis, reasoning, and justiIications
Ior the departures, PlaintiII's were told that 'its your word against ours and
otherwise responded to in a hostile, aggressive, and deceptive manner. More
discovery is in order in this regard. This pleading is Iurther Iiled with an eye towards
asserting a NRCP 59 basis Ior challenging the July 15, 2011 order (somehow a
tolling argument will need to be made to overcome the 10 day requirement Ior such a
motion, and the same could be said Ior making a Motion Ior Reconsideration where
more than 20 days have past since
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, PlaintiIIs respectIully request this Court order as Iollows:
1. For damages in excess oI $10,000;
2. For treble damages; and any sanctions appropriate under any applicable law,
including the two recent Nevada Supreme Court decisions oI July 7, 2011, Passila and
Leyva.
3. For temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction
barring Ioreclosure oI the Deed oI Trust recorded in Iavor oI DeIendant AAMES and any
succesor in interest.
4. For temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction
barring the contemplated and scheduled Trustee's Sale set Ior October 21, 2011.
5. For costs oI suit herein incurred; and Ior attorneys Iee;
6. For such other and Iurther relieI as this court may deem proper.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
DATED this 19
th
day oI December, 2011:
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 25
323
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Attorney Ior PlaintiIIs Joni and James Carpentier
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 26
324
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare, that on December 19, 2011, I caused the Iorgoing to
be deliver to all named DeIendant's in this action, but electronic Iiling to:
Kristin A. Schuler-Hintz, Esq.
McCarthy & Holthus, LLP
9510 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 110
Las Vegas , NV 89117
Phone: 702-685-0329
Fax: 866-339-5691
khintzmccarthyholthus.com
Atty Ior DEFT'S RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS INC, AND QUALITY
LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION'S
And via delivering to their attorney's oI record by Iax, email and depositing a true
and correct copy oI this document in the US mail on this date addressed to:
Eric B. Zimbelman, Esq.
Peel Brimley, LLP
2014 E. Madison, Suite 100
Seattle , WA 98122
Phone: 206-770-3339
Fax: 206-770-3490
ezimbelmanpeelbrimley.com
Atty Ior DEFT'SWINDSOR MANAGEMETN CO. AND ACCREDITED
HOME LENNDERS, INC. AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AAMES
FUNDING CORPORATION DBA AAMES HOME LOAN
DATED this 19
th
day oI December, 2011:
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Attorney Ior PlaintiIIs Joni and James Carpentier
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 27
325
INDEX TO EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TRO/IN1UNCTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE 28
326
EXHIBIT 3
327
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 Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
Attorney Ior DeIendant Robert Keller
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
In Re:
ROBERT KELLER
Debtor.
THE CADLE COMPANY,
PlaintiII,
v.
ROBERT KELLER,
DeIendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: BK 10-52639-gwz
Chapter 7
Adversary Proceeding
No. 10-05104-gwz
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING
Hearing Date: 12/7/10
Hearing Time: 10:00 AM
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
This Motion is based on the Iollowing Memorandum oI Points and Authorities as well
as Rule 7015 Fed. R. Bankr. P. and Rule 15(2) Fed. R. Civ. P.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
On July 2, 2010, Debtor/DeIendant ROBERT KELLER (hereinaIter 'Keller or 'DeIendant)
Iiled a Voluntary Petition Ior RelieI under Chapter 7 oI Title 11, U.S.C. The 341 Meeting was held
on August 12, 2010 and PlaintiII Iiled its adversary complaint against DeIendant Keller on October
- 1 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
328
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, 2010 with causes oI action Ior nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(4)
and res judicata. AIter thoroughly Iailing to even begin completely litigating the issues (so much so
that no Stipulated Findings oI Fact is to be Iound anywhere) and without a second oI trial taking
place, many assurances being made by the Texas prosecutors Bitting et al to Keller and Keller's then
attorney Chester Brown (who died suddenly in 1998 and leIt his widow to attempt the task oI
dispensing his massive collection oI Iiles held only in hard copy Iormat to Brown's clients, including
Keller, in a very haphazard way) that the State oI Texas did not intend to collect on or execute the
Judgement against Keller. This is evinced by the lack oI any language in the Judgment purporting to
incorporate by reIerence anything in the Complaint and by the lack oI any language purporting to
Iind Iraudulent conduct on Keller's part oI that Keller was adjudged to be either a Iiduciary or in a
'trust relationship with any oI the involved parties or individuals. Keller sent the DeIendant Keller
consented to the entry oI judgment in the amount oI $500,000.00 (in May, 1995), and the judgment
entered is very short, containing no mention oI incorporating by reIerence anything in the typically
overcharged Complaint, no citation to any Stipulated Findings oI Fact, no language speaking to any
admission oI wrongdoing or Iraudulent conduct oI any kind, nor any language purporting to establish
either a Iiduciary or trust relationship between Keller and anyone. Further, the judgement lacks any
language Iinding Keller an oIIicer or director oI either entity. It is really not at all clear how
opposing counsel O'Rourke can sign a declaration that purports to have non-hearsay, Iirst hand
knowledge, as required by LR 9014(C), that swears, under penalty oI perjury, that: '6. AIter
thoroughly litigating the issues but prior to trial, DeIendant Keller consented to the entry oI judgment
in the amount oI $500,000.00 (in May, 1995) based on causes oI action Ior: Iraud in real estate
transactions, common law Iraud, a Texas Insurance Code violation Ior the improper pledge or
hypothecation oI AGULIC`s assets, corporate alter ego, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
- 2 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
329
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
Consumer Protection Act violations, Iraudulent conveyance, conspiracy to Iraudulently convey, and
violations oI 18 U.S.C. 1962 (Racketeering InIluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). How in
the world would opposing counsel O'Rourke, all the way up there in Seattle, representing some Ohio
corporation that bought a Judgment Irom a Receiver in Texas dating back almost 17 years, involving
an opposing party whose attorney died in 1998, possibly be able to sign a declaration that states, with
any credibility, that 'AIter thoroughly litigating the issues but prior to trial, DeIendant Keller
consented to the entry oI judgment in the amount oI $500,000.00 (in May, 1995) based on causes oI
action Ior....? Certainly, opposing counsel O'Rourke isn't Iinding a basis Ior declaring whether the
issues were 'thoroughly litigated and upon what any consent to entry oI judgment by Keller was
'based on by anything in the Judgment, as it is blissIully short and sweet and devoid oI any
admission oI Iraud or misconduct by Keller, any incorporating language Ior other documents, such as
the Complaint, any Stipulated Findings oI Fact, etc... All the Judgment contains, pretty much, is a
sentence saying Keller agreed to be adjudged owing the Receive damages oI $500,000. That is like
saying a criminal deIendant charged with treason, smuggling nuclear weapons, serial murder, and
jaywalking thoroughly litigated the issues and cannot later say he never admitted to nor was Iound
guilty oI the charges other than jaywalking where he signed a Stipulated Judgment Iinding him guilty
Ior the jaywalking Iine....Remember, over $20,000,000 worth oI equity was curioulsy conIiscated by
the Texas Receiver, despite approximately 95 oI the liability being allocated to a
megaconglomerate reinsurer. How AGL and AGUILA were 'insolvent when they had $20 million
Ior the Texas Receiver to conIiscate is pretty unclear, but its not anywhere near as unclear as the
contention that the issues oI Keller's being a Iiduciary or in a trust relationship or have a debt
involving Iraudulent conduct adjudged against him had been 'thoroughly litigated. Further,
contrary to Cadle's assertions, it is not clear that DeIendant Iailed to list or schedule or otherwise add
- 3 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
330
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
by amendment the non-dischargeable United Healthcare debt stemming Irom 1990 in the more recent
Chapter 7 Iiling, or even that he had a duty to, and bringing this up is unduly prejudicial towards
Keller and says more about Cadle's tactics than anything.
A Iew days beIore the Iiling oI the adversary proceeding, PlaintiII conducted an
examination oI DeIendant pursuant to Rule 2004 F.R. Bankr. P. PlaintiII Iinally got around to
conducting a dubiously brought examination oI DeIendant`s wiIe, Samantha Hall, on April 18, 2011.
PlaintiII has made not attempt to explain why it is a simple search oI Pacer or court records would not
have revealed the incredibly easy to discover Iact that Keller Iiled a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in
1990. PlaintiII in no way speciIies in any detailing whatsoever speciIically how, at 'both
examinations, PlaintiII learned additional Iacts to support the novel cause oI action contained in its
Amended Complaint. What Iacts? How do they support the new cause oI action in the Amended
Complaint? PlaintiII provides no support Ior an argument that such 'Iacts were not easily
discoverable through a reasonably diligent inquiry by PlaintiII, such as checking courts records or
Pacer to see iI a previous bankruptcy had been Iiled by Keller. It does not take a great big billing
event like deposing Keller and his wiIe to Iind that out, and Iurther, PlaintiII's Iailure to do so is not
excused merely by the Iact that PlaintiII may have subsequently become aware oI the 1990 Iiling via
the depositions. The point is, a reasonably diligent inquiry by PlaintiII would have revealed the 1990
Iiling, and PlaintiII has made no attempt to establish that the depositions oI Keller and his wiIe yield
any 'special inIormation that would excuse PlaintiII's earlier lack oI diligence or the undue burden
and expense is has caused Keller. What is clear is that Keller can produce a cover letter and FedEx
billing oI lading that were mailed along with the Stipulated Judgment on the eve oI trial on that
speciIically reIer to the talks and documents involved in incorporating into the Stipulated Judgment
the Settlement Agreement Keller can produce (iI not more, depending upon what is recoverable Irom
- 4 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
331
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
Bitting and Brown's dusty Iiles) dated April 10, 1995, that more clearly sets Ior the Iact that Keller
did not stipulate to any Iraudulent conduct or a Iidicuary or trust relationship in connection with the
Judgment entered in May 1995. Certainly, even iI something isn't Iound in Bitting (the Receiver's
attorney) or Keller's old counsel Brown's Iiles, the April 10, 1995 Settlement Agreement and the
cover letter and FedEx bill oI lading Keller can produce and which were mailed along with Keller's
signed Stipulated Judgment on March 23 or thereabouts, placed the onus on Bitting and the Receiver
to make some aIIirmative action to disavow the contentions made by Keller therein with respect to
the excuplatory nature oI the discussions and documents connected to the Judgment entered in May
1995.
II.
LEGAL ANAYLSIS
Amendment oI complaint A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter oI course at
any time beIore responsive pleading is served or, iI the pleading is one to which no responsive
pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so
amend it at any time within 20 days aIter it is served; otherwise a party may amend the party's
pleading only by leave oI court or by written consent oI the adverse party, and leave must be Ireely
given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), made applicable in adversary proceedings by
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7015. This rule is applicable to complaints objecting to discharge. Fourth Circuit In
re Tester, 56 B.R. 208 (W.D. Va. 1985). 5B Fed. Proc., L. Ed. 9:1750A bankruptcy court lacks
authority to grant an untimely motion to amend an adversary complaint to state new causes oI action
objecting to discharge where such motion is not Iiled until aIter the deadline Ior objecting to
discharge. Eighth Circuit In re Bozeman, 219 B.R. 253 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1998), aII'd, 226 B.R.
627, 42 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 416 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1998). Whenever the claim or deIense asserted in the
amended pleading arose out oI the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set Iorth or attempted to be set
- 5 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
332
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
Iorth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date oI the original pleading. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(c)(2), made applicable in adversary proceedings by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7015. Thus, a
proposed amendment to a complaint objecting to discharge may relate back to the time oI the Iiling oI
the original complaint. Fourth Circuit In re Tester, 56 B.R. 208 (W.D. Va. 1985)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), as amended and eIIective December 1, 2009, provides that (1) a party
may amend its pleading once as a matter oI course within: (A) 21 days aIter serving it, or (B) iI the
pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days aIter service oI a responsive
pleading or 21 days aIter service oI a motion under Rule 12(b), (e(, or (I), whichever is earlier. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) was redesignated as Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B) in 2007. Additional discovery
that deIendant would have to conduct iI postconIirmation trust established under debtor's conIirmed
Chapter 11 plan were allowed to amend its turnover complaint to allege that Iunds retained by
deIendant related, not to debtor's prepetition shipments oI goods, but to goods provided postpetition,
and that deIendant's retention oI Iunds thus violated automatic stay, did not rise to level oI "undue
prejudice" oI kind warranting denial oI motion Ior leave to amend; trust was not asserting new count
with unrelated Iacts that would re- quire parties to start discovery anew, and deIendant could not be
surprised that trust was now attempting to amend its complaint to conIorm to the "new'' Iacts recently
asserted by deIendant regarding pre- or postpetition nature oI Iunds it was withholding. In re Fleming
Companies, Inc., 323 B.R. 144, 61 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 296 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005). Additional claims that
Chapter 11 trustee sought to assert, in his amended complaint, against bank that Iinanced the
leveraged buyout (LBO) that he challenged as actually and constructively Iraudulent transIer, Ior
bank's alleged improvident lending and aiding in breach oI Iiduciary duty, were not time-barred, but
related back to his original timely complaint, where these additional claims arose out oI the same
Iacts as those that Iormed basis oI trustee's ori- ginal claims against bank. In re OODC, LLC, 321
- 6 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
333
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. 128 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005). "Undue prejudice'' to party opposing motion Ior leave to amend
complaint is more than mere inconvenience; it is Iound only where the party must overhaul its entire
litigation strategy. In re Fleming Companies, Inc., 319 B.R. 359 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005). Chapter 11
debtors' motion to amend their amended adversary complaint would be denied as untimely where,
although motion was made within extended period Ior making pretrial motions, debtors Iailed to
justiIy their extended and undue delay in waiting until well over a year aIter the parties had agreed
that the pleadings were "settled" to request Iurther amendment, and to allow debtors to add new
causes oI action and change the Iocus oI the litigation aIter discovery had been completed, and aIter
deIendants had invested signiIicant time and money in preparing and presenting summary judgment
motions on the pleadings, would have been prejudicial to deIendants. In re Thorian, 387 B.R. 50
(Bankr. D. Idaho 2008).
PlaintiII has made not attempt to explain why it is a simple search oI Pacer or court records
would not have revealed the incredibly easy to discover Iact that Keller Iiled a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition in 1990. PlaintiII in no way speciIies in any detailing whatsoever speciIically how, at 'both
examinations, PlaintiII learned additional Iacts to support the novel cause oI action contained in its
Amended Complaint. What Iacts? How do they support the new cause oI action in the Amended
Complaint? PlaintiII provides no support Ior an argument that such 'Iacts were not easily
discoverable through a reasonably diligent inquiry by PlaintiII, such as checking courts records or
Pacer to see iI a previous bankruptcy had been Iiled by Keller. It does not take a great big billing
event like deposing Keller and his wiIe to Iind that out, and Iurther, PlaintiII's Iailure to do so is not
excused merely by the Iact that PlaintiII may have subsequently become aware oI the 1990 Iiling via
the depositions. The point is, a reasonably diligent inquiry by PlaintiII would have revealed the 1990
Iiling, and PlaintiII has made no attempt to establish that the depositions oI Keller and his wiIe yield
- 7 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
334
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
any 'special inIormation that would excuse PlaintiII's earlier lack oI diligence or the undue burden
and expense is has caused Keller. What is clear is that Keller can produce a cover letter and FedEx
billing oI lading that were mailed along with the Stipulated Judgment on the eve oI trial on that
speciIically reIer to the talks and documents involved in incorporating into the Stipulated Judgment
the Settlement Agreement Keller can produce (iI not more, depending upon what is recoverable Irom
Bitting and Brown's dusty Iiles) dated April 10, 1995, that more clearly sets Ior the Iact that Keller
did not stipulate to any Iraudulent conduct or a Iidicuary or trust relationship in connection with the
Judgment entered in May 1995. Certainly, even iI something isn't Iound in Bitting (the Receiver's
attorney) or Keller's old counsel Brown's Iiles, the April 10, 1995 Settelment Agreement and the
cover letter and FedEx bill oI lading Keller can produce and which were mailed along with Keller's
signed Stipulated Judgment on March 23 or thereabouts, placed the onus on Bitting and the Receiver
to make some aIIirmative action to disavow the contentions made by Keller therein with respect to
the excuplatory nature oI the discussions and documents connected to the Judgment entered in May
1995.
Allowing Cadle to amend here certainly would amount to undue prejudice to Keller. Already,
just to Iile this Opposition, Keller has been Iorced to procure the services oI the undersigned, and
absent that, Keller would be paying a weekend plumber's emergency ransom to address a situation
caused by O'Rourke's Iailure to run a name search Ior Keller to discovery previous bankruptcy's and
the dockets thereIrom. O'Rourke should surely be aware oI and able to use Pacer. Further,
O'Rourke, whose aggresive litigating is having a deleterious eIIect on Keller Ior sure, doesn't even
bother to cite a single case in support oI his "res judicata" argument (wouldn't that argument work the
other way too, i.e, since there was no language speciIically incorporating by reIerence the allegations
- 8 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
335
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
oI the Complaint in the Judgment, the issue that Keller committed no Iraud is barred by issue or claim
preclusion?)
Qwest Communications Intern., Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 114 S.W.3d 15 Tex.App.Austin,2003
Court rendering agreed judgment must do so in strict or literal compliance with settlement agreement.
Vernon's Ann.Texas Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 11. Issues oI Iraud or willIul evasion oI taxes were never
actually litigated or admitted as to debtor 1984 tax liabilities in litigation beIore Tax Court, and thus,
debtor was not collaterally estopped to deny nondischargeability oI 1984 tax debt based on his
consent to decision by United States Tax Court oI decision imposing Iraud penalties, where no
admissions, Iactual Iindings, or intention oI parties concerning Iraud issue or willIul evasion Ior 1984
taxes were incorporated into Tax Court decision, government admitted in its answer that Iraud
penalties, which were only discernible reason Irom Iace oI Tax Court decision Ior denying
dischargeab- ility oI 1984 tax liability, were dischargeable, and stipulated entry oI decision was bare
oI any Iactual support. Bankr.Code, 11 U.S.C.A. 523(a)(1)(C). In re GoII, 180 B.R. 193, Bankr. L.
Rep. (CCH) P 76497, 75 A.F.T.R.2d 95-2531 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1995).
15 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 337 (Originally published in 2006) See page 149 thru 160 speciIic to
insurance industry. "Where the Insurance Commissioner oI the State oI West Virginia
(Commissioner) was ap- pointed the receiver and liquidator oI an insolvent liIe insurance company,
and the Commis- sioner sued the Iormer directors oI the liIe insurance company, the court in In re
Wilbur, 1997 WL 375687 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997), Iound that the Commissioner Iailed to present
evidence that a debtor Iormer director committed Iraud while acting in a Iiduciary capacity, since the
state court's holdings regarding the debtor's Iiduciary role did not satisIy the requirements oI the
discharge exception Ior Iraud or deIalcation while acting in a Iiduciary capacity under 11 U.S.C.A.
523(a)(4). Florida Department oI Insurance, in its capacity as the receiver oI insolvent insurance
- 9 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
336
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
companies, brought adversary proceedings against a bankrupt Iormer oIIicer and director to recover
Ior the Iormer oIIicer's alleged usurpation and breach oI Iiduciary duty and to except this
indebtedness Irom discharge, and on the debtor oIIicer's motion Ior summary judgment, the court in
In re Blackburn, 209 B.R. 4 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997), concluded that the general Iiduciary duties
owed to a Florida corporation by its oIIicers and directors were insuIIicient, by themselves, to support
the claim that the oIIicers and directors stood in a "Iiduciary capa- city" to the corporation Ior debt
dischargeability purposes under 11 U.S.C.A. 523(a)(4); 15 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 337 Page 160 15 A.L.R.
Fed. 2d 337 (Originally published in 2006). "The court In re Nordstrom, 8 Fed. Appx. 823 (9th Cir.
2001), held that no Iiduciary rela- tionship, Ior the purposes oI the Iiduciary Iraud or deIalcation
discharge exception oI 11 U.S.C.A. 523(a)(4), existed between the judgment-creditor and the
individual debtor as owner and operator oI two related corporations engaged in the sale oI insurance
where the creditor could not show the requisite express or technical trust between the parties. The
credit- or had been injured in an automobile accident and obtained a deIault judgment against the oth-
er driver, who was insured by an insolvent company that sold insurance through the debtor's
corporation. The creditor then Iiled a state court action against the debtor, individually and through
his companies, alleging that he had intentionally engaged in a Iraudulent scheme to sell underIunded
insurance policies in violation oI CaliIornia law, and obtained judgment against the debtor
companies."
Rule 7015 Fed. R. Bankr. P., incorporating Rule 15 Fed. R. Civ. P., provides a standard Ior
the amendment oI pleadings. AIter, where, as here, DeIendant has already Iiled a responsive
pleading, leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing
party, is sought in bad Iaith, is Iutile, or creates undue delay. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975
F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, PlaintiII should not be accorded leave to amend its
- 10 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
337
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
adversary complaint on all those accounts, and Iurther, as PlaintiII and its counsel thoroughly Iails to
speciIy in any detail whatsoever what additional inIormation regarding DeIendant`s actions and the
underlying judgment came to light aIter the Iiling oI the initial adversary proceeding that a simple
name search Ior Keller on Pacer or the bankruptcy dockets or any other attempts at making a
reasonably diligent inquiry vis a vis Rule 9011 would have revealed. Speaking oI 9011, opposing
counsel Iails to cite to a single case supporting his truly creative res judicata argument, and the same
can be said, with ever more vigor about PlaintiII's Iailure to provide any legal support Ior what seems
to be their contention that Keller was under some legal duty to become a psychic and know that 3
years aIter the close oI the bankruptcy Keller Iiled in 1990 that Keller would have a judgment against
him in Texas in 1995, though O'Rourke makes conclusory assertions in his pleadings that Keller's
"liability was clear" by the time the 1990 Ch. 7 Iiling was ending (not clear enough, apparently, to
prevent over three more years time passing beIore any judgment was rendered against Keller in
Texas, though), however, O'Rourke Iails to cite even one case that would support his argument under
those circumstances, even iI they could be proven. O'Rourke Iailed to cite a case Ior what seems to
be his argument that iI Keller's liability was clear vis a vis the Texas matter, it should have been
scheduled in the 1990 Arizona bankruptcy Iiling by the time that ended sometime in 1992, and that,
Keller's Iailure to do so now subjects him to the cause oI action that the Cadle Company now seeks to
add by amending its original Complaint in this adversary proceeding. PlaintiII`s amendment will
certainly delay the proceedings even Iurther since each cause oI action does not substantially overlap
or relates back to the original complaint. Actually, O'Rourke has not even established that this new
cause oI action does relate back to SOMETIME BEFORE the Iiling oI the original Complaint in
Texas (again, Cadle requiring Keller to be a psychic, apparently). Quite simply, the debt that
- 11 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
338
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
DeIendant owes PlaintiII could not have possibly been listed or scheduled by the debtor in his earlier
case in the United States Bankruptcy Court oI the District oI Arizona and it is
thereIore dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(10), which reads that: "(10) that was or could have
been listed or scheduled by the debtor in a prior case concerning the debtor under this title or under
the Bankruptcy Act in which the debtor waived discharge, or was denied a discharge under section
727(a)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), or (7) oI this title, or under section 14c(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7) oI such
Act".
Bid protestor would be granted leave to Iile second amended complaint aIter it learned that
contract had been modiIied three times aIter re-award, notwithstanding deIendants' objection that
amendment would be Iutile because jurisdiction was lacking over new claims which alleged Iacts
which occurred aIter contract award, as new claims alleged "material" post-award changes to the
contract, allowing retention oI jurisdiction pursuant to the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA).
InIormation Sciences Corp. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 648 (2008). A motion to amend may be deemed Iutile
iI a claim added by the amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss. Shoshone Indian Tribe
oI the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming v. U.S., 71 Fed. Cl. 172 (2006). A plaintiII would not be
allowed to amend a complaint where a plaintiII's claims were barred by res judicata or collateral
estoppel and otherwise did not come within the jurisdiction oI the Court oI Federal Claims, and thus
Iurther amendment was Iutile. Saladino v. U.S., 62 Fed. Cl. 782 (2004).
Finally, deIendant will thoroughly be prejudiced as a great deal oI invasive discovery has
taken place to date already and Cadle has been provided conclusive prooI that Keller's wiIe should
not be bothered by this litigation, much less be subject to even more invasive vexation even beyond
the Rule 2004 examination she has already been Iorced to submit to. Since so very much time has
now passed since the Iiling oI this Adversary Proceeding, not to mention the couple oI decades that
- 12 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
339
|U: 9333J31Jf90003JC03CJ08 IUq! 76CCU0g0i1B ll3l1 J19[B . 31 0 3


h8VO Q088Od 8IuCO 1OOI'8 1>> PI2On8 U8uKIulQCj J1In_, muCh O88 lh8 COmQlOlO Nd ullOI 8U8OnCO
<
O 8 nOXu8 UOVOOu Ih8l 1n_ d lhO 1>>3 Jud_mOnl In OX08, lO 88j nOlhn_ O hO IOQuI81IOn lhO

L8dO LOmQj h8VO dOVOOQOd n Ol8lO 8ud UOjOnd OI 8CuItIOu8, VOX8lIOu8 IlI_8lOu, lhO 8l8ud8Id8

O HuO J3 8hOud jIOd 8n !IdOt dOnjIn_ 8IulI8 NOlOn lO PmOud lhOIt LOmQ8Iul.
C

.
L!PLLO1!P

OI lhO tO88On8 CIlOd 0UOVO )OOnd8ul IO8QOCUlj ICQuO8l8 h8l lhI8
_
Outl OulOI !tdOI


dOuIn_ hO L8dO LOmQnj`8 NOIOn lO 8mCnd Il8 JdVOI88tj LOmQInI ud QOIh8Q8 C0u8IdOI
VhOlhOt 1OOt 8 duO 8OmOlhIu_ Ot hI8 ltOuUO n OQQO8u_ 8 mOlIOn lh8l dIdnl UOlhOI lO CIlO lO
1
muCh Iu lhO V8j O O_8 8ulhOtIlj In 8uQQOIl O l8 COnlOulIOn8.
1<
)P 1) lhI8 23td d8j O POVOmUOI 2J1.
1C
A

J<
l8/ 8tKOt
Z0Ch8Ij 8tKOt LOu_hIn 18Q.
PllOuOj Ot OOud8nl
J:
J
Z
<
<<
<
<
<O
<
<
<<
_
TO TO 1H FROCW1HO
340
J0: 090JJJ0!JV1f9000JJC000J08 tIU: I8C00g110

l13!1 J:99 . 3 0 J
J
2

4

O



l
]]
Jz
J.
]
]D
]<



2
z.
zz
z
Z
ZO
2<
z
z

1 1H|! L1H` lh8l Ou POVcm0Ct 23 2J1 8 ltuC 8ud COttcCl COQj O1 lhC 1Otc_O1u_ M8s |1\Cd
m h8td COQj MIlh lhc LCtK O1 LOuD u 0OmQI8uCc Mllh 1H 33, 88 lhc undct8I_ncd l8 uOl jcl
tc_I8lCtCd lO C||C On lhC LN/1L 8jlCm. 1cd 0ud dcQO8Il6d u lhc \.O. N8I 8 Ituc COQj O1 lhc
VIhIu. JL
IN AONH5AHY
lO`
NLP1L . !`H!\H11, 1O[.
PCV8d8 !0l PO.
!H!\H11 1P LH!\, L
lh PVcuuc OulC J
OC8lIC, 88hIn_lOu >1
CCQhOuc. {2] 4-143
8CImI!C. (2} 4-1J3
!H1PP J. ON, 1O[.
PCV8d8 !8t PO. 1J2>
! LOun8c lO !`H!\H1| LP
LH!\, L
OOuIh Dtd OItccl
10s `C_88, PCV8d8 >iJ
Jc!CphOuC. (2] -2
8CImIc. (2} 32-3>
PllOtnCj8 OI` 8InllD
0lCd IhI8 2O"' dSy O POVcU0C!, 2JJ
~ ]
/8/ Z8Ch LOu
/8Ch LOu_h\In, 8Q.
PllOOCj Ot Ccud8nl 1ClCt
1O WT1OH TO Cm|HT 1H 7VM/
341
>
1
z
J

J
D

V
J!
!
1z
1J
LP5LN.. 1 LKzzJD
LL|1.P..

, _
'
7
N 1Mt %NLP LLH1 L1MtL1 LHNL,
LLN1LPML, 1P1 LNYPP
LJA KLN
||3|0||,
V5.
ZPLNPKYPKLKLLONLlN,
L220J30|.
b1D 1
1D DY 1HA
J /
J^
l D
J
1
1V
z!
zJ
z.
z.
102 L||y 0 K200, Dy 30J |0|0J0J000 3Jl|0, K200 L||y P||0U2y 30J |302|3 K002||5,
L20|y L||y P||0O2y, 00525 w03| 323|5|002L220J30|Z3002|y3|K2|L0J0||05N0||00
0| N2w 1||3|. J0|5 05|||00 |5 03J2 J|5J30| |0 K200 NJ0|0|3l L0J|| KJl2 30J D352J 00
|020l|0w|0 |0|0|530JPJ|00||||25.
. AL1b
D1b AD A1MH1b
0L202002|1,z!JJ 3| 3|08|03|2lyJ.+ DN, |02 L||y |202|v2J 3|w03238
(02|2|03R2|||5| 38) |00L220J30|Z3003|y3|K2| L000||0[02|2|03R2|L220J30|).
Occ cc/rlln 0 |302l3 K0D2||5. l|323|5|0 023 00y 0 30 203||L220J30|520||0L20|y
z
z^
zD
z
z
L||}P||0m2y L0||5 N3|2||5|2v205,L20|yL||y P||0O2y302|3K002|1530JL||y P||0O2y
J0003J||0 00N00J3y, L2020D2|Jz,z!J1 3|V.Jz N. !J P| |02 |0 0|02||5|38 |5 |02
023J|0`N2|2 |5 52|v|02 0|02 N0||00 0|3 N2w1||3|, 52| P5|J2, N3j5|0]. !1 3|L80|0||P1
30J P- z.
342

z
J

J
D

V
U
J
1z
JJ
+
1J
D
J
1
JV
zU
z
zz
zJ
z
zJ
zD
z
z

0L000000|1J, zU1J 3|3|08|03|0ly.U1 N, |00L||y |000|v0J 3 |0|00 3038
[00|0|03R0|50000J 38| |00L000J30|. !1 10|350000J38 033 3 000 30PA LNLK
5NLL1 w0|00|0J|03|03K. L||y 0I000[3|0]V L0U0l|0KNLJJ LKzzJD z 0l0R 0I
D0n !1 3|L80|0||,z 30JJ. 10030000J30J|0||J 303 0 |00 50000J 38|0
v|||03l|y |J00||03||0|00 ||3| 38 |000|v0J3| 3|08|03|0lyJ.DN. !1
0L000000| V,zU3|3|08|03|0|yJ.zJ N, |00L||y |000|v0J 3Vz303800
L0|00J30|. 1d J00|3|30|00|00033 3 00U||30J03U300|0|3033030J |300||||0JN0||000|
L00|3|0 50|v|00, 03|||00L||y0 K0003 N0||000L00|3l050|v|00, K0qU03|0|
Ll3||U03||00 K03|J|0L03Jl|000||||0 N0||00 0| N0w1||3|,|00| 10ll|0N0||003, 0|0.,
PLLP1NKLLLKKL KPNLKLLK1LL5PNLL51[00|0|03R0|
N0||0003|||00K0qU03|P||03||00). !1 100L||y|03J003 |0|3 033 0000Ul0J w||0|00
L0U||.
L00|3|00J |00|0|0 |3 3LLLLPKP1NPLN LLONLlN w0|00 000|3|03 |w0
|00|00003 |03N0||000| 3N0w1||3| 30J3N0||000|N0wJ||3l. ccN0||0003|||00
K0]003|Pl|03||003|LLLLPKP1lNPLH LLOHO J 30JJ
P|J, L000J30| w|||03.. 03v0380J N3. K000||3] |00L000000| J
'|
N0||000| 3
N0wJ||3|, 0|0. |0 N3. K000||3 3|00| 38 0J000|. !d J00L||y J|J 00||000|v03U003 38 0|
N0||00 |0|3N0w1ria. SccL00|3|3||000|300|3K000||3.
P|1J, L000J0| w|||03N0J|J|0J|03|0|03|`|00y 33|J |00 N0||000|N0w1||3l |03|
03J |0000|ly U|0Jw33 ||00|y, . . ` cc N0||0003|||00K0qU03|P||03||003|
LLLLPKP1N PLN LLONLO 3|1 J. J00L||y 033 00| |000|v0J |00|30|v|000
30yI|0JN0||00 0| N0w1||3l. ccL00|3|3||000300|3K000||3.
. ALD1
A. 1h0 Lly Y88 D0l b0tv00 Ylh ARy 0l0R 10r D0n 1r8) v8 lh0 r8t 8X.
100||3| 38|300|0ly 3 00y 0303ll00J 003||. ccL00l3|3||00 0300|3 K000||3
30JL80|0||3 P1 30J P-z |00|0|0. J00|0 |3 00N0||00 0| N0wJ||3| 3||3000J |00|0|0. 1 100|0
|3 003UIJ3v|| 0| 3|UJ3v||3 30J 00 0|0|3 30J 3U|00||||03 |3 |0qU||0J 0y K.N.L.K.. !d
343
i
Z
J

J
D
1

V
U
Ii
Z
J

J
lD

J
V
ZU
Z
ZZ
ZJ
Z
ZJ
ZD
Z7
Z
.

1h0 Ll} Y88 D0l b0t00 Yl0 PW} 0l0B 0r D0n I8 v8 l00 b000R0
8X.
102 52000J 38 035 338L0v2| 5022| 30J|020 |502|2ly 3 00y 0 30 3|l22J 203||. !1
102|2 |5 00 N0||00 0| O2w 1||3l3||3002J|02|2|0. !1 102|2 |5 003 IJ3v||0|3UIJ3v||530J 00
0|0|5 30J3J|00||||25 35 |5 |2qJ||2JDy K.N.L.K. !1
L. 100 Ll} M88 D0l 00R I0Q0I} b0I00 lR0000 M88 D0t 000v00 - AR}
0l0R 0t D0n 1t8.
L220J30| 3.|225 |00|5O0|l0205|||00-K2qJ25|P.|03||003|02I|2J w||0|02
L0J||30J52|v2J v|3383N0||000|N2w 1||3|000L2J|y L||y P||0M2y K002||530J|02
City. hc\\\\>U03w2|IL2|20J30|035 |0 |3|l2J 3N0||00 |0|N2w||3|w||h |02L0U||.
102L||y J20|2> ||w3552|v2J v|3 38 30J J20|25 |03| || w35 52|v2J3|3ll w!|030y N0||00 0|
N2w 1||3|Dl2J000| 3D0J|L202002|1 0|1J,ZU11.
H . LDLblD
P0y N0000 0| O2w 1||3| D|2J 0y L220J30| 00 0| 00U| L202002| J 0 \J, ZU
500J|J02J20|2J 0| |lJ|2|0 52|v2|02L||y.
K2520|01lly 5000|||2J|0|5 J3y 0L202002|, ZU.
JNOi.PLL
K200L||y P||0M2y
|PNPKK15
L2J|y L||y P||0M2y
K200L||y P||0M2y5 [02
.. 08 VUU
K200, NN VJUJ
[J)JJZUJU
344
J cLAHA1lONO HAMcLAHOcH1b
z
PJt Ll NtVPLP
)


J

J
`SS
LLUNJY L VPMLt
, BRCB CDCHS, 0CCB!C UD0C! CRBy C! CIjUIy U!SUBR C N .4 RB
RC CCWRg l !UC BR0 CC!lCC

J.
@ Z.
JU
1
Jz
lJ
1
1J
JD
.
J
JY
z!
z1
zz
z.
z
zJ
BR RC LCUy Lly PC!RCy C! RC Ly C CRC BR0 RC CDC Ly PC!RCyS
LCC.
LR LCCCRDC! J, ZJJ B BlCXBCy .4 |N
1
, RC Ly !CCCVC0 B WC BgC
BX [RClCRBRCl llS lBX] lCR LCCR0BR BCRB!y B!6C! LCUgRD [RCICRBRCl
LCCR0BR PR BCCU!BC CCy RClCC S BllBCRC0 RC!CC BS tXRlDl P-J BR0 P-
Z. BCB!S C DC B CCy C BR CRBl LCCR0BR SCR C LCUy Lly PC!RCy
LRlS MB2Cl-CVCDS, LCUly Ly PC!RCy |BRCB CDC!lS BR0 L] PC!RCy
JCRR bB0C CR NCR0By, LCCCRDC! JZ, ZJJ B .Z |N. P RC C C RC ll!S
BX |S RC DCB0Rg MClC S SClVCC C lRC NCCR Cl B NCW JlB, C PS0C, NB
[SC|. cCC tXRID P-J BR0 P-Z RC!CC.
LR LCCCRDC! J, ZJJ B B!CXlRBCy 4.J |N
?
, RC Ly lCCCVC0 B R!CC
BgC BX [RClCRBRC! `CCCR0 lBX
)
!C LCCR0BR. PR BCCUlBC CCy RC!CC IS
BBCRC0 RClCC BS tXRID UJ, -Z BR0 -. RS CCCR0 BX RBS B CDC BgC
lP LLVt Mtt WRCR lR0ICBCS t` Lly C !CDC [SCj V LCUgRR NL 1J
L ZZJ1 Zl MolIon !orNeWTrIal. CCC tXRD U-1. JRC SCCCR0 BR0 Rll0
BgCS C RC CCCR0 lBX BlC VlHUBy l0CRlCB C RC l|lS lBX lCCCVC0 B
B!CXRBCy `4 |N. cCC tXRD -Z BH0 -.
B6 l`l c SI3m Ind!08I6S 4.4 . )0W0V6f, 0n |606mb6| 1V.U1J 8l 2`4J , II W3S 0JS00Y6l60
Z
IB3I IB6 IU0 SI6UQ 0n IB6 !3X m8CB)H0 W3S 0 Dj 06 B0uf .6., I SI3m6d J`J t W00R 1c Tmc W38 30I8!y 2.+0
tN. PQQ8|6B\, Wcn l8y1)_D\ S8V)B_5 )m IcVcI\0 \0 SI8008td IU6 0B `0VmDc! , `U11, lh I0 \JB0IOH
W3S B0I 03B_60 Iu l660I thc tVclSOH V SI8d8|d Im6. 6 IIm6 SI80Q !63Iul6 W8S 00lf60I0d 00 l0C6006r !V
Z
2!1 3I 3f0X103I6y J:J l.
ec 00In06 I 8b0V6.
z
345
J 4.
Z
J

^
D
1

V
1!
JJ
JZ
,
JJ
J
^
JD
1
1
JV
Z!
ZJ
ZZ
ZJ
Z
Z^
ZD
Z
Z
.
.


LR LCCCRDC! +, ZJJ B B!CXRBCy ZJ lN, DC Lly lCCCVC0 B Z-BgC
BX lCR LCCR0BR. JDC lS BgC DClCC DBS B CCUR BR0 CBUSC C DlS CBSC
BR0 S CRC0 `NCCC C LCRB C C!VCC, LCSCR Ly C CRCS NClCC C
LCRlB C C!VlCC, CqUCS Cl LBlllCBlCR CgBl0Rg LCB0lRC Cl lllRg NCCR
lCl NCW JlB, LDCl JCRg NClCRS, CC., PllLLPJLN lL LtltPL L
VPVt Ll LLUJ ltt PNL LLJ [DClClRBRC! NClCCLCSlCR-
CqUCS-PCBCR, JDC Lly !CSURCS DS DBS DCCR C0 WD DC LCUH.
LCRBlRC0 DClCR lS B `LtLLPPJ!LN Ll PLM LLULMLN` WDCD CCRBRS
WC !CC!CRCCS C B NCICR C! B NCW J!IB BR0 B `NClCR Cl NCW JlB. CCC
NClCC-LCSlCR-CqUCS-PCBCR B LtLLPPJLN Ll PLM
LLULMN BR0 +,
P , LCCR0BR W!lCS .. DBVC BXC0 [NS. CDC!S| DC LCCCRDC!
_.a
NClCR Cl B NCW JllB, CC. C NS. CDClS B DCl BX RURDC!, JDC LIy 0l0 RC
!CCClVC SUCD B BX C! NClCR Cl B NCW JlB.
P +, LCCR0BR W!lCS `MC 0l0 lR0lCBC DB `DCy SB0 DC NClCR C! NCW JllB
DB DB0 lCCCRy C0 WBS RCy, .. . CCC NCCC-LCSlCR-CqUCS-
PlCBlCR B `LLLLPP1!LN Ll PLM LLULMLN B J. JDC Lly DBS RC
!CCClVC0 lCC! SClVlCC C BRy lC0 NCCR C! NCW !B.
lUlSUBR C N ,4, 0CCBlC UR0Cl CRBIy C CljUly DB DC ClCgClRg S
!UC BR0 CC!lCC. tXCCUC0 CR LCCCRDCl Z, Z+J.
lPNtLP LtJ
346
MOu8t lcirtHesse
lI00: 280f0Ug10

..... .... . I ol c
8_eicz
M0I0 5 50IVC0 O tD0 NOtOD OI N0W 1Il, b0t P5U0,
V
|n Zc L0ughlln [ZCHCDU_1IDHD\N|1.CDP|
bEH1 NDH l2/l2/l] 9.52 N
1O. H7||5IVD5C|EDD.gDV, IDDPIIS|DD._DV, KG|jlHD.gDV
S Il 8U0ul Um0 0f y0u l0 g0l lB8l \/N U8l Y8m8f'IS P guy
8uSlIu0 B8ud0d lh0 lW0 K0u0 bfKS udIu \00uy 0U00fS WB0u U0y
W0f0 08dIug U0 SuS00l 8W8y Iu 0uS ... u0l lB0 VId00 y0u g8V0 m0 0
SIug U8d0 U8dg0fIug lh0 8Wy0f g0l IB0S0 lW0 VId00S y0u g8V0 10
WBI0B ]uSl U0 U8dg0fIUg Iu lB0 Iul0ff0g8lI0u f00m. l8!KIug 8U0ul
U0 0d/dVd lB8l Y8m8fI'S guy g8V0 U0m 8S lB0y W0f0 W8KIug
0ul.. .. 00Sul Il S00m I0 y0u f08!!y u00d l0 g0l U8l u0W, l0 Sl8y 0u lB0
fIgl SId0 0 I0ug `0u f0m0mU0f I0ug, d0u'l y0u. Y8m8 8
guy SIl U0f0 0u lB0 Sl8ud, uUd0f 0u8Iy 0 0fW 8ud l0SlI| IB8l u0
VId00 W8S 0000l0d IU 8Uy W8y f08l0d V m0 0f lBIS 08S0 8Sld0 0m lB0
2 Iul0ff0g8II0u f00m VId00S y0u f0VId0d (WIlB 8 BIgB!y SuS00l mU
`00d00` f0gf8m f0QuIf0d V VI0W U0 VId00S ... 08 y0u ludI08l0 WBy
U8l IS u000SSfy l0 W8l0B 8 SIm0 0d .8VI I!0).
WBy dId y0u SuU0H lB0 0Qufy 0 U0U IB0 W8m8tI guy 8ud lB0
0H00fS f0g8fdIug u0 0U0f VId00 0XISlIug 08u'l Hguf0 lB8l 0u0 0ul.
BS. K0U0tIS, d0u'l y0u f80lI00 Iu bB\ QuII0 8 UIl B8yU0
00uuS0d, Uul d00Su'l U0 bw\ tu!0S 0fmIl S0fYIug 8 g0V0H0ul
8lI0D0y Su0B 8S y0ufS0 VI8 0m8I Yh8l d0 y0u B8Y0 8g8IuSl 0m8I
l IS 000u0mI08 10f U0S0 0 uS0 WB0 d0u'l B8V0 Su0B uU!I0 fg0SS0 l0
W0fK WIIh. 0f0 IS S0fYI00 0 U0 B0II0u 0f 8 0W JfI8!, b0l PSId0,
N808l0, 0l0., 0l0`
|5 DD1y 5DD!1H_ 1K 1, Q_95.
70fH L0ugHl SQ.
8T D. Nt_a I#2
800, 85T
I8. l338 8118
8X! 66?2
Jc81IS80 HD6VB0a B0 1SVO
D6"^ JI5 mcSS8g0 8HC 8UU0mQ8HyIHg COUUmcHL1 8!c UOVc!0C Uy hc 0cU!0HU 0mmuDIU8I0HS lIV8Uy
.U( 13 \ 3 C. 25U-22, 8DC m3y UOH!8ID UOHICcH|I0 IHOHD8UOH IH|0HC0C lOi Ih0 SQcUIIcC 1HC1VICU0 _S)
OHy. l yOu 0l0 HO! c IH!0HC0C i0UIQI0H! 0i 8H 0gcH| I0SQOHSIOc 0 CcDVc!mg I| !O |hc 1D|cHCcC icUiQIcH| yOU 3ic
h0i0Uy HO|IIIcC Ih8| yOU 8V0 ic0c1V0C |hIS CO0Um0H! IH ciJ0! 8HC !h8| 8Hy !cVI0W, CIS5cmIH8|IOH UOQyIHg Oi !h0
|8kIH_ 0 8Hy 8U|I0H D8ScC OH Ihc UOH!0H|S 0 !1S UlOim8II0H S 5I!U!y [tuIUI|cC DS O8SS0g8 S cOOj0eOt0
Ot8O080 OO jOf t8 O0O80 l8cQ0Ot[$] 0O0 O0 COD0O OjOfO0tO f0t S Qfv8g80 0t0fO8 WOfK
AJ /-1
"''
j
'
'
`\;_|_[ _

j | , jir
'
Hesses.sjxcji4s-te4:114ozzo4zo. ,z/;
/
zo,{
347
}0: 18JJ1J006J1^161J^J1J0^J101J1
|CH8! l:ia
|
Hesse
lI08: I0000Ug010

](~1|] J:^J8 ]. / q) (
raezcIz
f00U0t 0f 0Xmt [l0m 05cl05Uf0 U000f 060D0 l0W. [ 0U 0f0 00t t00 0t00000 f0c00t[5j 0U 0f0
00t[00 t00t 00 050l05Uf0 c00 05tfDUt00 0f 00 00t00 t0k00 0t 0mtt00 t0 D0 t0k00 0 l000c0 00
t00 600t00t5 0[ t05 0[0fm0t00 5 l00lDlt00 000 m0 D0 U00W[U. [ 0U l0600 t0l5 m05500 0 0fl0l 0l
0l0 00t t00 00m00 f0600t[5j 0050 00t[ t00 30000l 000t0 t05 0-m0 [l0m 0Uf 00mUt0l 000
005tl0 00 6005 0 00 [0lm m000t0. K060t D 00000 0t00l t000 t00 00m00 l0600t[$j l5 00t 0
W00l 0[ 00 0tt0U0000t, W0lk l00U6t 0l 0t00f 060D0 lY00.
ale: NDH,
AJ /-_
"
'|
j

'
/
`\|`;)l|,#(!; |


_ia
'
Hssssjxcji4s-te4L14ozzo4zo. iz
'
{
/
zo{|
348
ltom: tachcough11n
~
tl1. NI_ID:0 o! 8Z
b0qO IN t:o{
l0. 11))-111
4. 4oo114oz
/8OLOu_)q_Olm8.OOm
0V8d8 Lm O 11l
LAL Lecemocr I4, Z11
L. .Fm Bbru. t Lit A|toney, 77 ))4 2420
1AL: 77 ))42420
umbr o gu@nud_ cover sbccc j
Og 1DT \\o.
HL: L|Q o reno R Lou_b1in KL 11 LV2170 2

l
'
1
\lt;Yl| l?l |l.!. :."!l?
m

II5~II 11V9[0 . I o!
L7Ml|
~!
349
\0: 18111J0"BJ811811">11J108351
COCmOCt i0"`, 2iJ
C8t 8. COCtI8
0: I4|BcB0gB10
Zcb Lou, Lrg.
b17 M.Vnga bL #2
Kn,M89$01
e _eare on) cogumcatc mwm
fu 94966? 7402
Lrensed Mevzdz, MbwMo 97J

l~l5~I 9`V9[0 [. 0 J
Mere s ser\ce L t 1he mo1oD tor a^e= 1ra Se1
AsUe
Ya
l| 7ach LCD|1z [ZCCOug|nQhO1WCOW)
Sen!. NOD 2J2JJJ :52 |N
'o. 18\\5\BV8I15CQtBI1O.gOV tOoCt\5pQtCI1O.gOV, kOCjQIV|1OgOv
8 I! uOCu! !tmC Ct yCu !C gC! !Bu! L/1N1 !Bu! u!mut`!8 P guy
uu8!IBC BuBdCd !BC !WC CBC b8tK8 BdIuB LC!CBy COCt8 WBCB !BCy
WCtC !CudIBg !BC 8u8CO! uWuy tB OuH8 ... BC! UC VIdCC yCu guVC mC C
8!IBg OudC OudgCtIBg !BC !uWyCt gC! UC8C !WC VIdCC8 yCu guVC mC
WBIOB )u8! UC OudgCttBg IB UC m!CttCgu!ICB tCCm. um !u!K1Bg uOCu!
!BC Od/dVd !Bu! umut!8 guy guVC !BCm u8 !BCy WCtC WuKIBg
Cu!. 1CC8B`! I! 8CCm IKC yCu tCu!!y BCCd !C gC! !Bu! BCW, !C 8!uy CB UC
tIgB! 8IdC C ICBg `Cu tCmCmOCt ICBg dCB'! yCu. u!m8tI u
guy 8I! !BCtC CB !BC 8!uBd uBdCt CBu!!y C CQuy uBd !C8!I] !Bu! BC
VIdCC Wu8 OC!!CO!Cd tB uBy Wuy tCu!Cd !C mC Ct !BI8 Ou8C 08IdC tCm !BC
IB!CDCgu!ICB tCCm VIdCC8 yCu tCVIdCd [WI!B u BIgB!y 8u8CO! i+mO
OCdCO` tCgtum tCquItCd !C VICW !BC VIdCC8 .... O8B yCu IBdIOu\C WBy
!Bu! I8 BCOC88uty !C Wu!OB u 8Im!C C!d .uVI D!C).
WBy dId yCu 8uOCD !BC Ct]uty C OC!B !BC Wumut! guy uBd !BC
CIOCt8 tCg8tdIBg BC C!BCt VIdCC CXI8!IBg OuB'! 1gutC !Bu! CBC Cu!.
I8 COCtI8 dCB'! yCu tuOI:OC IB KL QuI!C u OI! uyOC um
OCBu8Cd, Ou! dCC8B'! !BC IL tu!C8 CD1I! 8CVIBg u gCVCDmCB!
2lJ
L7Ml *4
Ll!Yl 1Ml JtL ' ':Jl!M
350
10: 1$111J00^6J$1^161J^J1!0J10$a3 tI09 II00000g10
11^ 1:V19 g. J 0! J

u!!COCy 8uOB u8 yCut8C! VIu CmuI! u! dC yCu BuVC uguIB8! CmuI!
! I8 COCBCmIOu! Ct !BC8C C u8C WBC dCB'! BuVC 8uOB ub!IO !utgC88C !C
WCtK WI!B. CtC I8 8CtVIOC C !BC C!ICB Ct u CW JtIu! bC! J8IdC,
NuOu!C, C!O., C!O.
h \|5`I /5KyGllV9 *liV9#C{t9G ||5X` CG -ODo ZD ZO|95G -ODO Z |O |ZO 11| |lC - IOO\
15 OD|y 5OWC\|Dg lIkC ], QQ05.
gaCD LOUOD L@.
P. 1tD1a b1. R2
eO P J
LC'
a>: t J
jCCD8tO D PeVa{a a}{ 1b1
POLlCC^ I8 m0888g0 8DO 800OmDyIDg OO0um0DI8 8f0 0OY0l0O Oy !D0 000|fO(0 (OHmupI08|IOD8 1fIV00y
10|, 3 \ 3.C. 251U-2521 8DO mBy 0OD!0ID 0UmO0D!l8MOnD8|IOD !D!0DO0d O( thc 800I|0O mOI7IOu8 [8]
ODy yO 8f0 DO| |D0 ID!0DO0O |00II0DI Or 8D Bg0D| l08OD8IJ0 Of O0IV0lI Dg it !O |hc ;n|cndcd !00II0D!, yO 8|0
0I0Oy DO!lll0O |D0I yO aV0 (000IV0O II8 OC0uH0D| m 0ffOf 0DO |8| 8Dy l0YI0w, OI880m!p8|JOD, 0OyIDg, O( ID0
!8Kg Ol 8Dy 80|IOD O880O OD |0 0ODI0D!8 O \DS DlJlH3IIOD u S\f1fIly lOlOII0O. JDS m0SSBg0 S C0D00DDB,
DtBD0B0 0D 0l tDB DBmB0 lBCBDt[S] BD0 mB C0DD Df0fmBD0D tDBt S lVBgB0, Btt0lDB
w0lK
]O!m8I lInl cSS8_c 8_c 1 C Z
l00UCt 0l BX0mt H0m 0SO0SUl0 UD00l BCDB Bw 1 0U Bf0 D0t tDB Dt0D000 l0C0Dt[S},
0U BlB
D0tB0 tDBt BD 0SC0SUf, C0Dg, 0StlDUt0D ul BD BCt0D tBK0D 0l 0mttB0 t0 DB tBKBD D
l0BDC0 0D
tDB C0DtBD 0 tDS D0lmBt0D S l0DDtB0 BD0 mB DB UDwfUl. 1 0U l0C0VB tDS mBSBgO D
ql0l, 0l
BlO D0t tDB DBmB0 l0C0DI[S], BBSB D0tQ UB 5BD0Bl, 00l6tB tDS B-mBl H0m 0Ul C0mUt0l,
BD0
0B5D0 BD OOS D BD 0lm mmB0BtB. BCBt D BD0D0 0tD0l DBD tD0 DBm00 F0OBDt[S]
S D0t B
wBVBF 0 BD Btt0lDB~OBD w0lK l00UC[ 0l 0tDBl BCBDB lVBg0.
bInCcc1,
ZuOB LCugB!IB, 8q.
J.J
|'1YLv l!Yt |'. '. ."!l?
L7MU
351


1
L1LA1 ADL
Z
uISu8Bl lC bL J{O), CCIl11j 8m 8B CmQCjCC C lDC bCBC LIlj PlCHCjS CCc,

8Bd CB lh1S d8lC, 1 Q8CCd 8 CCQj C1 lDC 1CICgCIBg \\OJ\ \ N\J1\ \b LN
+
bP| 1B 8 SC8Cd CBVCCQC Q8CCd 1CI CCCClICB 8Bd m8IIBg 1B lhC \B1lCd Ol8lCS N81 8l bCBC,
J
CV8d8, QCSl8gC QICQ8Id, 1CCWBg CIdB8Ij DuSIBCSS QI8ClICCS 8ddICSSCd lC


V
1U
JJ
1Z
1
\+
1J

J
1
V
Z
Z1
ZZ
Z
Z+
ZJ
Z
Z!
Z
Z8Ch8Ij 8IKCI LCughIB, LSQ.
1. NIIgIBI8 Ol., FZ
bCBC CV8d8 VJ1
LPLL lh1S _ d8j C1 LCCCmDCI, Z11.
352
F I L E D
Electronically
01-05-2012:05:38:01 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2683654
353
354
355
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 01-05-2012:17:38:01
Clerk Accepted: 01-05-2012:17:38:31
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Ord for Briefing Schedule
Filed By: Heidi Howden
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
356
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
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: CR11-2064
DEPT. NO: 10

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS
ATTORNEY OF RECORD ON BEHALF
OF ZACHARY COUGHLIN
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF ZACHARY COUGHLIN
This undersigned hereby Iiles this Notice oI Appearance to appear as and be added Ior all purposes,
including all E-Flex NotiIications and access, as Attorney oI Record Ior Appellant, Zach Coughlin.
Dated this January 10th, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV Bar No. 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
- 1
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD ON BEHALF OF ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
F I L E D
Electronically
01-10-2012:01:29:13 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2690019
357
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
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
- 2
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD ON BEHALF OF ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
358
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
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
Also, this document does not contain any social security number or other inappropriate material
pursuant to NRS 239B.030.
DATED this January 10th, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
Appellant
- 3
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD ON BEHALF OF ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
359
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On January 10th, 2012, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing NOTICE OF
APPEARANCE AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD by Iaxing and serving upon registered eIilers and
depositing a true and correct copy in the US Mail addressed to:
PAM ROBERTS, ESQ
r-.. c.., ......-, o....- c......| r.....
r.o. r.. .)aa r-.. , v s),a,
r|..- ...-.. ,,,.za,a
r.. ....-.. ,,,.z.za
Attorney Ior Respondent, City oI Reno
-----------------------------
Zach Coughlin
AGENT OF APPELLANT
- 4
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD ON BEHALF OF ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
360
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 01-10-2012:01:29:13
Clerk Accepted: 01-10-2012:09:01:34
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Notice of Appearance
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
361
F I L E D
Electronically
01-19-2012:01:37:52 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2708055
362
363
364
365
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 01-19-2012:13:37:52
Clerk Accepted: 01-19-2012:14:45:34
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn to Dismiss
Filed By: PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
366
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
Document Code: 2645
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: CR11-2064
DEPT. NO: 10
NOTICE TO SET HEARING
COMES NOW, Appellant Zach Coughlin, by and through his attorney, Zachary Barker
Coughlin, Esq , and Iiles this Notice to Set Hearing based upon:
"NRS 189.065 Dismissal Ior Iailure to set or reset appeal Ior hearing.
1. An appeal must be dismissed by the district court unless perIected by application oI the deIendant, within 60 days
aIter the appeal is Iiled in the justice court, by having it set Ior hearing.
2. II an appeal has been set Ior hearing and the hearing is vacated at the request oI the appellant, the appeal must be
dismissed unless application is made by the appellant to reset the hearing within 60 days aIter the date on which the
hearing was vacated.
The undersigned hereby applies Ior any such hearing that is required.
Rule 19. Appeals Irom municipal and justice courts.
1. All appeals Irom the municipal or justice courts in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial or hearing within 60 days oI
the date oI application Ior setting. A setting beyond 60 days may be made only iI approved in writing by the trial judge or
- 1
NOTICE TO SET HEARING
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:12:18:00 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2729610
367
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
the chieI judge. II a trial setting is continued by order oI the court, the case shall be reset within 60 days oI the date oI the
order Ior continuance.
2. II multiple settings Ior appeal trials in any one court department exceed the capacity oI that department, settings
shall be made in the designated department scheduled to handle the overIlow. II that court`s calendar becomes Iull,
assignment shall be made to any other available department.
3. Appeals in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial on Thursdays and Fridays, unless the trial judge
or the chieI judge grants permission to make such settings on other judicial days."
PLEASE NOTE ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2ND AT 10:30 A.M. the undersigned will appear
beIore Department 10, either in person or telephonically to Set a Hearing Ior this matter in
compliance with the above authority.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
Also, this document does not contain any social security number or other inappropriate material
pursuant to NRS 239B.030.
Dated this January 30th, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV Bar No. 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
- 2
NOTICE TO SET HEARING
368
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On January 30th, 2012, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing document by Iaxing and
serving upon registered eIilers and depositing a true and correct copy in the US Mail addressed to:
PAM ROBERTS, ESQ
JOHN KADLIC, ESQ
r-.. c.., ......-, o....- c......| r......
r.o. r.. .)aa r-.. , v s),a,
r|..- ...-.. ,,,.za,a
r.. ....-.. ,,,.z.za
Attorney Ior Respondent, City oI Reno
-----------------------------
Zach Coughlin
AGENT OF APPELLANT
- 3
NOTICE TO SET HEARING
369
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 01-30-2012:12:18:00
Clerk Accepted: 01-30-2012:15:37:49
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Notice to Set
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
370
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
Document Code: 2645
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: CR11-2064
DEPT. NO: 10
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
COMES NOW, Appellant Zach Coughlin, by and through his attorney, Zachary Barker
Coughlin, Esq , and oIIers his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal. This Opposition is based
upon the attached Points and Authorities and the pleadings and papers on Iile in this case (though
the Record on Appeal is deIicient in that much oI it is in the Iorm oI an illegible "Iour pages per
page" version oI what was provided the Reno Municipal Court, whereas a "one page per page"
version oI those papers and pleadings were provided to the Reno Municipal Court and in a manner
expressly authorized by the Reno Municipal Court.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
- 1
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:48:12 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2730987
371
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. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 30, 2011, the Reno Municipal Court held a Trial oI Appellant Ior the charge oI
Petit Larceny (RMC 8.10.040). See CertiIied Copy oI Docket, Iiled December 23, 2011. Though
Pam Roberts had agreed in writing to a continuance previous thereto, she decided to change her
mind on the date oI the Trial, and Judge Howard reIused one anyway. In Iact, Judge Howard
thought it was such an urgent matter oI public importance to get this petit larceny charge oI a
"chocolate bar and some cough drops" done that he get literally an entire Department oI the Reno
Municipal Court working until 9 pm at night on November 30th, 2011, with everybody collecting
overtime, all courtesy oI the public Iisc.
Appellant received a Iine in the amount oI$360.00 and 24 hours oI community service, but
then Judge Howard realized he was mistaken in his belieI that Appellant had Iailed to appear Ior the
originally scheduled November 14th, 2011 Trial Date. So Judge Howard excised his earlier
requirement that Appellant beIore 24 hours oI Washoe County SheriII work program community
service, with no extensions, by December 18ht, 2011, despite the Appellant being indisposed
serving three days in Washoe County Jail immediately Iollowing the Trial in this matter pursuant to
a Iinding Summary Contempt Order announced by Judge Howard at the conclusion oI the
November 30th, 2011 Trial in this matter, only to return to the Iull time practice oI law upon the
conclusion oI the three day sentence (A Motion Ior Stay requested by the Appellant while being
handcuIIed and arguing that his client's would be unduly prejudiced by such a Summary Contempt
Iinding) was curtly dismissed by Judge Howard one sentence into arguing Ior it. See CertiIied Copy
oI Docket. On December 13, 2011 Appellant Iiled a Notice oI Appeal in this matter. See CertiIied
Copy oI Docket. At the conclusion oI the Trial in this matter, and on the record and part oI the
oIIicial audio recording oI this matter, Judge Howard announced to the undersigned that he was
- 2
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
372
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
giving the undersigned an additional three days beyond that normally aIIorded litigants, to Iile a
Notice oI Appeal on account oI Judge Howard's summarily sentencing the undersigned attorney to
three days in jail Ior "contempt committed in the presence oI the Court".
It is very, very odd that the "CertiIied Docket" and the "Record on Appeal" do not seem to
veriIy the Iiling oI many oI the papers and pleadings Irom the undersigned in Exhibit 1. This
manner oI Iiling papers and pleadings was expressly authorized by RMC Filing OIIice Supervisor
Donna Ballard.
Another thing that is curious and clearly very, very wrong is that the "Judgment and Order oI
the Court" that was allegedly Iile stamped on Novemer 30th, 2011 (yet lacks a clerk's handwritten
intials in the blank calling Ior as much) indicates that the undersigned pled "Guilty" to the charge.
Now, how a 5 hour Trial could have taken place when a "guilty" plea was entered (and, again, the
undersigned did not ever pled guilty in this case, Iar Irom it) is not clear, but a lot oI things aren't
clear. How could the incredibly implausible and shaky testimony and evidence put on here Ior the
accused theIt oI about $10 oI edibles (in a County that has had about 15 unemployment Ior about
3 years now, with an accused that has received no Ioodstamps, Section 8 housing, medi-caid, no
nothing....no to mention that the evidence strongly shows that there was no theIt in this matter). So,
what oI the "guilty" plea mentioned? Does that invoke NRS 177.015(4)? Or does it just show the
sloppy and or prejudicial manner in which Veronica Lopez et al do their duties in Department 4?
NRS 177.015(4): "Appeals to district court and Supreme Court. The party aggrieved in a criminal
action may appeal only as Iollows:. 4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 oI NRS
174.035, the deIendant in a criminal case shall not appeal a Iinal judgment or verdict resulting Irom
a plea oI guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere that the deIendant entered into voluntarily
and with a Iull understanding oI the nature oI the charge and the consequences oI the plea, unless the
- 3
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
373
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
appeal is based upon reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional or other grounds that challenge the
legality oI the proceedings. The Supreme Court may establish procedures to require the deIendant to
make a preliminary showing oI the propriety oI the appeal. " How is it that this charge, alleging the
consuming oI a "chocalate bar and some cough drops" results in a custodial arrest over one day, a
$360 Iine plus another $40 Ior "court processing charges", in addition to 24 hours oI SheriII's "work
crew" community service, to be completed "with no extensions" in a matter oI 15 days by one who
is engaged in the Iull time busy practice oI law, immediately aIter that same attorney Iinishes
serving three days in jail (no Stay granted, no tier time in jail, no phone calls to protect client's
aIIairs) Ior a Summary Contempt Order in a case where the indigent accused was denied his Sixth
Amendment Right To Counsel, and any continuance, not even one, even where a wrongIul eviction
with all sorts oI attendant procedural and substantive errors in REV2011-001708 unduly prejudiced
the accused's ability to put on a deIense, particularly where materials essential to such a deIense
where being wrongIully withheld by the opposing counsel in the eviction matter (whom was also
withholding another attorney's client Iiles and that attorney's drivers license and whom the
undersigned can't Iind a single attorney in town who has a single good thing to say about that
attorney, his name being Richard G. Hill, Esq.)?
II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Please see EXHIBIT 4: December 12th, 2011 emailed Iiling (as authorized by the RMC in
lieu oI Iaxing) to the RMC's renomunirecordsreno.gov that should, but does not appear
appropriately in the record on appeal, containing just the email cover sheets proving the attached
pdI's were received by the RMC and thereIore the contents thereoI should be appropriately printed,
provided, and Iiled by the RMC to the District Court, rather than the illegible "Iour pages per page"
style the RMC has put in the Record on Appeal. Further, please see EXHIBIT 2:
- 4
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
374
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 ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ. Ior a somewhat thorough accounting oI
the relevant Iacts here. Further, it seems a "tolling motion" was timely Iiled her, so in the interest oI
judicial economy its is likely necessary to Iigure out whether the Notice oI Appeal and this Request
to Set a Hearing with the 60 days Irom the Iiling oI the Notice oI Appeal here is appropriate or iI it
would be Ior naught. Further, Judge Howard's signature on various papers and Orders appears to be
a "rubber stamp" mold oI his signature, which is, perhaps, not permissible. Additionally, on the "not
on pleading paper" " . Further, the Summary Contempt Order completely lacks an ProoI oI
Service, indeed, there is no record oI any service oI this Summary Contempt Order in the Record on
Appeal. Another thing that is not only interesting, but indicative oI the ad hoc, slapdash manner in
which convictions are handed out and trials are conducted in Judge Howard's court room. Such
convictions can require an attorney such as the undersigned to comply with SCR 111. Or entail
Iiling an appeal like this one, which will not only likely cost the City oI Reno quite a bit oI money
during particularly down economic times, but which have even more Iar reaching eIIects upon a
number oI people. The "Judgment oI Conviction and Court Order" (have Iun Iiguring out iI NRCP
59 is applicable to something with that title) does not have a ProoI oI Service, per se, but there is
something Ior a litigant to sign, usually with a bullying Marshal hulking over he or she in a
demeaning, authoritarian, and derisive tone....However, the Marshal who initialed (yet provided not
Iurther identiIying inIormation) this section, writing in "REFUSED" and a time oI 8:23 pm,
apparently Iiled to later adjust this "time oI service" is you can call it that. Perhaps he or she should
have, considering that the "For The Record" soItware the RMC uses and provides litigants
purchasing the recording oI the audio oI a trial indicates that the "Judgment and Court Order" in this
matter was Iinally concluded at 8:46 p.m. a Iull twenty three minutes AFTER the time the Marshal
wrote on the quasi-ProoI oI Service Iorm oI 8:23 p.m. (where the Marshal wrote REFUSED, which
- 5
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
375
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
was a lie, it was not reIused, and Iurther, the handcuIIed and manhandled undersigned was not really
in much oI a position to prevent the Iive to six Marshals there Irom Iolding up such a document and
putting in the undersigned laptop bag or his pockets, or otherwise providing a copy oI the document.
What the RMC means by "REFUSED" is not clear. Veronica Lopez, Judge Howard's menacing
"Judicial Assistant" sneered to the undersigned on the phone, when he called the Iollowing Monday
seeking a copy oI any such documents that the undersigned "had his chance to get one and blew it"
and then Lopez proceeded to taunt the undersigned some more and hang up abruptly aIter lying that
she would Iax copy oI the "documents" supposedly reIused on November 30th, 2011 to the
undersigned Iax number as listed on the State Bar's website. The Ilagrant level oI belligerence
demonstrated by some many oI the personnel associated with the RMC, particularly Judge Howard's
Department, many oI whom are "Iormer prosecutors" or otherwise associated with a prosecutorial
incubation period really suggests a complete lack oI oversight and accountability being applied to
the RMC by the judiciary, the public, and the powers that be. The November 30th, 2011 "Judgment
oI Conviction and Court Order" (which appears to bare a rubber stamp mold oI Judge Howard's
signature, which looks completely inauthentic, "rubber stampish", overly uniIorm, and identical
every time I have seen it anywhere) 8:33:11 pm on November 30th, 2011 in Judge Howard's court
room.
Further, the "interrogation room" video Irom Wal-Mart Iiled with the RMC on 12/13/11 and
the materials in EXHIBIT 5 (which includes Discovery produced by Reno City Attorney compared
to receipt oI "purchased" items, both Iiled in legible Iorm with the RMC, yet not included in legible
Iorm in the Record on Appeal) NOTE: THIS IS THE RECEIPT FOR THE ITEMS THAT WERE
RUNG UP AND FOR WHICH MONEY WAS PAID. WAL-MART'S THOMAS FRONTINO
AND RSIC OFFICER CRAWFORD LIED WHEN THEY BOTH TESTIFIED THAT THEY
- 6
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
376
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
VERIFIED THAT THE UPC FOR THE "COUGH DROPS" ON THE RECEIPT ON THE PAGE
ABOVE THIS ONE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE RECEIPT FOUND BELOW). HOWEVER,
CLEARLY THAT SAME UPC APPEARS ON BOTH RECEIPTS (THE UPC IS 0732211630093).
FRONTINO EVEN TRIED TO TESTIFY THAT HE WAS ABLE TO DISCERN FROM
APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET AWAY THAT HE COULD TELL EXACTLY WHAT ITEMS
AND WHAT UPC'S WERE BEING RUNG UP AT THE REGISTER AND THAT HE WAS
ABLE TO VERIFY THAT THE UPC'S FOR THE COUGH DROPS ON THE "STOLEN"
RECEIPT" WERE NOT FOUND ON THE "PURCHASED" RECEIPT. HOWEVER, CLEARLY,
FRONTINO WAS WRONG OR LYING, OR BOTH.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
So, here is how much Pam Roberts, Esq. and John Kadlic, Esq. think oI this Court, our
judicial system, NRCP 11, rules governing prosecutorial misconduct WDCR 10, DCR 12, WDCR
12(1), Rules oI ProIessional Conduct related to reIraining Irom suborning perjury, etc., etc. Pam
Roberts, Esq.'s Motion to Dismiss consisted oI just thus:
" MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
COMES NOW Respondent CITY OF RENO, by and through, Pamela G.
Roberts, Deputy City Attorney, and Iiles its Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Iollows:
This Motion is based upon the pleadings and documents on Iile herein, and the
Iollowing Legal Argument.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
On November 30, 2011, the Reno Municipal Court convicted Appellant oI
Petit Larceny (RMC 8.10.040). See CertiIied Copy oI Docket, Iiled December
23, 2011. Appellant received a Iine in the amount oI$360.00. See CertiIied Copy
oI Docket. On December 13, 2011 Appellant Iiled a Notice oI Appeal in this
matter. See CertiIied Copy oI Docket. Pursuant to NRS 1 89.010, the Appellant
had 10 days Irom November 30, 2011 to Iile his Notice oI Appeal. This 10 day
rule applies to the Reno Municipal Court. See Root v. City oI Las Vegas, 84 Nev
258, 439 P2d 219 (1968). There are no exceptions.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Ioregoing, Respondent respectIully requests that this
Honorable Court enter an Order dismissing this appeal. DATED this 19th day oI
- 7
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
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
January, 2012, JOHN J. KADLIC Reno City Attorney By: PAMELA G.
ROBERTS Deputy City Attorney"
Now, Ior the $112,000 per year in compensation that Deputy Reno City Attorney Pam
Roberts has averaged over the last several years, one might be Iorgiven Ior expecting that she could
provide some citation to the NRCP that Iorms the basis Ior her Motion to Dismiss Appeal. (See,
EXHIBIT 3: Salary inIormation Ior the years 2009 and 2010 Ior Deputy Reno City Attorney Pam
Roberts, Esq. Irom www.TransparentNevada.com). However, Roberts Iailed to cite to NRCP 12(b)
at all, much less speciIy which section oI NRCP 12(b) she may be arguing Ior a Dismissal under.
So, perhaps, Roberts should be on trial Ior theIt, as her Motion certainly does not seem to suggest an
honest day's work Ior an honest day's pay. As such, Respondent's Motion must Iail. Certainly, the
undersigned's Motion's have Iailed in other cases beIore this Court where he has, allegedly, Iailed to
cite to a speciIic procedural rule supporting the relieI he requested. That is, unless this Court preIers
to hold pro se litigants who are living at the poverty line to a much higher standard than it holds
government attorneys who are compensated extremely well to prosecute misdemeanor crimes and
assisted by several Iull time staII members and a generous equipment and expense account.
Regardless, Roberts Motion to Dismiss Iails to comply with WDCR Rule 12. : "Motions; points and
authorities and decisions. 1. Except as provided in Rule 1, all motions shall be accompanied by
points and authorities." Roberts motion contains no authority to support a number oI aspects oI
her argument.
Further, the ProoI oI Service on Robert's motion is addressed to an address Ior the
undersigned that Roberts should have known was no longer current given the January 10, 2012
Notice oI Appearance the undersigned Iiled in this matter with his current 1422 E. 9th St. #2, 89512
address. As such, Roberts motion is improperly notice and should Iail. Further, even iI opposing
- 8
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
378
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
counsel Roberts wishes to argue the Motion to Dismiss may have been served electronically via E-
Flex (something she has not established or oIIered any prooI oI), the ProoI oI Service she attached to
her Motion to Dismiss does not indicated her Motion was so served electronically. And its this kind
oI sloppy, careless, inattention to detail that permeated throughout Robert's practice at Trial in this
matter, wherein she suborned the perjury oI multiple witnesses Ior her employer, the City oI Reno,
despite the Iact that Roberts herselI propounded to the undersigned video evidence which proves the
testimony she put on the stand amounted to suborning perjury.
Please see the undersigned's Declaration, under penalty oI perjury attached hereto, concerning
the Iollowing excerpt Irom the end oI the audio record oI the November 30th, 2011 Trial in RMC 11
CR 22176, which represents a completely true and accurate transcription (made Irom the CD oI the
Trial that the undersigned purchased Irom the RMC and taken Irom the Iile named:
"|MCFTRB|20111130-203301ccaI9I451ed090" ; this audio excerpt and perhaps the entire audio
record will likely be provided to the District Court in the Iorm oI an attachment to a Supplemental to
a motion in compliance with the indications given by Appeals Clerk Lori Matheus and Clerk oI
Court Orduna Hastings) oI what was said in open court, on the record, beginning at 8:33:11 pm on
November 30th, 2011 in Judge Howard's court room:
"JH: alright we are back on the record in regard to City v. Zachary Coughlin.
I was admittedly remiss in not advising Mr. Coughlin oI his right to appeal.
We do want to take care oI that now on the record. Mr. Coughlin, you have
the right to appeal the decision oI this Court. You can do so by Iiling a Notice
oI Appeal. Customarily, it's 10 days and thats, uh, I'm sure you are Iully
aware oI that...What I am going to do is grant an extension to that statute in
light oI the Iact that you will not be released Irom custody until December
3rd, so your 10 days will run eIIective December 3rd at 8 pm, so you will
have 10 days Irom that date to Iile a Notice oI Appeal with this Court, now
once you Iile your Notice oI Appeal there are several things that you will have
to do, principal among those is to obtain a copy oI the transcript at your
expense. Once the transcript has been Iorwarded to the District Court, there is
- 9
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
379
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
no Trial de novo, you are probably aware that the District Court judge will
review the Iour corners oI the transcript to determine, one, whether this court
has made any legal errors that would justiIy a reversal oI this matter or
whether there is suIIicient evidence within the transcript to justiIy the Iinding
oI guilt that I have made here today. Is there any questions at all with regard
to the appeal process?
ZC: The availability oI a Stay, that I guess would go more towards the
Iinding oI Contempt? Um, when you say "appeal process" are you reIerring
to...?
JH: The Iiling oI appeal in regard to the petit theIt.
ZC: Not in regard to the Contempt?
JH: No, thats a summary proceeding and we are going to go Iorward with
that. One thing that I will say in regard to the petit theIt Trial and subsequent
sentencing, however, its my recollection, improperly, that you had Iailed to
appear at the previous proceeding, and that's not correct, uh, there was another
reason as to why we were unable to proceed, so I am going to delete the 24
hours oI community service, the Iine oI $360 will stand. Alright, any other
questions involving the Appeal process?
ZC: Yes, to the extent my law practice's clients, that their cases will be
unduly prejudiced by your incarcerating me right now...
JH: I am standing by that and I wish you would have thought about that aIter
each admonishment that I gave you during the Trial.
ZC: You are saddened by that.
JH: We are in recess. " (commotion oI Marshals can be heard and the audio
recording oI the record oI the Trial ends).
You know what my Iavorite part oI this is? That "Iile stamp" in the Record on Appeal Ior that
document, whatever it is, kind oI a court printout thing in the RMC, with a Iiled on date stamp oI
11/30/11...why, I guess they are calling that the "Judgment oI Conviction and Order"...its not on
pleading paper, hmmmn...know what else? Its just about the only document in the Record on
Appeal with a Iile stamp that doesn't have a RMC Deputy Clerk's handwritten initialing on it. Why,
oh why isn't there a Deputy Clerk's initials on that particular Iile stamping? Why is that? Isn't that
- 10
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
380
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
document and when it was "rendered" under RMCR 9 the whole point oI Pam Robert's Motion to
Dismiss the Appeal? (RMCR Rule 9: "Appeals to District Court Except as otherwise provided in
NRS 177.015 a deIendant in a criminal action tried beIore a Municipal Court Judge may appeal
Irom the Iinal judgment therein to the Second Judicial District Court, at any time within 10 days
Irom the date that judgment is rendered.")
Assuming the RMC doesn't have to closely adhere to the RJC practices and procedures oI the
Justice Courts-and it must under NRS 5.073 ConIormity oI practice and proceedings to those oI
justice courts ...), but regardless, Pam Roberts' motion wastes everybody's time here, as NRCP 6
holds that one doesn't count the day oI the event in computing and that one gets 3 additional days Ior
where no personally service was eIIectuated, and clearly the RMC's conduct in showing papers in a
man's Iace while he is handcuIIed, then snatching and dashing oII with the appears a huII...reIusing
to even let the accused know what it is they want signed and or to allow to review said papers is
very telling with respect to the conception oI some in the RMC oI the "Iundamentals oI due
process". So , even iI one measured Irom an oral pronouncement Irom the bench on 11/30/11
(which is debatable, but Roberts oIIers no legal research into what a judgment being rendered or
what rendition oI the judgment actually entails or means? Does it mean reduced to writing? Does it
mean orally pronounced? Doe is mean entered into a docket or imply some requirement Ior Notice
oI Entry oI the Order or Judgment, with a Iile stamp, prooI oI service, etc.? any time within 10 days
Irom the time oI the rendition oI the judgment Also in the Record on Appeal (ROA) the 11/30/11
Summary Contempt Order lacks any sort oI ProoI oI Service, so...has there not been a Iinal
appealable Order in this matter yet? Do I not have to be appropriately served that Contempt Order?
Where is the prooI oI such Further, the "certiIied docket" does not seem to contain the Iiling emailed
to the address RMC's D. Ballard approved the use oI on 12/12/11.
- 11
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
381
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
NRS 189.010 Appeal must be taken within 10 days. Except as otherwise provided in NRS
177.015, a deIendant in a criminal action tried beIore a justice oI the peace may appeal Irom the
Iinal judgment therein to the district court oI the county where the court oI the justice oI the peace
is held, at any time within 10 days Irom the time oI the rendition of the judgment.
Quite arguably NRS 189.010 is inapplicable the the RMC as the RMC does not have justices
oI the peace.
NRS 189.065 Dismissal Ior Iailure to set or reset appeal Ior hearing.
1. An appeal must be dismissed by the district court unless perIected by application oI the
deIendant, within 60 days aIter the appeal is Iiled in the justice court, by having it set Ior hearing.
2. II an appeal has been set Ior hearing and the hearing is vacated at the request oI the appellant,
the appeal must be dismissed unless application is made by the appellant to reset the hearing within
60 days aIter the date on which the hearing was vacated.
The undersigned hereby applies Ior any such hearing that is required.
Rule 19. Appeals Irom municipal and justice courts.
1. All appeals Irom the municipal or justice courts in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial or
hearing within 60 days oI the date oI application Ior setting. A setting beyond 60 days may be made
only iI approved in writing by the trial judge or the chieI judge. II a trial setting is continued by order
oI the court, the case shall be reset within 60 days oI the date oI the order Ior continuance.
2. II multiple settings Ior appeal trials in any one court department exceed the capacity oI that
department, settings shall be made in the designated department scheduled to handle the overIlow. II
that court`s calendar becomes Iull, assignment shall be made to any other available department.
3. Appeals in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial on Thursdays and Fridays, unless the trial judge
or the chieI judge grants permission to make such settings on other judicial days.
A post-judgment tolling motion was timely Iiled here, arguably on December 12th, 2011,
though, iI not, then certainly on December 13th, 2011. Please see Exhibit 4 attached hereto. As
such, the time to appeal Irom the Iinal judgment is 'tolled until aIter the tolling motions are
resolved. NRAP 4(a)(4) lists the only motions that are tolling: 1. A motion Ior judgment as a matter
oI law under NRCP 50(b); 2. A motion under NRCP 52(b) to amend or make additional Iindings oI
Iact; 3. A motion under NRCP 59 to alter or amend the judgment; and 4. A motion for a new
- 12
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
382
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
trial under NRCP 59. According to the stated rules, these motions must be Iiled within 10 days oI
service oI the notice oI entry oI judgment to eIIectively toll the time to appeal the Iinal judgment. The
Supreme Court has clariIied that the counting Ior the 10 days does not include intervening Saturdays,
Sundays, or non-judicial days according to NRCP 6(a). Winston Prods. Co., Inc. v. DeBoer, 122
Nev. 517, 134 P.3d 726 (2006). Any additional time added Ior service is counted by calendar days
aIter the initial 10 days. Id. In addition to tolling the time to Iile a notice oI appeal, a tolling motion
also tolls the time to appeal Irom special orders made aIter Iinal judgment, such as orders awarding
attorney Iees and costs. Id. In the event that your tolling motion is not Iiled within the allowed 10
days, you should still Iile the motion with the understanding that the time to appeal the Iinal judgment
is not tolled. II the District Court is inclined to grant your motion aIter a notice oI appeal has been
Iiled, the District Court does not technically have jurisdiction to enter an order dealing with subject
matter that is pending on appeal, but the District Court may recommend its inclination to enter such
an order to the Supreme Court. Mack-Manley v. Mack, 122 Nev. 75, 138 P.3d 525 (2006). The
Supreme Court then has the authority to remand the matter to the District Court to enter the order
according to the District Court's inclinations. Id. So, given that the undersigned has a series oI
legitimate legal arguments to somehow change the judgment, the Appellant hereby requests, under
District Court Rule 13(7), permission to allow this litigants to Iile a motion Ior reconsideration upon
leave oI court. Other local rules, such as Eighth Judicial District Court Rule 2.24(b) and Second
Judicial District Court Rule 12(8), require that a motion Ior reconsideration or rehearing be Iiled
within 10 days oI service oI notice oI entry oI judgment. Although an order granting or denying a
motion Ior reconsideration is not itselI appealable, the Supreme Court will consider arguments raised
in the motion Ior reconsideration so long as the District Court considers your motion on the merits,
- 13
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
383
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
your notice oI appeal is Iiled aIter the order disposing oI the motion and the motion and order are
included in the record on appeal. Arnold v. Kip, 168 P.3d 1050 (Nev. 2007).
TIMING TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL
The notice oI appeal is a basic document that does nothing more than put the superior Court on
notice oI which Municipal Court orders you believe were decided incorrectly. By way oI analogy
to the instant scenario, NRAP 4(a)(1) requires that a notice oI appeal be Iiled in the District Court
within 30 days aIter ser-vice oI notice oI entry oI the order Irom which an appeal is taken. II a
tolling motion has been timely Iiled, NRAP 4(a)(4) allows the notice oI appeal to be Iiled within 30
days aIter service oI notice oI entry oI the order disposing oI the Iinal tolling motion. One's appeal
to the Supreme Court must be taken Irom an appealable order. NRAP 3A(b) lists many oI the
orders that can be appealed. II one has not properly perIected one's appeal, occasionally the
jurisdictional deIect can be corrected during the pendency oI the appeal, depending on the type oI
jurisdictional deIect. Sustainable Growth Initiative Comm. v. Jumpers, LLC, 122 Nev. 53, 128
P.3d 452 (2006).
udgment is not made Iinal by a mere written minute or an oral pronouncement by a court or
judge without the preparation and Iiling oI a journal entry. Euclid v. Muller, 134 Ohio App. 3d 737,
732 N.E.2d 410 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1999). In Magee v Lothrop (1939) 60 Nev 202, 96
P2d 201, 106 P2d 751, it was stated that the law oI Nevada is settled that the period oI time Ior
taking an appeal runs Irom the rendition oI the decision oI the court, not Irom the time oI the Iiling
oI the Iormal Iindings and Iormal judgment. The rule stated above was applied in Nelson v Paul
(1951) 68 Nev 365, 233 P2d 857, in which the trial judge Iirst signed a document entitled "Opinion
And Orders On Demurrer And Motions To Strike," which, aIter an extensive discussion oI the legal
principles involved, provided in part as Iollows: "For the reasons given, it is thereIore ordered, that
- 14
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
384
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
the deIendants Joe Anacabe and Fabiana Anacabe, his wiIe, be dismissed and stricken as parties
deIendant herein." Subsequently a document entitled "Judgment" was signed and Iiled by the trial
judge. That document stated: "The demurrers oI the deIendants Joe Anacabe and Fabiana Anacabe,
his wiIe, having been sustained by order duly made on the 3rd day oI July, 1950, and said
deIendants having been dismissed and stricken as parties deIendant herein, without leave to amend
as to said deIendants; now, on motion oI said deIendants Joe Anacabe and Fabiana Anacabe, his
wiIe, It is ordered and adjudged that the complaint herein be, and the same is hereby, dismissed and
that said deIendants have and recover oI the plaintiII above-named their costs, taxed at $2.50."
Appeals taken within 6 months Irom the Iiling oI the document entitled "Judgment" but more than
6 months aIter the Iiling oI the document entitled "Opinion and Orders, etc.," were dismissed, the
court saying: "By the order oI the trial court the rights oI the Anacabes were Iully determined. No
Iurther judicial determination remained to be made. The Iact that the 'Judgment' speciIied more
clearly than did the order the action taken by the court upon the demurrers does not constitute the
'Judgment' an exercise oI Iurther judicial determination in that respect. By its recitals it purports to
relate what had already been accomplished by the order and does not purport to take new and
Iurther action. That document, then, was merely a more Iormal statement oI the judgment as it had
already been rendered." An instrument entitled "Decision and Opinion," which concluded that the
plaintiIIs were entitled to judgment against the deIendants in a speciIied sum oI money and directed
counsel Ior the plaintiIIs to prepare Iindings and Iacts and conclusions oI law in conIormity with
this opinion, and not the Iindings and Iormal judgment subsequently Iiled, was held in Lind v
Raynor (1952) 69 Nev 164, 243 P2d 783, to constitute the judgment rendition oI which started the
time Ior appeal running, and the appeal, having been Iiled more than 6 months aIter the Iiling oI the
"Decision and Opinion," was consequently dismissed. The court relied on the wellestablished
- 15
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
385
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
Nevada rule that time Ior appeal Irom the judgment commences to run Irom the pronouncement by
the court oI its determination oI the matter, which constitutes a rendition oI the judgment, and not
Irom the date oI the Iiling oI the Iormal Iindings oI Iact, conclusions oI law, and judgment. The
Nevada rule under which the time Ior taking an appeal runs Irom the rendition oI the court's
decision, and not Irom the time oI the subsequent Iiling oI the Iormal Iindings and Iormal
judgment, was held in Coleman v Moore (1925) 49 Nev 139, 241 P 217, to be applicable in a
situation in which a judge, aIter rendering a judgment, died and his successor signed the Iormal
judgment. A statute providing that in case oI the death oI a district judge aIter rendition oI a
decision, the succeeding judge should make an examination oI the decision, and sign and settle the
Iindings, and cause judgment to be entered, was held not to aIIect the time in which an appeal
might be taken aIter the rendition oI judgment, but merely to provide how a succeeding judge
might perIect a judgment rendered by a predecessor since deceased. The Iollowing additional
authority is relevant to the issues discussed in this section: CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:
See Alaska Nat. Bank v. Linck, 559 P.2d 1049 (Alaska 1977), 20. Appellate court properly
dismissed appeal on grounds oI lack oI jurisdiction where notice oI appeal was Iiled prior to
issuance oI Iormal order, and where there was no reason why appellant could not have amended
notice oI appeal aIter becoming aware that Iormer order disposing oI case was actually Iiled; only
Iinal judgments are appealable and Iiling notice oI appeal is sole necessary jurisdictional step.
Stoermer v. Edgar, 104 Ill. 2d 287, 84 Ill. Dec. 440, 472 N.E.2d 400 (1984). Judgment that resolved
substantive issue beIore trial court was appealable, though trial court subsequently signed a
document denominated "judgment," stating its conclusions and reasoning Ior earlier order, that was
not itselI an appealable judgment. V.A.M.S. 511.020; V.A.M.R. 74.02. Martin v. Director oI
Revenue, 44 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2001). Appeal brought more than 30 days aIter order
- 16
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
386
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
was untimely, notwithstanding that it was brought within 30 days oI entry oI judgment, where order
appealed Irom (dismissing party on preliminary objections in nature oI demurrer) was Iinal
appealable order which need not be reduced to judgment. U.S. Nat. Bank in Johnstown v. Johnson,
506 Pa. 622, 487 A.2d 809 (1985). Appeal taken Irom oral decision oI trial court would be treated
as iI it had been timely Iiled aIter entry oI subsequent Iormal judgment which had been entered
aIter case had been remanded to trial court, notwithstanding Iact that plaintiII Iailed to appeal again
Iollowing entry oI written judgment where litigation had been protracted, and it was clear Irom
record that trial court's oral decision was intended to be its Iinal act regarding case. Beauvais v.
Notre Dame Hospital, 120 R.I. 271, 387 A.2d 689 (1978). Appeal based on trial court's rendering
oI written "Reasons Ior Judgment" Iollowing granting oI application Ior new trial was premature
where eIIect oI granting new trial was to suspend previously rendered and signed judgment, and
where judgment Iollowing new trial had not been reduced to writing and signed by judge as
required by state statute. Ready v. Sun Oil Co., 315 So. 2d 840 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975).
125. Time oI rendition or entry West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Judgment
280, 281 A judgment record or docket should aIIord deIinite and reliable inIormation as to the time
oI the rendition oI a judgment.|1| Sometimes a judgment is entered as oI the date when it was
signed by the judge|2| or as oI the date when the judgment was rendered.|3| |FN1| Herrington v.
Heidelberg, 244 Miss. 364, 141 So. 2d 717 (1962). |FN2| State ex rel. Harp v. Vanderburgh Circuit
Court, 227 Ind. 353, 85 N.E.2d 254, 11 A.L.R.2d 1108 (1949). |FN3| Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Mills
v. Union Springs Guano Co., 26 Ala. App. 136, 155 So. 710 (1934);46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments
125. As to determination oI the time oI entry, see 108. As to the time Ior perIecting an appeal as
computed Irom the time oI rendition or entry oI judgment, see Am. Jur. 2d, Appellate Review
292. Appeal oI guilty plea 3 Root v. City oI Las Vegas, 454 P.2d 894, 894, 85 Nev. 326, 326
- 17
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
387
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
(Nev. May 27, 1969) (NO. 5630) 4 Root v. City oI Las Vegas, 439 P.2d 219, 219, 84 Nev. 258,
258 (Nev. Apr 03, 1968) (NO. 5288). Roberts cites to Root, as case not really applicable as it
relates to an entirely diIIerent situation than the case at bar. Root concerned the appeal oI a guilty
plea, not a thoroughly objected to and conducted in a suspect style contested trial.NV ST 1 DIST
CT Rule 33; Rule 33. Appeals to District Court in criminal matters Irom Justice Court and
Municipal Court. Honestly, the approach taken by the First Judicial District Court may be a more
sound one: Rule 33. Appeals to District Court in criminal matters Irom Justice Court and Municipal
Court. 1. Pursuant to NRS 189.010 Ior appeals Irom proceedings in the Justice Court and pursuant
to NRS 266.595 and NRS 5.073 Ior appeals Irom proceedings in the Carson City Municipal Court,
a Notice oI Appeal in a criminal action tried beIore a Justice oI the Peace or the Municipal Court
Judge must be Iiled within 10 days Irom the entry oI the judgment. 2. At the time oI Iiling oI the
Notice oI Appeal, the appellant shall Iile a request with the Justice Court or Municipal Court that
proceedings be transcribed. 3. Pursuant to NRS 189.065 or NRS 5.073, the Justice Court or
Municipal Court shall transmit to the Clerk oI the District Court the transcript oI the case, all other
papers relating to the case and a certiIied copy oI its docket oI the case within 10 days aIter the
Notice oI Appeal is Iiled. 4. Pursuant to NRS 189.065 or NRS 5.073, the appellant must perIect his
or her appeal by having the appeal set Ior hearing by the District Court within 60 days aIter the
Notice oI Appeal is Iiled. 5. The appellant shall Iile his or her brieI within 30 days aIter the matter
is set Ior hearing, provided the written transcript oI the proceedings has been prepared and Iiled
with the District Court and provided to the parties. The respondent shall Iile his or her opposing
brieI within 20 days thereaIter, and any reply brieI by the appellant shall be Iiled within 10 days
thereaIter. But the WDCR has a rule on the matter too: Rule 19. Appeals Irom municipal and
justice courts. 1. All appeals Irom the municipal or justice courts in criminal cases shall be set Ior
- 18
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
388
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
trial or hearing within 60 days oI the date oI application Ior setting. A setting beyond 60 days may
be made only iI approved in writing by the trial judge or the chieI judge. II a trial setting is
continued by order oI the court, the case shall be reset within 60 days oI the date oI the order Ior
continuance. 2. II multiple settings Ior appeal trials in any one court department exceed the capacity
oI that department, settings shall be made in the designated department scheduled to handle the
overIlow. II that court`s calendar becomes Iull, assignment shall be made to any other available
department. 3. Appeals in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial on Thursdays and Fridays, unless the
trial judge or the chieI judge grants permission to make such settings on other judicial days. 4. In
civil appeals Irom the justice court, appellant shall Iile within 30 days aIter the Iiling oI a notice oI
appeal a written brieI containing a statement oI the errors committed in the justice court with
accompanying authorities which shall not exceed 5 pages. Within 20 days aIter the Iiling and
service oI appellant`s brieI, respondent shall Iile a written answering brieI which shall not exceed 5
pages. Under statute providing that an appeal shall be dismissed unless perIected by deIendant
within 60 days aIter appeal is Iiled in justice's court by having it set Ior trial, deIendant need not
actually obtain trial setting within 60-day limit, but need only apply Ior trial setting within that
time; disapproving Plankinton v. District Court, 93 Nev. 643, 572 P.2d 525. N.R.S. 189.065.
Thompson v. First Judicial Dist. Court, Storey County, 1984, 683 P.2d 17, 100 Nev. 352. Under
municipal statutory charter provision that appeals to district court may be taken Irom any Iinal
judgment oI municipal court in same manner as in cases oI appeal Irom justice court, and statute
relating to appeals Irom justice court and requiring party intending to appeal to Iile with justice and
to serve upon district attorney, a notice oI appeal, party desiring to appeal Irom judgment oI
municipal court suIIiciently meets requirements when notice oI appeal is Iiled with municipal judge
and is served upon city attorney who conducted proceedings in municipal court. St.1949, c. 132,
- 19
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
389
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
29; N.C.L.1929, 11310, 11313. State ex rel. Digby v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court oI State, in and
Ior Clark County, 1952, 244 P.2d 866, 69 Nev. 186.
933, 479 N.E.2d 698 (1985). Where deIendant was tried and convicted, and court imposed
sentence and rendered judgment, but where clerk Iailed to enter judgment pursuant to rule, Court oI
Appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction. State v. Lee, 562 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).Original
unsigned minute book entry oI judgment was not appealable, since it did not meet statutory
requirement that "rendition" oI judgment means that it be reduced to writing, signed and made a
matter oI record, or Iiled. EgantoII v. Herring, 177 So. 2d 260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1965).
Here, the undersigned, Coughlin, made numerous attemtps to see that the "Judgment and Court
Order" here was a matter oI record, and the RMC Iilign oIIice, all the way up to 12/13/11, indicated
it was not. properly dismissed. Cornelius v. Tubbesing, 576 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1979).
Appeal would be held in abeyance and cause remanded to trial court Ior rendition and entry oI Iinal
judgment where only indication oI Iinal judgment on transcript was docket entry, and where docket
entry was styled in singular although deIendant had been charged with two counts oI possession oI
controlled substances. State v. Gonterman, 565 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
Under Rev. Laws, 7513, notice oI appeal Irom a conviction and sentence in justice's court
upon both law and Iact held suIIicient. Jensen v. District Court oI Seventh Judicial Dist., in and Ior
Esmeralda County, 1916, 161 P. 162, 40 Nev. 135.; Furthermore, jurisdiction cannot be conIerred
upon an appellate court by the consent or stipulation oI the parties or **1234 their counsel. Jasper
v. Jewkes, 50 Nev. 153, 254 P. 698 (1927); In Re Hanley's Estate, 23 Cal.2d 120, 142 P.2d 423
(1943). However, this authority does not apply here. This is not a stipulation oI parties situation,
Judge Howard makes his Judement and Order Io the Court and he gets to decide when it runs Irom
and when the period to Iile a Notice oI Appeal is measure Irom. He did so here, and in accordance
- 20
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
390
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
with the the Iiling oI the Notice oI Appeal in this matter is timely. NRS 189.030 provides that, The
justice must, within 10 days aIter the notice oI appeal is Iiled, transmit to the clerk oI the district
court all papers relating to the case and a certiIied copy oI his docket.`" Here, the RMC Iailed to
transmit an accurate Record on Appeal. Indeed several Iiling by the undersigned are missing
entirely. ThereIore the underlying conviction should be overturned. NRCP 60's DraIters Note 2004
Amendment mentions that : The revisions to subdivision (c) are technical with the exception that
the 6-month limit now starts to run Irom service oI notice oI entry oI the judgment rather than 'the
date oI rendition oI the judgment under the Iormer rule." It leaves to much up to the vagaries oI
what may have been said in court, what a judge might cross out later (as happened here), what a
judge may realize Iive minutes later when the stresses and pride one deals with in a courtroom
subside (as may have happened here, where Judge Howard, to his credit, admitted he was mistaken
in believing the undersigned Iailed to show up Ior the original November 14, 2011 court date).
Tolling, time Ior appeal Contractor's post-judgment 'motion to amend order qualiIied as a motion
to alter or amend judgment, which tolled the time contractor had to Iile notice oI appeal; the motion
was in writing, invoked rule on amendment oI judgments, asked to vacate the judgment oI
dismissal, and appended prooI that the charter, Ior want oI which contractor's suit was lost, had
been restored and urged the district court to consider statute, which provided that reinstatement oI
an administratively revoked limited liability charter related back to the date on which the company
IorIeited its right to transact business as iI such right had at all times remained in Iull Iorce and
eIIect; disapproving Alvis v. State, Gaming Control Bd., 99 Nev. 184, 660 P.2d 980, Nardozzi v.
Clark Co. School Dist., 108 Nev. 7, 823 P.2d 285, and Whitehead v. Norman Kaye Real Estate, 80
Nev. 383, 395 P.2d 329. AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 2010, 245 P.3d So long as a
post-judgment motion Ior reconsideration is in writing, timely Iiled, states its grounds with
- 21
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
391
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
particularity, and requests a substantive alteration oI the judgment, not merely the correction oI a
clerical error, or relieI oI a type wholly collateral to the judgment, there is no reason to deny it
status as a motion to alter or amend judgment, which tolls the time in which a party has to Iile
notice oI appeal; disapproving Alvis v. State, Gaming Control Bd., 99 Nev. 184, 660 P.2d 980,
Nardozzi v. Clark Co. School Dist., 108 Nev. 7, 823 P.2d 285, and Whitehead v. Norman Kaye
Real Estate, 80 Nev. 383, 395 P.2d 329. AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 2010, 245 P.3d
1190. The undersigned, Coughlin, Iiled tolling motions in this case, thereIore tolling should be
Iound. Petitioner's postjudgment motions to amend or make additional Iindings oI Iact or to alter or
amend the judgment denying his petition to seal court records were 'tolling motions, and thus,
petitioner's notice oI appeal Iiled beIore trial court's disposition oI such motions was Iiled too early
to vest jurisdiction in the appellate court. In re Duong, 2002, 59 P.3d 1210, 118 Nev. 920. A notice
oI appeal Iiled aIter the timely Iiling oI a post-judgment tolling motion, but beIore the Iormal
disposition oI the motion, is ineIIective and Iails to vest jurisdiction in the appellate court. Moran v.
Bonneville Square Associates, 2001, 25 P.3d 898, 117 Nev. 525. Timely motion Ior new trial is a
tolling motion Ior purposes oI rule providing that notice oI appeal Iiled beIore Iormal disposition oI
any timely postjudgment motion shall have no eIIect. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 59(a); Rules
App.Proc., Rule 4(a)(2). Chapman Industries v. United Ins. Co. oI America, 1994, 874 P.2d 739,
110 Nev. 454. Timely motions Ior amendment oI trial court's Iindings, amendment oI the judgment
and new trial tolled running oI appeal period and rendered ineIIective all notices oI appeal which
were Iiled beIore Iormal disposition oI the timely postjudgment motions and thus, trial court erred
in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the timely tolling motions. Rules Civ.Proc.,
Rules 52(b), 59(a, e); Rules App.Proc., Rule 4(a)(2). Chapman Industries v. United Ins. Co. oI
America, 1994, 874 P.2d 739, 110 Nev. 454. So, everything in this case is a total mess iI one
- 22
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
392
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
considers that the December 13th, 2011 Iiling by the undersigned was both a Notice oI Appeal and
a tolling motion and then Judge Howard entered an Order that may have disposed oI it, but he may
have entered it so soon aIter getting it that it suggests and extreme prejudice on his part, where the
Reno City Attorney arguably did not even have an opportunity to respond beIore Judge Howard
tee'd oII on it....then its whether the subsquent "Supplemental" pleadings beneIit Irom a "relation
back" doctrine or whether tolling applies and whether the original or any subsequent Notices oI
Appeal were time, premature, or even eIIective. Now my head has exploded. And even iI Judge
Howards 12/15/11 Order disposed oI the tolling motion, Well, on 12/16/11 Coughlin Iiled another
Notice oI Appeal, so this thing arguably ought to go Iorward, sorry Ms. Roberts, going to have to
earn some oI the $112,000 a year in your pursuit oI ruining my liIe (alright, that's dramatic and
lacks perspective) Ior the price oI a candybar while you suborn the perjury oI a trio oI testosterone
addled mid 20 something knucklheads high Iiving each other in the interrogation room video you
propounded and out in the hallways at trial until 9 pm at night....but its not like the RSIC police and
Wal-Mart, which lease the property its located on Irom those who own and run the RSIC have a
conIlict oI interest or anything, right? Plus, no one ever asked me or ascertained whether I have
any tribal blood, so this judgment may be void Ior lack oI jurisdiction as, should that be the case,
jursidication is appropriate beIore Judge Van Walraven, not Judge Howard.
CONCLUSION
Regardless, the "Judgment" or "Order" here was not appropriately served on the undersigned
on November 30th, 2011. Further, the undersigned made many, many calls and written attempts
and trips to the RMC to obtain a copy oI the Contempt Order, the Guilty Judgment, and the audio
recording oI the Trial and all were either not granted, not provided, or provided in such a delayed
manner as to create an unduly prejudicial situation adversely eIIecting the undersigneds rights
- 23
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
393
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
suIIicient to impermissibly compromise Iundamentals notions oI Iairness and due process.
Further, the Order is "rendered" when Judge Howard says it is "rendered", and Judge Howard
clearly indicated, on the record, as demonstrated in the audio record, which will be available to the
District Court ultimately, the 10 day deadline Ior Iiling a Notice oI Appeal would not begin running
until aIter the 3 day Summary Contempt Order's three day jail sentence concluded. Damn, this
stuII is complicated. Sure it nice to see the government goign hard as a mother to protect lil ol'
Wal-Mart whom is rumored to be the subject oI a documentary about how they have a intricate
system oI weasling out oI their "Return Policy" and retaliating against those who call them on it.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
Also, this document does not contain any social security number or other inappropriate material
pursuant to NRS 239B.030.
Dated this January 30th, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV Bar No. 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
- 24
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
394
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On January 30th, 2012, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing document by Iaxing and
serving upon registered eIilers and depositing a true and correct copy in the US Mail addressed to:
PAM ROBERTS, ESQ
JOHN KADLIC, ESQ
r-.. c.., ......-, o....- c......| r......
r.o. r.. .)aa r-.. , v s),a,
r|..- ...-.. ,,,.za,a
r.. ....-.. ,,,.z.za
Attorney Ior Respondent, City oI Reno
-----------------------------
Zach Coughlin
AGENT OF APPELLANT
- 25
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
395
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
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
1. EXHIBIT 1: COLLECTION OF EMAILED CORRESPONDENCE AND FILING WITH
THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT (RMC); One hundred and fifty one (151) pages.
2. EXHIBIT 2: DECLARATION OF ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ.; Eleven (11) pages.
3. EXHIBIT 3: Salary information for the years 2009 and 2010 for Deputy Reno City Attorney
Pam Roberts, Esq. from www.TransparentNevada.com; One (1) page.
4. EXHIBIT 4: December 12th, 2011 emailed filing (as authorized by the RMC in lieu of
faxing) to the RMC's renomunirecordsreno.gov that should, but does not appear
appropriately in the record on appeal, containing just the email cover sheets proving the
attached pdf's were received by the RMC and therefore the contents thereof should be
appropriately printed, provided, and filed by the RMC to the District Court, rather than the
illegible "four pages per page" style the RMC has put in the Record on Appeal; Five (5) pages.
5. EXHIBIT 5: Discovery produced by Reno City Attorney compared to receipt of
"purchased" items, both filed in legible form with the RMC, yet not inluded in legible form in
the Record on Appeal; Eight (8) pages.
- 26
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
396
EXHIBIT #1
EXHIBIT #1
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:48:12 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2730987
397
records request for incident report urgent please
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 10/04/11 3:10 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
records request to reno city attorneys office oct 4.pdf (66.5 KB)
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
398
records request
C0NFl0ENTlALlTYN0TlCE
Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthats
rvleyed,workroductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),
youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceon
thecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenot
thenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesn
anyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,
workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 10/04/11 4:41 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
2 attachments
RMC subpoena.pdf (67.8 KB) , RECORD_REQUEST_Zach Coughlin to RMC.pdf (20.2 KB)
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
399
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenotthe
intendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhave
receivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontents
oIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.
C0NFl0ENTlALlTYN0TlCE
Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthats
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
400
Reno Municipal Court appointment of counsel
rvleyed,workroductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),
youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceon
thecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenot
thenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesn
anyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,
workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/28/11 11:42 AM
To: ltaitel@sbcglobal.net; renomunirecords@reno.gov
Dear Mr. Taitel,
I understand you have been assigned to represent me in the Reno Municipal Court trespass Complaint against
me. Please note that my address has recently changed to:
ZachCoughlin
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402

IhaverecentlybeenevictedandithascausedenormousupheavaltomyliIe,andIamindigent,assuch,Ibelievea
continuanceisnecessaryandaskthatyouseekoneIortheDecember13th,2011"trial"thatIonlybecameawareoIthrough
callingtheRenoMunicipalCourt.Also,pleaseprovidemeacopyoIanymotionsorpleadingsyouhaveIiledonmybehalI
andanydocumentationthatyouhavebeenprovidedbythecourt,opposingcounsel,oranyoneelse.IpreIersuch
documentationbeemailed,butIrealizethatmaynotbepossible.IwouldliketoobtainacopyoItheComplaintand
Discovery,includingtheprobablecausesheetsandanywitnessstatementsassoonaspossible.

Sincerely,

ZachCoughlin
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
401
records request
FW: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/28/11 2:30 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RECORD_REQUEST_FORM_2010[1] rmc trespass 11 13 11 records request 11-22185.pdf (20.8 KB)
ZachCoughlin,817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
402
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
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.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

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
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
403
request of cd of trial in 11 CR 22176 2I


ZachCoughlin,
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/08/11 4:00 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
Hello,IamwritingtorequestacopyoIthecdoItherecordoItrialin11CR221762IinadditiontoacopyoItheContempt
Orderandanyotherordersmadeinthatmatter,inadditiontoacopyoIthedocket.

PleaseemailthesetomeiIpossible.Iwillagreetopaythecopyingcostsorthepaperdocumentsortheaudiocd/dvd.I
needtheseassoonaspossibleplease.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
404
REQUEST FOR RECORDS CD/DVD OF TRIAL AND OTHER
DOCUMENTATION URGENT PLEASE
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/08/11 5:45 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RECORD_REQUEST_FORM_2010[1] trial cd and orders to RMC 12 8 11 final.pdf (441.5 KB)

ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
405
signed REQUEST FOR RECORDS CD/DVD OF TRIAL AND OTHER
DOCUMENTATION URGENT PLEASE
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/08/11 5:56 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RECORD_REQUEST_FORM_2010[1] trial cd and orders to RMC 12 8 11 signed.pdf (446.2 KB)
I am resending the Records and REcording of Trial request form, SIGNED, just in case that is necessary.

Thank You,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
406
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
Subject: REQUEST FOR RECORDS CD/DVD OF TRIAL AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION URGENT PLEASE
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:45:27 -0800

ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
407
RMC said I could file this by email
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 7:28 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
12 11 11 final motion for new trial city of reno v coughlin RMC 11 CR 22176.pdf (12.9 MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV8950
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
408
Motion for New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 7:40 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 2217 part two Exhibit 1 pages 1-300 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011.pdf (8.6 MB)
I received approval to file by email from RMC
This is the second file in the filing. Please note, the file name of the attachment should actually have the correct
case number of RMC CR 22176. It is missing the 6 on the end in the file name of the attachment
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
409
Motion for New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 601-701 of Motion for New
trail from 12 12 2011 ey
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 7:57 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 part three Exhibit 1 pages 301-600 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011.pdf (9.7
MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
410
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 701-794 of Motion for New
trail from 12 12 2011 ey
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 8:23 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 601-701 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011 ey.pdf
(11.8 MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 8:29 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 701-794 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011 ey.pdf
(14.4 MB)
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
411
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
Subject: Motion for New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:57:50 -0800
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
412
audio of the November 30th Trial in Judge Howards court
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 9:56 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=43084638f32f5f28&resid=43084638F32F5F28!1031&parid=root
Maybe that will be easier, that is where the exculpatory video evidence is sent to you as well, a continuation of
exhibit one. I appreciate the RMC allowing me to file via email this way as sometimes my fax service is clunky.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
413
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 601-701 of Motion for New
trail from 12 12 2011 ey
records request
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 12/13/11 2:26 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 601-701 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011 ey.pdf
(11.8 MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
414
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 12/13/11 4:02 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov
2 attachments
RECORD_REQUEST_FORM walmart RMC 11 CR 22176 IC 110627 trial cd and orders to RMC 12 8 11
signed.pdf (453.4 KB) , RECORD_REQUEST_FORM_2010[1] rmc trespass 11 13 11 records request 11 CR
22185 City of Reno v Coughlin signed.pdf (510.9 KB)
Let this writing also werve as the cover letter called for in RMCR 5(D):
attorney's name,: Zach Coughlin, Esq.
the firms name: Zach Coughlin, Esq.
address, 817 N. Virginia St. #2
fax number 949 667 7402
telephone number: 775 229 6737
the attorneys state bar number: NV Bar No: 9473
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
415
12 11 11 Defendants Motion for New Trial, Set Aside, Vacate Judgment/Conviction of underlying crime and
Contempt in Court's Presence finding/ IFP Petition/ Motion for Reconsideration/Notice of Appeal, Case Statment
in case: city of reno v coughlin RMC 11 CR 22176; Records Request form Defendant and Request for
Transcription at Public's Expense and Request for a copy of the audio recording of the Trial of 11 30, 2011 1:45
pm to end in RMC 11 CR 22176.
Additionally, I never received service of any Notice of Appearance nor a Motion to Withdraw by Lew Taitel, Esq.
the attorney appointed to represent me as required by RMCR Rule 3: Authorization to Represent
A. Attorneys representing defendants shall promptly serve written notice of
their appearance with the City Attorney and file the same with the Court.
B. An attorney desiring to withdraw from a case shall file a motion with the
court and serve the City Attorney with the same. The court may rule on
the motion or set a hearing."
Further, RMCR state: "Rule 5: Motions by Facsimile
A. All rules and procedures that apply to motions filed in person at the
court shall also apply to motions filed by facsimile, except as otherwise
specified in this rule.
B. All persons are eligible to use motion-by-facsimile procedures.
C. All motions filed by facsimile must be accompanied by a cover sheet
which must include the persons name, address, fax number and
telephone number.
D. All facsimile motions filed by an attorney must include the attorney's
name, the firms name, address, fax number and telephone number. In
addition, the attorneys state bar number must be conspicuously
displayed on the cover sheet.
E. All motions filed by facsimile must be accompanied by proof of service.
Service may be accomplished by facsimile when the receiving party is a
governmental agency, an attorney, or with the consent of the receiving
party. If service of the motion is accomplished by facsimile the 3-day
allowance for mailing shall not be computed into the time for response.
F. A defense attorney filing a motion in the first instance must also file a
proper authorization to represent.
G. Any motion received by the court after 4:30 p.m. or on a non-court day
shall be filed on the following court day.
Rule 6: Continuances
No continuance shall be granted, including a stipulated continuance, except
for good cause. A motion or stipulation for continuance must state the reason
therefore and whether or not any continuance has previously been sought or
granted."
Let this writing also werve as the cover letter called for in RMCR 5(D):
attorney's name,: Zach Coughlin, Esq.
the firms name: Zach Coughlin, Esq.
address, 817 N. Virginia St. #2
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
416
fax number 949 667 7402
telephone number: 775 229 6737
the attorneys state bar number: NV Bar No: 9473
And: "Rule 9: Appeals to District Court
Except as otherwise provided in NRS 177.015 a defendant in a criminal action
tried before a Municipal Court Judge may appeal from the final judgment
therein to the Second Judicial District Court, at any time within 10 days from
the date that judgment is rendered."
Judge Howard informed me during his oral pronounce of his Contempt Order and Guilty Verdict on 11 30,2011
that he would afford me an additional 3 non judicial days to file a Notice of Appeal or any other Motion, Request
for Reconsideration, or other Motion seeking relief from his 11 30 2011 rulings on account of his sua sponte, with
no possibility of Stay or prior judicial review ordering his Marshalls to slam be into handcuffs and throw me into
Jail, kind of like in Houston v. 8th Judicial District Court, escept Judge Howard didn't cool down like Judge
Pomeranz did and Houston wasn't defending a criminal charge that carred a possibility of incarceration of
substantial length after being denied his 6th Amendment Right to Counsel. I am formally complaining about
Judge Howard;s conduct in that regard, please place a copy of this in his personnel file and let me know whether
you think a Complaint to the Judicial Discipline Commission would be appropriate, in your professional opinion.
I filed my Notice of Appeal in 11 cr 22176 yesterday with the RMC via email, as previously given permission to do
by the RMC. To the extent that was ineffective, let this writing act as a Notice of Appeal and agreement to pay
all charges required for such.
PROOF OF SERVICE:
I 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 12 11 11 MOtion for New Trial, etc. yesterday to:
Pamela G Roberts
Company: Reno City Attorney's Office - Criminal Divison
Address: P.O. Box 1900
Reno
, NV
89505
Phone Number: 775-334-2050
Fax number: 775-334-2420
Email: robertsp@reno.gov
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
417
IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:22 AM
To: ballardd@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
2 attachments
Coughlin IFP and Financial Inquiry Application RMC 11222011 11 CR 26405 2I.pdf (381.9 KB) , Coughlin
IFP and Financial Inquiry Application RMC 11222011 11 CR 22176 2I.pdf (372.0 KB)
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
Ms.Ballard,
Pleasenote,thegentlemanIworkedwithattheIilingoIIicecountertodayinIormedmetherewereno
appealIees,bonds,orotherchargesthatIcouldpay(includingtranscriptioncosts)as"allchargesare
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
418
RE: Message left on 12/13/2011
beingtakenIrom"mybailintherespectivematters.PleaseemailmetheaudioIromtheNovember
20th,2011Trialin11cr221762IandprooIoIserviceoIanyContemptOrderorGuiltyVerdict/Order
inthatmatter.PleaseIilethisaswellasaOppositiontoAnyMotiontoContinueTrialin11cr26405,
dept2,andaMotiontoSetAsideorVacateanyOrderGrantingContinuanceinresponsetosuchan
OrderGrantingContinuance.Pleaseemail,Iax,ormailmeacopyoItheNoticeoIAppearancesby
bothTaitelandPuentesandtheMotionandOrderGrantingWithdrawaloITaitel,iIitexists.Iwould
likeacopyoIthedocketinboth11CR264052Iand11CR22176,despiteyourinIormingmetoday
thatIwouldneedtosubpoenathedockettohaveanychanceoIseeingitandthatIwouldnotbe
providedaccesstodocumentsinthepublicrecord,includingOrdersinbothoIthesecases.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 6:52 PM
To: roperj@reno.gov; fiskg@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov

HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
419


HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
420
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
421

HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
422



HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
423
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:26:47 -0800
From: RoperJ@reno.gov
To: ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Message left on 12/13/2011
Mr.Coughlin,
IreceivedyourmessagethatyouleItonmyphoneonDecember13,2011inregardstoacomplaintagainstMarshal
Menzel.TheMarshalDivisiontakesallcitizencomplaintsseriouslyandinvestigatesallcomplaintsreceivedinwritingor
verbally.However,IwouldneedmoreinIormationIromyoupriortomovingIorwardwithaninvestigation.Iencourage
youtocometothecourttoobtainastatementIorm,orcontactmedirectlyshouldyouwishtopursuethismatter.Asto
yourrequesttoobtainacopyoIMarshalMenzel'spersonnelIile,Iamunabletoprovidethattoyouwithoutavalid
subpoenaorwarrant.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
424
RMC 11 CR 22176
YoualsostatedyouwereattemptingtoobtainacopyoIyourJudgementoIConvictionIromDept.4,speciIicallyVeronica
Lopez,youcanreachherat326-6673.IamawarethatacopyoIyourJudgementoIConvictionwasprovidedtoyouand
bookedintoyourpropertyonthenightyouwerearrested.Youareentitledtoanothercopyshouldyouwish.
Thankyou,
JustinRoper
ChieIMarshal/DepartmentoIAlternativeSentencing
RenoMunicipalCourt
775-334-1254
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/15/11 11:59 PM
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov;
renomunirecords@reno.gov; lopezv@reno.gov
z..|c..||..,r,.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
r.xcovrrsarr
r.r.r-.-..-..,,za..
o..rVc-..|
r.xo.rVc....-a-...|.|..
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
425
rr..c..,...-...c..||..rVc..crzz.-zi
V........-...|,....-...-.|..a..|-...-
DearRMC,

IdonotmeantobedisrespectIulincontactingthecourtviaemail.Ihavebeensostamped
outbytheeventsoIthelastIewmonthsthatitsallIcandototrytoprotectmyrightstoget
inIormationandmediatothecourtinmyattemptstoaccessjustice. Veronica Lopez told me on
the phone on Monday of this week that she would fax me a copy of the Order and Contempt finding from the 11
30, 2011 Trial, yet I have not received any such fax. I have not received any order in any form, not on my release
from the 3 days summary incarceration, not ever. The RMC confirmed there has been no Notice of Entry of any
order in their docket or anything, etc.

IbelievetheIollowingshouldbeaddedtorecordandpresentsastrongargumentIora
conIlictoIinterestorother60(b)basisIorsettingasidetheverdictandcontemptOrderin
RMC11CR221762I.Ididnotpleadguiltyinthatcase,andanyRMCrecordthat
suggeststhatiscompletelyinaccurate.PleaseletmeknowiIyourrecordsindicateIplead
guiltyinthatmatter.Further,IhaveneverbeenprovidedacopyoItheGuiltyVerdict/Order
inthismatter,IrequestedontobeemailedtomeandsentintheUSPSmail.Pleaseserve
meacopyoItheorder,preIerablybyemailandUSPSmail.Further,the"RMC'soIIicial
courttranscriptionist"inIormedmeyesterdaythatshecouldnotquotemeoracceptan
moneyIrommeIorthetranscriptonappeal.FurtherIhavebeentoldbycourtstaIIthatI
wouldneverbeprovidedaccesstotheaudiorecordingoItheTrialoI1130,2011.Ibelieve
Ihavearighttoit,andneeditonanexigentbasisinconnectionwiththevariousmotionsI
have,will,orintendtotoIilechallengingthedecisioninthiscase.TheRMCIilingoIIice
inIormedmetherehasbeennoNoticeoIEntryoIOrderinthismatteratthispoint.

T
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
426
FW: RMC 11 CR 22176
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 12/16/11 12:00 AM
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov;
renomunirecords@reno.gov; lopezv@reno.gov
1 attachment
emergency filing rmc 11 cr 22176 12 15 11.pdf (260.9 KB)
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
427
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov;
lopezv@reno.gov
Subject: RMC 11 CR 22176
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:59:45 -0800
z..|c..||..,r,.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
r.xcovrrsarr
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
428
r.r.r-.-..-..,,za..
o..rVc-..|
r.xo.rVc....-a-...|.|..
rr..c..,...-...c..||..rVc..crzz.-zi
V........-...|,....-...-.|..a..|-...-
DearRMC,

IdonotmeantobedisrespectIulincontactingthecourtviaemail.Ihavebeensostamped
outbytheeventsoIthelastIewmonthsthatitsallIcandototrytoprotectmyrightstoget
inIormationandmediatothecourtinmyattemptstoaccessjustice. Veronica Lopez told me on
the phone on Monday of this week that she would fax me a copy of the Order and Contempt finding from the 11
30, 2011 Trial, yet I have not received any such fax. I have not received any order in any form, not on my release
from the 3 days summary incarceration, not ever. The RMC confirmed there has been no Notice of Entry of any
order in their docket or anything, etc.

IbelievetheIollowingshouldbeaddedtorecordandpresentsastrongargumentIora
conIlictoIinterestorother60(b)basisIorsettingasidetheverdictandcontemptOrderin
RMC11CR221762I.Ididnotpleadguiltyinthatcase,andanyRMCrecordthat
suggeststhatiscompletelyinaccurate.PleaseletmeknowiIyourrecordsindicateIplead
guiltyinthatmatter.Further,IhaveneverbeenprovidedacopyoItheGuiltyVerdict/Order
inthismatter,IrequestedontobeemailedtomeandsentintheUSPSmail.Pleaseserve
meacopyoItheorder,preIerablybyemailandUSPSmail.Further,the"RMC'soIIicial
courttranscriptionist"inIormedmeyesterdaythatshecouldnotquotemeoracceptan
moneyIrommeIorthetranscriptonappeal.FurtherIhavebeentoldbycourtstaIIthatI
wouldneverbeprovidedaccesstotheaudiorecordingoItheTrialoI1130,2011.Ibelieve
Ihavearighttoit,andneeditonanexigentbasisinconnectionwiththevariousmotionsI
have,will,orintendtotoIilechallengingthedecisioninthiscase.TheRMCIilingoIIice
inIormedmetherehasbeennoNoticeoIEntryoIOrderinthismatteratthispoint.

T
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
429
emergency filings
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 12/16/11 7:55 AM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
2 attachments
12 16 11 emergency filing with fax cover sheet rmc 11 cr 22176.pdf (330.0 KB) , fax cover sheet and
notice of denial of service clarification motion.pdf (202.1 KB)
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
430
FW: 121 River Rock
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sat 12/17/11 12:15 AM
To: ballardd@reno.gov; howardk@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov; hazlett-
stevensc@reno.gov; puenteslaw@aol.com
Unbelievable. The idea that exculpating evidence is being withheld under some "lien" is transmitted into the
universe, next thing I know, my law office is broken in to and the Richard B. Hill gang is stil asserting a lien on
property that was stolen, in my opinion, as a result of their own negligence, leaving a window air conditioner unit
in a window, without even putting a window jam between the top of the sill and lower pain, facing a sidewalk a
block from the Lakemill Lodge and across from City Center Apartments, great. Great. And I still have not been
faxed or appropriately served the Order and Contempt Order I was told would be faxed to me.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
431
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com; knielsen@richardhillaw.com; sgallagher@richardhillaw.com
Subject: RE: 121 River Rock
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:43:38 -0800
Dear Mr. Baker,
I drove by the property recently and saw you had added boarding up the front door on very, very recently.
Unfortunately, your client and your firm, despite billing up some $1,060 for "securing" the property on top of
charging $900 for storage for what could fit inside a 10x20 foot storage shed, never once providing an inventory,
and contributing to a wrongful arrest and defamation causing me and my clients great damage, failed to take
even basic steps to secure the property, despite my making numerous written requests that you do so, including,
but not limited to, taking the damn window unit air conditioner out of the window facing the sidewalk on the
side of the house very close to the damn Lakemill Lodge, or even putting a strong stick in between the bottom
sliding window pain and the top of the sill to prevent someone from simply pushing in the window unit air
conditioner and pushing the window up to gain access. Further, a blanket that was on the orange circular couch
is clearly in the flower bed in front of the house. Additionally, there are reports that someone with your office
gave someone a mattress from the inventory of Coughlin Memory Foam (a Nevada licensed business located at
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
432
the property) and an expensive mattress platform has clearly been damaged and placed in the flower bed as
well, in addition to one of the wooden porch shades being removed from the front porch. You and your client
are, of course, liable for all of this.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: rhill@richardhillaw.com
Subject: 121 River Rock
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:50:02 -0800
Mr. Coughlin:
The River Rock property has been broken into. We believe the break-in occurred sometime on Monday,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
433
emergency
December 12, 2011. There appear to be items missing, including the TV in the living room, perhaps a computer
monitor, and perhaps some stereo equipment. I cant tell what else. The contents of the residence appear to
have been rifled through.
I am providing you with this information as a courtesy. This email does NOT constitute permission for you to go
to the River Rock property.
Casey D. Baker, Esq.
Richard G. Hill, Chartered
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858
Email: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
CONFIDENTIAL:ATTORNEYWORKPRODUCT;ATTORNEY-CLIENTPRIVILEGE
Thise-mailmaycontainlegallyprivilegedorconIidentialinIormation.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipient,pleasedonotread,copy,use,ordisclosethis
communicationtoanyoneotherthantheintendedrecipient.IIyouhavereceivedthismessageinerror,pleasenotiIythesenderanddeletetheemailmessageIrom
yoursystem.Thankyou.
Circular230Notice.
ToensurecompliancewithrequirementsimposedbytheIRS,weinIormyouthatanyU.S.Iederaltaxadvicecontainedinthiscommunication(includingany
attachments)isnotintendedorwrittentobeused,andcannotbeused,IorthepurposeoI(i)avoidingpenaltiesundertheInternalRevenueCodeor(ii)promoting,
marketingorrecommendingtoanotherpartyanytransactionormatteraddressedherein.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/19/11 4:32 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
supplementtomotiontosetasideallorders,seeattachedexhibit,thereisnoinitialingon
theIilestampeIortheorderonthe1130th,2011
Tom said there was no docket entry or record of anything as of 12 13 11, i wans't provided copy of discovery for
over 30 days after arrest, rmc said it didn't have pc and witness satements but rec'd date indicates otherwise,
potentially, release sheets fromjail property inventory does not show 11 30 11 order, I declare under penalty of
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
434
I will fax this to Ms. Roberts and the RMC as well, this is a courtesy copy
perjury i did not refuse any order or the chance to have a physical copy of one.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/19/11 5:15 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 12 19 11 filing with 3 exhibits.pdf (9.1 MB)
I will fax this to Ms. Roberts and the RMC as well, this is a courtesy copy
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
435
no reply from Transcriptionist
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/21/11 12:02 AM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
436
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
DearRMC,
ItismyunderstandingtheJudgeHoward'sorderregardingemaildoesnotextendtothe
addresstowhichIamsendingthiscorrespondence:renomunirecordsreno.govwhichis
theemailaddressIilingoIIicesupervisorDonnaBallardindicatedtomewasacceptableIor
sendingcorrespondenceandIilingstotheRMCinlieuoIIaxes.Iamwritingbecausethe
emailaddressIwasprovidedIorRMC"oIIicialtranscriptionist"PamLongoniyieldeda
"returntosender/Iailedtransmission"messagewhenIwrotetotheemailaddressprovided
Iorher:plongonicharter.net.Further,pleaseseetheIorwardedemailbelowthatIsentto
Ms.Longoni.IhavenotreceivedareturncallIromherregardingmyrecentmessagesto
her.IwastoldbyaRMCIilingoIIicecounteremployeethatImustgetthetranscript
throughMs.Longoni,assheisthe"oIIicialtranscriptionist"IortheRMC.PleaseconIirm
thatIamnoabletohaveanothercertiIiedcourtreporterortranscriptionistcreatethe
oIIicialtranscriptandindicatebywhatdatethismustbedone,howitmustbedone,etc.

IwastoldbyRMCIilingoIIicestaII,includingMs.Ballard,thattheRMCwouldnotaccept
anyIilingsIees,bonds,oranyotherpaymentsIrommeinrelationtotheunderlyingcase11
CR221762IortheappealoIthatmattergiventhattheRMCwasholdingthebailmoneyI
paidintothecourt.IIthisisnotthecaseoriIImustpayanythingintotheRMCtoensure
thatmyappealgoesIorward,pleaseindicateasmuchinwritingandwithparticularity.III
amabletouseanyothertranscriptionistsandortheRMChasalistoIsuchwithcontact
inIormation,pleaseprovidesuchinwriting.

Sincerely,
/s/ZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin,DeIendant/Appellant
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
437
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: plongoni@charter.net
Subject: where to pay and how much
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:44:37 -0800
DearMs.Longoni,
IhaveleItyouseveralmessages.IwishtopaywhateveritisIhavetopaytogetthis
appealtranscriptgoingandtopreserveallmyrightstoreviewoIthedecisioninRMC11cr
22176.Further,IwouldlikeacopyoItheaudioIromthehearingassoonaspossible.
PleaseprovidespeciIicdetailedinstructionsastohowtopayandhowmuchandanything
elseIneedtodo.

Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
438
proof of insurance and registration Affidavit/Declaration and supporting
documentation
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 1/09/12 5:58 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; renodirect@reno.gov
1 attachment
Zach Coughlin license plate 838NER proof of insurance and registration for citations 544281 and
r47190389731.pdf (1737.4 KB)
DearRenoMunicipalCourtClerk'sOIIice,

MynameisZacharyB.Coughlin.
MyvehicleandmyselIwereappropriatelyinsured,asveriIiedbytheattachedProoIoIInsuranceIor
myUSAAautomobileinsuranceatthetimeoIbothTraIIicCitationsNo's:544281andR47190389731.
CopiesoIbothcitationsareattachedaswell.Myvehicle,atthetimeoIbothcitations,wasin
compliancewithNevadalawwithregardtovehicleregistration.AtrueandcorrectcopyoIthis
AIIidavitandtheattachedcopiesoITraIIicCitationsNo's:544281andR47190389731andatrueand
correctcopyoItheProoIoIInsuranceIorthetimeoIbothcitationsIrommyUSAAautomobile
insurance(PolicyNumber009852796C71043)andatruecopyoImyDMVautomobileRegistration
CertiIicateIorboth2011and2012isattachedhereto.
IattestthattheassertionscontainedhereinaretrueandmakethisDeclarationunderpenaltyoIperjury
pursuanttoNRS199.145.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
439
PleaseIindattacheda6pagepdIwiththisAIIidavit/DeclarationandtheaccompanyingcopiesoIthe
twocitationsandtheprooIoIinsuranceatthetimeanddateoIbothcitationsandthesameIorthe
registrationIorthevehicle.Iamdisputingthe"Iailuretocometoacompletestop"partoIthecitation
in544281andunderstandingthatIhaveahearinginRenoMunicipalCourton2612at8:30amin
thatregard,pleasecorrectmeiIthatisnotthecorrectdateandtime.
Also,IhavecalledseveraltimesandkeepingleavingmessagesaboutdisputingtheIollowingparking
tickets,anddonotbelieveany"additionalIines"shouldhaveattachedtothebaseIinewhereIhave
communicatedthatIamdisputingthemandhavenotreceivearesponsewithregardtothedateand
timeoImyhearingtodisputethem:
CitationDetails
CitationNumber: 020146724
AmountDue: $60.00
IssueDate: 12/03/201110:30:00
PlateNumber: 838NER
State: NV
RelatedCitations
WehaveIoundtheIollowingadditionaloutstandingcitationsIorthislicenseplate
number.Pleasechecktheboxnexttoeachadditionalcitationthatyouwouldliketopay
Ioratthistime.
CitationNumber IssueDate AmountDue
020145322 11/03/201103:20:00 $55.00
Sincerely,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
440
debt validation documentation request and dispute letter under FDCPA
to City of Reno et al
Zach Coughlin
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmay
containconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringit
totheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetaking
oIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcable
law.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenor
omttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessaye
nerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyany
coesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 1/09/12 6:09 PM
To: renodirect@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
DearCityoIReno,
ThiswritingiswrittennoticetoyouthatIdisputethedebtyouroIIiceandtheCityoIReno
andortheRenoMunicipalCourthasrecentlysentme,allegingthatIowesomedebtIor
eitherparkingticketsandortraIIiccitations.Further,IrequestveriIicationand
documentationinsupportoIyourcontentionthatIowesuchadebtpursuanttotheFair
DebtCollectionPracticesAct.
Sincerely,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
441
Zach Coughlin1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmay
containconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringit
totheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetaking
oIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcable
law.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenor
omttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessaye
nerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyany
coesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; renodirect@reno.gov
Subject: proof of insurance and registration Affidavit/Declaration and supporting documentation
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:58:47 -0800
DearRenoMunicipalCourtClerk'sOIIice,

MynameisZacharyB.Coughlin.
MyvehicleandmyselIwereappropriatelyinsured,asveriIiedbytheattachedProoIoIInsuranceIor
myUSAAautomobileinsuranceatthetimeoIbothTraIIicCitationsNo's:544281andR47190389731.
CopiesoIbothcitationsareattachedaswell.Myvehicle,atthetimeoIbothcitations,wasin
compliancewithNevadalawwithregardtovehicleregistration.AtrueandcorrectcopyoIthis
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
442
AIIidavitandtheattachedcopiesoITraIIicCitationsNo's:544281andR47190389731andatrueand
correctcopyoItheProoIoIInsuranceIorthetimeoIbothcitationsIrommyUSAAautomobile
insurance(PolicyNumber009852796C71043)andatruecopyoImyDMVautomobileRegistration
CertiIicateIorboth2011and2012isattachedhereto.
IattestthattheassertionscontainedhereinaretrueandmakethisDeclarationunderpenaltyoIperjury
pursuanttoNRS199.145.
PleaseIindattacheda6pagepdIwiththisAIIidavit/DeclarationandtheaccompanyingcopiesoIthe
twocitationsandtheprooIoIinsuranceatthetimeanddateoIbothcitationsandthesameIorthe
registrationIorthevehicle.Iamdisputingthe"Iailuretocometoacompletestop"partoIthecitation
in544281andunderstandingthatIhaveahearinginRenoMunicipalCourton2612at8:30amin
thatregard,pleasecorrectmeiIthatisnotthecorrectdateandtime.
Also,IhavecalledseveraltimesandkeepingleavingmessagesaboutdisputingtheIollowingparking
tickets,anddonotbelieveany"additionalIines"shouldhaveattachedtothebaseIinewhereIhave
communicatedthatIamdisputingthemandhavenotreceivearesponsewithregardtothedateand
timeoImyhearingtodisputethem:
CitationDetails
CitationNumber: 020146724
AmountDue: $60.00
IssueDate: 12/03/201110:30:00
PlateNumber: 838NER
State: NV
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
443
RelatedCitations
WehaveIoundtheIollowingadditionaloutstandingcitationsIorthislicenseplate
number.Pleasechecktheboxnexttoeachadditionalcitationthatyouwouldliketopay
Ioratthistime.
CitationNumber IssueDate AmountDue
020145322 11/03/201103:20:00 $55.00
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmay
containconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringit
totheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetaking
oIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcable
law.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenor
omttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessaye
nerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyany
coesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids4b...
444
where to pay and how much

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 12/16/11 10:44 PM
To: plongoni@charter.net
DearMs.Longoni,
IhaveleItyouseveralmessages.IwishtopaywhateveritisIhavetopaytoget
thisappealtranscriptgoingandtopreserveallmyrightstoreviewoIthedecisionin
RMC11cr22176.Further,IwouldlikeacopyoItheaudioIromthehearingas
soonaspossible.PleaseprovidespeciIicdetailedinstructionsastohowtopayand
howmuchandanythingelseIneedtodo.

Sincerely,


Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473

``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacy
Act,18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)
only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youare
herebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthe
takingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoI thisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,
ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneywork
roductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youare
notjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenor omttedtobetakennrelanceon
thecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,or
arenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,and
destroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snota
waverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.
Page1 oI1 HotmailPrintMessage
445
Fwd: Attached Image / Subpoena
RE: Attached Image / Subpoena
From: Donna Ballard (BallardD@reno.gov)
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 3:22 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
0660_001.pdf (28.7 KB)
-----Original Message-----
From: "MUNI CT 1st Floor Clerks" <canon@reno.gov>
To: "DONNA" <ballardd@reno.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:14:15 -0800
Subject: Attached Image
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775)334-3101
From: Donna Ballard (BallardD@reno.gov)
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 3:53 PM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
I am so sorry, I must have misunderstood.
These must be served and the affidavit portion completed before they can be file stamped in.
Thank you,
Donna
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <ballardd@reno.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:48:31 -0800
Subject: RE: Attached Image / Subpoena
DearMs.Ballard,
Thankyousendingtheseandagreeingtostampandemalthembacktome
today,very,verymuchappreciate.
Sincerely,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI54...
446
ZachCoughlin
emailisthebestwaytocontactme,havingphoneissuestoday.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:22:14 -0800
From: BallardD@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Attached Image / Subpoena
-----Original Message-----
From: "MUNI CT 1st Floor Clerks" <canon@reno.gov>
To: "DONNA" <ballardd@reno.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:14:15 -0800
Subject: Attached Image
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI54...
447
Fwd: Attached Image
Re: IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
(775)334-3101
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775)334-3101
From: Donna Ballard (BallardD@reno.gov)
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 4:47 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
0661_001.pdf (42.9 KB)
Thank you. I am taking it up to the Department now.
Donna
-----Original Message-----
From: "MUNI CT 1st Floor Clerks" <canon@reno.gov>
To: "DONNA" <ballardd@reno.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:42:28 -0800
Subject: Attached Image
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775)334-3101
From: Donna Ballard (BallardD@reno.gov)
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:09 PM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
I did not inform you that you would need a subpoena to get a copy of the docket. I advised you that your
records request will be sufficient for copies of documents as public record and did not specify specific
documents.
I am forwarding this email to Department 2, Department 4 and the Chief Marshal for further action.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI54...
448
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <ballardd@reno.gov>, <renomunirecords@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:22:07 -0800
Subject: IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473
Ms. Ballard,
Please note, the gentleman I worked with at the filing office counter today informed me there were no appeal
fees, bonds, or other charges that I could pay (including transcription costs) as "all charges are being taken
from" my bail in the respective matters. Please email me the audio from the November 20th,2011 Trial in 11 cr
22176 2I and proof of service of any Contempt Order or Guilty Verdict/Order in that matter. Please file this as
well as a Opposition to Any Motion to Continue Trial in 11 cr 26405, dept 2, and a Motion to Set Aside or
Vacate any Order Granting Continuance in response to such an Order Granting Continuance. Please email,
fax, or mail me a copy of the Notice of Appearances by both Taitel and Puentes and the Motion and Order
Granting Withdrawal of Taitel, if it exists. I would like a copy of the docket in both 11 CR 26405 2I and 11 CR
22176, despite your informing me today that I would need to subpoena the docket to have any chance of
seeing it and that I would not be provided access to documents in the public record, including Orders in both
of these cases.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI54...
449
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775)334-3101
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI54...
450
RE: Attached Image / Subpoena
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 3:48 PM
To: ballardd@reno.gov
4 attachments
RMC subpoena Ellis Walmart Manager and loss prevention manager.pdf (42.7 KB) , RMC subpoena
Janice store clerk walmart arrest receipt cashier 2nd St. 89501 Walmart.pdf (44.3 KB) , RMC subpoena
Store Manager Brian Bain 2nd st Walmart Reno and LP supervisor 2nd St. 89501 Walmart.pdf (43.3 KB) ,
RMC subpoena fill in the blank for name stylein city of reno v coughlin 11 cr 22176 2I.pdf (43.7 KB)
DearMs.Ballard,
Thankyousendingtheseandagreeingtostampandemalthembacktome
today,very,verymuchappreciate.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
emailisthebestwaytocontactme,havingphoneissuestoday.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:22:14 -0800
From: BallardD@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
451
RE: Attached Image / Subpoena
Subject: Fwd: Attached Image / Subpoena
-----Original Message-----
From: "MUNI CT 1st Floor Clerks" <canon@reno.gov>
To: "DONNA" <ballardd@reno.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:14:15 -0800
Subject: Attached Image
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775)334-3101
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 4:29 PM
To: ballardd@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC various walmart subpoenasreno v coughlin 11 cr 22176 2I.pdf (56.9 KB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
452
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:53:46 -0800
From: BallardD@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Attached Image / Subpoena
I am so sorry, I must have misunderstood.
These must be served and the affidavit portion completed before they can be file stamped in.
Thank you,
Donna
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <ballardd@reno.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:48:31 -0800
Subject: RE: Attached Image / Subpoena
DearMs.Ballard,
Thankyousendingtheseandagreeingtostampandemalthembacktome
today,very,verymuchappreciate.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
emailisthebestwaytocontactme,havingphoneissuestoday.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
453
IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:22:14 -0800
From: BallardD@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Attached Image / Subpoena
-----Original Message-----
From: "MUNI CT 1st Floor Clerks" <canon@reno.gov>
To: "DONNA" <ballardd@reno.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:14:15 -0800
Subject: Attached Image
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775)334-3101
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775)334-3101
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
454
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:22 AM
To: ballardd@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
2 attachments
Coughlin IFP and Financial Inquiry Application RMC 11222011 11 CR 26405 2I.pdf (381.9 KB) , Coughlin
IFP and Financial Inquiry Application RMC 11222011 11 CR 22176 2I.pdf (372.0 KB)
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
Ms.Ballard,
Pleasenote,thegentlemanIworkedwithattheIilingoIIicecountertodayinIormedmetherewereno
appealIees,bonds,orotherchargesthatIcouldpay(includingtranscriptioncosts)as"allchargesare
beingtakenIrom"mybailintherespectivematters.PleaseemailmetheaudioIromtheNovember
20th,2011Trialin11cr221762IandprooIoIserviceoIanyContemptOrderorGuiltyVerdict/Order
inthatmatter.PleaseIilethisaswellasaOppositiontoAnyMotiontoContinueTrialin11cr26405,
dept2,andaMotiontoSetAsideorVacateanyOrderGrantingContinuanceinresponsetosuchan
OrderGrantingContinuance.Pleaseemail,Iax,ormailmeacopyoItheNoticeoIAppearancesby
bothTaitelandPuentesandtheMotionandOrderGrantingWithdrawaloITaitel,iIitexists.Iwould
likeacopyoIthedocketinboth11CR264052Iand11CR22176,despiteyourinIormingmetoday
thatIwouldneedtosubpoenathedockettohaveanychanceoIseeingitandthatIwouldnotbe
providedaccesstodocumentsinthepublicrecord,includingOrdersinbothoIthesecases.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
455
RE: IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 3:45 PM
To: ballardd@reno.gov
YoumightwanttoaskthegentlemanclerkIwasworkingwithabout
everythinghesaid.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
456
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:09:40 -0800
From: BallardD@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
I did not inform you that you would need a subpoena to get a copy of the docket. I advised you that your
records request will be sufficient for copies of documents as public record and did not specify specific
documents.
I am forwarding this email to Department 2, Department 4 and the Chief Marshal for further action.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <ballardd@reno.gov>, <renomunirecords@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:22:07 -0800
Subject: IFP/ FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473
Ms. Ballard,
Please note, the gentleman I worked with at the filing office counter today informed me there were no appeal
fees, bonds, or other charges that I could pay (including transcription costs) as "all charges are being taken
from" my bail in the respective matters. Please email me the audio from the November 20th,2011 Trial in 11 cr
22176 2I and proof of service of any Contempt Order or Guilty Verdict/Order in that matter. Please file this as
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
457
RE: Message left on 12/13/2011
well as a Opposition to Any Motion to Continue Trial in 11 cr 26405, dept 2, and a Motion to Set Aside or
Vacate any Order Granting Continuance in response to such an Order Granting Continuance. Please email,
fax, or mail me a copy of the Notice of Appearances by both Taitel and Puentes and the Motion and Order
Granting Withdrawal of Taitel, if it exists. I would like a copy of the docket in both 11 CR 26405 2I and 11 CR
22176, despite your informing me today that I would need to subpoena the docket to have any chance of
seeing it and that I would not be provided access to documents in the public record, including Orders in both
of these cases.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
Donna Ballard
Senior Court Specialist
Reno Municipal Court
1 South Sierra Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775)334-3101
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 6:52 PM
To: roperj@reno.gov; fiskg@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
DearChieIMarshalRoper,andtheRMC,
ThankyouIoryourquickreply.IactuallyrequestedacopyoIsome
documentationrelatedtomycomplaintsaboutbothincidentswithMarshal
MentzelbeplacedinhisemploymentorpersonnelIile,notthatyouprovide
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
458
meacopyoIhisIile.Iwouldlikeone,oracopyoIanycomplaintsagainst
anyMarshals,butIrealizeasubpoenawouldlikelyberequiredtohaveany
chanceatthat.NegligentTraining,Hiring,Supervision.
IneverreceivedacopyoItheContemptFindingandGuilty
Verdict/Judgment/ORderorwhateverIromthe1130,2011TrialbeIoreJudge
Howardin11CR221762I,though"Veronica"(noonewilltellmeherlast
name,butsheworkscloselywiththeRMCJudges)saidtheonly"service"oI
thoseOrdersthatwaseverattemptedonmeoccuredwhileIwashandcuIIed,
aIterwhichpointsomeMarshalls(Ididnotcatchtheirnamesandthey
manhandledmeroughlyintohandcuIIs,reIusingtoevenletmesavemy
notesonmylaptopatthesuddenconclusionoIJudgeHowardsOrderand
ContemptIinding.Thisistrulyreprehensibletonotevenletmesavemy
damnnotesandactlikeIwassomeperpwhojustknockedoIagoddamn
liquorstorewithaIirearm.Somepeopleneedtogetagripinside.Please
placeacopyoIthiswrittencomplaintagainstwhateverMarshalswere
involvedinthatintheiremployment/personnelIilesaswell.Pleaseprovide
meacopyoIanycomplaintsyouhavereceivedagainstanyMarshals.
IwouldlikeacopyoIthe1130,2011OrderandtheaudiooItheTrial.I
believeyouhaveadutytoIindoutwhatthoseMarshalsdidwiththis
documentthat"Veronica"allegestheyattemptedtoserveonme,though,
even14daysaItertheTrial,the"docket"intheRMCIilingoIIicestill
containsnoOrder,nomentionoIanOrder,andcertainlynoProoIoIService
oIanythingoIthesort,norhavetheyrespondedtoanyoImydocumentation
requestsorarequestoItheaudiooItheTrialoI1130,2011,despitean
exigentneedIorsuchtoprepareRelieIIromJudgmentMotionsthathave
deadlinesoI10-20daysIrom"service"oIthe"Order",andwhoknowshow
thatwillbemeasure.WhyitwasnecessarytocostthepublicabunchoI
overtimepayIorthe5orsoMarshalls,andwhoknowshowmanycourtstaII
tostayuntilnearly9pmon1130,2011tocompletethis"Trial",andhowit
wassuchadamnemergency,especiallywhereRichardHillwasabletogeta
continuancebecausehewasgoingtobeonvacationinthetrespasscase
againstme11CR221852I,despitetheIactthatLewTaitelneverreceivemy
consenttosuchaMotionIorContinuance,andIurtherTaitelwasarguably
conIlictedoutoIrepresentingmeconsideringhis"association"withNevada
CourtServicesandthetortsthecommittedagainstme,whichresultedina
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
459
lawsuitbeingIiledagainstthem,oratleastanIPFPetitionandProposed
ComplaintinDistrictCourt,priortoTaitel'sappointmentandrepresentation.
IItheRMCcanaIIordallthatdamnovertimeIoreveryone,whycouldn'tit
appointmeadeIenseattorneyinRMC11CR22176,especiallywhereJudge
Howardruled,not20minutesintoTrialthathewasIindingmeinContempt
oICourtandwoulddecidethesentence(whichobviouslyincludeda
possibilityoIincarceration)attheconclusionoItheTrial?
FurtherM.MentzelclearlybumpedDonnaBallardoutoIthewayinhiszeal
toestablishdominanceoIme,apersonwhowasprovidingabsolutelyno
resistanceatthetime.Mentzelwentontostartordermetoleavethe
premisesaItermyconversationwithBallardandtheIileclerkwasdone.
Duh,Mentzel,itwas5:00pmorso"closingtime"whatdoyouthinkIam
goingtodo,hangoutandchillwithyouguys?LookattheNoticeoIHearing
orDocketinRMC11CR221762I(IamalsoherebyrequestingacopyoI
theaudioorvideooIthehearingIromtheRMC)andthehandwritten
interlineationsImadeonthedocumentM.Mentzelprovidedmeincourton
1011,2011,whereImentiontheproblemsassociatedwithaskingquestions
aboutmySixthAmendmentRighttoCounselwhereonlythepossibilityoI
jailtimeexists.IaskedMentzelatthattimeaquestionabouttheprocessand
hegotveryangry,threatening,andinsultingwithme,thenlater,criticizedmy
appearancebeIoreJudgeGardner,IbelievehesaidIwas"sarcastic"andor
rudetotheJudgeinthesamewayIhadbeentoMentzelhimselI.Isubmit
thatcitizenstryingtoaccessjusticeshouldnotbetakenasapersonalaIIront
toRMCemployeeslikeMentzel,andthatheneedstostronglyconsiderhow
hecomesacrosstothepublicwhenheactsthewayhedoes,andcarriesa
Iirearm,coloroIlaw,abadge,andapparently,theblessingoItheRMCin
carryingoutbehaviorthatseemsmoreIittingIoranightclubbouncerthana
Marshal.Further,thevideoplayedatarraignmentsisoverlyhostileand
threateninginmyopinion,especiallythepartswhereJudgeGardnermakes
statementsonthe"extremely"poorchoiceitwouldbetorepresentone'sselI
proseandallthesetonesandwordsusedthatmakeitsoundlikeprose
deIendantswillbepunishedIornoteithercoppingapleaorgoingwithone
oIthe"IourIormerprosecutors"whoarenowdrawingapaycheckIromthe
RMC/CitizenrytoIulIilltheSixthAmendment.Iamsomethingcompletely
otherthanimpressedwiththeworkdonebyLewTaitel,Esq.IormeinRMC
11CR221852I,inthatregard.Whyshouldn'tdeIendantsintheRMC,aIter
viewingthearraignmentvideoandreceivingrepresentationlikethatwhichI
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
460
receivedIromTaitel,Ieellikelambsbeingledtoslaughter?Baah,
baaaaaaaaah!TwootherMarshalswerethereyesterdaywhenMentzelwas
beratingme,Iwouldliketheirnames,please.
Now,justawhileago,"RMCCourtTranscriptionistPamLongoni"calledme
onthephone("whiledriving"accordingtoMs.Longoni)andinIormedme
thattheRMCmustpermitheraccesstotheaudioIiles,andthat,whilesheis
linkedinto"theirsystem"(meaningtheRMC's),theRMCmusttakesome
additionalsteptoallowMs.LongonitoaccesstheaudioIilesandcontinue
withtheprocessoItendingotarequestIoraTranscriptonAppeal.Iwas
toldbyaIemaleRMCcounterclerkthatIwouldnoteverbeprovidedacopy
oItheaudiorecordingoIthe1130,2011Trial,butthatImaypurchaseIrom
Ms.LongonianoIIicialtranscript,andthat"appealtranscriptsarebilledat
$4.10perpage"etc.andthatasubstantialdepositwouldberequired,andthat
"NoTranscriptisconsideredtobeoIIicialordered,andcommencementoI
transcriptionwillnotbegin,untilreceiptoItherequireddeposit..."Iasked
Ms.LongonitoinIormmeoIeverythingImustdoorpaytohavethe
transcriptdeemdoIIicialyorderedandsheinIormedmethatshecouldnottell
methat,despitetheapparenthardandIastdeadlinesappliedtoordering,
oIIicially,suchatranscript,withtheRMCinanAppealcontext,untilthe
RMCallowedMs.LongonitoaccesstheRMC"system"andview/hearthe
audiooIthe1130,2011Trialin11CR221762I.Ms.Longoniangrilyhung
upthephoneonmeandisnownotreturningmycallsandhasIailedto
respondtomyrequestthatsheinIormme,inwriting,astowheretosend
moneyoradepositoranythingelserequiredIorthetranscript.Ihaveyetto
receiveaIaxIromtheRMC's"Veronica"(whoselastnamehasrepeatedly
beendeniedtome)despiteherangryassurancesonthephoneon1212,2011
thatshewouldIinallyhaetheRMCattempttoappropriately(oralmost
appropriately)servemeacopyoItheContemptFindingandGuiltyOrder
stemmingIromthe1130,2011TrialinRMC11CR221762I.Pleasehave
thisrequestandcommunicationreiteratedtowhoeveritconcernsatthe
RMC,andhavesuchacopyoIthosedocumentsemailed,Iaxed,andmailed
intheUSPostalServicemailimmediately.Further,pleasedothesamewith
respecttotheaudiooIthe1130,2011TrialinRMC11CR221762I,andoI
courseIwillpayareasonablecostIorthecdtotheextentmyIFPisnot
granted.TheRJCandWashoeDistrictCourtchargeabout$30percd.The
alsoprovidecopiesoIthedocketsincaseswithoutdemandingasubpoena
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
461
IorcethemtoIirst.PleaseaskthegentlemanMs.Ballardsawmeworking
withyesterdaywhathesaidinthatregardaboutprovidingmeacopyoI
anything,muchlessthedocketineitherRMC11CR221762IorRMC11
CR221852I.
IbelieveIamentitledtoacopyoItheaudiorecordingquickly,whetheror
notatranscripthasbeenoIIicialyordered,IorthepurposesoIappealorIor
anyotherpurposes.Ibelieveinsomethingcalled"transparency"in
goverment.Sunshine.
Letmeaskyouaquestion:IIaJudgetoldyoutojumpoIIabridge,would
you?ItismybelieIthatJudgeHowardorderedeveryonetoclearthe
courtroom,includingaIemale,shortlyaItermy1120,2011Trialbeganand
itbecameclearthatIwasnotgoingtolaydownmeeklyIortheCourt,orIor
Wal-Mart,orIortheRenoCityAttorney.2millionoImypeoplestarvedto
deathduringa"GreatFamine"between1848-1850inIreland,despitebeing
surroundedbywaterandIish,wheretheEnglishwerearrestingIrishmenwho
attemptedtosavetheirIamiliesandtheirownlive'sbyIishing.Iwillbe
Iishinghere,gentleman.Dealwithit.Iwantthatrecording,Ior,among
manyotherreasons,toseeiIJudgeHowardmerelyaskedthosewhomight
becalledaswitnessestoleaveorwhetherhedemandedeverymemberoIthe
publicleavebeIorehesentmeoIItoGuantanamo,er,ImeantheWashoe
CountyDetentionFacilityaItertheMilitaryTribunal,er,theTrialinRMC.
Interestingly,whileattheWashoeCountyDetentionFacility,Ihavebeen
madetostripnakedwhilebeingvideotaped,wearagreendressIordayson
end,gowithoutatoothbrushIordays,reIusedanyopportunitytomake
phonecallstoprotectmyclientscasesIromprejudice,Iorcedtospreadapart
mybuttocksandallowanoverlylonglookatmyanusbySheriII'sDeputies,
andIurther,IwasIorcedtosubmittoapositiononmykneesinthe
immediatevicinityoItwoSheriII'sDeputiescrotchesinsomesadisticIorced
simulationoIperIormingoralsexuponthosemen.Rico/NegligentHiring,
Training,Supervision,42USCSec.1983DeprivationoICivilRightsUnder
ColoroIStateLaw,etc.,etc.QuiTam,Whistleblower.Mr.Roper,Idoubta
FederalCourtJudgewouldrequirethatIhavecomeobtainedaStatement
FromyoutocomplainaboutanyMarshal'sconduct.Iamprettysurethisand
myothercorrespondenceshaveplacedyouonnotice.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
462
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:26:47 -0800
From: RoperJ@reno.gov
To: ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Message left on 12/13/2011
Mr.Coughlin,
IreceivedyourmessagethatyouleItonmyphoneonDecember13,2011inregardstoacomplaintagainstMarshal
Menzel.TheMarshalDivisiontakesallcitizencomplaintsseriouslyandinvestigatesallcomplaintsreceivedinwritingor
verbally.However,IwouldneedmoreinIormationIromyoupriortomovingIorwardwithaninvestigation.Iencourage
youtocometothecourttoobtainastatementIorm,orcontactmedirectlyshouldyouwishtopursuethismatter.Asto
yourrequesttoobtainacopyoIMarshalMenzel'spersonnelIile,Iamunabletoprovidethattoyouwithoutavalid
subpoenaorwarrant.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
463
RMC 11 CR 22176
YoualsostatedyouwereattemptingtoobtainacopyoIyourJudgementoIConvictionIromDept.4,speciIicallyVeronica
Lopez,youcanreachherat326-6673.IamawarethatacopyoIyourJudgementoIConvictionwasprovidedtoyouand
bookedintoyourpropertyonthenightyouwerearrested.Youareentitledtoanothercopyshouldyouwish.
Thankyou,
JustinRoper
ChieIMarshal/DepartmentoIAlternativeSentencing
RenoMunicipalCourt
775-334-1254
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/15/11 11:59 PM
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov;
renomunirecords@reno.gov; lopezv@reno.gov
z..|c..||..,r,.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
r.xcovrrsarr
r.r.r-.-..-..,,za..
o..rVc-..|
r.xo.rVc....-a-...||..
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
464
rr..c..,...-...c..||..rVc..crzz.-zi
V........-...|,....-...-.|..a..|-...-
DearRMC,
IdonotmeantobedisrespectIulincontactingthecourtviaemail.Ihavebeensostamped
outbytheeventsoIthelastIewmonthsthatitsallIcandototrytoprotectmyrightstoget
inIormationandmediatothecourtinmyattemptstoaccessjustice. Veronica Lopez told me on
the phone on Monday of this week that she would fax me a copy of the Order and Contempt finding from the 11
30, 2011 Trial, yet I have not received any such fax. I have not received any order in any form, not on my release
from the 3 days summary incarceration, not ever. The RMC confirmed there has been no Notice of Entry of any
order in their docket or anything, etc.
IbelievetheIollowingshouldbeaddedtorecordandpresentsastrongargumentIora
conIlictoIinterestorother60(b)basisIorsettingasidetheverdictandcontemptOrderin
RMC11CR221762I.Ididnotpleadguiltyinthatcase,andanyRMCrecordthat
suggeststhatiscompletelyinaccurate.PleaseletmeknowiIyourrecordsindicateIplead
guiltyinthatmatter.Further,IhaveneverbeenprovidedacopyoItheGuiltyVerdict/Order
inthismatter,IrequestedontobeemailedtomeandsentintheUSPSmail.Pleaseserve
meacopyoItheorder,preIerablybyemailandUSPSmail.Further,the"RMC'soIIicial
courttranscriptionist"inIormedmeyesterdaythatshecouldnotquotemeoracceptan
moneyIrommeIorthetranscriptonappeal.FurtherIhavebeentoldbycourtstaIIthatI
wouldneverbeprovidedaccesstotheaudiorecordingoItheTrialoI1130,2011.Ibelieve
Ihavearighttoit,andneeditonanexigentbasisinconnectionwiththevariousmotionsI
have,will,orintendtotoIilechallengingthedecisioninthiscase.TheRMCIilingoIIice
inIormedmetherehasbeennoNoticeoIEntryoIOrderinthismatteratthispoint.
T
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
465
FW: RMC 11 CR 22176
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 12/16/11 12:00 AM
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov;
renomunirecords@reno.gov; lopezv@reno.gov
1 attachment
emergency filing rmc 11 cr 22176 12 15 11.pdf (260.9 KB)
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
466
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov;
lopezv@reno.gov
Subject: RMC 11 CR 22176
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:59:45 -0800
z..|c..||..,r,.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
r.xcovrrsarr
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
467
r.r.r-.-..-..,,za..
o..rVc-..|
r.xo.rVc....-a-...||..
rr..c..,...-...c..||..rVc..crzz.-zi
V........-...|,....-...-.|..a..|-...-
DearRMC,
IdonotmeantobedisrespectIulincontactingthecourtviaemail.Ihavebeensostamped
outbytheeventsoIthelastIewmonthsthatitsallIcandototrytoprotectmyrightstoget
inIormationandmediatothecourtinmyattemptstoaccessjustice. Veronica Lopez told me on
the phone on Monday of this week that she would fax me a copy of the Order and Contempt finding from the 11
30, 2011 Trial, yet I have not received any such fax. I have not received any order in any form, not on my release
from the 3 days summary incarceration, not ever. The RMC confirmed there has been no Notice of Entry of any
order in their docket or anything, etc.
IbelievetheIollowingshouldbeaddedtorecordandpresentsastrongargumentIora
conIlictoIinterestorother60(b)basisIorsettingasidetheverdictandcontemptOrderin
RMC11CR221762I.Ididnotpleadguiltyinthatcase,andanyRMCrecordthat
suggeststhatiscompletelyinaccurate.PleaseletmeknowiIyourrecordsindicateIplead
guiltyinthatmatter.Further,IhaveneverbeenprovidedacopyoItheGuiltyVerdict/Order
inthismatter,IrequestedontobeemailedtomeandsentintheUSPSmail.Pleaseserve
meacopyoItheorder,preIerablybyemailandUSPSmail.Further,the"RMC'soIIicial
courttranscriptionist"inIormedmeyesterdaythatshecouldnotquotemeoracceptan
moneyIrommeIorthetranscriptonappeal.FurtherIhavebeentoldbycourtstaIIthatI
wouldneverbeprovidedaccesstotheaudiorecordingoItheTrialoI1130,2011.Ibelieve
Ihavearighttoit,andneeditonanexigentbasisinconnectionwiththevariousmotionsI
have,will,orintendtotoIilechallengingthedecisioninthiscase.TheRMCIilingoIIice
inIormedmetherehasbeennoNoticeoIEntryoIOrderinthismatteratthispoint.
T
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
468
FW: 121 River Rock
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sat 12/17/11 12:15 AM
To: ballardd@reno.gov; howardk@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov; hazlett-
stevensc@reno.gov; puenteslaw@aol.com
Unbelievable. The idea that exculpating evidence is being withheld under some "lien" is transmitted into the
universe, next thing I know, my law office is broken in to and the Richard B. Hill gang is stil asserting a lien on
property that was stolen, in my opinion, as a result of their own negligence, leaving a window air conditioner unit
in a window, without even putting a window jam between the top of the sill and lower pain, facing a sidewalk a
block from the Lakemill Lodge and across from City Center Apartments, great. Great. And I still have not been
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
469
faxed or appropriately served the Order and Contempt Order I was told would be faxed to me.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com; knielsen@richardhillaw.com; sgallagher@richardhillaw.com
Subject: RE: 121 River Rock
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:43:38 -0800
Dear Mr. Baker,
I drove by the property recently and saw you had added boarding up the front door on very, very recently.
Unfortunately, your client and your firm, despite billing up some $1,060 for "securing" the property on top of
charging $900 for storage for what could fit inside a 10x20 foot storage shed, never once providing an inventory,
and contributing to a wrongful arrest and defamation causing me and my clients great damage, failed to take
even basic steps to secure the property, despite my making numerous written requests that you do so, including,
but not limited to, taking the damn window unit air conditioner out of the window facing the sidewalk on the
side of the house very close to the damn Lakemill Lodge, or even putting a strong stick in between the bottom
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
470
sliding window pain and the top of the sill to prevent someone from simply pushing in the window unit air
conditioner and pushing the window up to gain access. Further, a blanket that was on the orange circular couch
is clearly in the flower bed in front of the house. Additionally, there are reports that someone with your office
gave someone a mattress from the inventory of Coughlin Memory Foam (a Nevada licensed business located at
the property) and an expensive mattress platform has clearly been damaged and placed in the flower bed as
well, in addition to one of the wooden porch shades being removed from the front porch. You and your client
are, of course, liable for all of this.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: rhill@richardhillaw.com
Subject: 121 River Rock
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:50:02 -0800
Mr. Coughlin:
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
471
The River Rock property has been broken into. We believe the break-in occurred sometime on Monday,
December 12, 2011. There appear to be items missing, including the TV in the living room, perhaps a computer
monitor, and perhaps some stereo equipment. I cant tell what else. The contents of the residence appear to
have been rifled through.
I am providing you with this information as a courtesy. This email does NOT constitute permission for you to go
to the River Rock property.
Casey D. Baker, Esq.
Richard G. Hill, Chartered
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858
Email: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
CONFIDENTIAL:ATTORNEYWORKPRODUCT;ATTORNEY-CLIENTPRIVILEGE
Thise-mailmaycontainlegallyprivilegedorconIidentialinIormation.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipient,pleasedonotread,copy,use,ordisclosethis
communicationtoanyoneotherthantheintendedrecipient.IIyouhavereceivedthismessageinerror,pleasenotiIythesenderanddeletetheemailmessageIrom
yoursystem.Thankyou.
Circular230Notice.
ToensurecompliancewithrequirementsimposedbytheIRS,weinIormyouthatanyU.S.Iederaltaxadvicecontainedinthiscommunication(includingany
attachments)isnotintendedorwrittentobeused,andcannotbeused,IorthepurposeoI(i)avoidingpenaltiesundertheInternalRevenueCodeor(ii)promoting,
marketingorrecommendingtoanotherpartyanytransactionormatteraddressedherein.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidse4...
472
request for arrest records
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 10/04/11 3:22 PM
To: lcooley@rsic.org; voldenburg@rsic.org; rariwite@rsic.org; police@rsic.org
1 attachment
records request to rsic police.pdf (65.8 KB)
lcooley@rsic.org, voldenburg@rsic.org, rariwite@rsic.org, police@rsic.org,
TO:
Larry Cooley, Chief of Police
October4,2011
DearRenoSparksIndianColonyPoliceRecordsDepartmentand
Administrators,includingChieICooley,AttorneyOldenburg,andTribal
AdministratorAriwhite,
MynameisZachCoughlin.Iwishtoobtainanyandallrecordsavailable
incidenttoanarrestattheE.2ndSt.WalmartbytheRenoSparksIndian
ColonyPoliceonoraboutSaturdayOctober10th,2011atbetween
approximately9pmand10:30pm.Iwantanyandallrecords,video,audio,
paperdocumentationorotherwisethatIhavearightto.Iamrepresenting
myselI.IhavesoughttheserecordsIromtheRenoMunicipalCourt's
RecordsOIIiceandtheykepttellingmetheydidn'thavethemyetandthatI
shouldreturnsometimesoon.Finally,theyadmittedthedonotkeepthese
recordsandtheymustbeobtainedIromyouroIIice.Thisdelayhasunduly
prejudicedmycaseandIrequestthatyouprovidetheserecordstomeat
once,withnodelay,please.TheRSIndianColonyPolicereIusedtogiveme
acopyoItheserecordstodaywhenIspokewithSargentAvansino,whowas
politeandhelpIulotherwise.Ibelievethiscaseshouldbedismissed.
SignedelectronicallyandsignedinasignedattachedPDF.Icancomepick
therecordsupwithidentiIicationiIthatisrequiredorIherebygiveyou
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
473
Subpoena and request for arrest records
permissiontoemailthemtomeormailthemtotheaddressbelow:
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenotthe
intendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhave
receivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontents
oIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.
C0NFl0ENTlALlTYN0TlCE
Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthats
rvleyed,workroductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),
youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceon
thecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenot
thenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesn
anyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,
workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 10/04/11 4:26 PM
To: lcooley@rsic.org; voldenburg@rsic.org; rariwite@rsic.org; police@rsic.org
2 attachments
gov.uscourts.nvd.52455.8.0 hernandez against reno sparks indian police.PDF (224.4 KB) ,
gov.uscourts.mied.209033.1.0 Sweeney Class Action Walmart.PDF (415.2 KB)
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
474
October4,2011
DearRenoSparksIndianColonyPoliceDepartmentandCounsel,
MynameisZachCoughlin.IhavenowbeeninIormedbyboththeReno
MunicipalCourtandtheRenoCityAttorney'soIIicerthatneitherentitycan
providemyrequestedrecords.Youhavethem,IbelieveIhavea
constitutionalrighttothem.IIyouIeeldiIIerently,pleaseexplaininwriting
whythatisthecase.Pleasereview:
ConstructionandeIIect,inIalseimprisonmentaction,oIstatuteprovidingIor
detentionoIsus-
pectedshopliIters,47A.L.R.3d998
LiabilityoImunicipalityorothergovernmentalunitIorIailuretoprovide
policeprotection,46
A.L.R.3d1084
PersonalliabilityoIpoliceman,sheriIIs,orsimilarpeaceoIIicerorhisbond,
IorinjurysuIIeredas
aresultoIIailuretoenIorcelaworarrestlawbreaker,41A.L.R.3d700
AdmissibilityoIdeIendant'srulesorinstructionsIordealingwithshopliIters,
inactionIorIalse
imprisonmentormaliciousprosecution,31A.L.R.3D705
GenuineissueoImaterialIact,astowhetherhomeownervoluntarily
consentedtowarrantlesssearchoIhisresidence,orwhetherhehadbeen
coercedintogivinghisconsentbyoIIicers'allegedreIusaltohonorhis
requeststospeakwithattorney,andbytheirallegedthreatsthat,unlesshe
con-sented,hewouldbeIorcedtowaitoutsidewhileoIIicersobtained
warrantandthen"t|ore|hishouseapartandarrest|ed|hisgirlIriend,"
precludedentryoIsummaryjudgmentIorgovernmentincivilIor-Ieiture
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
475
actioninwhichonlyevidencesupportinggovernment'spositionwas
evidencethathomeownersoughttosuppress.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.4;
ComprehensiveDrugAbusePreventionandControlActoI1970,
511(a)(7),21U.S.C.A.881(a)(7).U.S.v.OnePieceoIRealProperty
Locatedat5800SW74thAve.,Miami,Fla.,363F.3d1099;Manningv
Commonwealth(1959,Ky)328SW2d421.
Pleaseconsiderthisasubpoenarequestingallrecordshavinganythingtodo
withthisincident.
IwishtoobtainanyandallrecordsavailableincidenttoIC110627attheE.
2ndSt.WalmartbytheRenoSparksIndianColonyPoliceonorabout
SaturdayOctober10th,2011atbetweenapproximately9pmand10:30pm.I
wantanyandallrecords,video,audio,paperdocumentationorotherwisethat
Ihavearightto.IamrepresentingmyselI.IhavesoughttheserecordsIrom
theRenoMunicipalCourt'sRecordsOIIiceandtheykepttellingmethey
didn'thavethemyetandthatIshouldreturnsometimesoon.Finally,they
admittedthedonotkeeptheserecordsandtheymustbeobtainedIromyour
oIIice.ThisdelayhasundulyprejudicedmycaseandIrequestthatyou
providetheserecordstomeatonce,withnodelay,please.TheRSIndian
ColonyPolicereIusedtogivemeacopyoItheserecordstodaywhenIspoke
withSargentAvansino,whowaspoliteandhelpIulotherwise.Ibelievethis
caseshouldbedismissed.
SignedelectronicallyandsignedinasignedattachedPDF.Icancomepick
therecordsupwithidentiIicationiIthatisrequiredorIherebygiveyou
permissiontoemailthemtomeormailthemtotheaddressbelow:
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
Sincerely,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
476
RE: request for arrest records
ZachCoughlin
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenotthe
intendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhave
receivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontents
oIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.
C0NFl0ENTlALlTYN0TlCE
Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormaton
thatsrvleyed,workroductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthe
ntendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenor
omttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.lj
yourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,delete
thse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orother
alcablervleye.
Civil Results
Party Name Court Case NOS Date Filed Date Closed
1 Reno Sparks Indian Tribal Council (dft) nvdce 3:2007-cv-00023 440 02/27/2007 07/17/2007
Appellate Results
Party Name Court Case NOS Date Filed Date Closed
2 Reno Sparks Indian Tribal Council (pty) 09cae 07-16422 3440 08/10/2007 12/27/2007
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Saved: Sun 12/04/11 3:49 AM
To: lcooley@rsic.org; voldenburg@rsic.org; rariwite@rsic.org; police@rsic.org
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
477
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To:pgoins@rsic.org, lcooley@rsic.org; voldenburg@rsic.org; rariwite@rsic.org; police@rsic.org
Subject: request for arrest records
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:22:39 -0700
lcooley@rsic.org, voldenburg@rsic.org, rariwite@rsic.org, police@rsic.org,
TO:
Larry Cooley, Chief of Police
October4,2011
DearRenoSparksIndianColonyPoliceRecordsDepartmentand
Administrators,includingChieICooley,AttorneyOldenburg,andTribal
AdministratorAriwhite,
MynameisZachCoughlin.Iwishtoobtainanyandallrecordsavailable
incidenttoanarrestattheE.2ndSt.WalmartbytheRenoSparksIndian
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
478
ColonyPoliceonoraboutSaturdayOctober10th,2011atbetween
approximately9pmand10:30pm.Iwantanyandallrecords,video,audio,
paperdocumentationorotherwisethatIhavearightto.Iamrepresenting
myselI.IhavesoughttheserecordsIromtheRenoMunicipalCourt's
RecordsOIIiceandtheykepttellingmetheydidn'thavethemyetandthatI
shouldreturnsometimesoon.Finally,theyadmittedthedonotkeepthese
recordsandtheymustbeobtainedIromyouroIIice.Thisdelayhasunduly
prejudicedmycaseandIrequestthatyouprovidetheserecordstomeat
once,withnodelay,please.TheRSIndianColonyPolicereIusedtogiveme
acopyoItheserecordstodaywhenIspokewithSargentAvansino,whowas
politeandhelpIulotherwise.Ibelievethiscaseshouldbedismissed.
SignedelectronicallyandsignedinasignedattachedPDF.Icancomepick
therecordsupwithidentiIicationiIthatisrequiredorIherebygiveyou
permissiontoemailthemtomeormailthemtotheaddressbelow:
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
``Notice`` ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenotthe
intendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhave
receivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontents
oIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.
C0NFl0ENTlALlTYN0TlCE
Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthats
rvleyed,workroductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),
youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceon
thecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenot
thenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesn
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
479
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
anyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,
workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
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
WespendhalIthe"trial"arguingaboutwhetheryourlyingcopshadenough
"inIormation"(theirdeIinitionincludedpersonallyidentiIiableinIormationto
identiIytheaccusedsuIIicientlytoissueacitation,ACURRENTNEVADA'S
DRIVERSLICENSEWOULDDOJUSTFINEONTHATACCOUNT)to
issueacitation,andhow,becausetheydidn't,theyhadtoconductasearch
incidenttoarrest,yetYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO(ORRATHER,
WALMART'S,BUTITSHARDTOSEEWHEREYOUGUYSENDAND
WALMARTBEGINS),THATYOUEFFINGPRODUCED(ORRATHER
THERENOCITYATTORNEYPRODUCEDAFTERTHEBOYSAT
WALMART"COMPILED"VIDEO,WHICHCURIOUSLYDIDCONTAIN
AFUCKINGSECONDOFVIDEOSHOWINGANYOFTHEALLEGED
CONCEALINGORCONSUMINGTHEITEMSINQUESTION!SHOWS
THEACCUSEDHANDINGTHEMADRIVERSLICENSEANDTHEM
CALLINGITINTOCHECKFORPRIORS(THATWILLSHOWUPIN
DISPATCHREPORTSANDOTHERDOCUMENTATION).THESE
KEYSTONECOPEFFUPSHAVEDEFAMEDMEANDYOU
SPONSOREDIT,CULTIVATEDIT.
ICANGIVEYOUUNTILTUESDAYTOMAKEASTRONGEFFORTTO
CORRECTTHIS,AFTERTHAT,IHAVETOMAKEMYMOVESAND
FILEMYMOTIONS.JUDGEVANWALRAVENWOULDBE
ASHAMEDOFHOWTHISHASBEENHANDLED.
THEOFFICERSAREKAMERONCRAWFORDANDBRAUNWORTH,WHOCAMEACROSSA
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
480
FARMORECOGNITIVELYIMPAIREDINCOURTTHANHEDIDINPERSON,TOANEXTENT
THATWOULDSUGGESTHEWASDISHONORINGTHELEGALPROCESSBYHIS
"PARTICIPATION",ANDITSALLONTAPE.
IwantyoutomoveIor,ORASKTHECITYATTORNEYTOMOVE
FOR,aRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotiontohavethe
JudgmentSetAside.Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver'slicense
producedtohimatthe6:49markoIWALMART'SOWNDAMNVIDEO!
AndyousubornedhisperjuryonthewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoI
thePOLICECODESYOUAREHELDTO.Further,whatareyougoingto
saywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceiptappearsonthepurchasedreceipt,
incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthattheywouldn't,in
combinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombinationwithFrontino
admittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccusedandthe
cashier,incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequantitynumber"
practicecommonatWalmart?Further,yourOIIicerCrawIord,asawitness,
admittedontapeatthetrialthat"hedidn'thaveenoughEVIDENCEtoissue
acitationsohearrestedanddidasearchincidenttoarrest"togetmore
evidencebeIoreRenoCityAttorneyRobertsandJudgeHowardcouldjump
inandcuthimoII.That'sgametime.Frontino,CrawIord,andBraunworth,
sataroundjokinglikegooIyIratboysthepreceeding30minutesinthe
hallwayinIrontoIthecourtroom,likeagroupoI3buddieswhohangoutall
thetime,except,2getpaidbyyou,andonegetspaidbyWal-Mart,whopay
thepeoplewhopayyou.ThenallthreeoIthemwaitaroundthehearthe
verdictat8pmhoursaIterFrontinoandCrawIordIinishedtestiIying.
Maybethedon'trealizeJudgeHowardwasn'trulingontheAppeal,theRule
59,60motions,MotionIorReconsideration,deIamation,wrongIularrest,
Ialseimprisonmentlawsuits,etc.Fixitnowwhileyoucan.WaittillIgetthe
videoIromWalmartthatFrontinoishidingIromyou,anddon'tyoujustwant
toknowiIsome"other"audioorvideoexistsoItheinterrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
481
Re: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Pamela Roberts (robertsp@reno.gov)
Sent: Mon 12/05/11 7:49 AM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com); lcooley@rsic.org; voldenburg@rsic.org; rariwite@rsic.org;
police@rsic.org
Mr. Coughlin: Please discontinue any further correspondence with me via email. Please file and serve any
motions or notices in accordance with the rules of the applicable court. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <lcooley@rsic.org>, <voldenburg@rsic.org>, <rariwite@rsic.org>, <police@rsic.org>,
<robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:05:27 -0800
Subject: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at 6:49 mark
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
WespendhalIthe"trial"arguingaboutwhetheryourlyingcopshadenough
"inIormation"(theirdeIinitionincludedpersonallyidentiIiableinIormation
toidentiIytheaccusedsuIIicientlytoissueacitation,ACURRENT
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
482
NEVADA'SDRIVERSLICENSEWOULDDOJUSTFINEONTHAT
ACCOUNT)toissueacitation,andhow,becausetheydidn't,theyhadto
conductasearchincidenttoarrest,yetYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO(OR
RATHER,WALMART'S,BUTITSHARDTOSEEWHEREYOUGUYS
ENDANDWALMARTBEGINS),THATYOUEFFINGPRODUCED
(ORRATHERTHERENOCITYATTORNEYPRODUCEDAFTERTHE
BOYSATWALMART"COMPILED"VIDEO,WHICHCURIOUSLY
DIDCONTAINAFUCKINGSECONDOFVIDEOSHOWINGANYOF
THEALLEGEDCONCEALINGORCONSUMINGTHEITEMSIN
QUESTION!SHOWSTHEACCUSEDHANDINGTHEMADRIVERS
LICENSEANDTHEMCALLINGITINTOCHECKFORPRIORS
(THATWILLSHOWUPINDISPATCHREPORTSANDOTHER
DOCUMENTATION).THESEKEYSTONECOPEFFUPSHAVE
DEFAMEDMEANDYOUSPONSOREDIT,CULTIVATEDIT.
ICANGIVEYOUUNTILTUESDAYTOMAKEASTRONGEFFORT
TOCORRECTTHIS,AFTERTHAT,IHAVETOMAKEMYMOVES
ANDFILEMYMOTIONS.JUDGEVANWALRAVENWOULDBE
ASHAMEDOFHOWTHISHASBEENHANDLED.
THEOFFICERSAREKAMERONCRAWFORDANDBRAUNWORTH,WHOCAMEACROSS
AFARMORECOGNITIVELYIMPAIREDINCOURTTHANHEDIDINPERSON,TOAN
EXTENTTHATWOULDSUGGESTHEWASDISHONORINGTHELEGALPROCESSBYHIS
"PARTICIPATION",ANDITSALLONTAPE.
IwantyoutomoveIor,ORASKTHECITYATTORNEYTOMOVE
FOR,aRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotiontohavethe
JudgmentSetAside.Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver'slicense
producedtohimatthe6:49markoIWALMART'SOWNDAMNVIDEO!
AndyousubornedhisperjuryonthewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoI
thePOLICECODESYOUAREHELDTO.Further,whatareyougoingto
saywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceiptappearsonthepurchased
receipt,incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthatthey
wouldn't,incombinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombination
withFrontinoadmittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccused
andthecashier,incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequantity
number"practicecommonatWalmart?Further,yourOIIicerCrawIord,as
awitness,admittedontapeatthetrialthat"hedidn'thaveenough
EVIDENCEtoissueacitationsohearrestedanddidasearchincidentto
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
483
arrest"togetmoreevidencebeIoreRenoCityAttorneyRobertsandJudge
HowardcouldjumpinandcuthimoII.That'sgametime.Frontino,
CrawIord,andBraunworth,sataroundjokinglikegooIyIratboysthe
preceeding30minutesinthehallwayinIrontoIthecourtroom,likea
groupoI3buddieswhohangoutallthetime,except,2getpaidbyyou,and
onegetspaidbyWal-Mart,whopaythepeoplewhopayyou.Thenall
threeoIthemwaitaroundtheheartheverdictat8pmhoursaIterFrontino
andCrawIordIinishedtestiIying.Maybethedon'trealizeJudgeHoward
wasn'trulingontheAppeal,theRule59,60motions,MotionIor
Reconsideration,deIamation,wrongIularrest,Ialseimprisonmentlawsuits,
etc.Fixitnowwhileyoucan.WaittillIgetthevideoIromWalmartthat
FrontinoishidingIromyou,anddon'tyoujustwanttoknowiIsome
"other"audioorvideoexistsoItheinterrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
484
defamation lawsuit/wrongful arrest/perjury under color of state law
arrest.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 10:07 PM
To: nhardjo@rsic.org; carthene@reno.gov; htobey@rsic.og
DearRSICPoliceandMs.Carthen,
PleaseprovidemeacopyoIthevideocd/dvdthatWalmart'sFrontinohanded
yourtwoOIIicers,KameronCrawIordandBraunworthwhentheywere
escortingthesuspectIromtheinterrogationroominRMC11CR22176.I
don'tcareiIyouthinkthetape/discisnotprobative.Iwantit.PlusIwantall
thedispatchtapes,especiallywhereKameroniscallinginthesuspect's
driver'slicense(whichhetestiIiedthesuspectreIusedtogivehim,butdarn
it,itsrightthereontheinterrogationroomIootage,Kameronbeinggiventhe
driver'slicensecard.ThenthewalmartguyFrontinotestiIiestherewasnot
IootageotherthantheinterrogationroomIootage,yetheclearlyhandsthe
twoRSICoIIicersacd/dvdwhenthereareleavingtheroom.Iamstill
botheredthatSargentAvansinostonewalledmeonthediscoveryIorawhole
monthIollowingthearrest.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <lcooley@rsic.org>, <voldenburg@rsic.org>, <rariwite@rsic.org>, <police@rsic.org>,
<robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:05:27 -0800
Subject: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at 6:49 mark
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
WespendhalIthe"trial"arguingaboutwhetheryourlyingcopshadenough
"inIormation"(theirdeIinitionincludedpersonallyidentiIiableinIormation
toidentiIytheaccusedsuIIicientlytoissueacitation,ACURRENT
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
485
NEVADA'SDRIVERSLICENSEWOULDDOJUSTFINEONTHAT
ACCOUNT)toissueacitation,andhow,becausetheydidn't,theyhadto
conductasearchincidenttoarrest,yetYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO(OR
RATHER,WALMART'S,BUTITSHARDTOSEEWHEREYOUGUYS
ENDANDWALMARTBEGINS),THATYOUEFFINGPRODUCED
(ORRATHERTHERENOCITYATTORNEYPRODUCEDAFTERTHE
BOYSATWALMART"COMPILED"VIDEO,WHICHCURIOUSLY
DIDCONTAINAFriggINGSECONDOFVIDEOSHOWINGANYOF
THEALLEGEDCONCEALINGORCONSUMINGTHEITEMSIN
QUESTION!SHOWSTHEACCUSEDHANDINGTHEMADRIVERS
LICENSEANDTHEMCALLINGITINTOCHECKFORPRIORS
(THATWILLSHOWUPINDISPATCHREPORTSANDOTHER
DOCUMENTATION).THESEKEYSTONECOPEFFUPSHAVE
DEFAMEDMEANDYOUSPONSOREDIT,CULTIVATEDIT.
ICANGIVEYOUUNTILTUESDAYTOMAKEASTRONGEFFORT
TOCORRECTTHIS,AFTERTHAT,IHAVETOMAKEMYMOVES
ANDFILEMYMOTIONS.
THEOFFICERSAREKAMERONCRAWFORDANDBRAUNWORTH,WHOCAMEACROSS
AFARMORECOGNITIVELYIMPAIREDINCOURTTHANHEDIDINPERSON,TOAN
EXTENTTHATWOULDSUGGESTHEWASDISHONORINGTHELEGALPROCESSBYHIS
"PARTICIPATION",ANDITSALLONTAPE.
IwantyoutomoveIor,ORASKTHECITYATTORNEYTOMOVE
FOR,aRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotiontohavethe
JudgmentSetAside.Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver'slicense
producedtohimatthe6:49markoIWALMART'SOWNDAMNVIDEO!
AndyousubornedhisperjuryonthewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoI
thePOLICECODESYOUAREHELDTO.Further,whatareyougoingto
saywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceiptappearsonthepurchased
receipt,incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthatthey
wouldn't,incombinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombination
withFrontinoadmittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccused
andthecashier,incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequantity
number"practicecommonatWalmart?Further,yourOIIicerCrawIord,as
awitness,admittedontapeatthetrialthat"hedidn'thaveenough
EVIDENCEtoissueacitationsohearrestedanddidasearchincidentto
arrest"togetmoreevidencebeIoreRenoCityAttorneyRobertsandJudge
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
486
FW: defamation lawsuit/wrongful arrest/perjury under color of state law
HowardcouldjumpinandcuthimoII.That'sgametime.Frontino,
CrawIord,andBraunworth,sataroundjokinglikegooIyIratboysthe
preceding30minutesinthehallwayinIrontoIthecourtroom,likeagroup
oI3buddieswhohangoutallthetime,except,2getpaidbyyou,andone
getspaidbyWal-Mart,whopaythepeoplewhopayyou.ThenallthreeoI
themwaitaroundtheheartheverdictat8pmhoursaIterFrontinoand
CrawIordIinishedtestiIying.Maybethedon'trealizeJudgeHowardwasn't
rulingontheAppeal,theRule59,60motions,MotionIorReconsideration,
deIamation,wrongIularrest,Ialseimprisonmentlawsuits,etc.Fixitnow
whileyoucan.WaittillIgetthevideoIromWalmartthatFrontinoishiding
Iromyou,anddon'tyoujustwanttoknowiIsome"other"audioor
videoexistsoItheinterrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
487
arrest.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 12/16/11 7:56 AM
To: nharjo@rsic.org
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: nhardjo@rsic.org; carthene@reno.gov; htobey@rsic.og
Subject: defamation lawsuit/wrongful arrest/perjury under color of state law arrest.
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:07:47 -0800
DearRSICPoliceandMs.Carthen,
PleaseprovidemeacopyoIthevideocd/dvdthatWalmart'sFrontinohanded
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
488
yourtwoOIIicers,KameronCrawIordandBraunworthwhentheywere
escortingthesuspectIromtheinterrogationroominRMC11CR22176.I
don'tcareiIyouthinkthetape/discisnotprobative.Iwantit.PlusIwantall
thedispatchtapes,especiallywhereKameroniscallinginthesuspect's
driver'slicense(whichhetestiIiedthesuspectreIusedtogivehim,butdarn
it,itsrightthereontheinterrogationroomIootage,Kameronbeinggiventhe
driver'slicensecard.ThenthewalmartguyFrontinotestiIiestherewasnot
IootageotherthantheinterrogationroomIootage,yetheclearlyhandsthe
twoRSICoIIicersacd/dvdwhenthereareleavingtheroom.Iamstill
botheredthatSargentAvansinostonewalledmeonthediscoveryIorawhole
monthIollowingthearrest.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <lcooley@rsic.org>, <voldenburg@rsic.org>, <rariwite@rsic.org>, <police@rsic.org>,
<robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 04:05:27 -0800
Subject: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at 6:49 mark
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
WespendhalIthe"trial"arguingaboutwhetheryourlyingcopshadenough
"inIormation"(theirdeIinitionincludedpersonallyidentiIiableinIormation
toidentiIytheaccusedsuIIicientlytoissueacitation,ACURRENT
NEVADA'SDRIVERSLICENSEWOULDDOJUSTFINEONTHAT
ACCOUNT)toissueacitation,andhow,becausetheydidn't,theyhadto
conductasearchincidenttoarrest,yetYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO(OR
RATHER,WALMART'S,BUTITSHARDTOSEEWHEREYOUGUYS
ENDANDWALMARTBEGINS),THATYOUEFFINGPRODUCED
(ORRATHERTHERENOCITYATTORNEYPRODUCEDAFTERTHE
BOYSATWALMART"COMPILED"VIDEO,WHICHCURIOUSLY
DIDCONTAINAFriggINGSECONDOFVIDEOSHOWINGANYOF
THEALLEGEDCONCEALINGORCONSUMINGTHEITEMSIN
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
489
QUESTION!SHOWSTHEACCUSEDHANDINGTHEMADRIVERS
LICENSEANDTHEMCALLINGITINTOCHECKFORPRIORS
(THATWILLSHOWUPINDISPATCHREPORTSANDOTHER
DOCUMENTATION).THESEKEYSTONECOPEFFUPSHAVE
DEFAMEDMEANDYOUSPONSOREDIT,CULTIVATEDIT.
ICANGIVEYOUUNTILTUESDAYTOMAKEASTRONGEFFORT
TOCORRECTTHIS,AFTERTHAT,IHAVETOMAKEMYMOVES
ANDFILEMYMOTIONS.
THEOFFICERSAREKAMERONCRAWFORDANDBRAUNWORTH,WHOCAMEACROSS
AFARMORECOGNITIVELYIMPAIREDINCOURTTHANHEDIDINPERSON,TOAN
EXTENTTHATWOULDSUGGESTHEWASDISHONORINGTHELEGALPROCESSBYHIS
"PARTICIPATION",ANDITSALLONTAPE.
IwantyoutomoveIor,ORASKTHECITYATTORNEYTOMOVE
FOR,aRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotiontohavethe
JudgmentSetAside.Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver'slicense
producedtohimatthe6:49markoIWALMART'SOWNDAMNVIDEO!
AndyousubornedhisperjuryonthewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoI
thePOLICECODESYOUAREHELDTO.Further,whatareyougoingto
saywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceiptappearsonthepurchased
receipt,incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthatthey
wouldn't,incombinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombination
withFrontinoadmittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccused
andthecashier,incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequantity
number"practicecommonatWalmart?Further,yourOIIicerCrawIord,as
awitness,admittedontapeatthetrialthat"hedidn'thaveenough
EVIDENCEtoissueacitationsohearrestedanddidasearchincidentto
arrest"togetmoreevidencebeIoreRenoCityAttorneyRobertsandJudge
HowardcouldjumpinandcuthimoII.That'sgametime.Frontino,
CrawIord,andBraunworth,sataroundjokinglikegooIyIratboysthe
preceding30minutesinthehallwayinIrontoIthecourtroom,likeagroup
oI3buddieswhohangoutallthetime,except,2getpaidbyyou,andone
getspaidbyWal-Mart,whopaythepeoplewhopayyou.ThenallthreeoI
themwaitaroundtheheartheverdictat8pmhoursaIterFrontinoand
CrawIordIinishedtestiIying.Maybethedon'trealizeJudgeHowardwasn't
rulingontheAppeal,theRule59,60motions,MotionIorReconsideration,
deIamation,wrongIularrest,Ialseimprisonmentlawsuits,etc.Fixitnow
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
490
whileyoucan.WaittillIgetthevideoIromWalmartthatFrontinoishiding
Iromyou,anddon'tyoujustwanttoknowiIsome"other"audioor
videoexistsoItheinterrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids66...
491
motion for continuance
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 11/11/11 1:40 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
DearCounselorRoberts,
IbelieveyouaretheprosecutorIorthecaseagainstme,Statev.Coughlin,
whichIbelieveisstillsetIortrialonNovember14th,Ithinkat1pm.Iam
nottotallysurethatthereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIileda
MotionIorContinuanceandaMotionIorAppointmentoICounsel
sometimewithinaboutthelast10days,Iwouldsay.IbelieveIattemptedto
copyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevictedanditsbeenaverydiIIicult
timeintermsoIcoordinatingpaperwork,etc.,etc.IapologizeIorany
inconveniencethismayhavecauseyou.IamunsureoIwhetherthe
November14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace.IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatit
becontinuedtoalaterdate.Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceive
any,orwait,IwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudgeHoward
saidthereisnota6thamendmentrighttocounselwhere,eventhoughjail
timeistechnicallyapossibility,thestatedoesnotanticipateseekingjail
time...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIoundsomecasesthatsayIshould
stillgetcounselappointed,especiallywhereIshowIamindigent,andI
believeIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily.Canandwouldyouagreetoa
continuance?IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthispriortoIilingmyRequest
IoraContinuance.ImaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseandIeelanysortoI
conviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheItbasedcharge,would
workaterribleinjusticeandgreatlydamagemyreputationandemployment
prospects.Iwantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
492
RE: motion for continuance
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 11/16/11 3:35 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
Ms.Roberts,
ThanksIoryourreply.PleaseascertainIromWalmartwhetheranyWalmart
employeeshad,previoustothisincident,madeanythreatsrespecting
maliciouslyhavingtheaccusedbannedIromWalmart'sincidenttoa
disagreementoverWalmartstaIIandmanagerscuriouspracticeoI
"Iorgetting"theirreturnpolicy,despitesomeindividualshavingworkedthere
over10years....Further,IbelieveitrelevantandpartoIyourdutytoprovide
exculpatoryinIormationtoascertainwhethertheRSICpoliceoIIicermade
statementswhereinheattemptedtocoerceaconsenttoanimpermissible
searchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobablecauseIindingtoconductasearch
incidenttoarrest,expressly,inwords,totheaccused,upontheaccused's
Iailuretoconsenttosuchasearch.
PleaseprovidealistoIanywitnessesyouintendtocallattrial,includinga
summationoIthemattersthewilltestiIyto,inadditiontoproducingacopy
ormakingavailableIorreproductionanydocumentation,audio,video,or
othermaterialsintendedtobeusedinanywayattrial.
ThankYou,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
493
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in
Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
DearCounselorRoberts,
IbelieveyouaretheprosecutorIorthecaseagainstme,Statev.Coughlin,
whichIbelieveisstillsetIortrialonNovember14th,Ithinkat1pm.Iam
nottotallysurethatthereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIileda
MotionIorContinuanceandaMotionIorAppointmentoICounsel
sometimewithinaboutthelast10days,Iwouldsay.IbelieveIattempted
tocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevictedanditsbeenavery
diIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinatingpaperwork,etc.,etc.IapologizeIor
anyinconveniencethismayhavecauseyou.IamunsureoIwhetherthe
November14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace.IbelieveIairnessdictatesthat
itbecontinuedtoalaterdate.Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceive
any,orwait,IwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudge
Howardsaidthereisnota6thamendmentrighttocounselwhere,even
thoughjailtimeistechnicallyapossibility,thestatedoesnotanticipate
seekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIoundsomecasesthat
sayIshouldstillgetcounselappointed,especiallywhereIshowIam
indigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily.Canandwould
youagreetoacontinuance?IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthispriorto
IilingmyRequestIoraContinuance.Imaintainmyinnocenceinthiscase
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
494
RE: motion for continuance
andIeelanysortoIconviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheIt
basedcharge,wouldworkaterribleinjusticeandgreatlydamagemy
reputationandemploymentprospects.Iwantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 11/16/11 5:30 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
ThanksMs.Roberts,
CanyoutellmewhothethreewitnessesarethatshoweduponNovember
14th,2011Iortrialat1pm?IdidobtainacopyoIthe"discovery"aboutthe
seconddayitwasmadeavailabletomeIromyouroIIiceinperson.Atthat
time,novideoevidencewasmadeavailabletome.Istherenowsomevideo
oraudiorecordingtowhichImaybeprovidedaccess?Wouldyoumindjust
emailingmethenamesoItheintendedwitnesses.Doyoubelieveyoudonot
haveadutytomakeareasonablydiligentinquiryoIeitherWalmartorRSIC
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
495
doassessthevalidityoIthemattersmentionedinmylastemail,iethe
retaliatorymotivevisavisWalmartandortheimpermissiblesearch/42USC
Sec1983policemisconductoItheRSICoIIicers?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not calling any
additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send you
an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam
Roberts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
496
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Ms.Roberts,
ThanksIoryourreply.PleaseascertainIromWalmartwhetheranyWalmart
employeeshad,previoustothisincident,madeanythreatsrespecting
maliciouslyhavingtheaccusedbannedIromWalmart'sincidenttoa
disagreementoverWalmartstaIIandmanagerscuriouspracticeoI
"Iorgetting"theirreturnpolicy,despitesomeindividualshavingworked
thereover10years....Further,IbelieveitrelevantandpartoIyourdutyto
provideexculpatoryinIormationtoascertainwhethertheRSICpolice
oIIicermadestatementswhereinheattemptedtocoerceaconsenttoan
impermissiblesearchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobablecauseIindingto
conductasearchincidenttoarrest,expressly,inwords,totheaccused,upon
theaccused'sIailuretoconsenttosuchasearch.
PleaseprovidealistoIanywitnessesyouintendtocallattrial,includinga
summationoIthemattersthewilltestiIyto,inadditiontoproducingacopy
ormakingavailableIorreproductionanydocumentation,audio,video,or
othermaterialsintendedtobeusedinanywayattrial.
ThankYou,
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at
1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
497
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
DearCounselorRoberts,
IbelieveyouaretheprosecutorIorthecaseagainstme,Statev.Coughlin,
whichIbelieveisstillsetIortrialonNovember14th,Ithinkat1pm.Iam
nottotallysurethatthereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIiled
aMotionIorContinuanceandaMotionIorAppointmentoICounsel
sometimewithinaboutthelast10days,Iwouldsay.IbelieveIattempted
tocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevictedanditsbeenavery
diIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinatingpaperwork,etc.,etc.IapologizeIor
anyinconveniencethismayhavecauseyou.IamunsureoIwhetherthe
November14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace.IbelieveIairnessdictates
thatitbecontinuedtoalaterdate.Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyetto
receiveany,orwait,Iwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecause
JudgeHowardsaidthereisnota6thamendmentrighttocounselwhere,
eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallyapossibility,thestatedoesnot
anticipateseekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIoundsome
casesthatsayIshouldstillgetcounselappointed,especiallywhereIshow
Iamindigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily.Canand
wouldyouagreetoacontinuance?IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthis
priortoIilingmyRequestIoraContinuance.Imaintainmyinnocencein
thiscaseandIeelanysortoIconviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysort
oItheItbasedcharge,wouldworkaterribleinjusticeandgreatlydamage
myreputationandemploymentprospects.Iwantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,
18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyou
arenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIied
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
498
RE: motion for continuance
RE: motion for continuance
thatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyaction
basedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthe
namedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjrom
dsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,
coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormaton
srohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),
leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjorm
mmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 11/17/11 3:37 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
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
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 1:05 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
DearMs.Roberts,
IwishtoobtainacopyoIthevideoandwillgotheyouroIIice'slobby
shortlyhopingtobeprovidedone.Pleaserespondtomeregardingmy
requestIromacontinuance.
Sincerely,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
499
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:40:44 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: colterp@reno.gov
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart
employee) and Officers Crawford and Braunworth from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the
video at the first trial date from the Walmart employee and it is available for you to view or get a copy. You
may want to view it at the City Attorney's Office as the CD doesn't seem to work on everyone's computer. Penie
Colter will be able to assist you. I am not clear on what you think my duty is, but I know what my duty is and I
will not debate it via email. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:30:36 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
ThanksMs.Roberts,
CanyoutellmewhothethreewitnessesarethatshoweduponNovember
14th,2011Iortrialat1pm?IdidobtainacopyoIthe"discovery"aboutthe
seconddayitwasmadeavailabletomeIromyouroIIiceinperson.Atthat
time,novideoevidencewasmadeavailabletome.Istherenowsome
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
500
videooraudiorecordingtowhichImaybeprovidedaccess?Wouldyou
mindjustemailingmethenamesoItheintendedwitnesses.Doyoubelieve
youdonothaveadutytomakeareasonablydiligentinquiryoIeither
WalmartorRSICdoassessthevalidityoIthemattersmentionedinmylast
email,ietheretaliatorymotivevisavisWalmartandortheimpermissible
search/42USCSec1983policemisconductoItheRSICoIIicers?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not calling
any additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send
you an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam
Roberts.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
501
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Ms.Roberts,
ThanksIoryourreply.PleaseascertainIromWalmartwhetherany
Walmartemployeeshad,previoustothisincident,madeanythreats
respectingmaliciouslyhavingtheaccusedbannedIromWalmart'sincident
toadisagreementoverWalmartstaIIandmanagerscuriouspracticeoI
"Iorgetting"theirreturnpolicy,despitesomeindividualshavingworked
thereover10years....Further,IbelieveitrelevantandpartoIyourdutyto
provideexculpatoryinIormationtoascertainwhethertheRSICpolice
oIIicermadestatementswhereinheattemptedtocoerceaconsenttoan
impermissiblesearchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobablecauseIindingto
conductasearchincidenttoarrest,expressly,inwords,totheaccused,
upontheaccused'sIailuretoconsenttosuchasearch.
PleaseprovidealistoIanywitnessesyouintendtocallattrial,includinga
summationoIthemattersthewilltestiIyto,inadditiontoproducinga
copyormakingavailableIorreproductionanydocumentation,audio,
video,orothermaterialsintendedtobeusedinanywayattrial.
ThankYou,
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon
at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
502
I hope your housing situation improves. See you this afternoon. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
DearCounselorRoberts,
IbelieveyouaretheprosecutorIorthecaseagainstme,Statev.
Coughlin,whichIbelieveisstillsetIortrialonNovember14th,Ithink
at1pm.Iamnottotallysurethatthereisadutytoserveyouonsucha
thing,butIIiledaMotionIorContinuanceandaMotionIor
AppointmentoICounselsometimewithinaboutthelast10days,Iwould
say.IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeen
evictedanditsbeenaverydiIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinating
paperwork,etc.,etc.IapologizeIoranyinconveniencethismayhave
causeyou.IamunsureoIwhethertheNovember14thtrialisstillsetto
takeplace.IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatitbecontinuedtoalaterdate.
Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceiveany,orwait,Iwasdenieda
requesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudgeHowardsaidthereisnota6th
amendmentrighttocounselwhere,eventhoughjailtimeistechnicallya
possibility,thestatedoesnotanticipateseekingjailtime...orsomething
likethat,however,IIoundsomecasesthatsayIshouldstillgetcounsel
appointed,especiallywhereIshowIamindigent,andIbelieveIqualiIy
asindigentrathereasily.Canandwouldyouagreetoacontinuance?I
believeItriedtocontactaboutthispriortoIilingmyRequestIora
Continuance.ImaintainmyinnocenceinthiscaseandIeelanysortoI
conviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheItbasedcharge,
wouldworkaterribleinjusticeandgreatlydamagemyreputationand
employmentprospects.Iwantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
503
temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,
18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.II
youarenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youarehereby
notiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoI
anyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntended
onlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductor
exemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthat
anydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontents
ojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthe
namedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoes
nanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojany
attorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 4:06 PM
To: howardk@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
DearJudgeHowardDeputyCityAttorneyRoberts,
IhavebeenevictedandperhapssubjecttoanillegallockoutandunlawIul
rentdistraintbyanattorneyrepresentingmyBeverlyHillsHighSchool
graduateCaliIorniaNeurosurgeonlandlord,whohasspentapprox$30,000in
attorneysIeespursuingasummaryeviction,andwhoseattorneyis
withholdingmystateissuedindentiIication,wallet,andallmaterials
necessarytomylawpracticeallinanunlawIulrentdistraintprohibitedby
NRS40.460and40.520.IampursuingacontinuanceoItheupcoming
hearing/trial,Icannotevenaccesswhenthathearingis.IhaveinIormed
opposingcounselRobertsoIsomeoItheissueswhichwillrequireextensive
discovery,ajurytrial,andmoretimetoaIIordmyselIalegitimate
opportunitytodeIendthiscase.IhavenotbeenservedanyOrderresponding
tomyrequestIorappointmentoIcounsel,asIbelieveitisrequiredeveniI
theStatedoesnot"intend"toseekjailtime,whereanyincarcerationisa
possibility,theSixthAmendmentguaranteesit.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
504
PleasenotethatmytemporaryaddressIornowis:
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
c/oSilverDollarMotel
817N.VirginiaSt.,Unit#2
Reno,NV89501
Theopposingcounselinthesummaryevictionmatteriswithholdingmy
phoneaswellandreIusingtoallowmetoaccessanymailthatmayremainat
thepropertyIromthosetimeswhentheUSPSwasprocessingmyoIIicial
ChangeoIAddress.Emailisthebestwaytogetincontactwithmeduring
thistransitionperiod.
Forinstance,IamunwarewhethermyMotionIorAppointmentoICounsel
wasgrantedornot.IcalledJudgeHoward'sassistantandrequestedthatshe
emailmethedocketinthiscaseandanypleadingsorordersIiled,including
anyorderthatmayhavestemmedIormanyoImypreviousmotions,asIam
notsurehowthosewereruledon.IbelievemyinternetbasedIaxservice
willallowmetoreceivethosematerialsatmynumber9496677402,though
IwouldpreIeremail,butIknowmanygovernmentalentitiespreIertoIax
suchitems.Iamrequestingajurytrial,asubstantialcontinuance,andthe
appointmentoIcounsel.IobjecttotheRMC'spracticeoIreIusingtotell
litigantswhothe4"house"appointeddeIendersareuponquestioning.
Further,ithasbecomeclearthatsomeoIthese"Iormerprosecutors"whoare
nowthegangoIIour"house"deIenders,donotevenannouncetoaccused
arraigneesthattheyare,inIact,thedeIenderoranattorneyorthattheymay
berepresentingthearraignees.IamherebyIilingamotioninlimine
regardinganymaterialsorinIormationgleanedIromtheunlawIulsearchby
theRSICOIIicer,whoclearlyannouncedthattheywouldbasetheirprobable
causetoarrestandconductasearchincidenttoarrestuponanyIailureto
consenttoasearchbytheaccused.Further,theallegedconductdidnot
occurintheOIIicer'spresence,andIbelievethereexistsauthoritypreventing
aminormisdemeanorarrestandtransportunderthosecircumstances.
Additionally,moretimeisneededtoconductdiscoveryinthismatter,
especiallyinlightoIallegationsthatWalmarthadpreviouslythreatened
individuals,including,perhaps,theaccused,withretaliatoryaction,including
illicitabuseoIprocess,Iorthepurportedattemptsbysomeonetohavethe
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
505
RE: motion for continuance
WalmartReturnPolicyenIorced,andtoholdaccountableallWalmart
employeesandmanagers,someoIwhomhaveoveradecadeexperiencein
theirpositions,whocuriously"Iorget"theyReturnPolicyWalmartholdsout
tothepublicwhenitisconvenienttodoso,thesameReturnPolicythat
WalmartusedtodriveoutoIbusinesssomanycompetitors.Further,this
caseislikelytogetextremelycomplicatedgiventheapparentconIlictoI
intereststemmingIromtheIactthattheWalmartinquestionisonland
ownedbytheRSIC,whichmayownoremploytheRSICpolice,andwhich
isrentedorownedinpartbyWalmart.
IknowOpposingCounselRobertsmayappreciateacontinuanceaswelland
theopportunityitwouldaIIordhertoIulIillherNRCP11dutyandother
prosecutorialdutiestoconductareasonablydiligentinquiryintothese
matters.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 7:18 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
506
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.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in
Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
507
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
DearCounselorRoberts,
IbelieveyouaretheprosecutorIorthecaseagainstme,Statev.Coughlin,
whichIbelieveisstillsetIortrialonNovember14th,Ithinkat1pm.Iam
nottotallysurethatthereisadutytoserveyouonsuchathing,butIIileda
MotionIorContinuanceandaMotionIorAppointmentoICounsel
sometimewithinaboutthelast10days,Iwouldsay.IbelieveIattempted
tocopyyouonit,buthaverecentlybeenevictedanditsbeenavery
diIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinatingpaperwork,etc.,etc.IapologizeIor
anyinconveniencethismayhavecauseyou.IamunsureoIwhetherthe
November14thtrialisstillsettotakeplace.IbelieveIairnessdictatesthat
itbecontinuedtoalaterdate.Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceive
any,orwait,IwasdeniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudge
Howardsaidthereisnota6thamendmentrighttocounselwhere,even
thoughjailtimeistechnicallyapossibility,thestatedoesnotanticipate
seekingjailtime...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIoundsomecasesthat
sayIshouldstillgetcounselappointed,especiallywhereIshowIam
indigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily.Canandwould
youagreetoacontinuance?IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthispriorto
IilingmyRequestIoraContinuance.Imaintainmyinnocenceinthiscase
andIeelanysortoIconviction,especiallyoneinvolvinganysortoItheIt
basedcharge,wouldworkaterribleinjusticeandgreatlydamagemy
reputationandemploymentprospects.Iwantajurytrial,too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
508
verint user agreement
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 8:40 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
HiMs.Roberts,
Sorry,don'tmeantobeapain,butIDON'TAGREEtothisVerintsoItware
policy...itscallsIorallowignthemtoinspectmyoIIiceandpayingthemIor
theirinspectionIeesandallthisotherstuIIthatissoundulyoppressive.Its
justanAVIIile,itsasthoughtheydisableitjustIorthepurposeoIpreventing
youIromwatchingthemovieunlessyouagreetotheiroppressive,onerous,
contractterms,andhowdoesthisbeneIittaxpayers?Authenticationissues
canbeaddressedthroughthetraditionalmeans,Idon'tseethevalueadd.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
509
RE: motion for continuance
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 1:33 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
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.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
510
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:59:37 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
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 Judge 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 view the 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:05:28 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
DearMs.Roberts,
IwishtoobtainacopyoIthevideoandwillgotheyouroIIice'slobby
shortlyhopingtobeprovidedone.Pleaserespondtomeregardingmy
requestIromacontinuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
511
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:40:44 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: colterp@reno.gov
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart
employee) and Officers Crawford and Braunworth from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the
video at the first trial date from the Walmart employee and it is available for you to view or get a copy. You
may want to view it at the City Attorney's Office as the CD doesn't seem to work on everyone's computer.
Penie Colter will be able to assist you. I am not clear on what you think my duty is, but I know what my duty
is and I will not debate it via email. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:30:36 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
ThanksMs.Roberts,
CanyoutellmewhothethreewitnessesarethatshoweduponNovember
14th,2011Iortrialat1pm?IdidobtainacopyoIthe"discovery"about
theseconddayitwasmadeavailabletomeIromyouroIIiceinperson.At
thattime,novideoevidencewasmadeavailabletome.Istherenowsome
videooraudiorecordingtowhichImaybeprovidedaccess?Wouldyou
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
512
mindjustemailingmethenamesoItheintendedwitnesses.Doyou
believeyoudonothaveadutytomakeareasonablydiligentinquiryoI
eitherWalmartorRSICdoassessthevalidityoIthemattersmentionedin
mylastemail,ietheretaliatorymotivevisavisWalmartandorthe
impermissiblesearch/42USCSec1983policemisconductoItheRSIC
oIIicers?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,
18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyou
arenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIied
thatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyaction
basedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthe
namedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjrom
dsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,
coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormaton
srohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),
leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjorm
mmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not
calling any additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not
obligated to send you an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation
or interviews. Pam Roberts.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
513
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Ms.Roberts,
ThanksIoryourreply.PleaseascertainIromWalmartwhetherany
Walmartemployeeshad,previoustothisincident,madeanythreats
respectingmaliciouslyhavingtheaccusedbannedIromWalmart's
incidenttoadisagreementoverWalmartstaIIandmanagerscurious
practiceoI"Iorgetting"theirreturnpolicy,despitesomeindividuals
havingworkedthereover10years....Further,Ibelieveitrelevantand
partoIyourdutytoprovideexculpatoryinIormationtoascertainwhether
theRSICpoliceoIIicermadestatementswhereinheattemptedtocoerce
aconsenttoanimpermissiblesearchandIurtherbuttressedhisprobable
causeIindingtoconductasearchincidenttoarrest,expressly,inwords,
totheaccused,upontheaccused'sIailuretoconsenttosuchasearch.
PleaseprovidealistoIanywitnessesyouintendtocallattrial,including
asummationoIthemattersthewilltestiIyto,inadditiontoproducinga
copyormakingavailableIorreproductionanydocumentation,audio,
video,orothermaterialsintendedtobeusedinanywayattrial.
ThankYou,
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this
afternoon at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
514
I hope your housing situation improves. See you this afternoon. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
DearCounselorRoberts,
IbelieveyouaretheprosecutorIorthecaseagainstme,Statev.
Coughlin,whichIbelieveisstillsetIortrialonNovember14th,Ithink
at1pm.Iamnottotallysurethatthereisadutytoserveyouonsucha
thing,butIIiledaMotionIorContinuanceandaMotionIor
AppointmentoICounselsometimewithinaboutthelast10days,I
wouldsay.IbelieveIattemptedtocopyyouonit,buthaverecently
beenevictedanditsbeenaverydiIIiculttimeintermsoIcoordinating
paperwork,etc.,etc.IapologizeIoranyinconveniencethismayhave
causeyou.IamunsureoIwhethertheNovember14thtrialisstillsetto
takeplace.IbelieveIairnessdictatesthatitbecontinuedtoalater
date.Ihaverequestcounselbuthaveyettoreceiveany,orwait,Iwas
deniedarequesttoreceivecounselbecauseJudgeHowardsaidthereis
nota6thamendmentrighttocounselwhere,eventhoughjailtimeis
technicallyapossibility,thestatedoesnotanticipateseekingjail
time...orsomethinglikethat,however,IIoundsomecasesthatsayI
shouldstillgetcounselappointed,especiallywhereIshowIam
indigent,andIbelieveIqualiIyasindigentrathereasily.Canand
wouldyouagreetoacontinuance?IbelieveItriedtocontactaboutthis
priortoIilingmyRequestIoraContinuance.Imaintainmyinnocence
inthiscaseandIeelanysortoIconviction,especiallyoneinvolvingany
sortoItheItbasedcharge,wouldworkaterribleinjusticeandgreatly
damagemyreputationandemploymentprospects.Iwantajurytrial,
too.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
515
FW: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacy
Act,18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)
only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youare
herebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthe
takingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,
ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneywork
roductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youare
notjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceon
thecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,or
arenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,and
destroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snota
waverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
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.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
516
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
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
DearJudgeHoward,
MyapologiesYourHonor.IhavehadanunlawIulrentdistraintappliedtoall
myoIIiceequipmentandtheIilesnecessarytodeIendthiscaseandproduce
motions,incidenttoasummaryevictionstemmingIromaleasethatwasat
leastinpartcommercial,hadarentescrowdepositIorceduponmein
violationoINevadaLaw,hadallmycomputersprinters,everythingsubject
tothedistraint.Ihaveanetbookitwon'tacceptaprinterandonandon.I
apologize.IdonotethattheRMCrulesallowIorIilingbyIacsimile,though
IgathernottotheIaxnumberlistedIoryoruchambersatwww.nvbar.org.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 3:37 AM
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
517
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us
IwantyoutomoveIoraRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotion
tohavetheJudgmentSetAside.Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver's
licenseproducedtohimatthe6:49markoIYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO!
AndyousubornedhisperjuryonthewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoI
theprosecutorialcodesyouareheldtoandNRCP11.Furher,whatareyou
goingtosaywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceiptappearsonthepurchased
receipt,incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthattheywouldn't,
incombinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombinationwithFrontino
admittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccusedandthe
cashier,incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequanitynumber"practice
commonatWalmart?Further,yourownwitnessadmittedontapeatthetrial
that"hedidn'thaveenoughEVIDENCEtoissueacitationsohearrestedand
didasearchincidenttoarrest"beIoreyouandJudgeHowardcouldjumpin
andcuthimoII.That'sgametime.Iwillavalancheyouwithmotionand
lawsuitsiIyoudon'tIixthisdeIamationyouIundedandsupported,whatwith
youlittle30minuteswitnesscoachingsessionthatkeptalltheotherlitigants
waitingIrom1:00to1:30whileyoucalledinFrontino,CrawIord,and
Braunworth.WaittillIgetthevideoIromWalmartthatFrontinoishiding
Iromyou,anddon'tyoujustwanttoknowiIsomeaudioexistsoIthe
interrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
518
FW: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 3:45 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us
WespendhalIthe"trial"arguingaboutwhetheryourlyingcopshadenough
"inIormation"toissueacitation,andhow,becausetheydidn't,theyhadto
conductasearchincidenttoarrest,yetYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO,THAT
YOUEFFINGPRODUCED!SHOWSTHEACCUSEDHANDINGTHEM
ADRIVERSLICENSEANDTHEMCALLINGITINTOCHECKFOR
PRIORS(THATWILLSHOWUPINDISPATCHREPORTSANDOTHER
DOCUMENTATION).THESEKEYSTONECOPEFFUPSHAVE
DEFAMEDMEANDYOUSPONSOREDIT,CULTIVATEDIT,AND
SMUGLYTALKSMACKTOMEINCOURTABOUTMYNEEDINGTO
USETHEBATHROOMANDHOWYOUHAVE"HADTWOKIDSAND
CANHOLDMYBLADDER"GENDERSEXUALHARRASSMENT.I
GETEVICTED(WRONGLY,COMMERCIALLEASESPRECLUDE
SUMMARYEVICTIONWHERENOCAUSEEVICTIONNOTICESARE
ALLTHATISSERVED)BYTHERICHARDG.HILLGANGBANG
EXPRESS,WHILEBEINGASSAULTEDBYNEVADACOURT
SERVICES,WHICHLISTSMYCOURTAPPOINTEDATTORNEYLEW
TAITELAS"ASSOCIATEDWITH"ONTHENEVADACOURT
SERVICESWEBSITE,LEWAGREESTOACONTINUANCEOFTHE
TRESPASSTRIALBECAUSERICHARDHILLNEEDSTOGOONA
VACATION,BUTICAN'TGETAFUCKINGCONTINUANCEWHERE
RICHARDHILLISAPPLYINGANUNLAWFULRENTDISTRAINTTO
MYEVIDENCETODEFENDAGAINSTTHISBULLSHITFUCKING
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
519
WALMARTFIASCO!THENAFTERTAITELAGRESSTOA
CONTINUANCE,ONLYTHENAFTERREVIEWINGMYPERSONAL
FILE,HEFIGURESOUTIAMSUINGHIM,ORATLEASTNEVADA
COURTSSERVICES.SOMEBODYPUTANICECOLLECTIONOF
VIDEOSUPONYOUTUBEABOUTIT,SOMECRAZY
DOCUMENTARYFILMMAKER.YOUOUGHTTOBEASHAMED.
ICANGIVEYOUUNTILTUESDAY,AFTERTHAT,IHAVETOMAKE
MYMOVESANDFILEMYMOTIONS.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us
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
IwantyoutomoveIoraRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotion
tohavetheJudgmentSetAside.Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver's
licenseproducedtohimatthe6:49markoIYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO!
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
520
AndyousubornedhisperjuryonthewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoI
theprosecutorialcodesyouareheldtoandNRCP11.Furher,whatareyou
goingtosaywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceiptappearsonthepurchased
receipt,incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthattheywouldn't,
incombinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombinationwithFrontino
admittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccusedandthe
cashier,incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequanitynumber"practice
commonatWalmart?Further,yourownwitnessadmittedontapeatthetrial
that"hedidn'thaveenoughEVIDENCEtoissueacitationsohearrestedand
didasearchincidenttoarrest"beIoreyouandJudgeHowardcouldjumpin
andcuthimoII.That'sgametime.Iwillavalancheyouwithmotionand
lawsuitsiIyoudon'tIixthisdeIamationyouIundedandsupported,whatwith
youlittle30minuteswitnesscoachingsessionthatkeptalltheotherlitigants
waitingIrom1:00to1:30whileyoucalledinFrontino,CrawIord,and
Braunworth.WaittillIgetthevideoIromWalmartthatFrontinoishiding
Iromyou,anddon'tyoujustwanttoknowiIsomeaudioexistsoIthe
interrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
521
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
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
WespendhalIthe"trial"arguingaboutwhetheryourlyingcopshadenough
"inIormation"(theirdeIinitionincludedpersonallyidentiIiableinIormationto
identiIytheaccusedsuIIicientlytoissueacitation,ACURRENTNEVADA'S
DRIVERSLICENSEWOULDDOJUSTFINEONTHATACCOUNT)to
issueacitation,andhow,becausetheydidn't,theyhadtoconductasearch
incidenttoarrest,yetYOUROWNDAMNVIDEO(ORRATHER,
WALMART'S,BUTITSHARDTOSEEWHEREYOUGUYSENDAND
WALMARTBEGINS),THATYOUEFFINGPRODUCED(ORRATHER
THERENOCITYATTORNEYPRODUCEDAFTERTHEBOYSAT
WALMART"COMPILED"VIDEO,WHICHCURIOUSLYDIDCONTAIN
AFUCKINGSECONDOFVIDEOSHOWINGANYOFTHEALLEGED
CONCEALINGORCONSUMINGTHEITEMSINQUESTION!SHOWS
THEACCUSEDHANDINGTHEMADRIVERSLICENSEANDTHEM
CALLINGITINTOCHECKFORPRIORS(THATWILLSHOWUPIN
DISPATCHREPORTSANDOTHERDOCUMENTATION).THESE
KEYSTONECOPEFFUPSHAVEDEFAMEDMEANDYOU
SPONSOREDIT,CULTIVATEDIT.
ICANGIVEYOUUNTILTUESDAYTOMAKEASTRONGEFFORTTO
CORRECTTHIS,AFTERTHAT,IHAVETOMAKEMYMOVESAND
FILEMYMOTIONS.JUDGEVANWALRAVENWOULDBE
ASHAMEDOFHOWTHISHASBEENHANDLED.
THEOFFICERSAREKAMERONCRAWFORDANDBRAUNWORTH,WHOCAMEACROSSA
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
522
FARMORECOGNITIVELYIMPAIREDINCOURTTHANHEDIDINPERSON,TOANEXTENT
THATWOULDSUGGESTHEWASDISHONORINGTHELEGALPROCESSBYHIS
"PARTICIPATION",ANDITSALLONTAPE.
IwantyoutomoveIor,ORASKTHECITYATTORNEYTOMOVE
FOR,aRule59MotiontoSetAsideorsomeothermotiontohavethe
JudgmentSetAside.Yourcopwitnessclearlyhadadriver'slicense
producedtohimatthe6:49markoIWALMART'SOWNDAMNVIDEO!
AndyousubornedhisperjuryonthewitnessstandinviolationoImanyoI
thePOLICECODESYOUAREHELDTO.Further,whatareyougoingto
saywhentheUPCIromtheallegedreceiptappearsonthepurchasedreceipt,
incombinationwithFrontino'sadamantassertionthattheywouldn't,in
combinationwiththesameIromCrawIord,incombinationwithFrontino
admittinghecouldn'thearwhatwassaidbetweentheaccusedandthe
cashier,incombinationwiththe"sameUPC,hitthequantitynumber"
practicecommonatWalmart?Further,yourOIIicerCrawIord,asawitness,
admittedontapeatthetrialthat"hedidn'thaveenoughEVIDENCEtoissue
acitationsohearrestedanddidasearchincidenttoarrest"togetmore
evidencebeIoreRenoCityAttorneyRobertsandJudgeHowardcouldjump
inandcuthimoII.That'sgametime.Frontino,CrawIord,andBraunworth,
sataroundjokinglikegooIyIratboysthepreceeding30minutesinthe
hallwayinIrontoIthecourtroom,likeagroupoI3buddieswhohangoutall
thetime,except,2getpaidbyyou,andonegetspaidbyWal-Mart,whopay
thepeoplewhopayyou.ThenallthreeoIthemwaitaroundthehearthe
verdictat8pmhoursaIterFrontinoandCrawIordIinishedtestiIying.
Maybethedon'trealizeJudgeHowardwasn'trulingontheAppeal,theRule
59,60motions,MotionIorReconsideration,deIamation,wrongIularrest,
Ialseimprisonmentlawsuits,etc.Fixitnowwhileyoucan.WaittillIgetthe
videoIromWalmartthatFrontinoishidingIromyou,anddon'tyoujustwant
toknowiIsome"other"audioorvideoexistsoItheinterrogation.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
523
discovery request;
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/07/11 1:16 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
DearMs.Roberts,
InthediscoveryyouprovidedinthismatterthereisaIaxIromtheRSICto
youthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearstobe"page1"Iollowedbypages
withoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...Iwanttheentire
contentsoIanythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouoranyone
connectedwiththeRenoCityAttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt.
Further,IwantallmediaprovidedbyWalmart,andIquestionwhyyou
needed45minuteswiththethreewitnesswhotestiIiedattheNovember30th,
2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm.Additionally,youareherebyserveda
NRCP11motionrequiringyoutocorrecttheperjuryyousubornedincourt
withrespecttothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyoIOIIicerCrawIordvisa
visthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
Further,IspokewithMr.Hazlett-StevensshortlyaItertheSeptember9,2011
arrestinthismatterdemandingacopyoIalldocumentationordiscoverythat
Ihadanyrightto.IwastoldIwouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreview
suchmaterialspriortothearraignment,whichwasnotsetIoraIull30days
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
524
outIromthearrest.DoInothavearighttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrest
report,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoIthearrest?TheIaxtoyour
oIIiceIromtheRSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywrittendemandsand
requestsIorsuchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremetwithreIusalsto
providesuchmaterials,and,insomecase,claimsthatyouroIIicedidnot
evenhavesuchmaterialsandwouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment.
Further,IspokewithandprovidedwrittenrequeststoRSICSargent
Avansinowithin2daysaIterthearrestandhereIusedtoprovidethe
materials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt.Pleasealertthecourttoany
wrongdoingonyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyortheRSICpartinthis
regardinprejudicingmyabilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingthe
productionoIessentialdiscovery,thenreIusingtoagreetoacontinuanceat
trial,aIterearlierprovidingawrittenagreementtosuchacontinuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
525
RE: your failure to propound discovery
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/08/11 3:44 PM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,
WediddeIinatelytalkonthephoneregardingthemattertowhichIdonot
haverepresentation,theRSICarrestcase11DR221762IIorwhichDeputy
CityAttorneyPamRobertsistheprosecutor.IwasdeniedmySixth
AmendmentrighttocourtappointeddeIensecounselinthatmatter,and
representedmyselI.Assuch,thereisnoruleprecludedyouIrom
communicatingwithmeabout11DR221762I.Youdidspeakwithme
aboutthat.IcalledyouwithinacoupledaysoItheSeptember9th,2011
arrestinthatmatterdescribingmyexigentdesiretoobtainacopyoIthe
discovery.IwastransIerredtoyouandwespokeatlengthaboutit,you
describingwhyyoucouldnotgiveittome.Isityourcontentionthatyour
oIIiceortheStatedoesnothaveadutytoprovidethedeIendantacopyoI
certainpiecesoIdiscoverywithin48hoursoIarrest?
RegardingthematterIorwhichMr.PuentestookthebatonIromMr.Taitel,is
itcleartoyouhowMr.Taitelwassomehow,apparently,abletoassenttoa
continuance,onlyto,apparently,IindsomeneedtopassthebatontoMr.
Puentesvery,veryshortlythereaIter?WhydidMr.Taitel'sstatusasattorney
oIrecordchange?WasitduetoaconIlict?Whydidn'tthatconIlictprevent
Mr.TaitelIromabstainingIromassentingtothecontinuanceinthetrespass
case,whichwasscheduledIortrialDecember13,2011?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
526
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:34:25 -0800
From: Hazlett-StevensC@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
Deputy City Attorney
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
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.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
527
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 01:48:03 -0800
Subject: your failure to propound discovery
DearMr.Hazlett-Stevens,
IamwritingtorequestacopyoIanyandalldiscovery,pleadings,documentation,
correspondences,ormediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainstmeIorwhich
LewTaitelwasapparentlymycourtappointedattorney,butwhomnolongeris.Further,I
wishtobecopiedoneverythingpastandpresentinanywayrelatedtothismatteruntil
andaIterIprocureanotherattorney.Ididnotagreetothecontinuanceyousought,nor
wasIinIormedyouwereseekingit.IIinditparticularlytroublingthatacontinuancewas
grantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhoisapplyinganunlawIulrentdistrainton
bothmyclientIiles,personalproperty,ANDTHEEXCLUPATINGEVIDENCEINEED
TODEFENDMYSELFINTHEPETITLARCENYCASEFORWHICHIDETAILTHE
COMPLAINTSIHAVEAGAINSTYOUANDYOUROFFICE'SHANDLING
BELOW.NOCONTINUANCEWASGRANTEDORAGREEDTOATTRIALBY
THERMCORMS.ROBERTS,PERHAPSSHEWASTOOBUSYALLEGEDLY
SUBORNINGTHEPERJURYOFRSICOFFICERKAMERONCRAWFORD.
InthediscoveryyouroIIiceprovidedinthepetitlarcenymatterMs.Robertsprosecuted
againstmethereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearsto
be"page1"Iollowedbypageswithoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...I
wanttheentirecontentsoIanythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouoranyone
connectedwiththeRenoCityAttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt.Further,Iwantall
mediaprovidedbyWalmart,andIquestionwhyyouneeded45minuteswiththethree
witnesswhotestiIiedattheNovember30th,2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm.
Additionally,youareherebyservedaNRCP11motionrequiringyoutocorrectthe
perjuryyousubornedincourtwithrespecttothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyoI
OIIicerCrawIordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
Further,Ispokewithyou,Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,shortlyaItertheSeptember9,2011arrest
inthismatterdemandingacopyoIalldocumentationordiscoverythatIhadanyrightto.
IwastoldIwouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriortothe
arraignment,whichwasnotsetIoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest.DoInothavea
righttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrestreport,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoIthe
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
528
Here is service of the Motion for a New Trial, Set Aside, Va
arrest?TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromtheRSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywrittendemands
andrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremetwithreIusalstoprovidesuch
materials,and,insomecase,claimsthatyouroIIicedidnotevenhavesuchmaterialsand
wouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment.Further,Ispokewithandprovidedwritten
requeststoRSICSargentAvansinowithin2daysaIterthearrestandhereIusedtoprovide
thematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt.Pleasealertthecourttoanywrongdoing
onyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyortheRSICpartinthisregardinprejudicingmy
abilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingtheproductionoIessentialdiscovery,thenreIusing
toagreetoacontinuanceattrial,aIterearlierprovidingawrittenagreementtosucha
continuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 9:52 PM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
529
IsitabouttimeIoryoutogetthatCD/DVDthatWalmar'tsAPguyFaustino
handedthetwoRenoSparksIndianColonyoIIicerswhentheywereleading
thesuspectawayincuIIs...notthevideoyougavemeoIslingblade
badgeringthelawyerIgotthosetwovideosyougavemewhichjustthe
badgeringintheinterrogationroom.Iamtalkingaboutthecd/dvdthat
Walmart'sguygavethemastheywerewalkingout....Doesn'titseemlikeyou
reallyneedtogetthatnow,tostayontherightsideoINiIong?You
rememberNiIong,don'tyou.Walmartapguysitthereonthestand,under
penaltyoIperjuryandtestiIythatnovideowascollectedinanywayrelated
tomeorthiscaseasideIromthe2interrogationroomvideosyouprovided
(withahighlysuspect14mb"codec"programrequiredtoviewthe
videos....canyouindicatewhythatisnecessarytowatchasimpleold.avi
Iile?).
whydidyousuborntheperjuryoIboththewalmartguyandtheoIIicers
regardingnoothervideoexisting?Ican'tIigurethatoneout.Ms.Roberts,
don'tyoupracticeinRMCquiteabit?MaybeIamconIused,butdoesn'tthe
RMCrulespermitservingagovernmentattorneysuchasyourselIviaemail?
Whatdoyouhaveagainstemail?ItiseconomicalIorthoseoIusewhodon't
havesuchpubliclargessetoworkwith.HereisserviceoItheMotionIora
NewTrial,SetAside,Vacate,etc.,etc:
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=43084638f32f5f28&resid=43084638F32F5F28!1031&parid=root
Its only something like 1,000 pages.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
530
FW: records request
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
Date: Mon,
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 12/13/11 4:02 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
2 attachments
RECORD_REQUEST_FORM walmart RMC 11 CR 22176 IC 110627 trial cd and orders to RMC 12 8 11
signed.pdf (453.4 KB) , RECORD_REQUEST_FORM_2010[1] rmc trespass 11 13 11 records request 11 CR
22185 City of Reno v Coughlin signed.pdf (510.9 KB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
531
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov
Subject: records request
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:02:02 -0800
Let this writing also werve as the cover letter called for in RMCR 5(D):
attorney's name,: Zach Coughlin, Esq.
the firms name: Zach Coughlin, Esq.
address, 817 N. Virginia St. #2
fax number 949 667 7402
telephone number: 775 229 6737
the attorneys state bar number: NV Bar No: 9473
DearMr.Fisk,
IreallyneedacopyoItheaudiooItheTrialin11CR22176andacopyoI
boththeContemptOrderandtheGuiltyVerdict(VeronicasaidshewouldIax
oneandthattheRMCneversentorservedmeapapercopybeyondshoving
somepapersinmyIaxwhenIwasbeinghandcuIIedthentakingthemaway
IrommeseparatelyinahuIIwhenIstatedthatImightliketoknowwhatit
wasIwastosignorreadit(or6thAmendment,etc).However,Ihave
receivednoIaxoIthoseOrdersasVeronicasaidshewouldsendme
yesterday.ShesaiditinanangryunproIessionaltoneandIamhereby
complaininginwritingaboutthatandMarshallMonte'sangrythreatening
toneandlanguagetomeatthearraingmentoIOctober11,2011.Please
placeacopyoIthisintheirpersonnelIilesandtherecordinbothoImyCR
RMCcases.
IwastoldbyaRMCIilingoIIicecounterclerkyesterdaythatIwasnot
allowedtogetacopyoItheaudiooImy1130,2011hearingbeIoreJudge
Howard,thatIwouldonlybeabletogetatranscriptaIterusingtheone
transcriptionisttheRMCapprovesoIandaIterpayingherasubstantial
amountoImoneyupIront,butthatultimately,theaudiowouldneverbe
madeavailabletome.
Isthisthecase?PleaserespondinwritingoremailmeacopyoItheaudio
IilesandthepdI'sorwhateverIiletypetheContemptOrderandGuilty
Verdictetc,in11CR22176arein,inadditionpleaseprovidetheMotionto
WithdrawandNoticeoIappearancein11CR22185byTaitelandthen
Puentes.IsentyouthevideoexhibitswiththesamemysteriousVerintcodec
thattheRMCprovidedme.Whyasimple.aviIileneedssomemysterious
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
532
codecthatisabout13mbinsizeistrulyamysterytome.
12 11 11 Defendants Motion for New Trial, Set Aside, Vacate Judgment/Conviction of underlying crime and
Contempt in Court's Presence finding/ IFP Petition/ Motion for Reconsideration/Notice of Appeal, Case Statment
in case: city of reno v coughlin RMC 11 CR 22176; Records Request form Defendant and Request for
Transcription at Public's Expense and Request for a copy of the audio recording of the Trial of 11 30, 2011 1:45
pm to end in RMC 11 CR 22176.
Additionally, I never received service of any Notice of Appearance nor a Motion to Withdraw by Lew Taitel, Esq.
the attorney appointed to represent me as required by RMCR Rule 3: Authorization to Represent
A. Attorneys representing defendants shall promptly serve written notice of
their appearance with the City Attorney and file the same with the Court.
B. An attorney desiring to withdraw from a case shall file a motion with the
court and serve the City Attorney with the same. The court may rule on
the motion or set a hearing."
Further, RMCR state: "Rule 5: Motions by Facsimile
A. All rules and procedures that apply to motions filed in person at the
court shall also apply to motions filed by facsimile, except as otherwise
specified in this rule.
B. All persons are eligible to use motion-by-facsimile procedures.
C. All motions filed by facsimile must be accompanied by a cover sheet
which must include the persons name, address, fax number and
telephone number.
D. All facsimile motions filed by an attorney must include the attorney's
name, the firms name, address, fax number and telephone number. In
addition, the attorneys state bar number must be conspicuously
displayed on the cover sheet.
E. All motions filed by facsimile must be accompanied by proof of service.
Service may be accomplished by facsimile when the receiving party is a
governmental agency, an attorney, or with the consent of the receiving
party. If service of the motion is accomplished by facsimile the 3-day
allowance for mailing shall not be computed into the time for response.
F. A defense attorney filing a motion in the first instance must also file a
proper authorization to represent.
G. Any motion received by the court after 4:30 p.m. or on a non-court day
shall be filed on the following court day.
Rule 6: Continuances
No continuance shall be granted, including a stipulated continuance, except
for good cause. A motion or stipulation for continuance must state the reason
therefore and whether or not any continuance has previously been sought or
granted."
Let this writing also werve as the cover letter called for in RMCR 5(D):
attorney's name,: Zach Coughlin, Esq.
the firms name: Zach Coughlin, Esq.
address, 817 N. Virginia St. #2
fax number 949 667 7402
telephone number: 775 229 6737
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
533
the attorneys state bar number: NV Bar No: 9473
And: "Rule 9: Appeals to District Court
Except as otherwise provided in NRS 177.015 a defendant in a criminal action
tried before a Municipal Court Judge may appeal from the final judgment
therein to the Second Judicial District Court, at any time within 10 days from
the date that judgment is rendered."
Judge Howard informed me during his oral pronounce of his Contempt Order and Guilty Verdict on 11 30,2011
that he would afford me an additional 3 non judicial days to file a Notice of Appeal or any other Motion, Request
for Reconsideration, or other Motion seeking relief from his 11 30 2011 rulings on account of his sua sponte, with
no possibility of Stay or prior judicial review ordering his Marshalls to slam be into handcuffs and throw me into
Jail, kind of like in Houston v. 8th Judicial District Court, escept Judge Howard didn't cool down like Judge
Pomeranz did and Houston wasn't defending a criminal charge that carred a possibility of incarceration of
substantial length after being denied his 6th Amendment Right to Counsel. I am formally complaining about
Judge Howard;s conduct in that regard, please place a copy of this in his personnel file and let me know whether
you think a Complaint to the Judicial Discipline Commission would be appropriate, in your professional opinion.
I filed my Notice of Appeal in 11 cr 22176 yesterday with the RMC via email, as previously given permission to do
by the RMC. To the extent that was ineffective, let this writing act as a Notice of Appeal and agreement to pay
all charges required for such.
PROOF OF SERVICE:
I 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 12 11 11 MOtion for New Trial, etc. yesterday to:
Pamela G Roberts
Company: Reno City Attorney's Office - Criminal Divison
Address: P.O. Box 1900
Reno
, NV
89505
Phone Number: 775-334-2050
Fax number: 775-334-2420
Email: robertsp@reno.gov
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
534
RMC 11 CR 22176
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/15/11 11:59 PM
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov;
renomunirecords@reno.gov; lopezv@reno.gov
z..|c..||..,r,.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
r.xcovrrsarr
r.r.r-.-..-..,,za..
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
535
o..rVc-..|
r.xo.rVc....-a-...||..
rr..c..,...-...c..||..rVc..crzz.-zi
V........-...|,....-...-.|..a..|-...-
DearRMC,
IdonotmeantobedisrespectIulincontactingthecourtviaemail.Ihavebeensostamped
outbytheeventsoIthelastIewmonthsthatitsallIcandototrytoprotectmyrightstoget
inIormationandmediatothecourtinmyattemptstoaccessjustice. Veronica Lopez told me on
the phone on Monday of this week that she would fax me a copy of the Order and Contempt finding from the 11
30, 2011 Trial, yet I have not received any such fax. I have not received any order in any form, not on my release
from the 3 days summary incarceration, not ever. The RMC confirmed there has been no Notice of Entry of any
order in their docket or anything, etc.
IbelievetheIollowingshouldbeaddedtorecordandpresentsastrongargumentIora
conIlictoIinterestorother60(b)basisIorsettingasidetheverdictandcontemptOrderin
RMC11CR221762I.Ididnotpleadguiltyinthatcase,andanyRMCrecordthat
suggeststhatiscompletelyinaccurate.PleaseletmeknowiIyourrecordsindicateIplead
guiltyinthatmatter.Further,IhaveneverbeenprovidedacopyoItheGuiltyVerdict/Order
inthismatter,IrequestedontobeemailedtomeandsentintheUSPSmail.Pleaseserve
meacopyoItheorder,preIerablybyemailandUSPSmail.Further,the"RMC'soIIicial
courttranscriptionist"inIormedmeyesterdaythatshecouldnotquotemeoracceptan
moneyIrommeIorthetranscriptonappeal.FurtherIhavebeentoldbycourtstaIIthatI
wouldneverbeprovidedaccesstotheaudiorecordingoItheTrialoI1130,2011.Ibelieve
Ihavearighttoit,andneeditonanexigentbasisinconnectionwiththevariousmotionsI
have,will,orintendtotoIilechallengingthedecisioninthiscase.TheRMCIilingoIIice
inIormedmetherehasbeennoNoticeoIEntryoIOrderinthismatteratthispoint.
T
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
536
FW: RMC 11 CR 22176
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 12/16/11 12:00 AM
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov;
renomunirecords@reno.gov; lopezv@reno.gov
1 attachment
emergency filing rmc 11 cr 22176 12 15 11.pdf (260.9 KB)
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
537
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: howardk@reno.gov; ballardd@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov;
lopezv@reno.gov
Subject: RMC 11 CR 22176
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:59:45 -0800
z..|c..||..,r,.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
538
r.xcovrrsarr
r.r.r-.-..-..,,za..
o..rVc-..|
r.xo.rVc....-a-...||..
rr..c..,...-...c..||..rVc..crzz.-zi
V........-...|,....-...-.|..a..|-...-
DearRMC,
IdonotmeantobedisrespectIulincontactingthecourtviaemail.Ihavebeensostamped
outbytheeventsoIthelastIewmonthsthatitsallIcandototrytoprotectmyrightstoget
inIormationandmediatothecourtinmyattemptstoaccessjustice. Veronica Lopez told me on
the phone on Monday of this week that she would fax me a copy of the Order and Contempt finding from the 11
30, 2011 Trial, yet I have not received any such fax. I have not received any order in any form, not on my release
from the 3 days summary incarceration, not ever. The RMC confirmed there has been no Notice of Entry of any
order in their docket or anything, etc.
IbelievetheIollowingshouldbeaddedtorecordandpresentsastrongargumentIora
conIlictoIinterestorother60(b)basisIorsettingasidetheverdictandcontemptOrderin
RMC11CR221762I.Ididnotpleadguiltyinthatcase,andanyRMCrecordthat
suggeststhatiscompletelyinaccurate.PleaseletmeknowiIyourrecordsindicateIplead
guiltyinthatmatter.Further,IhaveneverbeenprovidedacopyoItheGuiltyVerdict/Order
inthismatter,IrequestedontobeemailedtomeandsentintheUSPSmail.Pleaseserve
meacopyoItheorder,preIerablybyemailandUSPSmail.Further,the"RMC'soIIicial
courttranscriptionist"inIormedmeyesterdaythatshecouldnotquotemeoracceptan
moneyIrommeIorthetranscriptonappeal.FurtherIhavebeentoldbycourtstaIIthatI
wouldneverbeprovidedaccesstotheaudiorecordingoItheTrialoI1130,2011.Ibelieve
Ihavearighttoit,andneeditonanexigentbasisinconnectionwiththevariousmotionsI
have,will,orintendtotoIilechallengingthedecisioninthiscase.TheRMCIilingoIIice
inIormedmetherehasbeennoNoticeoIEntryoIOrderinthismatteratthispoint.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
539
emergency filings
T
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 12/16/11 7:55 AM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
2 attachments
12 16 11 emergency filing with fax cover sheet rmc 11 cr 22176.pdf (330.0 KB) , fax cover sheet and
notice of denial of service clarification motion.pdf (202.1 KB)
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
540
FW: 121 River Rock
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sat 12/17/11 12:15 AM
To: ballardd@reno.gov; howardk@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov; hazlett-
stevensc@reno.gov; puenteslaw@aol.com
Unbelievable. The idea that exculpating evidence is being withheld under some "lien" is transmitted into the
universe, next thing I know, my law office is broken in to and the Richard B. Hill gang is stil asserting a lien on
property that was stolen, in my opinion, as a result of their own negligence, leaving a window air conditioner unit
in a window, without even putting a window jam between the top of the sill and lower pain, facing a sidewalk a
block from the Lakemill Lodge and across from City Center Apartments, great. Great. And I still have not been
faxed or appropriately served the Order and Contempt Order I was told would be faxed to me.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
541
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com; knielsen@richardhillaw.com; sgallagher@richardhillaw.com
Subject: RE: 121 River Rock
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:43:38 -0800
Dear Mr. Baker,
I drove by the property recently and saw you had added boarding up the front door on very, very recently.
Unfortunately, your client and your firm, despite billing up some $1,060 for "securing" the property on top of
charging $900 for storage for what could fit inside a 10x20 foot storage shed, never once providing an inventory,
and contributing to a wrongful arrest and defamation causing me and my clients great damage, failed to take
even basic steps to secure the property, despite my making numerous written requests that you do so, including,
but not limited to, taking the damn window unit air conditioner out of the window facing the sidewalk on the
side of the house very close to the damn Lakemill Lodge, or even putting a strong stick in between the bottom
sliding window pain and the top of the sill to prevent someone from simply pushing in the window unit air
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
542
conditioner and pushing the window up to gain access. Further, a blanket that was on the orange circular couch
is clearly in the flower bed in front of the house. Additionally, there are reports that someone with your office
gave someone a mattress from the inventory of Coughlin Memory Foam (a Nevada licensed business located at
the property) and an expensive mattress platform has clearly been damaged and placed in the flower bed as
well, in addition to one of the wooden porch shades being removed from the front porch. You and your client
are, of course, liable for all of this.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: rhill@richardhillaw.com
Subject: 121 River Rock
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:50:02 -0800
Mr. Coughlin:
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
543
I will fax this to Ms. Roberts and the RMC as well, this is a courtesy copy
The River Rock property has been broken into. We believe the break-in occurred sometime on Monday,
December 12, 2011. There appear to be items missing, including the TV in the living room, perhaps a computer
monitor, and perhaps some stereo equipment. I cant tell what else. The contents of the residence appear to
have been rifled through.
I am providing you with this information as a courtesy. This email does NOT constitute permission for you to go
to the River Rock property.
Casey D. Baker, Esq.
Richard G. Hill, Chartered
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858
Email: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
CONFIDENTIAL:ATTORNEYWORKPRODUCT;ATTORNEY-CLIENTPRIVILEGE
Thise-mailmaycontainlegallyprivilegedorconIidentialinIormation.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipient,pleasedonotread,copy,use,ordisclosethis
communicationtoanyoneotherthantheintendedrecipient.IIyouhavereceivedthismessageinerror,pleasenotiIythesenderanddeletetheemailmessageIrom
yoursystem.Thankyou.
Circular230Notice.
ToensurecompliancewithrequirementsimposedbytheIRS,weinIormyouthatanyU.S.Iederaltaxadvicecontainedinthiscommunication(includingany
attachments)isnotintendedorwrittentobeused,andcannotbeused,IorthepurposeoI(i)avoidingpenaltiesundertheInternalRevenueCodeor(ii)promoting,
marketingorrecommendingtoanotherpartyanytransactionormatteraddressedherein.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/19/11 5:15 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 12 19 11 filing with 3 exhibits.pdf (9.1 MB)
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
544
no reply from Transcriptionist
I will fax this to Ms. Roberts and the RMC as well, this is a courtesy copy
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/21/11 12:02 AM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
545
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
DearRMC,
ItismyunderstandingtheJudgeHoward'sorderregardingemaildoesnotextendtothe
addresstowhichIamsendingthiscorrespondence:renomunirecordsreno.govwhichis
theemailaddressIilingoIIicesupervisorDonnaBallardindicatedtomewasacceptableIor
sendingcorrespondenceandIilingstotheRMCinlieuoIIaxes.Iamwritingbecausethe
emailaddressIwasprovidedIorRMC"oIIicialtranscriptionist"PamLongoniyieldeda
"returntosender/Iailedtransmission"messagewhenIwrotetotheemailaddressprovided
Iorher:plongonicharter.net.Further,pleaseseetheIorwardedemailbelowthatIsentto
Ms.Longoni.IhavenotreceivedareturncallIromherregardingmyrecentmessagesto
her.IwastoldbyaRMCIilingoIIicecounteremployeethatImustgetthetranscript
throughMs.Longoni,assheisthe"oIIicialtranscriptionist"IortheRMC.PleaseconIirm
thatIamnoabletohaveanothercertiIiedcourtreporterortranscriptionistcreatethe
oIIicialtranscriptandindicatebywhatdatethismustbedone,howitmustbedone,etc.
IwastoldbyRMCIilingoIIicestaII,includingMs.Ballard,thattheRMCwouldnotaccept
anyIilingsIees,bonds,oranyotherpaymentsIrommeinrelationtotheunderlyingcase11
CR221762IortheappealoIthatmattergiventhattheRMCwasholdingthebailmoneyI
paidintothecourt.IIthisisnotthecaseoriIImustpayanythingintotheRMCtoensure
thatmyappealgoesIorward,pleaseindicateasmuchinwritingandwithparticularity.III
amabletouseanyothertranscriptionistsandortheRMChasalistoIsuchwithcontact
inIormation,pleaseprovidesuchinwriting.
Sincerely,
/s/ZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin,DeIendant/Appellant
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
546
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: plongoni@charter.net
Subject: where to pay and how much
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:44:37 -0800
DearMs.Longoni,
IhaveleItyouseveralmessages.IwishtopaywhateveritisIhavetopaytogetthis
appealtranscriptgoingandtopreserveallmyrightstoreviewoIthedecisioninRMC11cr
22176.Further,IwouldlikeacopyoItheaudioIromthehearingassoonaspossible.
PleaseprovidespeciIicdetailedinstructionsastohowtopayandhowmuchandanything
elseIneedtodo.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:775229-6737
Iax:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
NevadaBarNo:9473
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
547
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
548
EXHIBIT #2
EXHIBIT #2
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:48:12 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2730987
549
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
Document Code: 1520
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant Zach Coughlin
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: CR11-2064
DEPT. NO: 10
DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ., being Iirst duly sworn, deposes and under penalty
oI perjury avers:
1. I am a resident oI the City oI Reno, County oI Washoe, State oI Nevada, and over 18 years
oI age. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, except those matters stated on
inIormation and belieI, and as to those items I believe them to be true. This declaration is made in
support oI Appellant's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal, and represents my testimony iI
called on to present same in court.
- 1
550
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
2. I am an attorney duly licensed as such by the State oI Nevada to practice beIore all courts
oI this State and beIore the United States Patent and Trademark OIIice, and the United States
Bankruptcy Court Ior the District oI Nevada.
3. My oIIice represents the Appellant, Zach Coughlin, in this matter.
4. My oIIice was never properly served with the instant motion by mail or hand-delivery. CI.,
NRCP 5.
5. I wrote to the Reno Municipal Court at the email address listed Ior correspondence on their
website: renomunirecordsreno.gov in addition to emailing back and Iorth with and speaking on
the phone with Reno Municipal Court "Senior Court Specialist" Donna Ballard, whom identiIied
herselI to me on several occasions as the Filing OIIicer Supervisor, as did several other RMC Iiling
oIIicer personnel. Ms. Ballard gave me permission to Iile papers and pleadings in the RMC via
email to the Iollowing address: RenoMuniRecordsreno.gov. Ms. Ballard assured me that this was
appreciated given that Iaxes did not come through as clearly and that longer Iilings would
unnecessarily tax their Iax machines. Ballard indicated that the Iilings I emailed to her and the
RMC would be printed out and included in the Record on Appeal should an Appeal be necessary or
pursued. However, given the primacy oI a Notice oI Appeal (even where, as here, there was a
timely Iiled tolling motion), I worried that the RMC would suddenly somehow try to assert that the
Iilings I emailed to the authorized RMC email address would not be accepted, and, thereIore, on at
least one occasion, I printed a "Iour page per page" version oI what was Iiled by email, and went
into the RMC and had it Iile stamped, "just in case". Alas, what wound up in the Record on Appeal
was an illegible scanning oI this "Iour page per page" version, not the much clearer "one page per
page" version Ballard promised me would appear in the Record on Appeal.
- 2
551
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
6. It was on December 13th, 2011 when I personally hand delivered that version oI the Notice
oI Appeal to the RMC Ior Iiling, and at that time an RMC Iiling oIIice clerk whom I believe is
named "Tom" conIirmed to me and Ballard that Veronica Lopez has veriIied to him that my Notice
oI Appeal was timely Iiled on that day and that Judge Howard had expressly approved so Iiling a
Notice oI Appeal at that time and ruled that so doing would be and was timely.
7. In accordance with the Iactors enunciated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Brunzell v.
Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 p.2d 31 (1969) and as set Iorth in SCR 155, I show
the Court:
a) I have been practicing law in Nevada Ior approximately 7 years. My practice emphasizes
Iamily law, patent law, Ioreclosure deIense, real estate, real estate litigation, landlord-tenant work,
consumer rights, domestic violence advocacy, employment law, business, business litigation and
general commercial law. My current standard hourly rate is $225.00 per hour. Upon inquiry, I
understand that rates to be well within the range oI Iees charged by other attorneys with comparable
qualiIications in the community Ior similar services. The Iees charged were actually, reasonably and
necessarily incurred.
b) The work that was actually perIormed in connection with the instant opposition is itemized
thusly and has been actually incurred and billed to my client: $1,500.00 Ior preparing and Iiling this
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal, which was necessary and reasonable under the
circumstances.
8. I have personally reviewed all attached exhibits to the opposition reIerenced above, and
each exhibit is a true and correct copy oI what it purports to be.
9. I, Zach Coughlin, do hereby swear, under penalty oI perjury, that the Iollowing excerpt
Irom the end oI the audio record oI the November 30th, 2011 Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176 represents
- 3
552
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
a completely true and accurate transcription (made Irom the CD oI the Trial that the undersigned
purchased Irom the RMC and taken Irom the Iile named: "|MCFTRB|20111130-
203301ccaI9I451ed090" ) oI what was said in open court, on the record, beginning at 8:33:11 pm
on November 30th, 2011 in Judge Howard's court room:
"JH: alright we are back on the record in regard to City v. Zachary Coughlin.
I was admittedly remiss in not advising Mr. Coughlin oI his right to appeal.
We do want to take care oI that now on the record. Mr. Coughlin, you have
the right to appeal the decision oI this Court. You can do so by Iiling a Notice
oI Appeal. Customarily, it's 10 days and thats, uh, I'm sure you are Iully
aware oI that...What I am going to do is grant an extension to that statute in
light oI the Iact that you will not be released Irom custody until December
3rd, so your 10 days will run eIIective December 3rd at 8 pm, so you will
have 10 days Irom that date to Iile a Notice oI Appeal with this Court, now
once you Iile your Notice oI Appeal there are several things that you will have
to do, principal among those is to obtain a copy oI the transcript at your
expense. Once the transcript has been Iorwarded to the District Court, there is
no Trial de novo, you are probably aware that the District Court judge will
review the Iour corners oI the transcript to determine, one, whether this court
has made any legal errors that would justiIy a reversal oI this matter or
whether there is suIIicient evidence within the transcript to justiIy the Iinding
oI guilt that I have made here today. Is there any questions at all with regard
to the appeal process?
ZC: The availability oI a Stay, that I guess would go more towards the
Iinding oI Contempt? Um, when you say "appeal process" are you reIerring
to...?
JH: The Iiling oI appeal in regard to the petit theIt.
ZC: Not in regard to the Contempt?
JH: No, thats a summary proceeding and we are going to go Iorward with
that. One thing that I will say in regard to the petit theIt Trial and subsequent
sentencing, however, its my recollection, improperly, that you had Iailed to
appear at the previous proceeding, and that's not correct, uh, there was another
reason as to why we were unable to proceed, so I am going to delete the 24
hours oI community service, the Iine oI $360 will stand. Alright, any other
questions involving the Appeal process?
ZC: Yes, to the extent my law practice's clients, that their cases will be
unduly prejudiced by your incarcerating me right now...
- 4
553
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
JH: I am standing by that and I wish you would have thought about that aIter
each admonishment that I gave you during the Trial.
ZC: You are saddened by that.
JH: We are in recess. " (commotion oI Marshals can be heard and the audio
recording oI the record oI the Trial ends).
10. However, what is really interesting is that the Reno City Attorney/RMC/ and RSIC Police
all reIused to provide even an arrest report or probable cause sheet Ior one month Iollowing the
September 9, 2011 arrest at the center oI this matter. The Reno City Attorney's oIIice, (including in
a telephone conversation I had with Hazlett-Stevens, Esq.) repeatedly reIused to provide an arrest
report, probable cause sheet etc., indicating that they "did not even have those things" throughout the
period between the 9/9/11 arrest and the court date oI October 10, 2011, despite the Iact that
subsequently propounded discovery Irom Roberts shows the Reno City Attorney's OIIice was Iaxed
these items by the RSIC (an the RSIC, RSIC Sargent Avansino, etc. all gave me the same song and
ance about "we don't have it, can't give it to you even iI we did", etc., etc..
11. RMC Judge Howard runs the Reno Municipal Court with an iron Iist, sentencing
attorneys who say "wow" under their breath upon some incredible departure Irom due process
Iundamentals by Judge Howard to a summary contempt order requiring Judge Howard's Marshals to
essentially gang grope an attorney, knock his laptop out oI his hands so he cannot save his trial
notes, and take him away to a three day bed and breakIast up at 911 Parr Blvd, complete with no
opportunity to make a phone call to arrange the avoidance oI prejudicing client matters. Judge
Howard attempted to speciIy his rationale and basis Ior a summary contempt Iinding by rotely ready
oII some Iorm document or section oI his Bench Book checking a box with some generic
description like "committed contempt contrary to the administration oI justice or in derogation oI the
authority oI the court" in a manner that does not quite satisIies the requirements that Joseph
- 5
554
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
Houston Iought so eloquently Ior in Houston v. Eighth. Judicial District Court, 122 Nev. Adv. Op.
51 (2006). Judge Howard makes Orders Iar exceeding his jurisdiction, Ordering members oI the
public to never contact anyone at all associated with the Reno Municipal Court by email, or even
use general email addresses like renomunirecordsreno.gov, jumping into traIIic cases in other
judges departments to have his Iiling oIIice operatives issue invective and threats, sometimes in the
Iorm oI being accosted by Iive armed strangers demanding to know inIormation to which they have
no right, in an awesome show oI Iorce, power, control, and Iascism. The "Docket" in this matter
contains no indication oI a Notice oI Entry oI Order ever being made in the completely under Judge
Howard's thumb and control "docket" in this matter. Several personnel (including a younger Iemale
I was brought when I asked to veriIy something with a supervisor) in the RMC Filing OIIice
admitted to me that the RMC Iiling oIIice has zero oversight over Judge Howard, nor any system oI
checks and balances, as they entire Iiling oIIice cowers in Iear oI the wrath oI Judge Howard like
some poor battered spouse hoping to avoid another three day trip to the hole Ior some minor
transgression, such as making eye contact with him.
Judge Howard ignored his own "Bench Book" and went so Iar outside his jurisdiction as to
resort to citing a case Irom Michigan Ior the proposition that I, an indigent individual, was not
entitled to appointed counsel where, as here, the charge carried with it the possibility oI jail time.
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. (2006) held that iI the possible sentence includes any
jail time the deIendant must be aIIorded an attorney. One thing is clear, at the conclusion oI
the11/30/11 trial, Judge Howard's Marshal's suddenly assaulted Coughlin, placing him in cuIIs,
reIusing to allow him to save his trial notes on his laptop, then shoved some papers in Coughlin's
Iace, demanding Coughlin sign them without any opportunity to review what they said or know
what they were. As is so typical oI those completely corrupted by their unIettered power, these
- 6
555
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
Marshals quickly were irked at Coughlin's meager attempts to inquire as to what it was they wanted
him to sign, pulling the papers away Irom Coughlin while reIusing to explain at all, mocking him
with their derision and taunts that they would simply "put that you reIused" in the blank on the
Irom....Apparently this shameIul scene is tantamount to service oI an order to some, however, as
Washoe County Jail Records reveal, the belongings Coughlin came with and leIt with incident to his
3 day getaway trip to Parr, courtesy oI Judge Howard's intemperance show conclusively that those
Marshals did not ever leave an Order oI 11/30/11 with Coughlin or in any way allow Coughlin to
maintain possession oI such, or even to later access it.
12. Further, Judge Howard;s Judicial Assistant, upon Coughlin's release Irom WCDC,
reIused to provide Coughlin a copy oI any such Order, then this Veronica Lopez lied to Coughlin,
promising to Iax him a copy in a darkly menacing tone, yet Iailing to ever do so. Further, what oral
pronouncements were issued by Judge Howard at the 11/30/11 Trial's conclusion, certainly did not
reIlect all that was written in the Guilty Verdict and concomitant Summary Contempt Order, as
such, no deadline Ior Iiling an appeal subject to RMCR 9 could begin running until proper service oI
any such Order occurred, something that has yet to be made clear, whether "constructive service" or
otherwise. Prior to divulging the Record on Appeal to the District Court, the RMC Filing OIIice
certainly never let the undersigned see any "docket", much less a certiIied one. Regardless, I was
reIused on multiple instances by RMC Iiling oIIice personnel any copy oI, viewing, or access to the
docket in 11 CR 22176, but the same gentleman clerk (perhaps named "Tom") did conIirm to me, on
December 13th, 2011, I believe, that, as oI that date, there was absolutely no entry or indication
anywhere in his system or any records, electronic or otherwise to which he is normally aIIorded
access to indicate any entries had been made in the docket since prior to the 11/30/11 Trial in that
matter. The undersigned suspects what Judge Howard hates so much about email is that he cannot
- 7
556
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
intimidate a computer into saying something was Iile or received at a diIIerent time than that which
the 1's and 0's oI the computer's processor tell it was the time and date, much less than manner or
content, all oI which is recorded in magniIicent clarity, electronically, when one sends (pursuant to
an express permission to so Iile pleadings in the RMC given by RMC Filing OIIice Supervisor
Donna Ballard) in an emailed pleading.
13. Further, it seems ill advised Ior John Kadlic and the Reno City Attorney's OIIice in
general to remain on this case, his name listed as Iiling pleadings (he is listed with Pam Roberts as
"Attorney's Ior the Respondents" in the instant Motion to Dismiss), as Kadlic has been known to ask
the undersigned's Iamily physician Iather, in Iront oI the undersigned Ior a prescription oI this or
that or to be Iit in here or there and who knows what other weird conIlicts oI interest (ie, whether or
not a certain Iamily physician has a demonstrated tendency toward a Mnchhausennn
style oI parenting, etc., etc.: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/295258-overview), or where
Kadlic and Dr. Coughlin's relationship has apparently been strained by Dr. Coughlin Iailure to "take
sides" suIIicient to please City Attorney Kadlic pursuant to the City Attorney Kadlic's divorce Irom
his Iormer wiIe, Paulette and tensions emanating thereIrom between Kadlic and his daughter Blair.
14. Pam Roberts suborned the perjury oI Reno Sparks Indian Colony OIIicer Kameron
CrawIord during the November 30th 2011 Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176 when she called him as her
own witness, and he testiIied that the accused Iailed to provide his driver's license, thus giving
CrawIord the probable cause he needed to conduct a search incident to arrest. However, previous to
this, Pam Roberts herselI possessed security camera Iootage oI the accused giving CrawIord his
current State oI Nevada Driver's License (and dispatch records conIirm that CrawIord called in the
accused drivers license number in conjunction with the accused handing over his drivers license to
CrawIord). Further, this video that Roberts was in possession oI show Thomas Frontino, Wal-Mart
- 8
557
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
Asset Protection associate, handing the two RSIC oIIicers additional video evidence beyond that oI
the interrogation room video wherein the undersigned provided his State oI Nevada driver's license
to RSIC OIIicer CrawIord. Further, Roberts suborned the perjury oI Frontino when he so Ialsely
testiIied that there existed no other video Iootage (despite the legion oI surveillance cameras
interspersed over practically every isle at Frontino's Wal-Mart) oI any matters pertinent to the
charge Ior which the undersigned was accused, including, incredibly, absolutely no Iootage oI any
oI the alleged concealing or consuming or doing oI any other elements oI the crime charged, despite
the Iact that they very interrogation room video Roberts possessed showed Frontino so providing
such additional media evidence to RSIC OIIicers CrawIord and Braunworth.
15. While NRS 5.075 requires that: "Form oI docket and records. The Court Administrator
shall prescribe the Iorm oI the docket and oI any other appropriate records to be kept by the
municipal court, which Iorm may vary Irom court to court according to the number and kind oI
cases customarily heard and whether the court is designated as a court oI record pursuant to NRS
5.010..." RMC Court Administrator Matt Fisc apparently cease being so employed sometime in,
approximately, November 2011, throwing everything into disarray and vitiating any sense oI checks
and balances or oversight as to the unIettered dominance exhibited by Judge Howard over the
system oI justice dispensed at the RMC, preventing the undersigned Irom exercising his Sixth
Amendment Right to Counsel and Irom getting a jury trial. The RMC website claims: "The Reno
Municipal Court was established by charter in 1966 by the State Legislature. We are a high-volume,
limited jurisdiction court oI record which adjudicates criminal misdemeanor (e.g., domestic
violence, DUI, drug paraphernalia and petty theIt) and traIIic violations committed by adults within
the City oI Reno proper. We are a non-jury court with bench trials only. Misdemeanor oIIenses
- 9
558
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
committed within the county limits are handled by the local Justice Courts as are all gross
misdemeanors and Ielonies."
16. Judge Howard reIused to even grant the undersigned a continuance where the undersigned
has recently been wrongIully evicted Irom his home law oIIice via an impermissible application oI a
summary eviction proceeding against a commercial lessee where Iailure to pay rent was not alleged
and or the eviction Notice was a No Cause Eviction Notice. The undersigned indicated that an
unlawIul rent distraint was at that time being applied to exculpatory evidence and evidence
establishing a retaliatory motive and intent on the parts oI both Wal-Mart and the Reno City
Attorney's OIIice (given the specter oI multiple police misconduct and or negligent hiring, training,
and supervision, 42 USC Sec. 1983, deIamation lawsuits the City oI Reno Iaces in connection with
misconduct OIIicers committed against the undersigned in the past six months and oI which the
Reno City Attorney's oIIice was aware) necessary to the deIense oI the trial in this matter. Such
evidence may evince a retaliatory intent and declaration on the part oI various Wal-Mart personnel
and RPD personnel where the undersigned had been wrongIully arrested just some two weeks prior
to the 11/30/11 Trial in this matter, and subject to a wrongIul lockout just Iour weeks prior to the
Trial (not just a lockout Irom one's home or oIIice, but both, and a law oIIice no less). The
undersigned submitted a complaint about RPD OIIicer misconduct to the RPD On September 7,
2011, and again on several other occasion One such complaint involved reporting that, at the time,
oI the undersigned's November 12, 2011 wrongIul custodial arrest Ior "trespass" a RPD OIIicer had
admitted to the undersigned that the opposing attorney in that summary eviction proceeding,
Richard G. Hill, Esq. "pays him a lot oI money and so he arrest whom Hill tells him to arrest and
does what Hill says to do". The Reno City Attorney's OIIice deIends the RPD in police misconduct
lawsuits and has a vested interest in smearing the undersigned's reputation.
- 10
559
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
17. As Ior Judge Howard's Summary Contempt Order in this matter, it is entirely untrue to
say that there was order that spelled out the details oI compliance in clear, speciIic and unambiguous
terms so that the person should have readily known exactly what duties or obligations were imposed
on him. Judge Howard Iailed to issue any Order "that spelled out the details oI compliance in clear,
speciIic, and unambiguous terms so that the person should have readily known exactly what duties or
obligations were imposed on him...". Rather, Judge Howard, about 10 minutes into Trial, began
menacingly threatening the undersigned, attempting to badger, berate, and intimidate the undersigned
into Iailing to deIend himselI in this matter, to reIrain Irom preserving objections Ior the record, etc.,
etc.
18. I declare under penalty oI perjury that the Ioregoing is true and correct.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain the social
security number oI any person.
DATED this 30th day oI January, 2012.

Zachary Barker Coughlin


- 11
560
EXHIBIT #3
EXHIBIT #3
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:48:12 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2730987
561
Search-Orviewalljurisdictions
SearchIor: pamela roberts
Searchtype: Searchbyname
Searchbytitle
Jurisdiction: Reno
Year: Any
Search
2 results for pam ela roberts
Name Position BasePay Benefits
TotalPay
&Benefits
1urisdiction Year
PAMELAROBERTS 5750DeputyCityAttorneyII $95,590.21 N/A $114,572.88 Reno 2010
PAMELAROBERTS DeputyCityAttorneyII $92,457.02 $19,878.26 $110,582.44 Reno 2009
StateGovernment:Salaries,CAFRS,MainContractsPage,StateFinancialDocuments
Education:CCSDWarrants,NSHEBudgets
Politicians:2010TransparencySurvey,CongressionalDisbursements
Connect:Facebook,Twitter
AboutUs:ContactUs,FAQ,Disclaimer
TransparentNevadaisprovidedbytheNevadaPolicyResearchInstituteasapublicservice.
Page1 oI1 SearchResultsTransparentNevada
1/30/2012 http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?qpamelaroberts&tname&jreno&yany
562
EXHIBIT #4
EXHIBIT #4
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:48:12 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2730987
563
RMC said I could file this by email
Motion for New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 7:28 PM
To: renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
12 11 11 final motion for new trial city of reno v coughlin RMC 11 CR 22176.pdf (12.9 MB)
DearRMC,
IcalledanwroteearlierandreceivedapprovaltoIiletheattachedpdIand
mediaIilesbyemailratherthanIaxorothersubmission.ThisIilingislarge,
assuch,itmustbebrokendownintosegments.thisispartone,parttwowill
beinthenextemail.IwillpaywhateverIilingIeeorbondorwhateverI
havetopaytoaccessjusticeinthisherecase.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV8950
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 7:40 PM
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI9...
1oI5 1/30/20126:19AM
564
Motion for New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 2217 part two Exhibit 1 pages 1-300 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011.pdf (8.6 MB)
I received approval to file by email from RMC
This is the second file in the filing. Please note, the file name of the attachment should actually have the correct
case number of RMC CR 22176. It is missing the 6 on the end in the file name of the attachment
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 7:57 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 part three Exhibit 1 pages 301-600 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011.pdf (9.7
MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI9...
2oI5 1/30/20126:19AM
565
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 601-701 of Motion for New
trail from 12 12 2011 ey
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 8:23 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 601-701 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011 ey.pdf
(11.8 MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI9...
3oI5 1/30/20126:19AM
566
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 701-794 of Motion for New
trail from 12 12 2011 ey
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 12/12/11 8:29 PM
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
1 attachment
RMC 11 CR 22176 part four Exhibit 1 pages 701-794 of Motion for New trail from 12 12 2011 ey.pdf
(14.4 MB)
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI9...
4oI5 1/30/20126:19AM
567
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: fiskm@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov
Subject: Motion for New Trial Etc. in RMC 11 CR 22176
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:57:50 -0800
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsI9...
5oI5 1/30/20126:19AM
568
EXHIBIT #5
EXHIBIT #5
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:48:12 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2730987
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
NOTE: THIS IS THE RECEIPT FOR THE ITEMS THAT WERE RUNG UP AND FOR WHICH MONEY WAS PAID. WAL-
MART'S THOMAS FRONTINO AND RSIC OFFICER CRAWFORD LIED WHEN THEY BOTH TESTIFIED THAT THEY VERIFIED
THAT THE UPC FOR THE "COUGH DROPS" ON THE RECEIPT ON THE PAGE ABOVE THIS ONE DID NOT APPEAR ON
THE RECEIPT FOUND BELOW). HOWEVER, CLEARLY THAT SAME UPC APPEARS ON BOTH RECEIPTS (THE UPC IS
0732211630093). FRONTINO EVEN TRIED TO TESTIFY THAT HE WAS ABLE TO DISCERN FROM APPROXIMATELY 50
FEET AWAY THAT HE COULD TELL EXACTLY WHAT ITEMS AND WHAT UPC'S WERE BEING RUNG UP AT THE REGISTER
AND THAT HE WAS ABLE TO VERIFY THAT THE UPC'S FOR THE COUGH DROPS ON THE "STOLEN" RECEIPT" WERE
NOT FOUND ON THE "PURCHASED" RECEIPT. HOWEVER, CLEARLY, FRONTINO WAS WRONG OR LYING, OR BOTH.
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 01-30-2012:16:48:12
Clerk Accepted: 01-30-2012:16:58:15
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Opposition to Mtn
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
578
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
Document Code: 2645
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: CR11-2064
DEPT. NO: 10
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW, Appellant Zach Coughlin, by and through his attorney, Zachary Barker
Coughlin, Esq , and oIIers his SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS. The undersigned was
instructed by the Second Judicial District Court to submit a cd/dvd Ior Iiling as an exhibit to a Iiling
in this manner.
McCrary v. McCrary, 764 P.2d 522, 1988 OK 122 (Okla. Nov 01, 1988) (NO. 62,814)
judgment is deemed rendered only when its *527 terms are announced to the parties by the judge,
and a judgment in absentia is not 'rendered until notice oI its entry is mailed to the parties.
McCullough v. SaIeway Stores, Inc., Okl., 626 P.2d 1332 (1981); Rules oI Appellate Procedure, 12
O.S.1981, Ch. 15, App. 2, Rule 1.11(b). See: Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80,
- 1
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
F I L E D
Electronically
02-01-2012:04:46:41 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2736761
579
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
108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988). We also note that aIter the trial court's ruling the intervenors
attempted to obtain extraordinary relieI Irom this Court to prohibit the court Irom proceeding
Iurther, and we denied relieI. There undersigned believes, under penalty oI perjury, that Pam
Roberts was not even in the courtroom when Judge HOward brought the undersigned back in chains
to correct that which he has been "remiss" in not doing earlier (ie, making rulings related to the Stay
oI the Contempt punishment, and the deadline to Iile a notice oI appeal, or even inIorming the
underisgned oI his right to Iile an appeal and the requirments). Judge Howard did say some stuII
about how he "is sure you know this" or that about the procedural technicalities that Judge Howard
encounters everyday in his job, yet the undersigned really does not know such things. 10 days to Iile
a notice oI appeal? didn't know that. NRCP 6(a) and (e) don't apply to such matters? Its straight
days? Rendition, not notice oI entry? Didn't know none oI that. Thats what the Sixth Amendment
is Ior. Further that rule sucks. You get more protection in a civil matter to appeal a lawsuit over a
box oI widgets. WE are talking about my law license here, Judge Howard makes the trial a
lynching. But like 2 million Irish people betwen 1848 and 1850 who starved to death while
surrounded by a sea oI Iish, Judge Howard makes like the English and tries to arrest one Ior Iishing.
The rule shoudl be changed. But, at the least the RMC shoudl have to Iollow it, and they didn't.
Further, Roberts may have violated prosecutorial conduct rules related to suborning perjury,
propounding or disclosing exculpatory evidence, etc. ,and arguably she should be required to put
such into evidence or reIrain Irom oIIering that which contradicts such evidence in her possession or
that which she should be required to Iind upon a reasonably diligent inquiry. Roberts apparently
didn't discover and Iootage Irom this behemoth retailer with cameras everywhere in the store
relevant to any oI the accused acts. Nope, its all he said she said here, except the interrogation room
videos, which show the 3 witness Roberts oIIered lied. In the Iollowing cases it was held that an
- 2
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
580
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
attorney's contemptuous conduct cannot be excused or justiIied by the Iact that the attorney believed
his conduct to be necessary to the proper and thorough representation oI his client, and that an
attorney may summarily be held to be in contempt notwithstanding such good-Iaith belieI. The court
held that a trial attorney's belieI that certain action is necessary to protect the record Ior appellate
review, and to represent his client's interests, does not excuse his deliberate deIiance oI the trial
judge's orders in Pennsylvania v International Union oI Operating Engineers (1977, CA3 Pa) 552
F2d 498, cert den 434 US 822, 54 L Ed 2d 79, 98 S Ct 67, where the court aIIirmed two summary
orders oI criminal contempt entered against a deIense attorney. The contempt holdings had been
based on the attorney's insistence upon stating the reasons Ior his objections to certain holdings by
the trial court, and his reIusal to comply with the court's direction pertaining to the cross-
examination oI a witness. In essence, said the court, the attorney asserted that he was Iree to violate
a direct order oI a trial judge iI he believed that the protection oI his client's interests on appeal
required such action. The court recognized an attorney's right to be conscientious, Iearless, and
zealous in representing his client's interests, but held that a direct order oI the trial judge Iixes the
limits oI proper advocacy; the vigor permissible in representing a client's interest does not include
the Ilouting oI a judge's rulings. The necessity oI preserving the record Ior appeal, said the court, is
not a talisman which absolves a lawyer Irom his usual obligation to comply with a trial judge's direct
orders. The attorney also argued that his disregard oI the judge's order was necessary to persuade the
judge to retract his restriction on the attorney's method oI cross-examination. An appeal, it was said,
would provide an inadequate means oI challenging the restriction since the witness was said to have
been cornered, and since the attorney had achieved a momentum which probably never could be
resumed at a new trial aIter an appeal. The court held, however, that the attorney could not
permissibly deIy the judge's order in the interests oI seizing an allegedly irrecoverable opportunity.
- 3
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
581
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 attorney's good-Iaith belieI in the necessity oI his actions, in order properly to represent his
client, was held not to justiIy contumacious behavior in United States v OIIutt (1956, DC Dist Col)
145 F Supp 111, mod on other grounds 101 App DC 97, 247 F2d 88, cert den 355 US 856, 2 L Ed
2d 64, 78 S Ct 85, where, on remand, the court held that the trial court properly had summarily held
an attorney to be in contempt based upon insulting and oIIensive remarks made to the court. The
attorney asserted that what he said was true, and that he said it in order to make a record Ior appeal,
and in order to comply with the advice given him by counsel with whom he had consulted.
However, the court held that advice oI counsel is not a deIense to a charge oI contempt, stating that
neither such advice, nor ignorance, nor zeal Ior his client, could alter the contumacious character oI
the attorney's conduct. The courts in the Iollowing cases, while not holding that good-Iaith vigorous
advocacy may preclude the summary punishment oI an attorney Ior contempt, recognized that an
attorney must be given broad latitude in his representation oI his client, and that this Iactor must be
taken into account in determining whether conduct oI an attorney amounts to contempt which is
summarily punishable by the court. In United States v SchiIIer (1965, CA6 Tenn) 351 F2d 91, cert
den 384 US 1003, 16 L Ed 2d 1017, 86 S Ct 1914, reh den 385 US 890, 17 L Ed 2d 121, 87 S Ct 12,
the court, in upholding the trial court's summary punishment oI an attorney Ior contempt under Rule
42(a) oI the Federal Rules oI Criminal Procedure, said that in contempt cases against lawyers the
evidence must be careIully scrutinized in order that there be no undue interIerence with their right
properly to represent their clients; nevertheless, it was held that the punishment imposed was
warranted in view oI the deliberate, continuous, and repeated contumacious acts oI the attorney,
extending throughout the trial, which were said to have been wholly unwarranted. The court in Re
Dellinger (1972, CA7 Ill) 461 F2d 389, on remand (ND Ill) 357 F Supp 949 and on remand (ND Ill)
370 F Supp 1304, aIId (CA7 Ill) 502 F2d 813, cert den 420 US 990, 43 L Ed 2d 671, 95 S Ct 1425,
- 4
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
582
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
stated that attorneys must be given great latitude in the area oI vigorous advocacy, and that an
attorney may with impunity take Iull advantage oI the range oI conduct that our adversary system
allows. Nevertheless, said the court, the Iact that an attorney is representing his client in good Iaith
does not immunize all conduct undertaken in that cause, although the court reversed the trial court's
summary imposition oI punishment upon two deIense attorneys Ior contempt, and remanded the
numerous speciIications oI contempt Ior a hearing beIore a diIIerent judge, on the ground that the
trial judge was required to disqualiIy himselI Irom hearing the contempt proceedings because he had
been the recipient oI numerous and unprecedented attacks and insults by the attorneys charged
during the course oI the trial. Where the trial judge is arbitrary or aIIords counsel inadequate
opportunity to ar-gue his position, counsel must be given substantial leeway in pressing his
contention, said the court, Ior in this manner the court may recognize its mistake and prevent error
Irom inIecting the record. Appellate courts, the court said, must insure that trial judges are not leIt
Iree to manipulate the balance between vigorous representation and obstructions oI justice so as to
chill eIIective advocacy when deciding lawyer contempts. It was said that where the conduct
complained oI in a summary contempt proceeding is that oI an attorney engaged in the
representation oI a litigant, the search Ior the essential elements oI the crime oI contempt must be
made with Iull appreciation oI the role oI trial counsel and his duty oI zealous representation oI his
client's interests in United States ex rel. Robson v Oliver (1972, CA7 Ill) 470 F2d 10. Furthermore,
said the court, in close cases where the line between vigorous advocacy and actual obstruction deIies
strict delineation, doubts should be resolved in Iavor oI vigorous advocacy. The attorney represented
one oI a number oI deIendants in a criminal prosecution in which the deIendants were charged with
mutilating draIt records. In cross-examining a codeIendant, the attorney reIerred to a photograph oI
a hallway, apparently through which the deIendants had passed to reach the oIIice in which the
- 5
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
583
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
records were contained, and asked him iI he could make out a little sign stating "abandon ye all hope
who enter here." In view oI the extreme liberality aIIorded trial counsel in their representation oI
clients, and resolving any doubts in Iavor oI vigorous advocacy, the court concluded that such
conduct did not rise to the level oI misbehavior necessary to support
a contempt citation. Commenting that the attorney's question was related to the deIendants'
proIIered theory oI deIense and touched on the insane "preceptions" and "delusions" which the
deIendants claimed to have held prior to making the raid on the draIt board Iiles, the court reversed
the trial court's holding oI contempt. But in the Iollowing case, it was held that where an attorney in
good Iaith believes that his duty oI advocacy requires his conduct, a summary contempt conviction
based upon such conduct cannot withstand challenge, at least where the attorney believed that the
court did not understand his position. Thus, it was held in Re Dellinger (1973, ND Ill) 370 F Supp
1304, aIId (CA7 Ill) 502 F2d 813, cert den 420 US 990, 43 L Ed 2d 671, 95 S Ct 1425, that an
attorney could not properly be summarily punished Ior contempt in the presence oI the trial court
where the attorney sincerely believed that his acts were necessary because the trial court did not
understand the argument which the attorney was asserting. The trial court had sustained a
government objection to testimony by a witness concerning a certain speech given by a person who
was not a witness at the trial. AIter the court's ruling, the attorney continued to argue that the speech
was relevant, despite repeated directions Irom the judge to discontinue that argument, in that such
testimony allegedly would have demonstrated the nonviolent intent oI the deIendants, who were
charged with violation oI the Federal Anti-Riot Act. The court, in hearing the contempt question
upon remand Irom an appeal|33| oI the trial court's action in that regard, held that the attorney was
not guilty oI the speciIication, pointing out that the attorney sincerely believed that the judge had not
given him a reasonable opportunity to be heard and that the judge did not Iully understand his
- 6
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
584
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
position. Judge Howard played Iootball at UNR, and, perhaps, like ther undersigned's Iather, who
played tailback Ior Tulane in the SEC on scholarship Irom Dayton Ohio (third Iastest white boy in
Ohio circa 1963), Judge Howard's approach here "hits the A gap a little too hard". The undersigned
is no stranger to getting Iouled by the Iine competitors Hug High School produces, like Charles,
Claude, Duke, Armon, Trey, Shondor, Tye, and Tommy, though: Reno High Basketball Clippings
1897-2008ish: http://cid22e2ebee5aa79IdI.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public
http://www.nIhs.org/recordbook/Records.aspx?CategoryId1073 Impertinence, attacks upon
competency or impartiality, or the likeConduct held not to warrant summary punishment Under
the particular circumstances oI each oI the Iollowing cases, it was held that remarks by an attorney,
considered by the trial court to be an attack upon its conduct oI the trial and thereIore to be
contemptuous, did not warrant that court's summary punishment oI the attorney. In Parmelee
Transp. Co. v Keeshin (1961, CA7 Ill) 292 F2d 806, a case arising out oI a trial court's summary
punishment oI an attorney Ior contempt, and apparently governed by Rule 42(a) oI the Federal Rules
oI Criminal Procedure,|43| the court held that the record did not support the trial court's action, even
though the trial court had regarded certain conduct oI the attorney to be impertinent and
disrespectIul. In one oI the speciIications oI contempt, the trial court cited the Iact that, upon that
court's sustaining oI objections to certain questions put by the attorney to a witness, the attorney had
remarked "that is crazy," but the court, noting that the remark was not intended to be heard by either
the trial court or jury, and that the record Iailed to show that the trial judge took any notice oI the
remark at the time, held that contumacious conduct had not been proved under the speciIication. The
court also held that the attorney's remark that the trial court had "a sardonic sense oI humor," in
commenting upon certain actions taken by that court, did not constitute contempt Ior which the trial
court had the authority to impose summary punishment.|44| And see United States ex rel. Robson v
- 7
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
585
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
Oliver (1972, CA7 Ill) 470 F2d 10, where the court stated that an attorney's remarks may have
suggested disrespect Ior the trial court's rulings, but nevertheless reversed the trial court's summary
imposition oI punishment upon the attorney Ior contempt, under Rule 42(a) oI the Federal Rules oI
Criminal Procedure, on the ground that such remarks did not cause an actual disruption oI the trial
proceedings. In Hampton v Hanrahan (1979, CA7 Ill) 600 F2d 600, revd, in part on other grounds
446 US 754, 64 L Ed 2d 670, 100 S Ct 1987, reh den 448 US 913, 65 L Ed 2d 1176, 101 S Ct 33
and reh den 448 US 913, 65 L Ed 2d 1177, 101 S Ct 33 and on remand (ND Ill) 499 F Supp 640 and
on remand (ND Ill) 522 F Supp 140, the court reversed the trial court's summary holding that an
attorney was in contempt on the ground that the attorney's conduct did not obstruct justice, but the
court also pointed out that the attorney's remark, upon which the contempt holding was based, was
misinterpreted by the trial judge as being intended to reIlect improperly upon him, where in Iact the
remark was made by the attorney in an attempt to clariIy a previous statement.|45| An attorney's
mere statement that the trial court's sustaining oI an objection to a question oI the attorney precluded
the attorney Irom cross-examining the witness was held in Phelan v Guam (1968, CA9 Guam) 394
F2d 293, not to warrant the summary imposition oI punishment upon the attorney Ior criminal
contempt, under Rule 42(a) oI the Federal Rules oI Criminal Procedure (U.S.C.A., FRCrP Rule
42(a)). The court pointed out that the attorney had asked Ior an exception to the court's ruling,
whereupon the court voluntarily took it upon itselI to tell the attorney why the court had sustained
the objection. The attorney then deIended the properness oI his question. In reversing the trial court's
holding oI contempt, the court pointed out that there was nothing in the language used by the
attorney which could be construed as hostile or deIiant, or in any manner obstructing the procedure
oI the trial. Improper questioning |Cumulative Supplement| In the Iollowing cases, it was held that
an attorney's persistent improper questioning oI witnesses constitutes ground Ior the imposition oI
- 8
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
586
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
summary punishment Ior contempt by a Iederal trial court. An attorney's persistence in cross-
examining witnesses with regard to irrelevant matters, aIter objections had been sustained with
respect to such questioning, was held in Hallinan v United States (1950, CA9 Cal) 182 F2d 880, cert
den 341 US 952, 95 L Ed 1375, 71 S Ct 1010, reh den 342 US 956, 96 L Ed 710, 72 S Ct 623 and
reh den 343 US 931, 96 L Ed 1341, 72 S Ct 756, to justiIy the trial court's imposition oI summary
punishment Ior contempt under Rule 42(a) oI the Federal Rules oI Criminal Procedure. The
questioning upon which the trial court's contempt holding was based related to a prior deportation
proceeding against the deIendant, which in no way was related to the present prosecution, to alleged
wiretapping oI the deIendant's telephones in order to obtain evidence in such prior deportation
proceeding, and to the practices oI a prosecution witness with regard to his duties as an attorney Ior
the Bureau oI Immigration and Naturalization. Noting that the attorney's proper course oI action, iI
the trial court erroneously had held that the matters inquired into were irrelevant, was to appeal
those holdings rather than to continue to attempt to introduce irrelevant evidence, the court upheld
the punishment imposed by the trial court. An attorney's improper questioning oI witnesses,
including the use oI questions which obviously were intended to besmirch those witnesses, was held
to justiIy a summary holding oI criminal contempt, under Rule 42(a) oI the Federal Rules oI
Criminal Procedure, in OIIutt v United States (1953) 93 App DC 148, 208 F2d 842, revd on other
grounds 348 US 11, 99 L Ed 11, 75 S Ct 11, where the court aIIirmed such a holding by the trial
court, although reducing the punishment imposed. It was noted that on several occasions the
attorney had asked the witnesses questions that were highly prejudicial to those witnesses and Ior
which there was no Ioundation. For example, he had asked the victim oI an abortion, charged
against the deIendant, "when" she was arrested in the case, whereas in Iact she never had been
arrested. It was held that such conduct supported the trial court's summary Iinding oI contempt.
- 9
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
587
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
CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases: Attorney's conduct in continuing to cross-examine police
oIIicer aIter judge had ruled that police log was not admissible was not contempt where attorney
claimed that he was trying to impeach witnesses' memory, not lay Ioundation Ior admission oI log,
so that his conduct could not be said to be willIul. United States v Giovanelli (1990, CA2 NY) 897
F2d 1227. In criminal prosecution, trial court properly meted out judgments oI criminal contempt to
deIense counsel Ior misconduct in cross-examining witnesses where trial judge on several occasions
warned counsel that he would not allow them to pursue lines oI questioning that he later held to be
contemptuous, on one occasion he allowed them to explain at length why they thought questioning
was proper, and where judge made Iull and convincing explanation oI actions in written orders
issued shortly aIter adjuging counsel in contempt. United States v Lowery (1984, CA7 Ill) 733 F2d
441, cert den (US) 83 L Ed 2d 264, 105 S Ct 327. Resort to summary disposition oI criminal
contempt proceeding under Rule 42(a), Federal Rules oI Criminal Procedure, is permissible only
when express requirements oI rule are met and when there is compelling reason Ior immediate
remedy or when time is oI essence. Thus, attorney's conviction Ior criminal contempt
in pursuing line oI questioning Iorbidden by court would be reversed, since record showed that
there was no compelling need Ior immediate remedy provided by Rule 42(a), Federal Rules oI
Criminal Procedure, and that trial court, by its own actions, did not consider time to be oI essence;
trial court should have observed "normal" procedure" oI notice and hearing, provided by Rule 42(b),
Federal Rules oI Criminal Procedure. U.S. v. Moschiano, 695 F.2d 236, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 124
(7th Cir. 1982). See United States v Turner (1987, CA11 Ala) 812 F2d 1552, 14. The undersigned
"continuing lines oI inquiry" was not sanctionable. Legitimate rationale exists and or was oIIered
Ior all inquiry pursued. Further, Judge Howard admitted in the last part oI the audio record that he
had (at the time oI making his Summary Contempt Iinding announcement) be mistaken in believeing
- 10
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
588
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
that the November 14, 2011 original trial date did not go oII due to the undersigned's Iault, which
was not the case. the undersigned showed up Ior that trial, its was somebody else Iault that it did not
go oII. Tardiness or Iailure to appearConduct held not to warrant summary punishment
|Cumulative Supplement| The courts in the Iollowing cases have held that an attorney's absence or
tardiness did not justiIy the trial court's summary punishment oI the attorney Ior contempt. An
attorney's Iailure to appear at a judicial hearing was held not to warrant the summary imposition oI
punishment Ior contempt, under Rule 42(a) oI the Federal Rules oI Criminal Procedure, in Jessup v
Clark (1973, CA3 Pa) 490 F2d 1068. The attorney had begun a trial in a state court 2 days prior to
the date scheduled Ior the Iederal court trial at which he Iailed to appear. The state court trial
continued through the day oI the scheduled beginning oI the Iederal court trial. The attorney stated
that he had continued to conduct the state court trial believing that he was obligated to do so, and
that he had brought the matter to the attention oI the state court judge and was instructed by that
judge to remain at the state court trial. The Iederal court's Iinding oI contempt was reversed, it being
held that the attorney's conduct did not take place in the presence oI the court, as required Ior
summary punishment under Rule 42 (a), and that there had been no need Ior immediate penal
vindication oI the dignity oI the court.|50| And see Re Monroe (1976, CA5 Tex) 532 F2d 424,
where it was held that an out-oI-state attorney's Iailure to appear at trial did not amount to contempt
under the circumstances. It is not clear whether the case Ialls within the scope oI this annotation
since, although the trial court recited as authority Rule 42(a) oI the Federal Rules oI Criminal
Procedure, that court stated that it was not going to charge the attorney with criminal contempt but
only civil contempt, whereas Rule 42(a) applies only to summary criminal contempt proceedings.
Nevertheless, the appellate court stated that, as a matter oI law, there was no contempt, the court
pointing out that the attorney was unable to appear beIore the trial court because oI his participation
- 11
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
589
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
in a murder trial in another state which had begun several months previously. Further, the attorney's
Iailure to Iile a motion Ior continuance at least 10 days beIore the trial date, as required by local
rules, was in part caused by a delay in the mails and a delay in his ability to obtain replacement local
counsel aIter his local counsel had withdrawn Irom the case. His motion Ior continuance had in Iact
arrived at the trial court 1 week beIore the trial date. Noting that it was not established that the
attorney had actual knowledge oI the 10-day rule, or that local counsel had advised him oI it, the
court concluded that the attorney's conduct was at most negligent, stating that such conduct did not
contain the elements oI intentional or willIul action or Ilagrant disregard oI the court's rules or orders
necessary Ior contempt. Tardiness or Iailure to appear at a court hearing was held not to justiIy the
imposition oI summary punishment upon attorneys Ior contempt, under Rule 42(a) oI the Federal
Rules oI Criminal Procedure, at least where such Iailure or tardiness is unintentional, in United
States v Delahanty (1973, CA6 Ky) 488 F2d 396. One attorney was approximately 10 minutes late
Ior a pretrial conIerence because oI his unIamiliarity with the city, traIIic congestion, and diIIiculty
in Iinding a parking space. A second attorney, who was cocounsel with the Iirst attorney,
intentionally did not appear, because he had other matters to attend to in a diIIerent city, but he had
requested the Iirst attorney to represent both oI them at the hearing. In reversing the summary
punishment imposed by the trial court, the court held that the conduct complained oI, the absence oI
the attorneys Irom the courtroom, did not occur within the actual presence oI the court as required
under Rule 42(a), and that the essential element oI criminal intent was absent. |51| And see Re Allis
(1976, CA9 Cal) 531 F2d 1391, cert den 429 US 900, 50 L Ed 2d 185, 97 S Ct 267, supra 11,
where the court, in holding that an attorney's tardiness is not summarily punishable by a court, under
Rule 42(a) oI the Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, since it is not conduct committed in the actual
presence oI the court, commented that tardiness alone is not contempt, since the reasons Ior such
- 12
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
590
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
tardiness are important in determining the existence oI the requisite wrongIul intent on the part oI
the attorney. The notice oI appeal does and should apply to the Summary Contempt ORder as well,
that order was ridiculous and shameIul.33 ALR 3rd 448, Appealability oI Contempt Adjudication or
Conviction. Right to counsel The need Ior appointed counsel in a civil contempt proceeding Ior
nonpayment oI child support turns on an initial determination oI indigency, Ior unless a party is truly
indigent, the State need not provide representation; iI an indigent party Iaces the threat oI possible
incarceration Ior the nonpayment oI child support, the court should then seek to balance the private
liberty interest at stake, the government's interest, and the risk oI an erroneous Iinding, taking into
account the complexity oI the legal and Iactual issues and the party's ability to eIIectively
communicate on his own behalI. Rodriguez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County oI Clark,
2004, 102 P.3d 41, 120 Nev. 798, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 2905, 545 U.S. 1116, 162 L.Ed.2d 298.
Child Support 491 In determining whether an indigent party in a contempt proceeding based on
nonpayment oI child support has a due process right to appointment oI counsel, aIter balancing each
oI the due process elements against the other, they as a whole are measured against the presumption
that a right to appointed counsel arises only when the indigent party may lose his personal Ireedom.
Rodriguez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County oI Clark, 2004, 102 P.3d 41, 120 Nev. 798,
certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 2905, 545 U.S. 1116, 162 L.Ed.2d 298. Constitutional Law 4494 N. R. S.
22.010, NV ST 22.010 ABout 10 minutes into the "Trial" Judge Howard Found the undersigned in
contempt, whereupon the sixth amendment righ to counsel was invoked, which Judge Howard curtly
dismissed. the Summary Contempt ORder is void, avaingst public policy, prevented a Iair trial,
demonstrated evident impartialit, and severly curtailed the undersigned Iaith in the court and belieI
that any evidence he oIIered or testimony would be given Iair treatment, but rather, the undersigned
was givne the message that he would be clubbed with anything he said, as such, testimony and
- 13
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
591
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
evidence (that which was not being withheld illegally by Richard HIll, Esq. pursuant to an unlawIul
rent distraint) was not given a legitimate opporutnity to be admitted or oIIered.For purposes oI
statute governing summary contempt proceedings Ior direct contempt committed in judge's
presence, which requires court to 'enter an order, while a trial court's oral contempt order is
immediately enIorceable, a written order including the statute's required elements must be promptly
entered. Houston v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County oI Clark, 2006, 135 P.3d 1269, 122
Nev. 544. Contempt 52 6. ---- SuIIiciency Appropriate remedy Ior attorney who had been Iound in
direct contempt oI court in divorce proceeding in which he represented wiIe, where contempt order
had been Iound to be insuIIicient by Supreme Court, in that it did not contain a suIIicient statement
concerning what conduct was held to be contemptuous, was to permit trial court to enter amended
order, given that Supreme Court's opinion addressed issue oI Iirst impression and announced
standard Ior contents oI written contempt order. Houston v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel.
County oI Clark, 2006, 135 P.3d 1269, 122 Nev. 544. Contempt 66(8) A written summary contempt
order, issued pursuant to statute governing summary contempt proceedings Ior direct contempt
committed in judge's presence, must set Iorth speciIic Iacts concerning the conduct Iound to be
contemptuous. Houston v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County oI Clark, 2006, 135 P.3d 1269,
122 Nev. 544. Contempt 52 Written summary contempt order Iinding attorney Ior wiIe in divorce
proceeding in direct contempt oI court Iailed to indicate what particular comments by attorney were
held to be contemptuous, and, thus, order was insuIIicient, under statute governing summary
contempt proceedings Ior direct contempt committed in judge's presence. Houston v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court ex rel. County oI Clark, 2006, 135 P.3d 1269, 122 Nev. 544 Judge Howard's Summary
Contempt ORder is laughably conclusory and generic. It must be set aside on that an other basis.
Further, the record on appeal demonstrates that the Contempt ORder does
- 14
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
592
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
not seem to have been served, their is no ProoI oI Service as Iar as I can tell so Iar....to either the
undersigned or the City Attorney. AS such, a Notice oI Entry is required and the District Court may
not even have jurisdiction yet on this A "pleading" is not a "motion", but... RULE 15. AMENDED
AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS Text (a) Amendments. A party may amend the party`s
pleading once as a matter oI course at any time beIore a responsive pleading is served or, iI the
pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed
upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days aIter it is served.
Otherwise a party may amend the party`s pleading only by leave oI court or by written consent oI
the adverse party; and leave shall be Ireely given when justice so requires. A party shall plead in
response to an amended pleading within the time remaining Ior response to the original pleading or
within 10 days aIter service oI the amended pleading, whichever period may be the longer, unless
the court otherwise orders. |As amended; eIIective January 1, 2005.| (b) Amendments to ConIorm to
the Evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent oI the
parties, they shall be treated in all respects as iI they had been raised in the pleadings. Such
amendment oI the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conIorm to the evidence and to
raise these issues may be made upon motion oI any party at any time, even aIter judgment; but
Iailure so to amend does not aIIect the result oI the trial oI these issues. II evidence is objected to at
the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the
pleadings to be amended and shall do so Ireely when the presentation oI the merits oI the action will
be subserved thereby and the objecting party Iails to satisIy the court that the admission oI such
evidence would prejudice the party in maintaining the party`s action or deIense upon the merits. The
court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence. |As amended;
eIIective January 1, 2005.| (c) Relation Back oI Amendments. Whenever the claim or deIense
- 15
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
593
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
asserted in the amended pleading arose out oI the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set Iorth or
attempted to be set Iorth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date oI the
original pleading. (d) Supplemental Pleadings. Upon motion oI a party the court may, upon
reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading
setting Iorth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date oI the
pleading sought to be supplemented. Permission may be granted even though the original pleading is
deIective in its statement oI a claim Ior relieI or deIense. II the court deems it advisable that the
adverse party plead to the supplemental pleading, it shall so order, speciIying the time thereIor.
Nevada NRCP 60(b)(3) allows a party to move Ior relieI Irom a judgment which is void, and while
motions made under NRCP 60(b) are generally required to "be made within a reasonable time" and
to be adjudicated according to the district court's discretion, this is not true in the case oI a void
judgment. Necessarily a motion under this part oI the rule diIIers markedly Irom motions under the
other clauses oI Rule 60(b). There is no question oI discretion on the part oI the court when a motion
is made under |this portion oI the Rule|. Nor is there any requirement, as there usually is when
deIault judgments are attacked under Rule 60(b), that the moving party show that he has a
meritorious deIense. Either a judgment is void or it is valid. Determining which it is may well
present a diIIicult question, but when that question is resolved, the court must act accordingly. By
the same token, there is no time limit on an attack on a judgment as void. . . . |E|ven the requirement
that the motion be made within a "reasonable time," which seems literally to apply . . . cannot be
enIorced with regard to this class oI motion. Understandably, the parties were not attuned to our
recent Jacobs decision during oral argument. Accordingly, it was determined at that time to allow
the parties to supplement their brieIs in order to determine with certainty whether, in Iact, no deIault
had been entered against Garcia prior to the entry oI the deIault judgment. Garcia's supplemental
- 16
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
594
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
material supplied additional evidence that no deIault was ever entered, including an aIIidavit by
Clark County Court Clerk Loretta Bowman attesting that no such Iiling exists in the case Iile.
Respondents also acknowledged that no deIault was ever entered but argue in their supplemental
brieI that Jacobs should not be applied retroactively, noting that the deIault judgment at issue herein
was entered prior to our Jacobs decision. This argument is without merit. The court in Jacobs
determined, consistent with law Irom other jurisdictions, that the deIault judgment entered in Jacobs
was void. We accordingly ordered the district court to grant relieI Irom the void judgment, despite
the Iact that the ruling in Jacobs was, oI course, preceded by entry oI the deIault judgment against
Jacobs. II this case, rather than Jacobs, were beIore us as a case oI Iirst impression, we would have
reached the same conclusion. A void judgment is void Ior all purposes and may not be given liIe
under a theory based upon lack oI legal precedent. Garcia v. Ideal Supply Co., 110 Nev. 493, 874
P.2d 752 (Nev. 5/19/1994). The deIective service rendered the district court's personal jurisdiction
over Gassett invalid and the judgment against her void. For a judgment to be void, there must be a
deIect in the court's authority to enter judgment through either lack oI personal jurisdiction or
jurisdiction over subject matter in the suit. Puphal v. Puphal, 669 P.2d 191 (Idaho 1983). In Price v.
Dunn, 106 Nev. 100, 787 P.2d 785 (1990). We now hold that the Iiling oI a motion to set aside a
void judgment previously entered against the movant shall not constitute a general appearance. See,
e.g., Dobson v. Dobson, 108 Nev. 346, 349, 830 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1992). Nonetheless, since the
order was void, a judgment based thereon would likewise be void.. Nelson v. Sierra Constr. Corp.,
77 Nev. 334, 364 P.2d 402. Under NRCP 60(b) a motion to set aside a void judgment is not
restricted to the six months' period speciIied in the rule. NRCP 54(a) provides that the word
"judgment" as used in these rules includes any order Irom which an appeal lies. ThereIore there is no
merit to appellants' contention that the motion to vacate the judgment was not timely made. Foster v.
- 17
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
595
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
Lewis, 78 Nev. 330, 372 P.2d 679 (Nev. 6/19/1962). A void judgment is subject to collateral attack;
a judgment is void iI the issuing court lacked personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction; See
49 C.J.S. Judgments 401, at 792 (1947 & supp. 1991); 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 621-56 (1969
& supp. 1991). New Mexico II a court's decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution,
the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void Ior
Rule 1-060(B) purposes, even iI the court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995) (IorIeiture statute
required that complaint be Iiled within sixty days oI certain action; Iailure to meet that deadline
meant that court had no power to order IorIeiture, and its order was void); Watts v. Pinckney, 752
F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985) (aIter judgment awarded, deIendant paid, then Iound out this was
action in admiralty that should have been brought solely against United States; court held that
judgment was void); Compton v. Alton S.S. Co., 608 F.2d 96, 104 (4th Cir. 1979) (judgment by
deIault awarded penalty wages under inapplicable statute; court held that judgment was void, not
just erroneous); see also V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224-25 (10th Cir. 1979) (noting
that judgment can be void iI court's action involves a "plain usurpation oI power"); Crosby v.
Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir. 1963) (court had no power to impose unconstitutional
prior restraint on publication oI true statements, so thirty-year-old consent judgment was void). In
APCA, APCA as a deIendant Iiled a cross-claim against deIendant Martinez, but it was void
because not served on Martinez. On February 28, 1968, entry oI judgment was made on APCA's
cross-claim against Martinez. Four years later, Martinez' heirs moved to set aside the APCA
judgment under Rule 60(b) and in December, 1972, the 1968 judgment was set aside because it was
void. No time limit applies where a void judgment is entered. Albuquerque Prod. Credit Ass'n v.
Martinez, 91 N.M. 317, 573 P.2d 672 (1978). Since the 1973 judgment was void, the 1976 district
- 18
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
596
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
court was required to set it aside pursuant to N.M.R. Civ.P. 60(b)(4) | 21-1-1(60)(b)(4)|, N.M.S.A.
1953 (Repl. Vol.1970). There is no discretion on the part oI a district court to set aside a void
judgment. Such a judgment may be attacked at any time in a direct or collateral action. Chavez v.
County oI Valencia, 86 N.M. 205, 521 P.2d 1154 (1974). At this point we call attention also to
language Iound in the opinion in Moore v. Packer, 174 N.C. 665, 94 S.E. 449, 450, noticed by us
and quoted with approval in the Ealy case. It was there said: "A void judgment is without liIe or
Iorce, and the court will quash it on motion, or ex mero motu. Indeed, when it appears to be void, it
may and will be ignored everywhere, and treated as a mere nullity." All the appellees rely upon this
general rule in answer to appellants' challenge that they never took an appeal Irom the order and
judgment setting
aside the June, 1937 deIault judgment and decree. The court being without jurisdiction to set aside
its earlier judgment and decree, quieting title, appellees might ignore it as a void order or judgment,
they say, and Ior this reason were not required to take an appeal thereIrom, and may question the
jurisdiction oI the court and the validity oI the order or judgment at any time. Board oI County
Commissioners oI Quay County v. Wasson, 37 N.M. 503, 24 P.2d 1098; Fullen v. Fullen, 21 N.M.
212, 153 P. 294; Baca v. Perea, 25 N.M. 442, 184 P. 482; De Baca v. Wilcox, 11 N.M. 346, 68 P.
922. In the case oI Upjohn Co. v. Board oI Commissioners oI Socorro County (Stephenson,
Intervener) 25 N.M. 526, 185 P. 279, 280, we held a judgment against a garnishee void where
service oI the writ oI garnishment was made by a person other than the sheriII, where we said: "The
proceeding is wholly statutory, and compliance with the statute is essential to conIer upon the court
jurisdiction oI the res." And held that the court was vested with power to set aside and vacate such
void judgment at any time. A void judgment is one that has merely semblance, without some
essential element or elements, as where the court purporting to render it has not jurisdiction. An
- 19
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
597
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
irregular judgment is one entered contrary to the course oI the court, contrary to the method oI
procedure and practice under it allowed by law in some material respect, as iI the court gave
judgment without the intervention oI a jury in a case where the party complaining was entitled to a
jury trial, and did not waive his right to the same. Vass v. Building Association, 91 N. C. 55; McKee
v. Angel, 90 N. C. 60. An erroneous judgment is one rendered contrary to law. The latter cannot be
attacked collaterally at all, but it must remain and have eIIect until by appeal to a court oI errors it
shall be reversed or modiIied. An irregular judgment may originally and generally be set aside by a
motion Ior the purpose in the action. This is so because in such case a judgment was entered
contrary to the course oI the court by inadvertence, mistake, or the like. A void judgment is without
liIe or Iorce, and the court will quash it on motion, or ex mero motu. Indeed, when it appears to be
void it may and will be ignored everywhere, and treated as a mere nullity." Moore v. Packer, 174 N.
C. 665, 94 S. E. 449, at page 450. |T|he applicable ground |Ior relieI| would be Rule 60(B)(4), void
judgment, under which the Iailure to move to vacate within one year aIter the entry oI judgment
would not be controlling. Classen v. Classen, 119 N.M. 582, 893 P.2d 478, 34 N.M. St. B. Bull. 24
(N.M.App. 02/27/1995). The appellants contend that the court lost jurisdiction over the action thirty
days aIter the judgment was vacated. They argue that the appellees never appealed the order which
vacated the judgment, consequently, thirty days later the court was divested oI authority to entertain
any motion concerning these parties and the same cause oI action, and that Ior these reasons the
motion to amend the cross-claim was improperly granted. This point is not well-taken. The pertinent
portions oI Rule 60(b) state: On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a
party or his legal representative Irom a Iinal judgment, order, or proceeding Ior the Iollowing
reasons:... (4) the judgment is void.... An order granting a motion Ior relieI under 60(b) must be
tested by the usual principles oI Iinality; and when so tested will occasionally be Iinal, although
- 20
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
598
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
probably in most cases it will not be. Thus where the court, in addition to determining that there is a
valid ground Ior relieI under 60(b), at the same time makes a re-determination oI the merits, its order
is Iinal since it leaves nothing more to be adjudged.... Since Martinez never received notice oI the
cross-claim, the stipulated judgment was void as to him. ThereIore, it was completely proper Ior his
heirs to move to set aside that void judgment under Rule 60(b)(4). When the original judgment was
vacated as to Martinez, the status oI the case was as though no judgment had been entered as to him.
Wuenschel v. New Mexico Broadcasting Corp., 84 N.M. 109, 500 P.2d 194 (1972); Benally v.
Pigman, 78 N.M. 189, 429 P.2d 648 (1967); Arias v. Springer, 42 N.M. 350, 78 P.2d 153 (1938).
Rule 60(b) oI the Rules oI Civil Procedure abolishes the common law writ oI coram nobis but
authorizes relieI Irom a "Iinal judgment, order, or proceeding" on six speciIied grounds. Ground (2)
involves newly discovered evidence; ground (4) involves a void judgment; and ground (6) involves
"any other reason justiIying relieI". Although Rule 60(b) is a civil rule, State v. Romero, supra, held
that where a prisoner had served his sentence and had been released, this civil rule could be utilized
to seek relieI Irom a criminal judgment claimed to be void. This result was based on an intent to
retain all substantive rights protected by the old writ oI coram nobis. See State v. Raburn, supra;
Roessler v. State, 79 N.M. 787, 450 P.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 967, 89 S. Ct.
2115, 23 L. Ed. 2d 754 (1969). Continuing jurisdiction over Iinal judgment. The judgment entered
on April 25 was a Iinal judgment. The City argues that Brooks could obtain relieI Irom the writ
issued on May 1 only under SCRA 1986, 3-704(B) (Repl. Pamp. 1990), which limits relieI to (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) Iraud, misrepresentation or other
misconduct; (3) a void judgment; or (4) satisIaction, release or discharge oI the judgment or the
reversal or vacation oI a prior judgment upon which it is based. However, NMSA 1978, Section 34-
8A- 6(E) (Repl. Pamp. 1990), states that "All judgments rendered in civil actions in the metropolitan
- 21
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
599
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
court shall be subject to the same provisions oI law as those rendered in district court." Under
NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 (Repl. Pamp. 1991), Iinal judgments and decrees entered by the district
courts remain under the control oI such courts Ior thirty days aIter entry thereoI. ThereIore, the
metropolitan court retained control oI its judgment and had the right to set it aside aIter granting a
rehearing on the matter. See, e.g., Nichols v. Nichols, 98 N.M. 322, 326, 648 P.2d 780, 784 (1982)
(district court is authorized under Section 39-1-1 to change, modiIy, correct or vacate a judgment on
its own motion) (citing Desjardin v. Albuquerque Nat'l Bank, 93 N.M. 89, 596 P.2d 858 (1979)).
The Iact that the void judgment has been aIIirmed on review in an appellate court or an order or
judgment renewing or reviving it entered adds nothing to its validity. Such a judgment has been
characterized as a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which may be chopped oII at any time, capable
oI bearing no Iruit to plaintiII but constituting a constant menace to deIendant." WALLS v.
ERUPCION MIN. CO. 6 P.2d 1021 November 3, 1931. Judge Howards Judgment and Summary
Contempt ORder are both void Ior all the reasons listed above in view oI all the pleadings and
papers and attachments on Iile in this matter, especially when one adds in all the Iiling and materials
that should be in the Record on Appeal, but strangely are not. correcting clerical errors in judgments:
Nevada Alamo Irr. Co. v. U.S., 81 Nev. 390, 404 P.2d 5 (1965) Supp Channel 13 oI Las Vegas,
Inc. v. Ettlinger, 94 Nev. 578, 583 P.2d 1085 (1978) Supp Finley v. Finley, 65 Nev. 113, 189
P.2d 334 (1948) Supp Gottwals v. Rencher, 60 Nev. 35, 98 P.2d 481, 126 A.L.R. 1262 (1940)
Supp Iveson v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 66 Nev. 145, 206 P.2d 755 (1949) Supp Kirkpatrick
v. Temme, 98 Nev. 523, 654 P.2d 1011 (1982) Supp Koester v. Administrator oI Estate oI
Koester, 101 Nev. 68, 693 P.2d 569 (1985) Supp McKissick v. McKissick, 93 Nev. 139, 560
P.2d 1366 (1977) Supp Opaco Lumber & Realty Co. v. Phipps, 75 Nev. 312, 340 P.2d 95 (1959)
Supp Silva v. Second Judicial Dist. Court in and Ior Washoe County, 57 Nev. 468, 66 P.2d 422
- 22
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
600
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
(1937) II, IX, XII, XIII, XV, XVIi, XIX Smith v. Epperson, 72 Nev. 66, 294 P.2d 362 (1956)
Supp
CONCLUSION
Regardless, the "Judgment" or "Order" here was not appropriately served on the undersigned
on November 30th, 2011. Further, the undersigned made many, many calls and written attempts
and trips to the RMC to obtain a copy oI the Contempt Order, the Guilty Judgment, and the audio
recording oI the Trial and all were either not granted, not provided, or provided in such a delayed
manner as to create an unduly prejudicial situation adversely eIIecting the undersigneds rights
suIIicient to impermissibly compromise Iundamentals notions oI Iairness and due process.
Further, the Order is "rendered" when Judge Howard says it is "rendered", and Judge Howard
clearly indicated, on the record, as demonstrated in the audio record, which will be available to the
District Court ultimately, the 10 day deadline Ior Iiling a Notice oI Appeal would not begin running
until aIter the 3 day Summary Contempt Order's three day jail sentence concluded. Damn, this
stuII is complicated. Sure it nice to see the government goign hard as a mother to protect lil ol'
Wal-Mart whom is rumored to be the subject oI a documentary about how they have a intricate
system oI weasling out oI their "Return Policy" and retaliating against those who call them on it.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
Also, this document does not contain any social security number or other inappropriate material
pursuant to NRS 239B.030.
Dated this February 1, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Pro Se Attorney Appellant
- 23
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
601
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On Iebruary 1, 2012, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing document by Iaxing and
delivering and serving upon registered eIilers and depositing a true and correct copy in the US Mail
addressed to:
PAM ROBERTS, ESQ
JOHN KADLIC, ESQ
r-.. c.., ......-, o....- c......| r......
r.o. r.. .)aa r-.. , v s),a,
r|..- ...-.. ,,,.za,a
r.. ....-.. ,,,.z.za
Attorney Ior Respondent, City oI Reno
-----------------------------
Zach Coughlin
AGENT OF APPELLANT
- 24
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-01-2012:16:46:41
Clerk Accepted: 02-02-2012:08:31:50
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Supplemental ...
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
609
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
Document Code: 2645
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: CR11-2064
DEPT. NO: 10
NOTICE TO SET HEARING
COMES NOW, Appellant Zach Coughlin, by and through his attorney, Zachary Barker
Coughlin, Esq , and Iiles this Notice to Set Hearing based upon:
"NRS 189.065 Dismissal Ior Iailure to set or reset appeal Ior hearing.
1. An appeal must be dismissed by the district court unless perIected by application oI the deIendant, within 60 days
aIter the appeal is Iiled in the justice court, by having it set Ior hearing.
2. II an appeal has been set Ior hearing and the hearing is vacated at the request oI the appellant, the appeal must be
dismissed unless application is made by the appellant to reset the hearing within 60 days aIter the date on which the
hearing was vacated.
The undersigned hereby applies Ior any such hearing that is required.
Rule 19. Appeals Irom municipal and justice courts.
1. All appeals Irom the municipal or justice courts in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial or hearing within 60 days oI
the date oI application Ior setting. A setting beyond 60 days may be made only iI approved in writing by the trial judge or
- 1
NOTICE TO SET HEARING
F I L E D
Electronically
02-02-2012:02:38:43 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2739094
610
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
the chieI judge. II a trial setting is continued by order oI the court, the case shall be reset within 60 days oI the date oI the
order Ior continuance.
2. II multiple settings Ior appeal trials in any one court department exceed the capacity oI that department, settings
shall be made in the designated department scheduled to handle the overIlow. II that court`s calendar becomes Iull,
assignment shall be made to any other available department.
3. Appeals in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial on Thursdays and Fridays, unless the trial judge
or the chieI judge grants permission to make such settings on other judicial days."
PLEASE NOTE ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9th AT 10:30 A.M. the undersigned will appear
beIore Department 10, either in person or telephonically to Set a Hearing Ior this matter in
compliance with the above authority.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
Also, this document does not contain any social security number or other inappropriate material
pursuant to NRS 239B.030.
Dated this February 2nd, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV Bar No. 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
- 2
NOTICE TO SET HEARING
611
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On February 2, 2012, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing document by Iaxing and
serving upon registered eIilers and depositing a true and correct copy in the US Mail addressed to:
PAM ROBERTS, ESQ
JOHN KADLIC, ESQ
r-.. c.., ......-, o....- c......| r......
r.o. r.. .)aa r-.. , v s),a,
r|..- ...-.. ,,,.za,a
r.. ....-.. ,,,.z.za
Attorney Ior Respondent, City oI Reno
-----------------------------
Zach Coughlin
AGENT OF APPELLANT
- 3
NOTICE TO SET HEARING
612
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-02-2012:14:38:43
Clerk Accepted: 02-02-2012:14:58:17
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Notice to Set
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
613
F I L E D
Electronically
02-06-2012:04:41:30 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2747102
614
615
616
617
618
619
F I L E D
Electronically
02-06-2012:04:41:30 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2747102
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
F I L E D
Electronically
02-06-2012:04:42:23 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2747109
634
635
636
637
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-06-2012:16:41:30
Clerk Accepted: 02-06-2012:16:47:23
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Reply to/in Opposition
- **Continuation
Filed By: PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
638
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
Document Code: 1425
Zach Coughlin
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9
th
St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
Attorney Ior Pro Se Appellant denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
City oI Reno;
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CaseNo:CR11-2064
DeptNo:10
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
COMES NOW, Appellant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himselI as he was denied his Sixth
Amendment Right To Counsel, and Iiles this Appellant's Opening BrieI: This Motion in is based
upon the pleadings and papers on Iile in this matter, both in this appeal and the underlying RMC 11
CR 22176 and the Iollowing legal argument. The undersigned Iiles this Opening BrieI with the intent
to Iile a Supplemental to it or a Notice oI Errata with respect to this Iiling, and a more complete
Opening BrieI by February 6, 2012. This is being done due to conIusion as to whether the 'within 30
days deadline, which would seam to Iall on Saturday, February 4
th
, 2012, would allow Iiling timely a
-1-
AppellantOpeningBrief
F I L E D
Electronically
02-07-2012:12:19:36 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2747319
639
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
BrieI on February 6, 2012. In an abundance oI caution, this is submitted to at least get something
Iiled.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Indeed, NRCP RULE 5. SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER
PAPERS requires that:
'(a) Service: When Required. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every order
required by its terms to be served,... (b)(2) Service under this rule is made by: (A)
Delivering a copy to the attorney or the party by: (i) handing it to the attorney or to the
party; (ii) leaving it at the attorney`s or party`s oIIice with a clerk or other person in
charge, or iI there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place in the oIIice;
or (iii) iI the oIIice is closed or the person to be served has no oIIice, leaving it at the
person`s dwelling house or usual place oI abode with some person oI suitable age and
discretion residing thing a copy by electronic means if the attorney or the party
served has consented to service by electronic means... The served attorney`s or
party`s consent to service by electronic means shall be expressly stated and filed in
writing with the clerk of the court and served on the other parties to the action. The
written consent shall identiIy: (i) the persons upon whom service must be made; (ii)
the appropriate address or location Ior such service, such as the electronic-mail address
or Iacsimile number; (iii) the Iormat to be used Ior attachments; and (iv) any other
limits on the scope or duration oI the consent. An attorney`s or party`s consent shall
remain eIIective until expressly revoked or until the representation oI a party changes
through entry, withdrawal, or substitution oI counsel. An attorney or party who has
consented to service by electronic means shall, within 10 days aIter any change oI
electronic-mail address or Iacsimile number, serve and Iile notice oI the new
electronic-mail address or Iacsimile number. (3) Service by electronic means under
Rule 5(b)(2)(D) is not eIIective iI the party making service learns that the attempted
service did not reach the person to be served. (4) ProoI oI service may be made by
certiIicate oI an attorney or oI the attorney`s employee, or by written admission, or by
aIIidavit, or other prooI satisIactory to the court. Failure to make prooI oI service shall
not aIIect the validity oI service.
It was reversible error in the underlying matter where the Court: reIused to grant a
continuance oI the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial, Iailed to provide the Sixth Amendments guarantee oI a
Right to Counsel both in the petit theIt Trial and once even the specter oI a Summary Contempt
Iinding was announced. Way too prejudicial to deny the right to counsel then announce the Court
-2-
AppellantOpeningBrief
640
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
would nail the undersigned with contempt Ior attempting to zealously advocate on his own behalI.
Further, reIusing to allow inquiry into the stated retaliatory motives oI Wal-Mart and its Asset
Protection division, especially vis a vis, Wal-Mart's established practice, even by its managers, oI
outright lying the the public repeatedly about the terms and eIIect oI the posted Return Policy
applicable to purchases in Wal-Mart stores. Additionally, prosecutorial misconduct, (suborning
perjury, Iailing to turn over discovery in a timely manner, lying about whether the Reno City
Attorney had received anything Irom the RSIC, etc) justiIy overturning the verdict. Additionally, the
prosecutions improper motive in this retaliatory prosecution stems Irom a desire to undermine the
undersigned's credibility and ability to litigate especially vis a vis the wrongIul arrest, negligent
hiring training and supervision lawsuit that the Reno City Attorney received warning oI well in
advance oI the arrest in this matter. Further improprieties and due process deIiciencies in the Reno
Municipal Court and its Iiling oIIice justiIy overturning the conviction. Additionally, a Notice oI
Entry oI Order here Irom the RMC is likely required given the Order was complete outside the
presence oI one oI the parties (made in absentia), and thereIore rendition oI Order is likely not
suIIicient. Further, the prosecution did not meet its burden to prove any oI the elements oI the crime
charged: '(a) Intentionally steals, takes and carries away, leads away or drives away... Each oI the
three witnesses contradicted themselves as the material Iacts, including whether the UPC at issue
appeared on both receipts and whether the undersigned provided his driver's license to the RSIC
OIIicers, which the video showed he did, and thereIore, the probable cause to conduct a search
incident to a custodial arrest is vitiated and perjury apparent by all three witnesses and misconduct by
the Reno City Attorney. All arguments made below, whether at Trial or in the papers on Iile or
otherwise submitted to the RMC are hereby incorporated by reIerence.
-3-
AppellantOpeningBrief
641
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
RMC Sec. 8.10.040. - Petit larceny: It is unlawIul Ior any person to take or carry away the
property oI another with the intent to deprive the owner oI his property therein, in any value less than
$250.00, and Ior his conviction thereIor, he shall be Iined in an amount not more than $1,000.00
and/or be incarcerated not more than six months. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall
order the person to pay restitution. (Code 1966, 11.12.003; Ord. No. 2762, 1, 8-13-79; Ord. No.
3866, 1, 9-25-89; Ord. No. 4815, 1, 10-28-97; Ord. No. 5058, 1, 11-12-99) State law reIerence
Petit larceny, NRS 205.240. NRS 205.240 Petit larceny; penalty. 1. Except as otherwise
provided in NRS 205.220, 205.226, 205.228 and 475.105, a person commits petit larceny iI the
person: (a) Intentionally steals, takes and carries away, leads away or drives away: (1)
Personal goods or property, with a value oI less than $650, owned by another person; (2)
Bedding, Iurniture or other property, with a value oI less than $650, which the person, as a lodger, is
to use in or with his or her lodging and which is owned by another person; or (3) Real
property, with a value oI less than $650, that the person has converted into personal property by
severing it Irom real property owned by another person. (b) Intentionally steals, takes and carries
away, leads away, drives away or entices away one or more domesticated animals or domesticated
birds, with an aggregate value oI less than $650, owned by another person. 2. Unless a greater
penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 205.267, a person who commits petit larceny is guilty oI a
misdemeanor. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
|1911 C&P 374; A 1947, 85; 1949, 127; 1943 NCL 10324|(NRS A 1965, 300, 1007; 1967,
500; 1969, 531; 1983, 547; 1985, 751; 1989, 1434; 1995, 13; 1997, 342, 1114; 1999, 3109; 2009,
1243; 2011, 165) NRS 205.251 Determination oI value oI property involved in larceny oIIense.
For the purposes oI NRS 205.2175 to 205.2707, inclusive: 1. The value oI property involved in a
larceny oIIense shall be deemed to be the highest value attributable to the property by any reasonable
-4-
AppellantOpeningBrief
642
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
standard. 2. The value oI property involved in larceny oIIenses committed by one or more persons
pursuant to a scheme or continuing course oI conduct may be aggregated in determining the grade oI
the larceny oIIenses. Grant v. State, 24 P.3d 761 234 LARCENY 234II Prosecution and Punishment
234II(B) Evidence 234 54 Weight and SuIIiciency 234k57 k. Intent. Nev.,2001 Requisite Iinding oI
intent to permanently deprive owner oI property was supported in grand larceny prosecution by
evidence that deIendant was seen tucking casino patron's purse into his jacket several times and
heading towards lobby and exit oI casino. N.R.S. 205.220 , subd. 1, 205.222, subds. 2, 3. Hogan v.
State, 536 P.2d 1028 Nev.,1975 There was suIIicient evidence oI Ielonious asportations oI air
conditioner Irom Ienced compound at rear oI store to support convictions Ior grand larceny
notwithstanding deIendants' assertions that they Iound the air conditioner outside the Ience and
believed it was abandoned. N.R.S. 205.220 . State v. Phipps, 282 P. 1024 Nev.,1929 Evidence in
prosecution Ior larceny oI mining property held not to show codeIendant's intent to take, steal, or
carry away personal property. State v. Ward, 10 P. 133 Nev.,1886 The Iacts that deIendant took a
horse Irom the premises oI its owner without his knowledge, and rode it Ior a certain distance, and
then abandoned it, aIter removing and concealing the saddle and blanket, are suIIicient to justiIy a
Iinding oI intent permanently to deprive the owner oI his property, although deIendant testiIies that
he had engaged another to take it back, and when he did not appear he expected some one to take it
back, or that the animal would stray back. NRS 205.0824 'Deprive deIined. 'Deprive means to
withhold a property interest oI another person permanently or Ior so long a time that a substantial
portion oI its value, useIulness or enjoyment is lost, or to withhold it with the intent to restore it only
upon the payment oI a reward or other compensation, or to transIer or dispose oI it so that it is
unlikely to be recovered. NRS 205.0832 Actions which constitute theIt. 1. Except as otherwise
provided in subsection 2, a person commits theIt iI, without lawIul authority, the person knowingly:
-5-
AppellantOpeningBrief
643
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
(a) Controls any property oI another person with the intent to deprive that person oI the property.
(b) Converts, makes an unauthorized transIer oI an interest in, or without authorization controls
any property oI another person, or uses the services or property oI another person entrusted to him or
her or placed in his or her possession Ior a limited, authorized period oI determined or prescribed
duration or Ior a limited use. (c) Obtains real, personal or intangible property or the services oI
another person by a material misrepresentation with intent to deprive that person oI the property or
services. As used in this paragraph, 'material misrepresentation means the use oI any pretense, or
the making oI any promise, representation or statement oI present, past or Iuture Iact which is
Iraudulent and which, when used or made, is instrumental in causing the wrongIul control or transIer
oI property or services. The pretense may be verbal or it may be a physical act. (d) Comes into
control oI lost, mislaid or misdelivered property oI another person under circumstances providing
means oI inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates that property to his or her own use or that oI
another person without reasonable eIIorts to notiIy the true owner. (e) Controls property oI
another person knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen. (I) Obtains
services or parts, products or other items related to such services which the person knows are
available only Ior compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation or diverts the
services oI another person to his or her own beneIit or that oI another person without lawIul authority
to do so. (g) Takes, destroys, conceals or disposes oI property in which another person has a
security interest, with intent to deIraud that person. (h) Commits any act that is declared to be theIt
by a speciIic statute. (i) Draws or passes a check, and in exchange obtains property or services, iI
the person knows that the check will not be paid when presented. (j) Obtains gasoline or other Iuel
or automotive products which are available only Ior compensation without paying or agreeing to pay
compensation. 2. A person who commits an act that is prohibited by subsection 1 which involves
-6-
AppellantOpeningBrief
644
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
the repair oI a vehicle has not committed theIt unless, beIore the repair was made, the person received
a written estimate oI the cost oI the repair. Its was reversible error where Judge Howard Did not
comply with the above and the burden oI prooI was not met in consieration Io the evidence oIIered.
Further, Appellant was reIused his opportunity to testiIy or put on evidence, City oI Reno suborned
perjury, ect, etc. Intent was missing too, and, assumign the accusations are true, anyone consuming
that many oI those cough drops would not be capable oI Iorming the requisite intent. Driver's license
was oIIered, thereIore reversible error to allow basing the search on Iailure to provide driver's license
or suIIicent indentiIying inIormation to issue a citation. Fruit oI poison tree.
Appellants incorporates by reIerence all arguments, Iilings, correspondence etc made in the
trial court or so Iar in this appeal, especially those in the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
` The 2008 Limited Court Jurisdiction Bench Book and its 2010 Supplement set Iorth a number
oI appealable issues in this matter, including:
SUMMARY PUNISHMENT Summary punishment is only permissible Ior direct contempts (those
acts identiIied in NRS 22.010 committed within the immediate view and presence oI the judge).
Questions to analyze Ior Summary Punishment Is the contempt eligible Ior summary
punishment? ? Act or omission perIormed in presence oI Court ? Immediate judicial action was
required to maintain or restore authority/justice/dignity oI the Court ? Was there an order that spelled
out the details oI compliance in clear, speciIic and unambiguous terms so that the person should have
readily known exactly what duties or obligations were imposed on him? ? Is the contempt on in
which the person has omitted perIorming an act which is yet in the power oI the person to perIorm?
What type oI contempt exists? ? Civil in which punishment is appropriate? ? Civil in which
imprisonment to Iorce perIormance is appropriate? ? Criminal in which adjudication oI a
misdemeanor is appropriate? What is the sentence imposed? ? Imprisonment in county jail not to
exceed 25 days ? Fine not to exceed $500 (payable to county/city treasurer) ? Both above mentioned
Iine and imprisonment ? II civil , expenses, including attorney Iees, oI injured party iI the contempt
involves disobedience to a lawIul order or writ ? Is the contempt one that involves Iailure to do an
act which is yet in the power oI the person to perIorm? II so, is imprisonment in the county jail
necessary or appropriate to Iorce the person to comply with the act? ? Is the contempt Iailure to
appear or testiIy beIore a grand jury? II so, imprisonment must cease when the grand jury is no
longer empanelled. Have you completed the written order? (Must have a written order Iiled) ?
Recites the Iacts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and presence oI the court or
judge; ? Finds the person guilty oI the contempt; and ?
-7-
AppellantOpeningBrief
645
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
Prescribes the punishment Ior the contemp
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Ioregoing the undersigned respectIully requests that this Court vacate,
overturn, or otherwise set aside the underlying Judgment and Order oI Conviction in this matter
(RMC 11 CR 22176). Appellant Declares under penalty oI perjury, pursuant to NRS 53.045, that the
assertions in this document are true and correct.
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain the social
security number oI any person.

Dated: February 6, 2012
/S/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Appellant
Attorney Ior Pro Se Appellant denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
PROOF OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certiIy that I served a copy oI the Ioregoing Appellant's Opening
BrieI upon the Iollowing party by electronically Iiling on February 3
rd
, 2012 and thereIore serving
upon registered eIiler:
Pamela Roberts, Esq.
John Kadlic, Esq.
PO Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Attorney Ior City oI Reno
Date this February 6
rd
, 2012:
/S/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Appellant
-8-
AppellantOpeningBrief
646
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-
AppellantOpeningBrief
647
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-06-2012:16:42:23
Clerk Accepted: 02-06-2012:16:48:03
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Request for Submission
Filed By: PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
648
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
Document Code: 2075
Zach Coughlin
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9
th
St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
Attorney Ior Pro Se Appellant denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
City oI Reno;
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CaseNo:CR11-2064
DeptNo:10
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF
COMES NOW, Appellant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himselI, and Iiles this
APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF. THIS
FILING IS BEING RESUBMITTED AS MS. MATHEUS IS STILL REJECTING CRIMINAL
CASE FILINGS, DESPITE WDCR: '2012-02-06 23:50:34.0 Subject: Your electronic Iiling, Re:
CR11-2064 - Other Municipal Court Criminal - MO - Mtn Ior Extension oI Time, was rejected by
Second Judicial District Court - State oI Nevada. Case Number: CR11-2064 Case Type: Other
Municipal Court Criminal - MO Document Type: Mtn Ior Extension oI Time Reason(s) Ior rejection:
This document was rejected yesterday as the case number on the document is incorrect. The Second
-1-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
F I L E D
Electronically
02-07-2012:09:44:49 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2747886
649
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
Judicial District Court does not recognize case number CR-2064. Please correct the case number on
your document and resubmit. II you have any questions, please contact Lori at 328-3114. Further,
Appeals Clerk Matheus rejected an Opening BrieI attempt Iiled last Friday in contravention oI
WDCR 18.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
WDCR Rule 18. Papers which do not comply with rules. Except in criminal cases and writs
arising Irom criminal cases, Iiling oIIice personnel shall reIuse to Iile any document or pleading
which is not properly signed by all persons, or which does not comply with these rules, Nevada Rules
oI Civil Procedure, the District Court Rules, or applicable statutes.
Appellant has had numerous Iilings in the criminal matter rejected by the Iiling oIIice in
contravention oI WDCR 18 and thereIore request an extension oI time to Iile this Opening BrieI.
WDCR Rule 11. Extension or shortening oI time. 1. All motions Ior extensions oI time shall
be made upon 5 days` notice to all counsel. Such motion shall be made to the judge who is to try the
case, or, iI the judge is not in the courthouse during regular judicial hours, to a judge on the same
Iloor who shall set or cause the motion to be set Ior early hearing. (For the sake oI this rule
Department 10 is deemed to be on the second Iloor.) 2. Except as provided in this subsection, no ex
parte application Ior extension oI time will be granted. Upon presentation oI a motion Ior extension,
iI a satisIactory showing is made to the judge that a good Iaith eIIort has been made to notiIy
opposing counsel oI the motion, and the judge Iinds good cause thereIor, the judge may order ex
parte a temporary extension pending a determination oI the motion. 3. For good cause shown, the
judge who is to try the case, or iI the judge is not in the courthouse during regular judicial hours, the
chieI judge, may make an ex parte order shortening time upon a satisIactory showing to the judge that
a good Iaith eIIort has been made to notiIy the opposing counsel oI the motion. 4. Extensions to
-2-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
650
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
answer or otherwise respond to a complaint shall not exceed 40 days without court approval. The trial
judge shall determine the appropriate sanction iI this rule is violated. Appellant cites excusable
neglect or other circumstances (like opposing counsel in an summary eviction Irom one's law oIIice
based on no cause notice, not nonpayment oI rent, commercial tenant in cv11-03628 getting him
wrongIully arrested and police misconduct and the Iailre to return security deposit and Appellants
recently being a victim oI domestic violence in EPO granted in FV12-00188, and FV12-00187 in
askign Ior an extension and page limit exception.
WDCR Rule 19. Appeals Irom municipal and justice courts.
1. All appeals Irom the municipal or justice courts in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial or
hearing within 60 days oI the date oI application Ior setting. A setting beyond 60 days may be made
only iI approved in writing by the trial judge or the chieI judge. II a trial setting is continued by order
oI the court, the case shall be reset within 60 days oI the date oI the order Ior continuance.
2. II multiple settings Ior appeal trials in any one court department exceed the capacity oI that
department, settings shall be made in the designated department scheduled to handle the overIlow. II
that court`s calendar becomes Iull, assignment shall be made to any other available department.
3. Appeals in criminal cases shall be set Ior trial on Thursdays and Fridays, unless the trial judge
or the chieI judge grants permission to make such settings on other judicial days.
4. In civil appeals Irom the justice court, appellant shall Iile within 30 days aIter the Iiling oI a
notice oI appeal a written brieI containing a statement oI the errors committed in the justice court
with accompanying authorities which shall not exceed 5 pages. Within 20 days aIter the Iiling and
service oI appellant`s brieI, respondent shall Iile a written answering brieI which shall not exceed 5
pages.
-3-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
651
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
My mountain bike was stolen right about the time landlord Merliss had NV Eneregy trespass
on my property and do an unnoticed shut oII oI electricity. All the Iood in my reIridgerator went bad,
and other damages were incurred. NV Energy asserted privity oI contract where the are not allowed
to, while being a monopoly supplying an essential Service. www.ShameOnNVEnergy.com
Further, just last Friday, February 3rd, 2012, NV Energy again shut oII Appellants electricty without
notice, and now is reIusing to allow Appellant to have service started, demanding all sorts oI
documentation, prooI, private, personally identiIiable inIormation, and speciIic Iorms oI
'agreements to which NV Energy, a monopoly, has not right. That cause this BrieI to exceed 5
pages and Iorms a basis Ior this request to allow an extension oI time to reIine and Iinish Appellant's
Opening BrieI.
Indeed, NRCP RULE 5. SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER
PAPERS requires that:
'(a) Service: When Required. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every order
required by its terms to be served,... (b)(2) Service under this rule is made by: (A)
Delivering a copy to the attorney or the party by: (i) handing it to the attorney or to the
party; (ii) leaving it at the attorney`s or party`s oIIice with a clerk or other person in
charge, or iI there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place in the oIIice;
or (iii) iI the oIIice is closed or the person to be served has no oIIice, leaving it at the
person`s dwelling house or usual place oI abode with some person oI suitable age and
discretion residing thing a copy by electronic means if the attorney or the party
served has consented to service by electronic means... The served attorney`s or
party`s consent to service by electronic means shall be expressly stated and filed in
writing with the clerk of the court and served on the other parties to the action. The
written consent shall identiIy: (i) the persons upon whom service must be made; (ii)
the appropriate address or location Ior such service, such as the electronic-mail address
or Iacsimile number; (iii) the Iormat to be used Ior attachments; and (iv) any other
limits on the scope or duration oI the consent. An attorney`s or party`s consent shall
remain eIIective until expressly revoked or until the representation oI a party changes
through entry, withdrawal, or substitution oI counsel. An attorney or party who has
consented to service by electronic means shall, within 10 days aIter any change oI
electronic-mail address or Iacsimile number, serve and Iile notice oI the new
electronic-mail address or Iacsimile number. (3) Service by electronic means under
Rule 5(b)(2)(D) is not eIIective iI the party making service learns that the attempted
service did not reach the person to be served. (4) ProoI oI service may be made by
-4-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
652
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
certiIicate oI an attorney or oI the attorney`s employee, or by written admission, or by
aIIidavit, or other prooI satisIactory to the court. Failure to make prooI oI service shall
not aIIect the validity oI service.
It was reversible error in the underlying matter where the Court: reIused to grant a
continuance oI the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial, Iailed to provide the Sixth Amendments guarantee oI a
Right to Counsel both in the petit theIt Trial and once even the specter oI a Summary Contempt
Iinding was announced. Way too prejudicial to deny the right to counsel then announce the Court
would nail the undersigned with contempt Ior attempting to zealously advocate on his own behalI.
Further, reIusing to allow inquiry into the stated retaliatory motives oI Wal-Mart and its Asset
Protection division, especially vis a vis, Wal-Mart's established practice, even by its managers, oI
outright lying the the public repeatedly about the terms and eIIect oI the posted Return Policy
applicable to purchases in Wal-Mart stores. Additionally, prosecutorial misconduct, (suborning
perjury, Iailing to turn over discovery in a timely manner, lying about whether the Reno City
Attorney had received anything Irom the RSIC, etc) justiIy overturning the verdict. Additionally, the
prosecutions improper motive in this retaliatory prosecution stems Irom a desire to undermine the
undersigned's credibility and ability to litigate especially vis a vis the wrongIul arrest, negligent
hiring training and supervision lawsuit that the Reno City Attorney received warning oI well in
advance oI the arrest in this matter. Further improprieties and due process deIiciencies in the Reno
Municipal Court and its Iiling oIIice justiIy overturning the conviction. Additionally, a Notice oI
Entry oI Order here Irom the RMC is likely required given the Order was complete outside the
presence oI one oI the parties (made in absentia), and thereIore rendition oI Order is likely not
suIIicient. Further, the prosecution did not meet its burden to prove any oI the elements oI the crime
charged: '(a) Intentionally steals, takes and carries away, leads away or drives away... Each oI the
three witnesses contradicted themselves as the material Iacts, including whether the UPC at issue
-5-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
653
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
appeared on both receipts and whether the undersigned provided his driver's license to the RSIC
OIIicers, which the video showed he did, and thereIore, the probable cause to conduct a search
incident to a custodial arrest is vitiated and perjury apparent by all three witnesses and misconduct by
the Reno City Attorney. All arguments made below, whether at Trial or in the papers on Iile or
otherwise submitted to the RMC are hereby incorporated by reIerence.
` The 2008 Limited Court Jurisdiction Bench Book and its 2010 Supplement set Iorth a number
oI appealable issues in this matter, including:
SUMMARY PUNISHMENT Summary punishment is only permissible Ior direct contempts (those
acts identiIied in NRS 22.010 committed within the immediate view and presence oI the judge).
Questions to analyze Ior Summary Punishment Is the contempt eligible Ior summary
punishment? ? Act or omission perIormed in presence oI Court ? Immediate judicial action was
required to maintain or restore authority/justice/dignity oI the Court ? Was there an order that spelled
out the details oI compliance in clear, speciIic and unambiguous terms so that the person should have
readily known exactly what duties or obligations were imposed on him? ? Is the contempt on in
which the person has omitted perIorming an act which is yet in the power oI the person to perIorm?
What type oI contempt exists? ? Civil in which punishment is appropriate? ? Civil in which
imprisonment to Iorce perIormance is appropriate? ? Criminal in which adjudication oI a
misdemeanor is appropriate? What is the sentence imposed? ? Imprisonment in county jail not to
exceed 25 days ? Fine not to exceed $500 (payable to county/city treasurer) ? Both above mentioned
Iine and imprisonment ? II civil , expenses, including attorney Iees, oI injured party iI the contempt
involves disobedience to a lawIul order or writ ? Is the contempt one that involves Iailure to do an
act which is yet in the power oI the person to perIorm? II so, is imprisonment in the county jail
necessary or appropriate to Iorce the person to comply with the act? ? Is the contempt Iailure to
-6-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
654
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
appear or testiIy beIore a grand jury? II so, imprisonment must cease when the grand jury is no
longer empanelled. Have you completed the written order? (Must have a written order Iiled) ?
Recites the Iacts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and presence oI the court or
judge; ? Finds the person guilty oI the contempt; and ? Prescribes the punishment Ior the contemp
Appellant could not reasonably be said to have been appropriately or suIIiciently inIorme
doI just how he could comply with Judge Howard's contempt warning/Iinding/order 10 minutes into a
6 hour Trial, nor could Appellant or anyone be said to be capable oI both zealously advocating on
their own behalI while also complying with Judge Howard's menacing and vague Order that
contravened Iundamental notions oI Iairness and due process. Appellant requests that all filings,
correspondences, and arguments made in the Trial Court or so far in this Appellate Courte be
incorprorated by reference herein.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Ioregoing the undersigned respectIully requests that this Court grant an
extension to reIine the Opening BrieI and exception to page limit rule in WDCR 19 any other relieI
this Court deems just. Appellant Declares under penalty oI perjury, pursuant to NRS 53.045, that the
assertions in this document are true and correct.
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain the social
security number oI any person.

Dated: February 5
rd
, 2012
/S/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Appellant
Attorney Ior Pro Se Appellant denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
-7-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
655
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
-8-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
656
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certiIy that I served a copy oI the Ioregoing document upon the
Iollowing party by electronically Iiling on February 3
rd
, 2012 and thereIore serving upon registered
eIiler:
Pamela Roberts, Esq.
John Kadlic, Esq.
PO Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Attorney Ior City oI Reno
Date this February 3
rd
, 2012:
/S/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Appellant
-9-
Appellant'sMotionforExtensionofTimeandPageLimitException
657
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-07-2012:00:19:36
Clerk Accepted: 02-07-2012:10:32:32
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Opening Brief
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
658
F I L E D
Electronically
02-09-2012:12:22:27 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2754868
659
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-07-2012:09:44:49
Clerk Accepted: 02-07-2012:10:38:21
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn for Extension of Time
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
660
F I L E D
Electronically
02-15-2012:11:42:40 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2768364
661
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ZACH COUGHLIN
ON APPEAL
ZACH COUGHLIN, ESQ.
NV BAR NO 9473
1422 E. 9TH ST. #2
RENO, NV 89512
TEL: 775 338 8118
FAX: 959 667 7402
ZACHCOUGHLIN@HOTMAIL.COM
ATTORNEY FOR PRO PER ATTORNEY APPELLANT
Zach Coughlin, Plaintiff/
Appellant
1422 E. 9th St. #2,
Reno, NV 89512
code: 2385
CITY OF RENO
CR11-2064
10
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; OR ALTERNATIVELY,
ZXXXXXXXX
APPELLANT
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
RESPONDENT
662
ON APPEAL
663
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-09-2012:12:22:27
Clerk Accepted: 02-09-2012:12:22:48
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Application for Setting - eFile
Filed By: Heidi Howden
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
664
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
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: CR11-2064
DEPT. NO: 10
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
COMES NOW, Appellant Zach Coughlin, by and through his attorney, Zachary Barker
Coughlin, Esq , and oIIers his SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS. The undersigned was
instructed by the Second Judicial District Court to submit a cd/dvd Ior Iiling as an exhibit to a Iiling
in this manner.
TABLE OF CASES AND STATUES CITED
STATUTES
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Did the District Court Violate Coughlin's 6th Amendment
Right to ConIront Witnesses When it Prohibited DeIense
- 1
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
F I L E D
Electronically
02-22-2012:05:47:25 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2778332
665
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
' 24 Counsel Irom Conducting a Full and Complete
Cross-Examination?
Did the District Court Commit Judicial Misconduct
Throughout the Trial Which Prejudiced Coughlin's
Due Process? .
Did the District Court Error by Admitting Inadmissible Hearsay Statements
Against Coughlin?
In the Iirst 10 min. trial judge Howard disagreed with the deIendant on the record as to whether or not
the case he was about to try was a complex case rather judge Howard had already made up his mind that he
was not on lag but that was rather open and shut any dedicated judge our new house rule on this case beIore it
even started which is kind oI impermissible under most notions oI due process and Iundamental Iairness judge
Howard banged his Iist my gavel mind you but his Iist on the bench causing terrible Ieedback on the
microphones recording proceedings exhibited an unbalanced and erratic approach to his rulings in this matter
that are indicative oI a bias or other evident impartiality this is particularly troubling where so many ancillary
matters involving the Reno Municipal Court have arisen recently with respect to the deIendant including
violations oI Reno Municipal Court rules by house Iormer prosecutor Lou tale in not only set the case Ior
which he's his own conIlict checking procedure should have alerted him to the Iact that Coughlin was sailing
an entity with which tale shares oI oIIice and receptionist and a boom list table as associated with its business
that being Nevada court services on about court services website but also where Taylor Iailed to comply with
Reno Municipal Court rule Iive in Iiling a motion to withdraw stating with suIIicient particularity in writing
his rationale Ior withdrawing rather tale manage to broker a withdrawal Irom the case behind-the-scenes
without hacking do reveal is embarrassing departures Irom the rules special conduct the complicity oI their
Reno Municipal Court allowing this is troubling particularly where judge Howard then proceeded to deny the
accused is six-member right counsel to bang his this on the bench in an apparent a mosh to the year he's been
playing Iootball at you and our and where judge Howard inIormed the deIendant that he would have him
- 2
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
666
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
arrested and incarcerated should the deIendant continued to attempt to preserve objections Ior the record on
appeal a scant 5 min. into the trial room oI the
Judge Howard, at 2:31:52 pm in the AT, responded to the pro so accused DeIendant arguing that the Sixth
Amendment, as interpreted by Ainsgliser requires the appointment oI counsel where even the mere possibility
oI jail time is present under a plain reading oI the charge. Judge Howard cited to Scott v. Illinois Ior his
contention that the RMC was not required to provide an indigent like the Appellant any appointed counsel.
Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), counsel must be appointed in any case resulting in a
sentence oI actual imprisonment. However, in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), the Court ruled that
counsel did not need to be appointed iI the deIendant was not sentenced to any imprisonment. It was reversible
error Ior Judge Howard and so rule particularly where he ultimately did sentence appellant to three days
incarceration. Further this perversion oI any holding in Scott versus Illinois on Judge Howard's part is
indicative oI the troubling lack oI Iidelity to the true intent oI the sixth amendment and Iundamental motions
oI due process and Iair play. For Judge Howard to make men's attempts to reconcile his deep desire to
sentence to incarceration Ior the appellant in this matter while also and denying the appellant his sixth
amendment right to counsel in the trial court by reaching out to leverage the statute related to summary
contempt committed in the course presents indicates a troubling lack oI intellectual hon than esty on the court
part and Iurther elucidates a disturbing incapability oI the court to grasp the importance they should attach to
once Iundamental right to zealously advocate on their own behalI particularly in a criminal matter were either
incarceration is a possibility or as here were both incarceration and severe damage to a property right i.e. a law
license will necessarily Iollow upon a conviction given the dictates oI Nevada Supreme Court rule 111 in that
the charge here petty larceny clearly comes within the purview oI Supreme Court rule 111 subsection 6 in that
that any oIIenses Ior which an essential element involves any type oI theIt are necessarily deIined as a
quotations serious oIIense in quotations within the text oI Nevada Supreme Court won't 111.
Construction and Application oI Sixth Amendment Right to CounselSupreme Court Cases. 33
A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1 (Originally published in 2009). The U.S. Supreme Court decided that actual imprisonment
was the line deIining the constitutional right to appointment oI counsel in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.
- 3
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
667
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
Ct. 1158, 59 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1979). The petitioner was convicted oI shopliIting merchandise valued at less than
$150. The applicable state statute set the maximum penalty Ior such an oIIense at a $500 Iine or one year in
jail, or both. The petitioner's conviction was aIIirmed by the state appeals court and then by the state supreme
court, notwithstanding his argument that the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution required that
the State provide trial counsel to him at its expense. The U.S. Supreme Court aIIirmed, determining that the
Federal Constitution did not require a state trial court to appoint counsel Ior a criminal deIendant unless actual
imprisonment was imposed. The court explained that actual imprisonment was a penalty diIIerent in kind Irom
Iines or the mere threat oI imprisonment, and limiting the application oI the right to counsel to cases where
imprisonment was actually imposed and not just threatened was sound. The court said that the precedent oI
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S. Ct. 2006, 32 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1972), had proved reasonably workable,
but any extension thereoI would create conIusion and impose unpredictable and substantial costs on the states.
Accordingly, the court held that no indigent criminal deIendant could be sentenced to a term oI imprisonment
unless the State had aIIorded him the right to the assistance oI appointed counsel in his deIense.
In judge Howard's judgment order oI conviction in this matter this Irankly appalling when considering
the lengths to which judge Howard goes to manage to deny an indigent deIendant his sixth amendment right to
counsel while at the same time entering an order that resulted in the deIendants incarceration this is
particularly startling and disturbing considering that judge Howard reasoned Irom the bench at the trial that
Scott the Illinois allowed him to deny the indigent deIendant his sixth amendment right to counsel in that jail
time would not be ordered in this matter judge Howard in no way at that time limited that ruling which he
rendered Irom the bench the term rendered or upon rendition appears in NRS 189.010 and is applicable to the
deadline upon which criminal appellants must Iile a notice oI appeal as extensively brieIed in the motion to
dismiss and its accompanying opposition and supplement thereto rendered or rendition essentially means when
the court or judge verbally announces something the bench as such judge Howard's oral ruling with regard to
the Iact that incarceration would not occur in this matter is binding upon judge Howard it is law the case
however judge Howard in order incarceration in any mincing attempts to suggest that the Iact that the
incarceration was Ior a Iine oI summary contempt committed in the course presents under NRS 22.010 sub
- 4
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
668
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
three should simply be unavailing particularly where a Iundamental constitutional right is involved and where
it judge Howard's ruling as rendered Irom the bench 5 min. into the trial did not limit the application oI his
ruling in any way as such no incarceration the matter what it stems Irom is permissible in this matter or
anything connected thereto as such this entire judgment order oI conviction is void us as the two are
inextricably intertwined in Iact sixth amendment right to counsel once right to zealous advocacy summary
contempt Iinding and a conviction Ior the crime alleged herein are all inextricably intertwined in ways
disturbing the judge Howard has event such a clear disregard Ior matters that have such a preeminent
importance in the canyon oI due process and notions oI Iundamental Iairness Iurther at the trial when aIter 5
min. oI proceedings that is to say trial it only been going on just a Iew scant minutes and a deIendant upon the
Iirst time he tried to preserve and objections Ior the record judge Howard going quote Irom 0 to 60 in one
second" announced to the deIendant in a bullying menacing voice that he would have the deIendant clearly
custody and the trial continued iI the deIendant were to continue to try to preserve issues Ior appeal or
objections thereto. The Iact that judge Howard is a Iormer prosecutor in addition to judge Garner in a Iormer
prosecutor in addition to the Iact that at least three oI the Iour appointed deIense attorneys that the Reno
Municipal Court his contract with our Iormer prosecutors either with the Reno city attorney's oIIice or the
Dist. Atty.'s oIIice is unsettling as the appearance created is one oI an environment where a cabal oI Iormer
prosecutors has managed to gain a monopoly oI the Reno Municipal Court and work in conjunction with
prosecutors Irom the Reno city attorney's oIIice to essentially leverage the court as a bill collector or the city oI
Reno in addition to having the ancillary beneIit oI being able to undermine deIame and otherwise unduly
burden any citizens who might take issue with the myriad oI constitutional violations in deprivations oI
Iundamental rights that he Reno Police Department and the Reno Sparks Indian colony carry out on a daily
basis and in practically every arrest and search incident to arrest that occurs within this County indeed this
spirit oI retaliatory arrest and retaliatory prosecution cannot be countenanced by the District Court citizens
should not Iace a guaranteed arrest merely Ior invoking their constitutional rights yet that is just exactly what
happens on a daily basis and the Reno city attorney cannot be said to be unaware this where the Iact that a
pattern practice habit and custom is carried out within the police Iorce is about the Reno Sparks Indian colony
- 5
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
669
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
and the Reno police apartment such that any Iuture negligent hiring trainer supervision claims that might issue
similar to those that arose in EoII the city oI Reno incident to a wrongIul arrest and 42 USC section 1983
lawsuit oI recent note. As to the Iormer prosecutor cabal appearance at the Reno Municipal Court takes on oI
late oI the Iour appointed deIense attorneys Lew Taitel, Esq., Roberto Puentes, Esq., Keith Loomis, Esq. and
Jane McKenna that the Reno Municipal Court has Iinally admitted to the deIendant are the names oI the
appointed deIense counsel three oI them are Iormer prosecutors with the Washoe County Dist. Atty.'s oIIice
there is some indication that Thomas Viloria. Esq is also associated with the RMC as a deIense attorney in
some manner, however that has not been conIirmed. However, Kelly Viloria, Esq. is a Iormer Washoe County
Dist. Atty. it is important to note that the deIendant immediately aIter the arrest in this matter which occurred
just days aIter the deIendant Iiled a complaint with the Reno Police Department alleging police misconduct
and that time when the Reno city's attorneys oIIice was aware oI such a complaint the deIendant sought a copy
oI the police report Irom the arrest Ior which the trial in this case involved the Reno Sparks Indian colony
repeatedly reIused to provide a copy oI this report both in response to written and in person request by the
deIendant Ior these materials including the conversation with a sergeant haven't seen who repeatedly gave
conIlicting contradictory statements with regard to the existence oI such materials availability thereoI and
whether or not they had been provided to the Reno city attorney's oIIice the deIendant called the Reno city
attorney's oIIice and spoke with Reno city attorney deputy Christopher Hazlitt Stevens in the week Iollowing
the September 9, 2011 arrest Mr. Hazlitt Stevens inIormed the accused that he Reno city attorney's oIIice did
not having materials incident to the arrest and would nine back have any such. Until aIter the arraignment
which was set equal month out Irom the September 9 arrest Ior October 10 subsequent productions Irom the
Reno city attorney's oIIice indicate that the Reno city attorney's oIIice had received Iaxes Irom the Reno
Sparks Indian colony it didn't take a genius or Sherlock Holmes to Iigure this out as Iax headers bear witness
to that these oI the the documents produced by Reno city attorney Pam Roberts bearing complete and again the
Iax headers with her page numbers and page counts indicate that not everything is been provided in addition
indicating that shortly aIter the September 9 arrest and probably incident to the Iuss and sunshine the
deIendant was bringing to this matter people were busy data Reno Sparks Indian colony Police Department
- 6
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
670
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
and the Reno city attorney's us particularly in light oI the September 7 complaint Iiled by the deIendant
alleging police misconduct by the been P which happened to involve some oI the very same issues beIore the
court in this matter speciIically retaliatory prosecution and retaliatory arrest incident to citizens invoking or
attempting to insert their constitutional rights including those guaranteed by the Iourth and FiIth Amendment
Reno city attorney prosecutor Pam Roberts is a big Ian oI spelunking in Iact Ms. Roberts seems to hate
sunshine or what other conclusion could one make upon a review oI this record Ms. Roberts seeks to have this
appeal dismiss beIore it even gets oII the ground based upon some perverted interpretation oI NRS 189.010
she lies to this court when she suggests that a CD was not provided to her oIIice and she is gone to great
lengths to avoid hearing portion oI the audio record wherein judge Howard announced or Iurther rendered his
order with respect to the deadline to Iile a notice oI appeal in this matter Ms. Roberts has apparently gone so
Iar as to have her e-mail address shut down the one which is reversely been held up to public on the State Bar
Nevada's website it undersigned attempted to provide Ms. Howard a strike that provide Ms. Roberts courtesy
copy oI the audio wherein judge Howard announced that the notice the deadline Iile a notice oI appeal would
not begin running until aIter three days incarceration he ordered incident to the summary contempt Iinding that
judge Howard made justice can't 5 min. into the trial despite the Iact that he said such a Iinding would result at
trial continued judge Howard displayed even Iurther just how craIty he can be when he really wants to get
something accomplished duet rather than continue the trial which might aIIord the accused some means oI
obtaining the exculpatory materials Ior which unlawIul rent distraint was being applied by Richard Hill
Esquire incident to the wrongIul eviction Irom the excuse Iormer home law oIIice where in the retaliatory at
intent oI Walmart and its asset protection staII which had previously been expressly stated by Walmart and its
asset protection staII could be accessed and provided to the court Ior the purpose oI aiding in the deIendants
deIense oI the crime charged in this matter. He transcript oI the trial in this matter is almost complete the
undersigned urge is the court to reIrain Irom doing that which the Reno Saturday attorney obviously one which
is to prevent any sunshine showing on this matter or the troubling lack oI checks and balances in the Reno
Municipal Court and the problems incident to having a cabal oI Iormer prosecutors let loose in the hen house
that is the Reno Municipal Court indeed these problems include the Iact that the undersigned was denied the
- 7
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
671
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
right by judge Howard it got covered 10 arraignment to know the names and identities oI equal or Iormer
prosecutors" that either the Reno city attorney or Reno Municipal Court has contracted with wide
representation to indigent deIendants in matters Ior the Reno Municipal Court the undersigned in clearly be
heard on the record oI that arraignment querying judge Gartner a Iormer prosecutor himselI much like judge
Howard as to his right to know the names oI these into individual contracted deIenders this was necessary Ior
the purpose oI doing complex checks and ascertaining their qualiIications and characteristics judge Gartner
curtly reIused to provide such inIormation Iurther judge Gardner's Marshall and Marshall Mentzel was may
seem rude and threatening in response to the undersigned making queries at that time related to the sixth
amendment essentially the Reno Municipal Court once people, and there Iorked out some money and leave
causing the Reno Municipal Court is marshals and the Reno city attorney as little hassle along the way and as
little expense as possible sometimes as here this is accomplished by skimping on things like the sick man right
to counsel and involves extreme creativity specially on the part oI judge Howard wherein he manages to not
only denied the indigent criminal deIendant his six-member right counsel where incarceration is ultimately
ordered that he also manages to do so where no right to seek review oI his summary contempt Iinding or estate
thereoI is aIIorded the accused is important to note that at the conclusion oI the trial wearing Ms. Roberts had
already gone home and the Walmart is loss prevention associate Fontenot and his two buddies on the Reno
Sparks Indian colony police Iorce were milling about in the lobby outside the court spite the Iact that two oI
three witnesses in that group had Iinished testiIying hours previous to the conclusion oI the trial and
incarceration oI the accused pro se indigent deIendant could been denied his right to counsel and where the
Reno Municipal Court apparently Iacing such great budget issues that skimping on the six-member right is
necessary somehow still manage to keep upwards oI six court employees working overtime Ior approximately
4 hours so that the matter oI such extraordinary public concern that oI a Petit larceny trial wearing a candy bar
was allegedly liberated Irom Walmart could be expeditiously addressed back to the October 10 arraignment
Gartner reIusing by the name oI the prospective deIenders Lewis tale was appointed to Mr. tales conIlict
checking procedures did not catch the Iact that the deIendant here the undersigned Coughlin had actually sued
Nevada court services the process server with whom tale shares both in oIIice and receptionist and which list
- 8
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
672
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
table as associated with their business on the Nevada court services website tale violated Reno Municipal
Court rules in seeking withdraw Irom the matter without Iile a written motion in that regard only aIter Taylor
been pretty to extremely sensitive and conIidential inIormation and Iiles incident the deIense this matter tale
still is yet to divulge this are in any way document this impropriety instead tales good Iriend Roberta point as
who also subsequently had revealed Coughlin that he has a business relationship with Nevada court services
himselI mysteriously appeared in Mr. tales status counsel Ior the same deIendant Coughlin in another matter
RMC 11 CR 26405 wherein Coughlin was charged with trespassing in connection to the same property
involved in the eviction Irom Coughlin's Iormer home oIIice in Reno justice court case rev 2011 00 1708
which involve Richard G Hill Esquire signed a criminal complaint Ior trespass against Coughlin. While
Coughlin was arrested Ior trespass upon Hill submitting a sign criminal complaint to the same Reno Police
Department oIIicer Chris Carter that admitted to Coughlin that Hill bribes him, the Reno Police Department
reIused to arrest anyone Irom Coughlin's Iormer Reno Municipal Court appointed public deIender Luis take
tolls business partners Nevada court services Ior their trespass upon Coughlin's Iormer home law oIIices gated
backyard which was caught on tape and can be seen on YouTube right now. It's also very incestuous and
conIusing that it would really take much than the Iive pages mentioned in the scores brieIing order to spell it
out suIIice to say Mr. Puentes was recently granted his motion to withdraw Irom representing Coughlin in the
trespass case beIore Reno Municipal Court by Iormer prosecutor now Reno Municipal Court judge Gartner
who just a scant two years ago was working Ior the Reno city attorney's oIIice who employs Pam NiIong, er,
Pam Roberts, who cares not that she is suborning perjury oI Walmart witness Fontenot and the two Reno
Sparks and incline police oIIicers rest assured whether this appeal is dismissed or not or whether a de novo
trial is aIIorded as the undersigned believes it is as no one is argued or tablet that is orders court record and
that the hearing date set in this matter should not be treated as a real legitimate hearing date it's entirely
possible some sunshine his guests shine on this matter and all the incestuous conIlict oI interest and selI-
dealing evident in the matter upon which this appeal is based
A little sneak peek at the transcript Ior the case appealed here reveals:
- 9
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
673
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
"
Beginnings audio transcript at 2:11:56 PM
Coughlin: are you having them sit together because they are on the same team?
Marshall Mentzel: my courtroom. I put people where I want them.
Coughlin: okay but why are they put together?
Marshall: all rise department Ior the Reno Municipal Court staII session the Hon. Judge Howard presiding
Howard: be seated everyone
Roberts: Your Honor last cases city verse Zachary Coughlin 11 CR 22176 Mr. Coughlin would you step Iorward please
Howard all right this is the time and place set Ior trial in regard to a
In regard to a heady larceny alleged to been committed on September 9 oI this year complaint alleges that said deIendant
on o and will will and will in no small him as him terribly shaken r about September 9 20 11th hour Walmart 2425 E. 2nd
St. city oI Reno state oI Nevada did take carrying away Walmart property valued at less than $250 with the intent to
deprive Walmart oI said property said property consisted oI cough drops chocolate bar Mr. Coughlin is that your
understanding oI the charge
Coughlin:I believe so Your Honor
Howard: all right part both parties ready to proceed at this time
Robert: Yes, Your Honor
Coughlin: no Your Honor I'm not ready to proceed
Howard: why not
Mr. Coughlin: Well, there is a variety oI reasons, Your Honor
Howard: you have to speak up iI you want me..
- 10
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
674
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
. Coughlin: yes sir Your Honor, there's a variety oI reasons, sir, I would say chieI oI which is that it unlawIul rent distraint
is currently being applied to my Iiles that are necessary to deIend this case I was evicted in justice court case REV2011-
001708 recently, besides having an impermissible rent escrow deposit applied to me in that case
Howard:what is that have to do with this case?
Coughlin: recently I have been aIIected all my Iiles
Howard: right
Coughlin: all my Iiles incident the deIense oI this case are currently being withheld under in him permissible rent distraint
in violation oI NRS 40 - 25376 and 118 a.460
Howard what else you have other than this what else you have, as a basis Ior not being prepared?
Coughlin: I made numerous attempts to contact the Reno city attorney's oIIice Ms. Roberts in attempts to discuss this
matter
Howard: Ms. Roberts
Coughlin: and I have not been able to reach her
Howard or that sound basis Ior Brenda continuance maybe she doesn't speak to she is not required to Coughlin Iurther
there's a good deal oI discovery that needs to be undertaken in this regard Walmart has been obstructive, as well as
unintelligible
Howard: what items oI discovery
Coughlin: well I'd like to take some depositions as well have them respond to some subpoena duces T comes I had served
on them
Howard what else
Coughlin the same could be said Ior the Reno Sparks Indian: a this is a complex case in terms you have the Indian colony
renting property to Walmart while employing the same police patrolling the property on which they have a Iinancial stake
in whether make an arrest there's Iourth amendment issues involved in this case as well is 42 section 1983 abuse oI
process's and police misconduct in terms oI attempting to obtain consent an impermissible search through coercive means
this is not a simple little case civil recovery abuses are being alleged on the part oI Walmart attempted state actors as well
I can probably put into words and math Your Honor Huck truly disruptive this eviction it is I was evicted Irom my home
oIIice man attorney in the state oI Nevada my client Iiles are curling I don't even know iI I should call the my Iiles to my
- 11
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
675
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
clients Iiles are being withheld under an impermissible rent distraint I was sexually assaulted by a bailiII in court the other
day
Howard in this court
Coughlin in justice court
Coughlin all oI these matters can shipping to an unduly burdensome environment in which by that ability to deIend this
case has been unduly prejudice in the extreme
Howard I thank you amended to my request to continue I guess whether this is a complex case is in the eye oI the
beholder I don't typically Iind that these matters are as complex as you've indicated they are on that as well that much oI
the argument that you made here relating to sexual assault oI a bailiII and another core your inability to possess control
your client Iiles have no relevance in my mind to proceeding with the charges and petty larceny alleged to have occurred
at Walmart on September 9
Coughlin not just my client Iiles or materials needed to deIend this case are being withheld
Howard I interrupt you sir don't interrupt me
Coughlin yester
Howard additional note that the last hearing November 14 the city was present with three witnesses the matter was
continued initially indicated that we would note Mr. Coughlin's Iailure to appear we ordered a bench warrant and $1000
cash bail only to discover unIortunately Ior Mr. Coughlin was in custody so the matter was reset will will I think there's
been suIIicient time to prepare Ior trial in this matter so we will proceed with trial all witnesses please stand rich array can
be sworn please
Coughlin iI I can just know my objections Ior the record will
Howard standing objections
Coughlin Ms. Howard has agreed to a continuance submitting a written agreement to the continues this matter
Howard Ms. Roberts
Roberts he initially had asked Ior a motion to continue sometime ago I went was Ior the 14th and I did not object at that
time am I think you sent me an e-mail aIter the 14th and I said I would not object but Your Honor so at that time I did not
object he has Iiled Iiled additional motions with additional allegations that I think should be stricken and not considered
by this court and I'd like to withdraw my lack oI opposition to continuance
- 12
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
676
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
Howard will in any event this court is not going to agree to the stipulation iI there was a stipulation to continue without
witnesses witnesses here Ior second time they're ready to proceed this case going Iorward they will judge but will swear
the witnesses
Marshall G swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
witnesses yester
Marshall evolved and sworn
Howard all right Mr. Coughlin do I need to go over the here today?
Coughlin yester and Howard the city has a burden oI prooI and as such will allow Ms. Roberts to proceed with its case in
chieI initially she can do so by calling one more witnesses to the witness stand you have an opportunity to cross examine
each oI those witnesses once she has completed she can honestly oIIer any physical or documentary evidence that she
Ieels is relevant obviously subject to any objections that you might have to relevancy initiatives by this court wants the
city has concluded its case you will have not Saturday to present a deIense case I highlight the word opportunity because I
think you understand there is no requirement that you present any evidence whatsoever and back should you choose not
to testiIy this court there's no inIerence as to your guilt or urine hundred cents based on your decision not to testiIy on the
other hand you have an absolute right to oIIer testimony in the Iorm oI witnesses including yourselI realizing that each oI
those witnesses will be subject to cross-examination by the city attorney in Iact iI you have any additional evidence
physical or documentary that you would like me to review in most circumstances I will do so subject once again to any
objections that the city attorney and he might have to that evidence once the two oI you have submitted your respective
cases I will allow both oI you to make closing arguments once concluded this court will render a decision as your guilt Ior
your innocence do understand?
Coughlin I do have a question Your Honor the couple you mentioned that I would be able to present evidence iI that
evidence is being withheld Irom me at this point and it's pending a stay in motion Ior return oI personal property in justice
court I would be precluded Irom action accessing that evidence?
Howard I've ruled on that already have I not
Coughlin it sounded like you said it didn't matter
Howard I don't Iind that it's relevant to go Iorward with the trial today
Coughlin so iI I have video evidence oI retaliatory intent by Walmart
Howard you should've brought it with you today
- 13
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
677
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
Coughlin but iI it's being withheld impermissibly under the law
Howard: we are going Iorward today I have addressed the issue you can bring it up on appeal iI you Ieel that the decision
oI the scores in proper understood
Coughlin yester Your Honor yes iI I question I did with
Howard Mr. Coughlin lets you and I have a agreement today that we will be respectIul oI one another you can tender any
objections that you may have I do not want you to be repetitious iI you made an objection or a presentation and I've ruled
on it except that and let's move on to understanding I do however
Coughlin I do however to the extent that you've told me that my liIe and career are not worth a continuance because it
might cost Walmart associate another trip to the court house I don't see we are being respectIul oI me Your Honor
2:27 PM
Howard very good but proceed
Roberts Your Honor Ryan can invoke exclusionary rule asked Thomas and Tina is by
Coughlin Your Honor FICA just interject and address a couple preliminary motions in limine and exclusionary motions
Howard got
Coughlin won't ask any oI the discovery that there Reno city attorneys provided be excluded under them motion in
lemonade exclusionary rule and that we Iully brieIed the issues there and iI beIore any such such discovery is admitted in
evidence
Howard which emotional lemony
Coughlin to exclude the the written statements oI Mr. Fontenot and the
Howard will on what basis do like oIten that their violative oI the Iourth amendment
city
Howard city a response
Roberts I think he is articulate how they invoke the Iourth IiIth amendments rather than just make bald assertion that
they've violative will
Howard well and good and denied a request many in NRS 170 4125 motions are required to be made prior to trial you
Iailed to do that in written Iorm on knock in or register them at this point in time because there have the obvious eIIect oI
continuing this preceding today and I think that's where you're going not request that
Coughlin and I'll just Internet injection
- 14
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
678
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
Howard I want to hear anything Iurther is denied
Coughlin winey dinner my objections to the records are mad do so
Howard Mr. Coughlin and giving you Iair warning iI you continue to persist in this line oI perIormance I'm going to hold
you in contempt 2:29 PM
Coughlin I won't be bullied into and not entering my objections on the record new line Howard this matter will be
continued because you're going to be placed in custody now you can giving Iair warning let's proceed
Coughlin Your Honor may I enter my objections in the record to preserve them Ior the record on appeal
Howard go ahead
Coughlin seems as though you've just told me that I may not because you just told me you are going to have to be arrested
iI I do so I am a little scared to do that at this point Your Honor and I move Ior your recusal Irom this case on that basis
Howard
Coughlin paroles
Howard denies
Coughlin okay then can I enter my record and state the basis Ior my objections Ior the motions in limine
Howard Mr. Coughlin let's proceed Baker objections on the record now go ahead
Coughlin okay citizen originally get angry I believe I have. Those motions submit I believe I have submitted those
motions in writing
Howard and they have been denied
Coughlin well it seemed as though a second ago Your Honor said that they had not been submitted in writing
Howard: all right (pounds Iist on desk making very loud sound! Microphone now Iunctions with Ieedback Ior an extended
period oI time )
2:30:6: PM:
Coughlin Iurther there is a coercive attempt to procure consent to a search based upon not consenting. Probable cause was
buttressed upon a Iailure to not consent to search which as you stated earlier Your Honor asserting FiIth Amendment or
Iourth man right cannot be used to inIer evidence oI guilt will or to buttress a probable cause Iinding Ior a search
particularly Ior a search that occurs prior to arrest
Howard: anything Iurther?
- 15
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
679
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
Coughlin I do I am terribly shaken by what you said to me, Sir, and it's aIIected my ability to concentrate right now and
deIend my case given the 0 to 60 in one second approach that I have witnessed you take with me today in terms oI
threatening me with content upon the Iirst attempt I believe I made to preserve and objections Ior the record Iurther I
believe my motion Ior reconsideration Ior counsel was never ruled on there is a six amendment right to counsel where the
possibility oI jail time is
Howard: your initial motion has been previously denied all denied again in regard to motion Ior counsel all denied again
Ior the record that is Iounded upon Scott versus Illinois which is that an injured event and visual as you claim you are iI
they are not going to be sentenced to jail time there is no requirement oI the appointment oI counsel..."
That's just a taste in the transcript will reveal much oI interest to the District Court and in Iact much Ior which the District
Court likely has some liabilities should it seek to turn a blind eye to the due process deIiciencies endemic to that which
occurs on a daily basis in the Reno Municipal Court. Further it's disturbing to have that the Reno Municipal Court has
clearly submitted to the District Court a record on appeal but is entirely incomplete and attempts to thwart the
undersigned's attempts to expose some oI the problems in due process deIiciencies prevalent within the Reno Municipal
Court at this time in addition to the various Iactual and legal bases Ior this appeal the undersigned has this court Iorced the
Reno Municipal Court to provide actual one page per page reproductions oI the Iowa means all oI them at the
undersigned sheet approval Iile Irom Reno Municipal Court Ior oIIice supervisor Donna Ballard instead oI these
decidedly illegible Iour pages per page versions additionally incorporated by reIerence are all the arguments Iactual and
legal assertions made within the opposition and any other Iilings in this or the trial court the opposition the motion to
dismiss Iiled by Ms. Roberts Iurther as this court has made clear to the undersigned in other cases the Iailure to oppose a
motion will be taken under the Pope case and district court rule 13 as admission oI the validity oI the arguments made and
Ior which no opposition was provided in that regard Ms. Roberts court reIusal to respond to any oI the matters set Iorth in
the undersigned's recent Iilings in this case should r result in the same types oI admissions that the undersigned has had
Iound as rising against him in other cases in Department 10, Iurther is troubling that were some departments preIer to
decide cases on the merits other departments indicate to certain litigants that NRCP 6(e) does not accord litigants an
additional three days to respond to notions etc. where electronic service has occurred despite the plain reading oI that rule
- 16
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
680
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
indicating that it does. Also, see Deboer. The undersigned signed a test under penalty oI perjury that upon inIormation
believed to Iactual legal assertions made herein are true to the best oI his knowledge although admittedly this recitation
given the exigencies and Harrington Reno city attorney Roberts was about intention to make sure this case never sees
the light oI judicial review.
Additionally judge Howard admitted he was remiss not inIorming the undersigned oI his right to appeal
respect to the conviction the Petit larceny charge however judge Howard could be said to have attempted to
mislead the undersigned with respect to whether or not he would have any right to appeal the summary
contempt Iinding as upon being queried in that regard judge Howard denied that any such review would be
accorded in curtly stated that he was going Iorward with that despite his "saddened by the extent to which
doing so would prejudice the undersigned engaging criminal deIendant attorneys clients cases.
Notes Irom review oI Record on Appeal
Clearly the Record on Appeal Irom the Reno Municipal Court is missing much oI what Coughlin Iiled.
The RMC expressly gave Coughlin permission to Iile by email rather than Iax. That permission cannot
reasonably be said to have been revoked prior to December 20th, 2011. As such, the Iull "one page per page"
production oI the various Iiling Coughlin submitted to the RMC (whith the express written permission oI RMC
Filing OIIice Supervisor Donna Ballard) shoudl be included in the Record on Appeal, not the "Iour page per
page" version that has been scanned n by the RMC in a manner to make it especially illegible.
The undersigned is Iiling now (attached as Exhibit X) a copy oI the Record on Appeal, which the
RMC has apparently title "APPEAL PROCEEDINGS FROM MUNICIPAL'S COURT" (which includes on
bates stamped page 2 a "CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET".
Page 9 oI the ROA reveals the "ARREST REPORT AND DECLARATION OF PROBABLE
CAUSE" Iilled out by Reno Sparks Indian Colony (RSIC) OIIicer Cameron CrawIord. CrawIord perjured
- 17
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
681
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
himselI with his testimony at trial in this matter (and Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts suborned his perjury in
violation oI numerous Rules oI ProIessional Conduct and prosecutorial standards).
CrawIords testimony is littered with lying and or sloppy errors, justiIying overturning the conviction in this
matter. At 5:54 pm on the audio transcript Irom 11/30/11 in RMC 11 CR 22176 (AT) Cameron incidates that
the UPC Ior the "cough drops" Coughlin was accused oI stealing "did not appear on the receipt" oI the items
Coughlin actually purchased:
CrawIord: I did check Ior the UPC, yes, just the numbers
Coughlin: Ior which?
Cr: For both.
Co: For Both? So, now you're saying that the UPC Ior the cough drops did not appear on the receipt?
Cr: Correct.
Co: So, iI the UPC Ior the cough drops does appear on the receipt, that would make your testimony, inaccurate
or unreliable?
Cr: I guess. I don't know.
Co: You guess?
Also at 6:05pm CrawIord amdits (and that when he showed up to the scened, Walmart's Frontino
already had a Criminal Complaint Iilled out. This directly contradicts Frontino's earlier testimony that day that
Frontino did not know Coughlin's name prior to CrawIord receiving it Irom Coughlin, and that Frontino did
not have a Criminal Complaint Iilled out, with Couglhin's name inserted into even prior to CrawIord and
Braunworth showing up to investigate. Frontino clearly oIIered perjured testimony in that regard. THIS
DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS Frontinos ealiery tetiomy that he didnotknow Coughlin's nme priorto rawIord
- 18
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
682
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
getting it Irom Coulhin. Furter, this implicates Frotino Ior perjruyeve Iurther i consideration oI te Iact tat
Frontino lied wene idicated tat he id ot ave a seetoIc paperwih Coughln's nam isat ext to Couhli
wimmediatelwenFrontinoescorted Coughlin backto Walmar'ts nterrogation room
At 6:06 pm AT CrawIord indicates that he only conducted the search oI Coughlin's pockets aIter he placed
handcuIIs on Coughlin.
Further, CrawIord clearly perIorms an impermissible search oI Coughlin's bag on the "AP OVERVIEW-
9/9/2011" video (hereinaIter "AP Overview", see attached as Exhibit X) at 9:28:30, well prior to any cuIIs
being put on and well prior CrawIord searchign in Coughlin's pockets. It is this bullying, menacing approach,
combined with CrawIords oIt exhibited willingness to bend the rules as to the Bill oI Rights (when he is even
aware they exist) that is truly troubly, particularly where it is the same entity that is paying CrawIords check
that is renting the land to Wal-Mart. CrawIord can be seen at various points in the AP Overview video jab
stepping towards Couglin, over and over, in an overly aggressive Iashion, with the standing CrawIord jutting
his crotch towards the sitting Coughlin's Iace, over and over, in some sort oI precursor to an apparent bull rush.
It is ridiculous to watch.
Further, earlier in this "AP Overview" video at 9:24:27 pm Coughlin can clearly be seen responding to
CrawIords request Ior Coughlin's driver's license by giving CrawIord Coughlin's driver's license. CrawIord
lied about this at trial, and even asserted that he was unable to issue a citation to Coughlin in light oI
Coughlin's reIusal to provide Coughlin's drivers license. However, the Arrest Report and Probable Cause
sheet CrawIord Iilled out (see the ROA page 9) clearly show that CrawIord had Coughlin's driver's license
number (which he got Irom the driver's license Coughlin gave CrawIord, as shown in the AP Overview video
at 9:24:24 pm). Further, as indicated on the probable cause sheet, CrawIord wrote down the address Ior
Coughlin Irom Coughlin's driver's license: 121 River Rock St. Reno, NV 89501. Additionally, CrawIord
- 19
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
683
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
grabs Coughlin's shopping bag Irom out oI Coughlin's hands at 9:24:36 pm, in an impemissilbe show oI
dominance and abuse oI power, occuring well prior to any "technical" point oI arrest. CrawIord tried to
describe this process as Coughlin "voluntarily" submitting to a sort oI weapons Irisk, however the video
reveals something Iar Irom a voluntary encounter, with CrawIord himselI committing a crime by grabbing the
bag out oI Coughlin's hands, then lying about it in his report and subsequently at Trial. Further, CrawIord
goes beyond a simple "pat down to check Ior weapons" when he pulls Coughlin's hat oII oI Coughlin's head at
9:25:09 pm.
CrawIord received Coughlin's driver's license Irom Coughlin at 9:24:27 PM in the AP Overview
video. The video clearly reveals it is Coughlin's State oI Nevad drivers license Coughlin hands to CrawIord,
which CrawIord subsequently called into the Incline Dispatch Center (which contracts with the RSIC) to run a
check Ior priors using Coughlin's name and drivers license number. Upon receiving the driver's license,
CrawIord looks at it and pins it to a clip on his Iront right shirt pocket, shortly beIore conducting a pat down oI
Coughlin. At 9:24:30 pm the Iemale hispanic Wal-Mart employee re-enters to small 10 by 10 Ioot conIined
interrogation room, making it 2 RSIC OIIicers and two Wal-mart AP Associates/supervisors in the room with
Coughlin. At 9:24:50 pm, Walmart's Frontino can clearly be seen planting somethign into Coughlin's
shopping bag. Next at 9:25:18 pm, another male, caucasian Walmart AP Associate enters this small, conIined
interrogation room, making it Iive on one.
At the beginning oI what was provided by the Reno City Attorney as the AP Overview video, at
9:17:36 pm, Frontino enters the interrogation room ahead oI Coughlin, whom enters with the shopping cart
and bag oI some $85 worth oI purchases he had just paid Ior. In the lower right hand corner oI the screen
clearly visibile is a computer monitor and printer atop a desk. Atop this printer is a CD/DVD disk in a
white sleeve. Frontino and an another Walmart AP Associate are in the room with Coughlin seconds later.
AT 9:17:45 Frontino reaches into the shopping cart and pulls what appears to be a brown wrapper oI some sort
out. This wrapper is clearly set in the middle oI a near empty shopping cart (Coughlin's $85 worth oI purchase
all Iit within a singular small white plastic shopping bag which. This brown wrapper does not have anything
- 20
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
684
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
atop it obscurring it in any way where it was in the shopping cart prior to Frontino pulling it out. Upon
inIormation and belieI, as is standard operating procedure Ior Walmart's AP personnel in this situations, the
unnamed Walmart AP Associate can be seen pressing record on his record device at the 9:17:58 mark, though
Walmart would subsequently deny having any such audio records and would Iurther Iail to respond to
Coughlin's Subpoena duces tecum.
At the 9:18:55 pm mark a Walmart Customer Service Manager ("Matt") in an Oakland Raider's jersey enters
the room. Frontino attempts to give this CSM the items he believes were stolen to this CSM, along with a red
bag oI M&M's. However, Frontino's attempt to include this bag oI M&M's in what is delivered to the CSM
(who, obstensibly goes oII with the items to create a "receipt" oI the allegedly stolen items) is rebuIIed by the
unnamed Walmart AP Associate also in the room at the time. At Trial, Frontino testiIied that this Associate
was not present during the relevant times, as he was "on break".
At 9:19:09 Frontino is seen opening and reachign into the leIt upper drawer oI his desk and pulling out
a clipboard with paper aIIixed to it. From this time until a Iull Iour minutes later at 9:23:15 when the RSIC
OIIicer's Braunworth and trainee CrawIord arrive, Frontino can be seen threatening and attempting to
alternatively intimidate Coughlin and oIIer Coughlin "deals" whereby an admission will be treated with
lenience in the Iorm oI "letting you go" . Unnamed can be seen adjusting his recording device and walkie talk
at 9:22:34 pm. At 9:24:11 pm Frontino pulls out a sheet oI paper Irom a Iile in his lower leIt desk drawer. At
9:24:32 a hispanic Iemale Walmart Supervisor enters the room, making the total 2 Walmart employees, and
two RSIC OIIicers and Coughlin in a 10 Ioot by 10 Ioot room. While jutting his crotch Iorward into the sitting
Coughlin's Iace, CrawIord grabs the plastic bag with Coughlin's purchases out oI Coughlin's lap and demands
that Coughlin allow him to do a "pat down" to check Ior weapons. This weapons check "pat down" beginning
at 9:25:00 pm is overly long and involves much manipulation and rubbing oI Coughlin's pockets, well beyond
that reasonably necessary to assure the suspect did not have a weapon.
- 21
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
685
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
CrawIord lied about whether Coughlin would provide his driver's license because he is sneaky and
dishonest. CrawIord knew that the law in Nevada does not allow Ior an OIIicer like CrawIord to arrest one
accused oI a misdemeanor not committed in the presence oI the oIIicer. In such situations, an OIIicer may
issue a citation, but not conduct a custodial arrest. Without a custodial arrest, the oIIicer is unable to perIorm a
search incident to an arrest. However, CrawIord badly wanted to perIorm such a search incident to arrest here,
and so he lied about whether Coughlin provided his driver's license. Then, at Trial, CrawIord lied about just
how he was able to get Coughlin's drivers license number, address, date oI birth adn teh exact height and
weight listed on Coughlin's drivers license iI CrawIord did not receive the driver's license Iorm Coughlin upon
request. It is particularly troubling that CrawIord lied there, saying that he received all that inIormation at the
Washoe County Jail. This is patently Ialse. CrawIord showed up to the jail with Braunworth, transIerred
custody oI Coughlin to the jail, and leIt shortly thereaIter. Coughlin was present the entire time that CrawIord
was at the jail and no such documentation was provided by the jail to CrawIord, and CrawIord did not Iill out
any Iurther paperwork while at the jail. Further, iI that really was the case, then why wouldn't the Jail have
provided CrawIord Coughlin's sociial securty number (that is called Ior on the Arrest and Probable Cause
sheet CrawIord Iilled out)? The same could be asked Ior the other blanks askign Ior inIormation on that Iorm,
including the suspects: place oI birth, home phone, business phone, next oI kin, ocupation and business
address, etc., etc.
Further, and this is important Ior jurisidctional purposes considering one with any hint oI tribal or
Native American blood who is accused oI a crime oI this nature while on tribal land is only triable in Tribal
Court, CrawIord lied when Iilling out this Arrest Report and Declaration oI Probable Cause (hereinaIter
ARDPC) when he indicates that Coughlin's race is "White" and his ethnicity is "Non-hispanic". Coughlin did
not indicate what race or ethnicity he is to CrawIord or anybody else on this date. CrawIord made the
expedient choice and put down his own opinion about Coughlin's race and ethnicity. The conviction is void
Ior lack oI jurisdiction in that regard.
- 22
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
686
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
Further on page 9 oI the ARDPC, CrawIord swears: "The undlersigned, Kameron CrawIord, a police oIIicer,
oI RSIC, hereby declares under penalty oI perjury that the above-named deIendant has been arrested on
probable cause and is subject to detention Ior the above-iisted oIIense(s). Either personally or upon
inIormation and belieI this oIIicer leamed the Iollowing Iacts and circumstances which support the arrest and
detention: On 9/9/11 at about 2121 hours, I responded to 2425 E. 2nd St. Reno, NV 89502 Ior a petit larceny.
Upon my arrival I met with asset protection associate Thomas Frontino who made a citizens arrest Ior petit
larceny. Frontino was in possession oI the stolen items."
It is not clear at all how Frontino could have "been in possession oI the stolen items" without having
conducted a "search incident to" "citizens arrest" (which, as both Wal-Mart's Frontino and CrawIord testiIied,
is against Wal-Marts policy and did not occur here. This type oI sloppy and reckless approach to evidence
gathering and police work pervades CrawIord's approach. Further, there was no testimony oIIered that
Frontino made a "citizens arrest" and this ARDPC was not included in the copy oI the Criminal Complaint
served on Coughlin and it was not introduced into evidence at Trial. Further, Coughlin's driver's license
number is statutorily deIined as a piece oI personally identiIiable inIormation and as such should be redacted
Irom the Record on Appeal and any other documents in the public record.
The "Iruits" oI the impermissible search by CrawIord must be subject to the exclusionary rule as
clearly, nothing in this ARDPC could reasonably be said to give CrawIord probable cause to conduct a search
incident to arrest, particularly where the alleged conduct upon which this misdemeanor charge stems Irom did
not occur in the oIIicer's presence. This is particularly true given the absolute lack oI anything in the ARDPC
that could be said to state, with any degree oI speciIicity or particularity, just what exactly is was that Iormed
the basis Ior the Iinding oI probable cause, other than completely conclusory and circular assertsion made only
by the preprinted text oI the ARDPC itselI. Simply put, this is robo-police work at its absolute worst. The
- 23
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
687
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
menacing, lunging posture CrawIord took throughout the overly long interrogation in a back room at Wal-
Mart, which, curiously, was taped by two video cameras, yet was "supposedly" not not audio recorded by
either Wal-Mart, or any oI the three AP associates or one Store Manager who were in and out oI the room. AP
worker Frontino and a hispanic Iemale Wal-Mart supervisor can be seen in the AP Overview video givin each
other a "high Iive" at 9:24:50 pm. HopeIully that "high Iive" will be worth it to Wal-Mart Ior the ensuing
rounds oI litigation that will undoubtedly stem Irom this wrongIul arrest, which will likely include, but not be
limited to claims Ior wrongIull arrest, deIamation, conspiracy, retaliation, Iraud, etc., etc.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case
Course of Proceedings in the District Court
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
T
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Appellate issues involving a purely legal question are reviewed de novo. Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev.
, , 244 P.3d 765, 775 (2010).
Wal-Mart did not present any evidence oI Iingerprints, or produce the actual cough drop boxes or
chololate bar wrapper.
- 24
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
688
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
We generally review a district court`s decision to admit or exclude evidence Ior an abuse oI
discretion, Hernandez v. State, 124 Nev. 639, 646, 188 P.3d 1126, 1131 (2008), but to the extent the
evidentiary ruling rests on a legal interpretation oI the evidence code, de novo review obtains. See
United States v. LeShore, 543 F.3d 935, 941 (7th Cir. 2008).
A
The Trial Court admitted rank hearsay violating Coughlin's right to conIrontation by
an unidentiIied declarant.
T
There was Insufficient Evidence to Support Coughlin's Conviction for
Petit Larceny and for the Summary Contempt finding as well. Further clear error was present in mnay
respects here and the trial court committed reversible Error by Admitting Inadmissible Hearsay
Statements
Against Coughlin?
To satisIy the requirements of the confrontation clause , if the State seeks to introduce
hearsay statements against a criminal defendant, such evidence must bear adequate indicia of
reliability by either falling within a firmly rooted hearsay exception , or the State must
demonstrate that the statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. If the
statement does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception , the statement is "presumptively,
unreliable and inadmissible for confrontation clause purposes ." Ramirez v. State, 114 Nev. 550,
958 P.2d, 724, 729 (Nev. 1998) (citations omitted).
The Trial Court admitted an improper hearsay statement during the testimony
- 25
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
689
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
of Frontino. It was clear error for 1udge Howard to allow Frontino to announce rank unspported
hearsay that actually demonstrates Frontino's perjury, for the purposes of discrediting the accuses,
while at the same time repeatedly refusing to allow any inquiry into WalMarts expressly stated
retaliatory intent and expresses intention to abuse process against the defendant here. Further
subpoenas and subpoena duces decums were file in this matter yet Walmart and it employees did not
show up or otherwsie respond or produce these materials.
Whenever .............. a hearsay statement by a non-testifying
declarent that does not come within any exception to the
hearsay rule....is admitted against a criminal defendant, there
is presumptively a confrontation clause violation , subject only
to the prosecutor's ability to meet its burden of showing that
the circumstances under which the statement was made gave it
adequate particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Id at
729.
V. Did the Prosecution Commit Prosecutorial Misconduct by suborning perjury, lying about whether
they had already received materials from teh RSIC, failign ot provide all exclupatory materials, or
recklessly ignoring all the holes in Walmart and the RSIC PD's stories?
The Trial Court Violated Coughlin ' s 6th Amendment Right to
Confront Witnesses When it Prohibited Defense Counsel from
Conducting Full and Complete Cross -examination?
The cornerstone oI our criminal justice system is that the accused enjoys the right to
conIront all witnesses against him. U.S. C. Const p. amena. 6. The Constitutional right oI crossexamination
may be a deIendant's only recourse to reIute evidence against him. When a witness
gives testimony that is Ialse or evasive the conIrontation clause is satisIied only by giving the
deIense Iull and Iair opportunity to probe and expose these inIirmities through examination.
Pantaro v. State, 138 P. 3d 477 (Nev. 2006).
- 26
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
690
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
TTrial Court's have wide discretion to control crossexamination
that attacks a witnesses general credibility,
however a trial court 's discretion is ...narrowed or bias
(motive) is the object to be shown and the examiner must be
permitted to elicit any facts which might color a witnesses
testimony. Id.
The DeIense should have been permitted to ask the three witnesses all oI the questions that were
objected to and Ior which the RMC reIused to allow the deIendnat to ask.
The Coughlin record on appeal might have received a signiIicantly diIIerent impression oI the three
witnesses and and his credibility iI DeIense Counsel had been permitted to cross-examine on the
issue of whether the witness lied in his sworn statement to police and whether the RSIC
Officer's lied, etc.
NRS 50.085(3) permits impeaching a witness on cross-examination about questions
about speciIic acts as long as the impeachment pertains to truthIulness or untruthIulness and no
extrinsic evidence is used.
CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE
PVIII. Did the Trial Court Commit 1udicial Misconduct Throughout the
Trial Which Prejudiced Coughlin ' s Right to Due Process?
A trial court should act as a reIeree oI the contest between the parties. It should be Iair
and impartial as between the parties and their attorneys and allow them considerable Ireedom in
the presentation oI their respective cases in their own way. A trial court has a certain amount oI
discretion to control the proceedings beIore it. The court is constrained however by a requirement
that all criminal deIendants are entitled to a Iair trial. II the actions oI the trial court prejudice a
deIendant's right to a Iair trial then obviously an abuse oI discretion is present. Belaen v.
- 27
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
691
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
Wyoming, 01-57, Wyo. 2003.
Trial Courts should be mindIul that innocuous conduct in some circumstances may
constitute judicial misconduct. Judges should be mindIul oI the inIluence they wield. Paroai vs.
B. Washoe Meaical Center, 111 Nevada 365, 367. This court said it best in Paroai at 589.
The average juror is a laymen . The average laymen looks with the
most profound respect to the presiding judge and the jury is as a rule
alert to any remark that will indicate favor or disfavor on the part of
the trial judge.
Human opinion is oIten times Iormed upon circumstances meager and insigniIicant in
there outward appearance. And the words and utterances oI a trial Judge sitting with a jury in
attendance are liable, however unintentional, to mold the opinion oI members oI the jury to the
extent that one or the other side oI the controversy may be prejudiced or injured thereby. The
inIluence oI the trial judge on the jury is necessarily and properly a great weight and his lightest
word or intimation is received with deIerence and may prove controlling. Starr J. Unitea States,
153 U.S. 614 at 626. (1894).
This Court recognized in Paroai Ia. at 591 that trial counsel is Iaced with a "hopson's
choice" oI either objecting to the misconduct which oI course has the attendant risks oI
antagonizing the trial judge Iurther and exasperating the jury or by not objecting jeopardizing their
right Ior appellate review. This Court went on to rule that by Iailing to object, at the time oI the
judicial misconduct, that appellate review would not be precluded. Errant conduct is reviewable
under the plain error doctrine. Oaae v. State, 114 Nev. 619, 960 P.2d 336 at 338.
Throughout Coughlin's trial the Trial Court repeatedly, however inadvertently and
unintentionally, expressed impatience and was discourteous to trial counsel. These comments had
an adverse impact on Coughlin's trial counsel which in turn may have aIIected the acceptance or eIIicacy oI
Coughlin's deIense.
The errors cited herein were clearly erroneous, cumulative and had a prejudicial aIIect on
- 28
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
692
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
Coughlin's case.
Examples oI judicial misconduct in trying to usurp trial counsel's role are numerous and
are seen as early as opening statement.The Trial Court's remarks and actions throughout
the trial were clearly prejudicial. What has been outlined Ior this court is not exhaustive oI every
comment made by the Trial Court nor was it meant to be.
The highlights presented oI judicial misconduct show cumulative error that was so
egregious and prejudicial that the deIense could not get a Iair trial, thereIore Coughlin's case
should be reversed.
Further is important to note that the Reno Police Department and opposing counsel novation case
Richard G Hill joined forces again to get the undersigned arrested a custodial arrest mind you for
jaywalking on 1anuary 12, 2012 incident to the undersigned peacefully filming in collecting evidence of
from a public spot Hill and his perjury providing contractor Phil, that will ultimately be used in the
wrongful eviction lawsuit that is sure to ensue and to which is now likely to be added a wrong all arrest
last against the Reno Police Department, actually , these matters may best be set forth by copying a
recent letter from the undersigned herein:
theubject: RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:40:39 -0800
From: LStuchellwashoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlinhotmail.com
- 29
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
693
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
CC: mkandarasda.washoecounty.us
Mr. Coughlin
Our records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy Machen
by posting a copy of the Order to the residence. The residence was unoccupied at the time.
Liz Stuchell, Supervisor
WCSO Civil Section
From: Zach Coughlin mailto:zachcoughlinhotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:58 AM
To: Stuchell, Liz; Kandaras, Mary; nvrenopdcoplogic.com; Silva, Roxanna; kadlicjreno.gov;
fourthestategmail.com; jamesandrebolesmsn.com
Subject: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
- 30
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
694
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
Dear IA Supervisor Stuchell and DDA Kandaras,
I realize you will likely not read all of this. The main thing is I am respectfully requesting that you
confirm with Deputy Machem that he did, in fact, "personally serve" the Summary Eviction Order on
me at 121 River Rock St., Reno 89501 on November 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm, in connection with performing
the lockout. It is my position that I was not "personally served" and I am trying to figure out whether
Deputy Machem is lying or whether the phrase "personally served" means something other than what I
believe it means, etc., etc. I appreciate your attention to this.
I am writing to inquire about and complain with regard to an Affidavit of Service filed by or for WCSO
Deputy Machem with respect to the service of a Order Granting Summary Eviction against me (in my
law office where non-payment of rent was not alleged, no less in violation of NRS 40.253 and where a
$2,275 rent escrow deposit was foisted upon me in violation of 40.253(6), especially where a stay of
eviction was not granted even while the R1C held on to most all my money...).
My issue with the WCSO is that Machem's Affidavit of Service indicates that he "personally served"
me, which kind of reminds me of all that robo-signing and MERS fraud I come across in my day job
(and do you wonder how many attorneys in the foreclosure defense game I am in constant contact with
who are watching and witness the potential RICO violations this writing mentions?), which includes
being a foreclosure defense attorney. So which is it? Did Machem "personally serve" me the Summary
Eviction Order? Richard G. Hill, Esq. likes to argue that I was "served" in compliance with all time
related rules because it was done in the "usual custom and practice of the WCSO. What, exactly, is the
"usual custom and practice of the WCSO? I hear a lot about this "within 24 hours" stuff. So, I go
hunting for some black letter law to support what those at the R1C and in the clueless community at
- 31
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
695
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
large (which often includes Nevada Legal Services and Washoe Legal Services, the people you guys had
such trouble actually serving in the lawsuits I filed, which may have actually helped improved legal
services in this community, if they were not dismissed due to insufficiency of service of process, even
where the IFP required the WCSO to served the defendants....). Anyway, back to the "within 24 hours"
phraseology: "
This whole business about ~The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or constable of
the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order... is inapplicable to this
situation, where an Order Granting Summary Eviction was signed by October 27th, 2011. That
language is only found in situations inapplicable to the current one. NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2), and NRS
40.253(5)(a) are the only sections of NRS 40 where this ~within 24 hours language occurs, and those
situations only apply where, in:
40.253(3)(b)(2): ~ 3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b) Advise the tenant: .. (2)
That if the court determines that the tenant is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the court may issue a
summary order for removal of the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant,
directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the
order
and,
40.253(5)(a): ~5. Upon noncompliance with the notice: (a) The landlord or the landlord`s agent may
apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court of the township in which the dwelling,
apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in
which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has
jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or constable
- 32
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
696
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
of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order. The way these summary
eviction proceedings are being carried out in Reno 1ustice Court presently shocks the conscience and
violates Nevada law. There is not basis for effectuating a lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem did
in this case. The above two sections containing the ~within 24 hours of receipt language are
inapplicable, as those situations do not invoke the present circumstances, where the Tenant did file an
Affidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen. To require Nevada's tenants to get up
and get out ~within 24 hours of ~receipt of the order (what does that even mean? The use of terms like
~rendition, ~rendered, ~notice of entry, ~pronounced, is absent here, and this ~receipt of the order
language is something rarely found elsewhere in Nevada law-see attached DMV statutory citations, and
in employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within 90 days of ~receipt of a Right To
Sue Letter, a situation which follows NRCP 5(b), and NRCP 6(e) in imputing receipt of such a letter,
when actual receipt is not shown, by applying a ~constructive notice standard that relies upon the days
for mailing extension of time for items served in the mailing, etc.). In Abraham v. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009), the record did not reflect when the plaintiff
received his right-to-sue letter. The letter was issued on November 24, 2006. The court calculated that
the 90-day period commenced on November 30, 2006, based on three days for mailing after excluding
Saturdays and Sundays. In order to bring a claim under either Title VII or the ADA, a plaintiff must
exhaust administrative remedies and sue within 90 days of receipt of a right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C.
2000e-5(f)(1). See Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80
L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)(granting plaintiff an additional three days for mailing pursuant to Rule 6).... ...
Dear Washoe County Sheriff's Office,
- 33
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
697
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process
"Substituted service
When an individual party to be served is unavailable for personal service, many jurisdictions allow for
substituted service. Substituted service allows the process server to leave service documents with
another responsible individual, called a person of suitable age and discretion, such as a cohabiting adult
or a teenager. Under the Federal Rules, substituted service may only be made at the abode or dwelling
of the defendant.4] California, New York,5] Illinois, and many other United States jurisdictions
require that in addition to substituted service, the documents be mailed to the recipient.5] Substituted
service often requires a serving party show that ordinary service is impracticable, that due diligence has
been made to attempt to make personal service by delivery, and that substituted service will reach the
party and effect notice.5]"
I am pretty sure "personally served" means you served the person in person, not that a person named
Machem went and posted a notice on a door, personally himself. See, I think you guys are thinking of
the "person" in the word personally as applying to the server, when in all instances I have ever seen it
used in the law, the "person" part of "personally" applies to the person being served. Help me out here,
Mary.
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid43084638f32f5f28&resid43084638F32F5F28!
1897&paridroot
- 34
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
698
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
Also, does the WCSO have a position on what type of service is required of eviction orders prior to the
WCSO or whoever does it, being able to conduct a lockout?
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/nrcp.html
NRCP RULE 60. RELIEF FROM 1UDGMENT OR ORDER... (c) Default 1udgments: Defendant Not
Personally Served. When a default judgment shall have been taken against any party who was not
personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State of Nevada or in any other
jurisdiction, and who has not entered a general appearance in the action, the court, after notice to the
adverse party, upon motion made within 6 months after the date of service of written notice of entry of
such judgment, may vacate such judgment and allow the party or the party`s legal representatives to
answer to the merits of the original action. When, however, a party has been personally served with
summons and complaint, either in the State of Nevada or in any other jurisdiction, the party must make
application to be relieved from a default, a judgment, an order, or other proceeding taken against the
party, or for permission to file an answer, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (b) of this
rule.
Okay, so, really, you guys do this for a living, right...you serve people things....and sign Affidavits under
penalty of perjury and stuff, and you are telling me you believe "personally served" can included
situations where the person was not there? Okay.....You do know that, like, a Summons and Complaint
need to be "personally served" in the sense that, say Machem, would need to see that person and serve it
on them (I don't think they have to take the paper, they don't need to agree to accept service, but
Machem does need to see that person, in person, personally when he is swearing under penalty of
perjury that he "personally served" somebody. Usually "personally served" is only done in the case of
the first thing filed (unless there is an IFP) in a case, the Summons and Complaint. Thereafter, typically,
people just effect "substituted service" because its cheaper, less of a hassle, and "personal service" is
only required for serving the pleadings that start a case, the Summons and Complaint. Wow....Okay, so
- 35
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
699
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
this is my whole point, these state sponsored lockouts under color of state law should not be being done
so fast, unless you guys "personally serve" the tenant, I feel the law is quite clear, you have to effect
"substituted service" which, under NRCP 6(a) and NRCP 6(e) and NRCP 5(b)(2) (and NRCP, not
1CRCP is applicable to eviction matters according to NRS 118A) the tenant cannot be deemed to have
received or constructively received the Order until the 3 days for mailing has passed.
Personal service by process server
Personal service is service of process directly to the (or a) party named on the summons, complaint or
petition. In most lawsuits in the United States, personal service is required to prove service. Most states
allow substituted service in almost all lawsuits unless you are serving a corporation, LLC, LLP, or other
business entity; in those cases, personal service must be achieved by serving (in hand) the documents to
the "Registered Agent" of a business entity. Some states (Florida) do not require that the documents
actually be handed to the individual. In California and most other states, the documents must be visible
to the person being served, i.e., not in a sealed envelope. If the individual refuses to accept service, flees,
closes the door, etc., and the individual has been positively identified as the person to be served,
documents may be "drop" served, and it is considered a valid service. Personal service of process has
been the hallmark for initialing litigation for nearly 100 years, primarily because it guarantees actual
notice to a defendant of a legal action against him or her. Personal service of process remains the most
reliable and efficacious way to both ensure compliance with constitutionally imposed due process
requirements of notice to a defendant and the opportunity to be heard. 2]^ The National Law Review:
The Continuing Relevance of Personal Service of Process
And even if something indicates Coughlin "knew" about the Order, much like in the case of Coughlin's
that was dismissed where the Washoe County Sheriff's didn't manage to get the "personal service" of
- 36
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
700
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
the Summons and Complaint done in time, or "sufficiently", opposing counsel in that matter could tell
you that "actual notice" is not a substitute for compliance with the service requirements.
Which is nice because folks like Richard G. Hill, Esq. have less of an opportunity to game the system
and swoop in with lockout then assert a bunch of hooey about NRS 118A.460 "reasonable storage,
moving, and inventorying expenses" subjecting the tenant's personal property to a lien. Richard G. Hill
insisted on throwing away the last thing my beloved grandmother gave me before she died 2 years ago in
the town dump. He and his contractor lied about so many things, including the fact that they used my
own damn plywood to board up the back porch of the property, then submitted a bill to the court in an
exhibit for $1,060 for "securing" the property (which doesn't really apply to NRS 118A.460's
"reasonable storage moving and inventorying expenses" like it is required to...further, the charged me
$900 a month for storage and sent me a bill for such prior to my arrest for trespassing at the 121 River
Rock location,...well if they charged me $900 to have a home law office there, then how is it someone
could be trespassing if they are being charged the full rental value for "use and occupancy of the
premises"? Further, even if it was a storage situations, there are sections of NRS 118A devoted to
evicting someone from a storage facility, not arresting them for trespass, and certainly not a custodial
arrest where the RPD Officer Carter and Sargent Lopez admit they never issued a warning to me or
asked me to leave prior to conducting a custodial arrest (which required $800 of bail, great!, and 3 days
in jail, no less). This is especially poor form where Officer Carter admitted to me that he takes bribes
from Richard Hill. Hey, if Officer Carter did not say that to me, go ahead and sue me, my man....I'm
waiting.....that's what I thought.
- 37
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
701
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
He can say he was joking all he wants, but it ain't no joking ass situation to me when you are arresting
me and causing a google search result for my name to show an arrest....that's damaging the only thing I
have of monetary value (my professional reputation and name). It ain't no stand up hour when you are
putting me in cuffs, bro. And Officer Carter and Sargent Lopez refused to properly query Hill as to
whether he had sent me, prior to the trespassing arrest, a bill for the "full rental value" of the property,
a value that, at $900, was the same charge for the full "use and occupancy" of the premises. And
Richard G. HIll, Esq. was too busy chortling and filling out the Criminal Complaint to bother setting
them straight, despite my cues, I guess.
Now, add to that malfeasance the fact that 1udge Sferrazza let Casey Baker, Esq. prepare the Order,
which means faithfully put to writing what the 1udge announced, not attempt to steal $2,275 for your
Californian Beverly Hills High School graduate neurosurgeon client by slipping in something the judge
never said, ie, that the neurosurgeon gets to keep the $2,275 that 1udge Sferrazza order the tenant to
pay into the Reno 1ustice Court as a "rent escrow" deposit required to preserve the right to litigate
habitability issues. Now, nevermind the fact that 1udge Sferrazza actually did not have the jurisdiction
to require that (there is not 1CRLV 44 in Reno, that's a Vegas rule, and if Reno wants a rule like that of
its own 1CRCP 83 requires the R1C to publish it and get it approved by the Nevada Supreme Court
first....period.). Okay, so, to take it a step even further, Baker's order goes on to say "but the $2,275
won't be released to the neurosurgeon yet, "instead that sum shall serve as security for Coughlin's cost
on appeal, pursuant to Nevada 1CRCP 73...". But wait, doesn't that mean Coughlin then gets a Stay of
Eviction during the pendency of the Appeal? Isnt' that was a security that large must be for? Because
the "Appeal Bond" is set by statute at only a mere $250....so holding on to 10 times that much of
Coughlin's cash must have been for the "Supersedeas Bond" mentioned a yielding one a Stay of
Eviction in NRS 40.380 and 40.385.
- 38
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
702
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 know, I know, its confusing because actually those sections force the landlord, his attorneys and the
R1C to choose between viewing Coughlin as a residential tenant whose rent is less than $1,000, and
whom therefore is only required to post a measly supersedeas bond of $250 (and remember, a
supersedeas bond equals a stay of eviction equals not trespassing) or the the other choice is to view
Coughlin as a commercial tenant, which would allow charging a higher supersedeas bond (except for
that pesky part about his rent being under the $1,000 required by the statute to do so, his rent being
only $900), except, darn it, old Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker, Esq. elected to pursue this
summary eviction proceeding under a No Cause Eviction Notice, which is not allowed against a
commercial tenant (ie, you can't evict a commercial tenant using the summary eviction procedures set
forth in NRS 40.253 unless you alllege non payment of rent and serve a 30 Day Non Payment of Rent
Notice To Quit, which they didn't because they "are just taking the path of least resistance here, Your
Honor (insert their smug chuckling and obnoxious/pretentious "can you believe this guy?" laughter and
head shaking...).
NRS 40.380 Provisions governing appeals. Either party may, within 10 days, appeal from the judgment
rendered. But an appeal by the defendant shall not stay the execution of the judgment, unless, within the
10 days, the defendant shall execute and file with the court or justice the defendant`s undertaking to the
plaintiff, with two or more sureties, in an amount to be fixed by the court or justice, but which shall not
be less than twice the amount of the judgment and costs, to the effect that, if the judgment appealed
from be affirmed or the appeal be dismissed, the appellant will pay the judgment and the cost of appeal,
the value of the use and occupation of the property, and damages justly accruing to the plaintiff during
- 39
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
703
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
the pendency of the appeal. Upon taking the appeal and filing the undertaking, all further proceedings
in the case shall be stayed.
So, why on earth is the City Attorney's Office still trying to try Coughlin on the trespass charge for
which he endured a custodial arrest and for which old Richard Hill is still filing Motion's to Show Cause
on in the appeal of the summary eviction matter in CV11-03628? Why, oh why? Does the Reno City
Attorney's Office have some sort of vested interest in keeping Coughlin down, busy, besotted,
encumbered, or otherwise? It, why, it couldn't be because Coughlin has a really good wrongful arrest
cause of action against the Reno Police Department, could it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v5PR7q4OI5b0
And, well, yeah the Washoe County Sheriff's Office didn't quite get those Summons and Complaints
served in that one case Coughlin was suing his former employer in, the one where Coughlin was granted
an Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which required the Washoe County Sheriff's Office to serve
the Summons and Complaints....But what does that have to to with the 6 days Coughlin spent in jail on
the arrest shown in the youtube video above? Its not like the Washoe County jailed videotaped a scene
where they were forcing Coughlin to get naked and put on a green dress. What's that? It is? They did do
that? Really? No...What? They also forced him to simulate oral and anal sex with deputies, in the guise
of some ridiculous "procedure" necessary to insure Deputy safety? Oh, wow. And they retaliated
against him for failing to answer their religious preference interrogation questions by placing him in an
icy cold cell for hours at a time, refusing him medical care despite his plaintive cries for help, while
wearing a thin t-shirt? Wow. They didn't jam a taser needle in his spine for extended periods of time,
- 40
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
704
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
though, did they? Your kidding! Whats next, your going tell me Sargent Sigfree of the Reno PD ordered
a custodial arrest on Coughlin for "jaywalking" while Coughlin was peacefully filming, from a public
spot, Richard G. Hill's fraudulent contractor Phil Howard destroying and taking to the town dump
items of enormous sentimental value to Coughlin that he was prevented from retrieving from the
property during the scant time he was allowed to (after he paid $480 worth of a lien for what he knew
not, because, despite, ol' Contractor Phil's fraudulent $1,060 bill for "securing" the back porch (with
screws facing the outside, inexplicably, and a window unit a/c left in the window facing the sidewalk
near the Lakemill Lodge, secured by nothing but duct tape
It is kind of a combo neon sign that says "Burglarize this Place, Everybody!"), Coughlin's former home
law office was burglarized on December 12, 2011 while Richard G. Hill was holding its contents
(including, tackily, Coughlin's client's files, like the ones for the foreclosure defense actions, etc.),
asserting his "lien". A lien for "storage" where the charge for storage, $900, was the same as the charge
for "full use and occupany" was. However, that $900 a month for "storage" also included another
$1,060 charge for "securing" (and that bill actually listed "fixing a leak in the basement...neither of
which seem to have much to do with the "reasonable storage, moving, and inventorying" expenses such
a lien is provided for under NRS 118A.460....). 1eez, your probably going to tell me Sargent Sigfree
ordered another custodial arrest on Coughlin just two days after the jaywalking arrest, for the same
fact pattern that Master Edmondson granted Coughlin's applications for Protections Orders against
based upon the battery and assaults that his former housemates committed. Because, Sargent Sigfree
thinks its "misuse of 911" for Coughlin to call when he returns home at night and his dog has
mysteriously disappeared, and his housemates make menacing commentary about it. Surely, Coughlin,
a former domestic violence attorney would have nothing helpful to add to Sargnet Sigfree's expert
opinion that "animal abuse is not domestic violence" (tell that to NRS 33.010, Sarge) and that its,
rather, "a matter for animal control" and that Sargent Sigfree was "trying to help" Coughlin by
- 41
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
705
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
arresting him, again, and necessitating the $1,500 bail associated with the gross misdemeanor charge,
"Misuse of 911" because, as Sargent Sigfree told Coughlin "you keep putting yourself in situations
where you are victimized" so it was necessary to arrest Coughlin in that regard.
But hey, at least NV Energy hasn't refused to let Coughlin get any electrical service for the past week
since those with the Protection Orders against them cancelled the service and NV Energy shut it off,
without providing any notice to Coughlin, right. Nevermind. But...but surely when NV Energy shut of
the power to Coughlin's home law office on October 4th, 2011, just hours prior to the bad faith
"inspection" with videographer of Coughlin' s home law office that Casey Baker, Esq. thought so very
necessary one day before Coughlin's Tenant Answer was due...surely NV Energy did not leave the back
gate to Coughlin's home law office open and speed off, Coughlin's beloved mountain bike suddenly
missing (the one the parents of his girlfriend of 5 years gave him)? Well, NV Energy is probably not
retaliating against Coughlin for complaining about that by refusing him electric service for the past
seven days, you would have to assume....
NRS 40.385 Stay of execution upon appeal; duty of tenant who retains possession of premises to pay rent
during stay. Upon an appeal from an order entered pursuant to NRS 40.253:
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a stay of execution may be obtained by filing with the
trial court a bond in the amount of $250 to cover the expected costs on appeal. A surety upon the bond
submits to the jurisdiction of the appellate court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of that court as the
surety`s agent upon whom papers affecting the surety`s liability upon the bond may be served. Liability
of a surety may be enforced, or the bond may be released, on motion in the appellate court without
- 42
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
706
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
independent action. A tenant of commercial property may obtain a stay of execution only upon the
issuance of a stay pursuant to Rule 8 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure and the posting of a
supersedeas bond in the amount of 100 percent of the unpaid rent claim of the landlord.
2. A tenant who retains possession of the premises that are the subject of the appeal during the
pendency of the appeal shall pay to the landlord rent in the amount provided in the underlying contract
between the tenant and the landlord as it becomes due. If the tenant fails to pay such rent, the landlord
may initiate new proceedings for a summary eviction by serving the tenant with a new notice pursuant
to NRS 40.253.
RS 40.390 Appellate court not to dismiss or quash proceedings for want of form. In all cases of appeal
under NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive, the appellate court shall not dismiss or quash the proceedings for
want of form, provided the proceedings have been conducted substantially according to the provisions
of NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive; and amendments to the complaint, answer or summons, in matters of
form only, may be allowed by the court at any time before final judgment upon such terms as may be
just; and all matters of excuse, justification or avoidance of the allegations in the complaint may be
given in evidence under the answer.
NRS 40.400 Rules of practice. The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and Nevada
Rules of Appellate Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals and new trials, so far as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned
in those sections.
- 43
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
707
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
But, back to the Sheriff's Office. And, I am not really buying the idea that you guys don't know NRCP 4
through 6 like the back of your hand, but....hell, maybe you don't. But, clearly the language in NRS 40
about how the Sheriff may "remove tenant from the property within 24 hours of receipt of the Order"
do not apply where the Tenant filed a Tenant's Answer and showed up to the Hearing and litigated the
matter. Especially where, as here the lease had not terminated, by its terms, but was rather renewed.
This is particularly true where NRS 118A prevents so terminating a holdover tenant's lease for a
retaliatory or discriminatory purpose.
I would hate to see people start to think the Washoe County Sheriff's Office is cutting corners on the
whole "personally served" thing (just so a landlord could get what they want quicker), just like I would
hate for people to think the Reno Municipal Court is letting the bottom line get in the way of providing
that whole Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel where jail time is even a possibility thing. And, hey, if
the RMC denies an indigent attorney the Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, the finds him guilty of
NRS 22.030, Summary Contempt Commited in the Presence of the Court, and the puts him in cuffs
when the Trial ends, summarily sentencing him to 3 days in jail for violating NRS 22.030, well....that's
no big deal, right, I mean, the RMC technically kept its promise that the underyling charge, though
technically it could result in incarceration would not...because the incarceration was for a whole dang
different charge, ie, Summary Contempt in the presence of the Court....and so what if the whole
~zealous advocate thing and the denying the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel thing and the
Summary Contempt thing don't go so well together....Or if 6 court employees had to stay til 9pm getting
paid overtime at the RMC to get 'r done...
- 44
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
708
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
NRCP 4: "(d) Summons: Personal Service. The summons and complaint shall be served together. The
plaintiff shall furnish the person making service with such copies as are necessary. Service shall be made
by delivering a copy of the summons attached to a copy of the complaint as follows:...(6) Service Upon
Individuals. In all other cases to the defendant personally, or by leaving copies thereof at the
defendant`s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service of process. As amended; effective 1anuary 1, 2005.] (e) Same:
Other Service. (1) Service by Publication. (i) General. In addition to methods of personal service, when
the person on whom service is to be made resides out of the state, or has departed from the state, or
cannot, after due diligence, be found within the state, or by concealment seeks to avoid the service of
summons, and the fact shall appear, by affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court or judge thereof, and it
shall appear, either by affidavit or by a verified complaint on file, that a cause of action exists against
the defendant in respect to whom the service is to be made, and that the defendant is a necessary or
proper party to the action, such court or judge may grant an order that the service be made by the
publication of summons. Provided, when said affidavit is based on the fact that the party on whom
service is to be made resides out of the state, and the present address of the party is unknown, it shall be
a sufficient showing of such fact if the affiant shall state generally in such affidavit that at a previous
time such person resided out of this state in a certain place (naming the place and stating the latest date
known to affiant when such party so resided there); that such place is the last place in which such party
resided to the knowledge of affiant; that such party no longer resides at such place; that affiant does not
know the present place of residence of such party or where such party can be found; and that affiant
does not know and has never been informed and has no reason to believe that such party now resides in
this state; and, in such case, it shall be presumed that such party still resides and remains out of the
state, and such affidavit shall be deemed to be a sufficient showing of due diligence to find the
defendant. This rule shall apply to all manner of civil actions, including those for divorce"
- 45
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
709
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 guess it don't matter much to me which one of you pays me my damages for the wrongful eviction,
illegal lockout, whether its the landlord, his attorney, or the Sheriff's Office. Your money is always good
with me.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Subject: RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:40:39 -0800
From: LStuchellwashoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlinhotmail.com
CC: mkandarasda.washoecounty.us
Mr. Coughlin,
Our records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served by Deputy Machen
by posting a copy of the Order to the residence. The residence was unoccupied at the time.
- 46
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
710
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
Liz Stuchell, Supervisor
WCSO Civil Section
From: Zach Coughlin mailto:zachcoughlinhotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:58 AM
To: Stuchell, Liz; Kandaras, Mary; nvrenopdcoplogic.com; Silva, Roxanna; kadlicjreno.gov;
fourthestategmail.com; jamesandrebolesmsn.com
Subject: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Dear IA Supervisor Stuchell and DDA Kandaras,
I realize you will likely not read all of this. The main thing is I am respectfully requesting that you
confirm with Deputy Machem that he did, in fact, "personally serve" the Summary Eviction Order on
me at 121 River Rock St., Reno 89501 on November 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm, in connection with performing
the lockout. It is my position that I was not "personally served" and I am trying to figure out whether
- 47
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
711
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
Deputy Machem is lying or whether the phrase "personally served" means something other than what I
believe it means, etc., etc. I appreciate your attention to this.
I am writing to inquire about and complain with regard to an Affidavit of Service filed by or for WCSO
Deputy Machem with respect to the service of a Order Granting Summary Eviction against me (in my
law office where non-payment of rent was not alleged, no less in violation of NRS 40.253 and where a
$2,275 rent escrow deposit was foisted upon me in violation of 40.253(6), especially where a stay of
eviction was not granted even while the R1C held on to most all my money...).
My issue with the WCSO is that Machem's Affidavit of Service indicates that he "personally served"
me, which kind of reminds me of all that robo-signing and MERS fraud I come across in my day job
(and do you wonder how many attorneys in the foreclosure defense game I am in constant contact with
who are watching and witness the potential RICO violations this writing mentions?), which includes
being a foreclosure defense attorney. So which is it? Did Machem "personally serve" me the Summary
Eviction Order? Richard G. Hill, Esq. likes to argue that I was "served" in compliance with all time
related rules because it was done in the "usual custom and practice of the WCSO. What, exactly, is the
"usual custom and practice of the WCSO? I hear a lot about this "within 24 hours" stuff. So, I go
hunting for some black letter law to support what those at the R1C and in the clueless community at
large (which often includes Nevada Legal Services and Washoe Legal Services, the people you guys had
such trouble actually serving in the lawsuits I filed, which may have actually helped improved legal
services in this community, if they were not dismissed due to insufficiency of service of process, even
where the IFP required the WCSO to served the defendants....). Anyway, back to the "within 24 hours"
phraseology: "
- 48
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
712
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
This whole business about ~The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or constable of
the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order... is inapplicable to this
situation, where an Order Granting Summary Eviction was signed by October 27th, 2011. That
language is only found in situations inapplicable to the current one. NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2), and NRS
40.253(5)(a) are the only sections of NRS 40 where this ~within 24 hours language occurs, and those
situations only apply where, in:
40.253(3)(b)(2): ~ 3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b) Advise the tenant: .. (2)
That if the court determines that the tenant is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the court may issue a
summary order for removal of the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant,
directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the
order
and,
40.253(5)(a): ~5. Upon noncompliance with the notice: (a) The landlord or the landlord`s agent may
apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court of the township in which the dwelling,
apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in
which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has
jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or constable
of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order. The way these summary
eviction proceedings are being carried out in Reno 1ustice Court presently shocks the conscience and
violates Nevada law. There is not basis for effectuating a lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem did
in this case. The above two sections containing the ~within 24 hours of receipt language are
inapplicable, as those situations do not invoke the present circumstances, where the Tenant did file an
Affidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen. To require Nevada's tenants to get up
- 49
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
713
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
and get out ~within 24 hours of ~receipt of the order (what does that even mean? The use of terms like
~rendition, ~rendered, ~notice of entry, ~pronounced, is absent here, and this ~receipt of the order
language is something rarely found elsewhere in Nevada law-see attached DMV statutory citations, and
in employment law litigations where one must file a Complaint within 90 days of ~receipt of a Right To
Sue Letter, a situation which follows NRCP 5(b), and NRCP 6(e) in imputing receipt of such a letter,
when actual receipt is not shown, by applying a ~constructive notice standard that relies upon the days
for mailing extension of time for items served in the mailing, etc.). In Abraham v. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009), the record did not reflect when the plaintiff
received his right-to-sue letter. The letter was issued on November 24, 2006. The court calculated that
the 90-day period commenced on November 30, 2006, based on three days for mailing after excluding
Saturdays and Sundays. In order to bring a claim under either Title VII or the ADA, a plaintiff must
exhaust administrative remedies and sue within 90 days of receipt of a right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C.
2000e-5(f)(1). See Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80
L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)(granting plaintiff an additional three days for mailing pursuant to Rule 6).
Further, despite what the inaccurate handouts of Nevada Legal Services may say about this ~24 hours
and the applicability of the 1CRCP to cases like these, NRS 40.400 Rules of practice, holds that :The
provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure relative
to civil actions, appeals and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NRS
40.220 to 40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections. As such NRCP 6(a),(e)
applies to the Order of Summary Eviction that WCSO Deputy Machem alleged, under penalty of
perjury, that he "personally served" upon me on November 1, 2011. That is a lie by Mr. Machem,
unless "personally served" is defined in a rather impersonal way and or Machem and I have totally
different understanding of the definition of "personally served", which may be the case. Or, perhaps the
Sheriff's Office is busy and doesn't want to wait around to "personally serve" every tenant it wishes to
- 50
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
714
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
evict. Fine, then just use the "mail it and allow three days" rule in NRCP 6(e)...the landlord's might not
like it, but they can use that frustration as an incentive not to jump to litigating every disagreement
about habitability that a tenant brings to them. You may not realize how ridiculous some landlord's get.
In my case, I offered to fix basic things that clearly implicated the habitability rules in NRS 118A.290
and the Californian neurosurgeon, Beverly Hill High School graduate landlord balked and complained
then hired and attorney four days into a dispute.....at which point the rules against contacting
represented parties prevented much in the way of real settlement discussion, particularly where
opposing counsel has continuously demonstrated a complete indifference to pursuing settlement (why
would he at the rates he bills hours at?). I just don't think the Sheriff's Office needs to sully its image or
damage the citizen tenants of Washoe County in the name of pleasing people like Dr. Matt Merliss or
Richard G. Hill, Esq.
I AM REQUESTING, IN WRITING, THAT BOTH OF YOUR OFFICES INVESTIGATE THIS AND
PROVIDE A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM MR. MACHEM THAT ADMITS THAT I WAS NOT
PERSONALLY PRESENT WHEN HE SERVED THE ORDER FOR SUMMARY EVICTION IN R1C
REV2011-001708 ON 11/1/12 AT 4:30 PM (ACCORDING TO HIS AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE). YOU
NEVER KNOW, I MIGHT HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT I WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE AT
THAT TIME, SO, BE CAREFUL. There simply is not anything specific in Nevada law addressing how
such Summary Eviction Orders are to be served and carried out. The sections dealing with
NRS 40.253 Unlawful detainer: Supplemental remedy of summary eviction and exclusion of tenant for
default in payment of rent....
6. Upon the filing by the tenant of the affidavit permitted in subsection 3, regardless of the information
contained in the affidavit, and the filing by the landlord of the affidavit permitted by subsection 5, the
- 51
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
715
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
justice court or the district court shall hold a hearing, after service of notice of the hearing upon the
parties, to determine the truthfulness and sufficiency of any affidavit or notice provided for in this
section. If the court determines that there is no legal defense as to the alleged unlawful detainer and the
tenant is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant
or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant....
7. The tenant may, upon payment of the appropriate fees relating to the filing and service of a motion,
file a motion with the court, on a form provided by the clerk of the court, to dispute the amount of the
costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant to NRS 118A.460 or 118C.230 for the inventory, moving
and storage of personal property left on the premises. The motion must be filed within 20 days after the
summary order for removal of the tenant or the abandonment of the premises by the tenant, or within
20 days after:
(a) The tenant has vacated or been removed from the premises; and
(b) A copy of those charges has been requested by or provided to the tenant,
whichever is later.
8. Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to subsection 7, the court shall schedule a hearing on the motion.
The hearing must be held within 10 days after the filing of the motion. The court shall affix the date of
the hearing to the motion and order a copy served upon the landlord by the sheriff, constable or other
process server. At the hearing, the court may:
(a) Determine the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant to NRS 118A.460 or 118C.230 and any
accumulating daily costs; and
- 52
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
716
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) Order the release of the tenant`s property upon the payment of the charges determined to be due or
if no charges are determined to be due...."
I also want to know why NRS 40. 253(8) was not followed with respect to my November 17th, 2011 filing
of a Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien. Why didn't the WCSO serve notice, as required by NRS
40.253(8) upon the landlord's attorney Richard Hill? Why didn't I get a hearing within the 10 days
called called for by that section (to get back my client's files no less), but rather, I had to wait a full 33
days to get a hearing, and service of notice of the hearing was not effectuated, as required by NRS
40.235(8), by the WCSO. Why?
Please provide an indication, in writing, of the names and case numbers for the last 20 incidences when
the WCSO has served notice of a hearing set pursuant to NRS 40.253(8). What's that? The WCSO has
NEVER served such notice? Yet the WCSO is there with bells on (or Machem is) to lie in Affidavits of
Service to lock out the citizen tenants of Washoe County impermissilby early vis a vis NRCP 5(b)(2) and
NRCP 6(e)? Why is that? Is it a conspiracy? Does money talk? When I was arrested for trespassing on
November 12th, 2011 by RPD Officer Chris Carter and Sargent Lopez, Carter admitted to me that
"Richard Hill pays him a lot of money and therefore he arrests whom Richard Hill says to and does
what Richard Hill says to do...." Both Carter and Sargent Lopez refused to investigate, despite
prompting, whether Richard Hill has sent the tenant/arrestee a bill or demand letter in bill for the full
rental value of the property, $900 per month, under some interpretation of the "reasonable storage,
moving, and inventorying expenses" collectable by a landlord under a personal property line set forth in
NRS 118A.460 (one could also interpret such a bill as Hill's withdrawing or eradicating the Order of
Summary Eviction itself, which was not "personally served" by the Washoe County Sheriff (despite
what their Affidavit of Service says...I wasn't even there at the time they changed the locks...and so the
Summary Eviction Order was not properly served under NRCP 6, and despite the Reno 1ustice Court
- 53
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
717
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
impermissibly converting $2300 of my money under a "rent escrow" Order its required I comply with
in order to litigate habitability issues in a summary eviction proceeding under NRS 40.253, despite NRS
40.253(6)'s express dicate against such an Order (unless, pursuant to 1CRCP 83, a justice court gets
such a rule, like 1ustice Court Rule of Las Vegas (1CRLV) Rule 44, published and approved by the
Nevada Supreme Court, which the R1C has not, rather, the R1C applies all these insidious secret
"house rules" (like forcing tenants to deliver themselves to the filing office to submit to personal service
notice of a summary eviction hearing within, like, 12 hours of the Tenant filing a Tenant's Answer or
Affidavit in response to an eviction Notice, rather than the service requirements of such notice following
NRCP 6 (days for mailing, etc., etc., in other words, in the R1C everything is sped up imperissilby to
help landlord's out, and the NV. S. Ct ruling in Glazier and Lippis clearly contemplate personal liability
against the Court and or 1udges themselves for so doing)....A Qui Tam action or something a la
Mausert's in Solano County, I believe, in California, would be very interesting...Still haven't heard
anything from the Reno PD about the various complaints I have filed with them in writing related to the
wrongful arrests, excessive force and other misconduct committed against me, though they did arrest
me the other day for calling 911incident to some domestic violence for which I was granted to Extended
Protection Orders against my former housemates....old Sargent Sigfree ordered that arrest, as he did
two days prior when he ordered a custodial arrest of me for "jaywalking".
Funny thing, I never heard anything back from the RPD about complaints like the following one:
~From:
NvRenoPdcoplogic.com
Sent:
Wed 9/07/11 10:51 PM
To: zachcoughlinhotmail.com
````DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL````
We're sorry the following problem was found during review
- 54
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
718
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
of your submitted report T11005956:
THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THIS TYPE OF COMPLAINT HOWEVER THIS REPORT WAS
PRINTED AND PASSED ON TO THE OFFICER'S SUPERVISOR AND IT WILL BE ADDRESSED.
Thank you,
Officer WOZNIAK,
Reno Police Department
What is interesting there is that at least I was provided the name of an officer, a "Wozniak" (though I
have been unable to confirm the existence of
such an RPD Officer...
or whether " THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THIS TYPE OF COMPLAINT HOWEVER THIS
REPORT WAS PRINTED AND PASSED ON TO THE OFFICER'S SUPERVISOR AND IT WILL BE
ADDRESSED."
What is more strange is that I submitted several online police reports to the Reno PD (a couple of which
asserted complaints against various Reno PD officers, or asked why RDP Officer Carter, whom
admitted taking bribes from Richard G. Hill, Esq. at the time of my custodial arrest for trespassing (the
one where Richard Hill signed a Criminal Complaint for trespass, then Officer Carter and Sargent
Lopez refused to follow up on my imploring them to ask Hill whether he has recently sent me a bill for
the "full rental value" of the property, the same amount that had been charged for the "use and
enjoyment" of the premises, $900, in comparision to what NRS 118A.460 may deem "reasonable
storage" expenses for which a lien is available to a landlord, though NRS 118A.520 has outlawed rent
distraints upon tenant's personal property....Regardless, between 1anuary 8 - 12th, 2012, and was
arrested twice by the Reno PD shortly after submitting these written complaints to the Reno PD.
- 55
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
719
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
tually, upon being released from jail on November 15th, 2011, incident to the custodial trespass arrest, I
went to Richard HIll's office to get my wallet and driver's license. He refused to provide it to me until
late November 22nd, 2011. Hill called the Reno PD on the 15th (or maybe I did because he was
withholding my state issued ID, the one I would need to rent a room, drive my car, and my wallet, which
is kind of useful in such situations....). Anyways, Sargent Tarter of the Reno PD showed up, he went
inside Hill's office with Hill for quite some time and the result was Tarter telling me to leave. I did, but
while driving down St. Laurence towards S. Virginia (Hill's office is at 652 Forrest St. 89503 and would
have required turning down the wrong way of a one way street, Forrest, to go back to Hill's Office (so
clearly I was not headed to Hill's office) Sargent Tarter began tailing me, then he pulled me over, then
he gave me a ticket, in retaliation if you ask me for reporting RPD Officer Carter admitting that he
takes bribes from Hill to Sargent Tarter minutes earlier. Uh, well, anyways, another Sargent calls me
later that night, taking the "good cop" role. But upon informing him of what RPD Officer Carter told
me about Hill paying him money to arrest people during the 11/12/11 trespassing arrest, that Sargent
immediately informed me that, despite this being the first he heard of that, he was sure that was not
happening....I guess RPD Officer Carter is trying to explain away his comments about Richard Hill
paying him money to arrest people by dismissing them as sarcasm, a joke, said in jest, whatever....but I
don't see how that situation (a license attorney getting arrested for a crime, a conviction for which
would result in that attorney being required to report said conviction to the State Bar of Nevada under
SCR 111, etc., and possibly resulting in a suspension of that attorney's license to practice law, or
worse...) is all that jocular of a situation. Combine that with the too quick to dismiss my reports of
bribery by Richard Hill to officer Carter to the RPD Sargent who called me on 11/15/11 regarding the
retaliation by Sargent Tarter that I complained of, and I don't think it is all that unreasonable for
anyone to take RPD Officer Carter at his word regarding Richard G. Hill, Esq. paying him money to
arrest whom Hill says to arrest. Add to that Sargent Sigfree ordering my arrest for jaywalking (by a
trainee RPD Officer) on 1anuary 12th, 2011 (custodial arrest, bail of $160 emptied my bank account
out, or pretty close to it) while I was peacefully filming from a public spot Richard G. Hill, Esq's
- 56
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
720
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
contractor Phil Howard, whom had submitted bills in courts records and filings under the lien for
"reasonable storage moving and inventorying" found in NRS 118A.460, even where old Phil used my
own plywood at the property to board up the back porch (curiously leaving the screws holding up the
plywood exposed to exterior of the property where anyone could easily unscrew them, and also leaving
in a window unit ac secured only by ducttape in a window facing a sidewalk by the LakeMill
Lodge....which resulted in $8,000 at least of my personal property being burglarized from my former
home law office on Decmeber 12th, 2011 while Hill was asserting a lien on all my personal property
found therein (and my client's files, which arguably are not even my property, but rather, the client's
property). Hill went on to place what he believes to be my social security number in court records, on
purpose, despite his signing an Affirmation pursuant to NRS 239B.030 that that was not the case
(attaching a two page report to the RPD as an Exhibit). Then Hill and his contractor Phil Howard both
committed perjury when the signed Declarations attesting that I had climbed on the contractors truck
or ever touched Hill. Hill lies constantly, whether under penalty of perjury or now, so I don't have time
to rebut every little lie he makes (he makes me out to comes across as a Yosemite Sam caricature of a
human being in his filings when he describes me...).
Further, why am I arrested for trespassing and not those from Nevada Court Services where they went
behind closed gate the the backyard of my home law office and banged on window extremely loudly for
40 minutes at a time 3 times a day, one guy ringing the doorbell, one guy moving around all other sides
of the property banging on the windows, peering in closed blinds, and affecting a phony "color of law"
tone, resemblance, and verbal communications, misleadingly announcing that they were "Court
Services, come out now!", wearing their pretend Sheriff outfits, big equipment saddled belts (including
firearms, I believe, and radios), etc. ,etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vjQ132q2O7DY
- 57
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
721
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
Add to that that Nevada Court Services 1eff Chandler drives by in his Monster Truck baring his
personalized "NCS" license plate while I am in the RPD squad car, handcuffed, outside my former law
office at 121 River Rock, at the time of the 1/12/12 jaywalking arrest and the appearances are troubling.
Now, add to that that Lew Taitel, Esq. was my court appointed public defender in the Reno Municipal
Court in the trespass case, and that 1udge Gardner had refused to provide me the names of prospective
appointed defense counsel (I wanted to run a conflicts check) at my arraignment (where Marshal
Mentzel barked at me in a threatening tone, using menacing language), whereupon Taitel was appointed
as my defense attorney and filed a notice of appearance, and received my confidential file, pc sheet,
arrest reports, ssn, etc....only its turns out that Taitel shares and office and a receptionist with Nevada
Court Services and they list him and his picture on their website as "associated with" their Process
Server corporation, despite the prohibition lawyers face against fee sharing with non-lawyers. Then,
Taitel somehow manages to get out of defending my case without filing a Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel, despite that being required by the Reno Municipal Court Rule 3(B):
RMCR Rule 3(B): Authorization to Represent (B): An attorney desiring to withdraw from a case shall
file a motion with the court and serve the City Attorney with the same. The court may rule on the
motion or set a hearing.
But, perhaps most troubling of all is the implication that the Reno City Attorney's Office, which defends
actions against the City of Reno Police Department and its Officers, has a vested interest in discrediting
me in advance of the wrongful arrest lawsuit that the Reno City Attorney's office knew was imminent at
the time of all of the above incidents, relating to the following August 20th, 2011 wrongful arrest by
RPD Officer's Duralde and Rosa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v5PR7q4OI5b0 So, that's what
- 58
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
722
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
attempting to coerce a suspect's consent to an impermissible search sounds like? Add to that that the
trespassing case is before 1udge Gardner, whom most recently was employed with the Reno City
Attorney's Office.
And, you know what is funny? Officer Del Vecchio cuffed me and placed me in his squad car last
summer after he terrified me and another gentleman who had bicycles. He veered across the road and
screeched his squad car to a halt, jumped out, and did some other stuff, then demanded my name and
ID...and the lawyer in me didn't like that that much, and he didn't like me not wanting to give it to him.
This occurred right in front of my home law office in the summer of 2011. He cuffed me and told me I
was going to jail for something about a light on the front of my bicycle (the one NV Energy likely stole
when the shut off my power, unnoticed, on October 4, 2011) despite my bike actually having such a
light....but then Del Vecchio's partner did him a solid and talked some sense into him, and I humbled it
up for Del Vecchio and we both let it go, and I didn't go to jail....Until Del Vecchio was present
supervising some Officer's training at the scene of my custodial (9 hour) jaywalking arrest) on 1/12/12.
But Del Vecchio, I guess either didn't want to or wasn't able to talk some sense into Sargent
Sigfree.....and then Sargent Sigfree (the spelling is likely off) had me arrested and charged with a gross
misdemeanor, "Misuse of 911" just two days later, on 1anuary 14th, 2011 when I called 911 to report
that my roommates were laughing menacingly when I asked them why my dog was missing (I had also
been chased up to my room numerous times since moving in with these people, something I had to do
because so much of my money had been taken up with bail or lost earnings due to all these wrongful
arrests and abuse of processes mentioned above...also these housemates had chased me with a ten inch
butcher knife, two of my tires were slashed, I was locked out all night on New Years Even when these
changed the locks at around midnight, had my furniture thrown in the street, property stolen, coffee
thrown on me, destroying my smart phone in the process, etc., etc...And despite the housemate having
an outstanding arrest warrant, and animal abuse being listed amongst the elements of domestic violence,
- 59
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
723
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
Sargent Sigfree told me he was arresting me because I "keep putting yourself in these situations", like,
where I am a victim, and that he was "trying to help you", he said with a smirk and a laugh to his fellow
RPD Officers, whom then proceeded to use excessive force against me. I guess he was helping me by
saddling me with a gross misdemeanor with a $1,500 bail, especially where its been arranged for Court
Services, or pre-Trial Services to forever deny me an OR, despite my meeting the factors for such set
forth in statute (30 year resident, entire immediate family lives here, licensed to practice law in Nevada,
etc., etc)...I guess it should not be too much of a surprise to me that Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts
failed to address the perjury of all three of her witnesses or that her fellow Reno City Attorney
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens lied to me about whether or not the Reno City Attorney's Office even had
any documentation related to my arrest or whether it would in the month before my arraignment,
despite that fact that subsequent productions of discovery tend to indicate that the Reno City Attorney's
Office did have those materials at the time. I could be wrong about some of this...But that would require
and awful lot of coincidences.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq
CONCLUSION
Regardless, the "Judgment" or "Order" here was not appropriately served on the undersigned
on November 30th, 2011. Further, the undersigned made many, many calls and written attempts
and trips to the RMC to obtain a copy oI the Contempt Order, the Guilty Judgment, and the audio
- 60
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
724
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
recording oI the Trial and all were either not granted, not provided, or provided in such a delayed
manner as to create an unduly prejudicial situation adversely eIIecting the undersigneds rights
suIIicient to impermissibly compromise Iundamentals notions oI Iairness and due process.
Further, the Order is "rendered" when Judge Howard says it is "rendered", and Judge Howard
clearly indicated, on the record, as demonstrated in the audio record, which will be available to the
District Court ultimately, the 10 day deadline Ior Iiling a Notice oI Appeal would not begin running
until aIter the 3 day Summary Contempt Order's three day jail sentence concluded. Damn, this
stuII is complicated. Sure it nice to see the government goign hard as a mother to protect lil ol'
Wal-Mart whom is rumored to be the subject oI a documentary about how they have a intricate
system oI weasling out oI their "Return Policy" and retaliating against those who call them on it.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
Also, this document does not contain any social security number or other inappropriate material
pursuant to NRS 239B.030.
Dated this February 22, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV Bar No. 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Pro Se Appellant Denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
- 61
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
725
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On this date, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing document by Iaxing, emailing,
delivering and serving upon registered eIilers and depositing a true and correct copy in the US Mail
addressed to:
PAM ROBERTS, ESQ
JOHN KADLIC, ESQ
r-.. c.., ......-, o....- c......| r......
r.o. r.. .)aa r-.. , v s),a,
r|..- ...-.. ,,,.za,a
r.. ....-.. ,,,.z.za
Attorney Ior Respondent, City oI Reno
dated February 22, 2012
Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
AGENT OF APPELLANT
- 62
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
726
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-15-2012:23:42:40
Clerk Accepted: 02-16-2012:13:55:26
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn Proceed Forma Pauperis
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
727
F I L E D
Electronically
02-23-2012:01:17:52 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2783188
728
729
730
731
732
733
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-22-2012:05:47:25
Clerk Accepted: 02-22-2012:11:23:27
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Supplemental ...
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
734
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
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Appellant
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: CR11-2064
DEPT. NO: 10
SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF; OR PLEAD IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL
COMES NOW, Appellant Zach Coughlin, by and through his attorney, Zachary Barker
Coughlin, Esq , and oIIers the above title document. The Record on Appeal or however the RMC is
titling it is insuIIicinet. The illegible "Iour pages per page" versio oI the materials I Iiled with the
RMC do not comport with the "one pae per page" completely legible version RMC Filing OIIicer
Supervisor Donna Ballard gave me permission to submit to her via the email address,
RenoMuniRecordsReno.gov, which was done to ease the burden on the RMC Iax machine. I
swear this under penatly oI perjury and ask that this Court require the RMC to provide the "one page
per page", legible version, and quit reIusing to allow me access to police reports that are attached as
- 1 SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF; OR PLEAD IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NOTICE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL
F I L E D
Electronically
02-24-2012:08:22:49 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2784715
735
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
Exhibits to the criminal complaint (Thomas, Iiling clerk at the RMC, reIused to do this and indicated
Judge Howard told him to call Judge Howard anytime I appeared rather than "deal with your
nonsense". Thomas also told me I would need a subpoena to see a copy oI the docket in my case 11
CR 22176. He said this in English. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy oI the Iiling that was submitted
to the RMC on 12/12/11, titled "Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or set Aside, JCRCP 59,
JCRCP 60, Motion Ior Reconsideration; MOtion Ior REcusal". What is not clear is how the RMC
can be said the "Iile" something at 9:00pm at night, while something I Iiled on 12/12/11 is put down
on the "CertiIied Docket" as being Iiled 12/13/11. See Exhibit 1, which also contains a 12/8/11
Request Ior Copy oI the Audio Transcript that was Iiled with the RMC which does not appear to be
listed in the CertiIied Transcript. So, the Record on Appeal should include the 107 page Notice oI
Appeal, Etc. Iilign oI 12/12/11, as well as another Notice oI Appeal, Etc. Iilign on 12/13/11
(however, that Iilign had and Exhibit 1 attached that was 794 pages, and it was not in a "Iour page
per page" Iorm as accepted Ior Iiling by RMC Supervisor Donna Ballard, though the version oI it
placed in the Record on Appeal is an illegible "Iour page per page" version, which does not surprise
me given the lengths the RMC seems willing to go to avoid any transparency arising in this matters.
The Exhibit attached hereto is not a complete representation oI all that the RMC ought place in the
Record on Appeal, but its a start. Further, the Iact that this Notice oI Appeal was Iiled, or shoudl be
recognized as Iiled on 12/12/11, a Monday, should vitiate the Reno City Attorney's 10 calendar day
NRS 189.010, jurisdictional deadline to Iile a notice oI appeal under the Root case argument, as the
10 days, udner that approach, would run on the next judicial day Iollowing that Saturday, which
woudl be the day this was submitted, Monday, 12/12/11. That is early under my argument, but
regardless, the appeal was timely Iiled, lets play ball.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
- 2 SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF; OR PLEAD IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NOTICE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL
736
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
Also, this document does not contain any social security number or other inappropriate material
pursuant to NRS 239B.030.
Dated this February 24, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV Bar No. 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
Attorney Ior Pro Se Appellant Denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
- 3 SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF; OR PLEAD IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NOTICE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL
737
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On this date, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing document by Iaxing, emailing,
delivering and serving upon registered eIilers and depositing a true and correct copy in the US Mail
addressed to:
PAM ROBERTS, ESQ
JOHN KADLIC, ESQ
Reno City Attorney's OIIice - Criminal Division
P.O. Box 1900 Reno , NV 89505
Phone Number: 7753342050
Fax number: 7753342420
Attorney Ior Respondent, City oI Reno
dated February 24, 2012
Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
AGENT OF APPELLANt
- 4 SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF; OR PLEAD IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NOTICE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL
738
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
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
1. EXHIBIT 1: 12/12/11 Notice of Appeal filing in the RMC; One Hundred and Seven (107) pages.
2. Exhibit 2: collection of writings proving filings were submitted to the RMC via renomunirecordsreno.gov,
and that the pdf attachments to those emails should be included in the REcord on Appeal; also included is the
12/8/11 filing of a REquest for Audio Copy of Proceedings.
- 5 SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF; OR PLEAD IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NOTICE OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL
739
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
F I L E D
Electronically
02-24-2012:08:22:49 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2784715
740
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
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
Tele: 775-229-6737
Fax: 949-667-7402
Pro per DeIendant/Appellant
JUSTICE COURT RENO TOWNSHIP
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
CITY OF RENO;
PlaintiII.
v.
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN
DeIendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No:11 CR 22176 2I
Dept No: Judge Howard
1 Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
741
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
Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal; Motion For Publication OI Transcript at Public Expense,
Petition Ior In Forma Pauperis Status
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
CASE APPEAL STATEMENT
DeIendant/Appellant, Zach Coughlin, hereby Iiles this Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and
or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal; Motion For
Publication OI Transcript at Public Expense, Petition Ior In Forma Pauperis Status.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
ANALYSIS
INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE ALL LAW AND ASSERTIONS IN ATTACHED
PAPERS AND PLEADINGS AND WRITINGS IN EXHIBIT 1:
RULE 59. NEW TRIALS; AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS
(a) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any oI the parties and on all or part oI the issues Ior any oI the
Iollowing causes or grounds materially aIIecting the substantial rights oI an aggrieved party: (1) Irregularity in the
proceedings oI the court, jury, master, or adverse party, or any order oI the court, or master, or abuse oI discretion by
which either party was prevented Irom having a Iair trial; (2) Misconduct oI the jury or prevailing party; (3) Accident or
surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; (4) Newly discovered evidence material Ior the party
making the motion which the party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial; (5)
ManiIest disregard by the jury oI the instructions oI the court; (6) Excessive damages appearing to have been given under
the inIluence oI passion or prejudice; or, (7) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the party making the
motion. On a motion Ior a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment iI one has been
entered, take additional testimony, amend Iindings oI Iact and conclusions oI law or make new Iindings and conclusions,
and direct the entry oI a new judgment.
(b) Time for Motion. A motion Ior a new trial shall be Iiled no later than 10 days aIter service oI written notice oI the
entry oI the judgment.
(c) Time for Serving Affidavits. When a motion Ior new trial is based upon aIIidavits they shall be Iiled with the motion.
The opposing party has 10 days aIter service within which to Iile opposing aIIidavits, which period may be extended Ior
an additional period not exceeding 20 days either by the court Ior good cause shown or by the parties by written
stipulation. The court may permit reply aIIidavits.
(d) On Court`s Initiative; Notice; Specifying Grounds. No later than 10 days aIter entry oI judgment the court, on its
own, may order a new trial Ior any reason that would justiIy granting one on a party`s motion. AIter giving the parties
notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a timely motion Ior a new trial Ior a reason not stated in the
motion. When granting a new trial on its own initiative or Ior a reason not stated in a motion, the court shall speciIy the
grounds in its order.
(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a 1udgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be Iiled no later than 10 days
aIter service oI written notice oI entry oI the judgment.
|As amended; eIIective July 1, 2005.|
2 Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
742
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
RULE 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts oI the record and errors therein arising Irom
oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time oI its own initiative or on the motion oI any party and
aIter such notice, iI any, as the court orders. During the pendency oI an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected beIore
the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereaIter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave oI
the appellate court.
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such
terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or party`s legal representative Irom a Iinal judgment, order, or proceeding
Ior the Iollowing reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which
by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move Ior a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) Iraud (whether
heretoIore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct oI an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; or, (5) the judgment has been satisIied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is
based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that an injunction should have prospective
application. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and Ior reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 6 months
aIter the proceeding was taken or the date that written notice oI entry oI the judgment or order was served. A motion
under this subdivision (b) does not aIIect the Iinality oI a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the
power oI a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party Irom a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set
aside a judgment Ior Iraud upon the court. Writs oI coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills oI review and bills
in the nature oI a bill oI review, are abolished, and the procedure Ior obtaining any relieI Irom a judgment shall be by
motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
(c) Default 1udgments: Defendant Not Personally Served. When a deIault judgment shall have been taken against any
party who was not personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State oI Nevada or in any other
jurisdiction, and who has not entered a general appearance in the action, the court, aIter notice to the adverse party, upon
motion made within 6 months aIter the date oI service oI written notice oI entry oI such judgment, may vacate such
judgment and allow the party or the party`s legal representatives to answer to the merits oI the original action. When,
however, a party has been personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State oI Nevada or in any other
jurisdiction, the party must make application to be relieved Irom a deIault, a judgment, an order, or other proceeding
taken against the party, or Ior permission to Iile an answer, in accordance with the provisions oI subdivision (b) oI this
rule.
(d) Default 1udgments: Modification Nunc Pro Tunc. Whenever a deIault judgment or decree has been entered, the
party or parties in deIault therein may at any time thereaIter, upon written consent oI the party or parties in whose Iavor
judgment or decree has been entered, enter general appearance in the action, and the general appearance so entered shall
have the same Iorce and eIIect as iI entered at the proper time prior to the rendition oI the judgment or decree. On such
appearance being entered the court may make and enter a modiIied judgment or decree to the extent only oI showing such
general appearance on the part oI the party or parties in deIault, and it shall be entered nunc pro tunc as oI the date oI the
original judgment or decree; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the court Irom modiIying
such judgment or decree as stipulated and agreed in writing by the parties to such action, and in accordance with the terms
oI such written stipulation and agreement.
RULE 62. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT
(a) Automatic Stay. Except as stated herein, no execution shall issue upon a judgment nor shall proceedings be taken Ior
its enIorcement until the expiration oI 10 days aIter service oI written notice oI its entry.
(b) Stay on Motion for New Trial or for 1udgment. In its discretion and on such conditions Ior the security oI the
adverse party as are proper, the court may stay the execution oI or any proceedings to enIorce a judgment pending the
disposition oI a motion Ior a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment made pursuant to Rule 59, or oI a motion Ior relieI
Irom a judgment or order made pursuant to Rule 60, or oI a motion Ior judgment in accordance with a motion Ior a
judgment as a matter oI law made pursuant to Rule 50, or oI a motion Ior amendment to the Iindings or Ior additional
Iindings made pursuant to Rule 52(b).
(c) Reserved.
(d) Stay Upon Appeal. When an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay. The bond
may be given at or aIter the time oI Iiling the notice oI appeal. The stay is eIIective when the supersedeas bond is Iiled.
3 Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
743
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) Stay in Favor of the State or Agency Thereof. When an appeal is taken by the State or by any county, city or town
within the State, or an oIIicer or agency thereoI and the operation or enIorcement oI the judgment is stayed, no bond,
obligation, or other security shall be required Irom the appellant.
(f) Reserved.
(g) Power of Appellate Court Not Limited. The provisions in this rule do not limit any power oI an appellate court or oI
a judge or justice thereoI to stay proceedings during the pendency oI an appeal or to suspend, modiIy, restore, or grant an
injunction during the pendency oI an appeal or to make any order appropriate to preserve the status quo or the
eIIectiveness oI the judgment subsequently to be entered.
(h) Stay of 1udgment as to Multiple Claims or Multiple Parties. When a court has ordered a Iinal judgment under the
conditions stated in Rule 54(b), the court may stay enIorcement oI that judgment until the entering oI a subsequent
judgment or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as are necessary to secure the beneIit thereoI to the party in
whose Iavor the judgment is entered.
|As amended; eIIective July 1, 2005.|
prosecutorial misconduct (such as the D.A. withholding "exculpatory" evidence that could`ve helped your deIense)
judicial errors (such as the judge permitting evidence that should`ve been excluded or vice versa)
erroneous application oI a law or regulation improper jury instructions
ineIIective assistance oI counsel or other malpractice the evidence did not prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
I went to the Iiling oIIice at the RMC a couple times recently, including today, and sent in another written request seeking
an audio tape oI the Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176 IC 110627 RSIC but was told by a Clerk that I would need to pay Ior
the entire Trial to be transcribed, and only then would I be allowed to read it, and that I would not be allowed to access
the audio oI the hearing? Is this correct? I need to have the audio oI the Trial to Iinish my Rule 59, 60, and Motion Ior
Reconsideration Motions....I will pay Ior the audio. I have received many audio cd/dvd's Irom both Reno Justice Court
and Washoe District Court, and it was announced in court that the trial was being audio recorded, as such, I hope you will
aIIord me a copy. Today, I called the RMC and spoke with Veronica, who sounded very angry with me and dismissive. I
was summarily sentenced to 3 days in jail at the end oI the trial in this matter, even where I had been denied my Sixth
Amendment Right To Counsel, aIter a Contempt committed in the court's presence Iinding was announced, in addition to
a guilty verdict in the underlying action. Veronica inIormed me that she was at the trial and that the RMC had Iailed to
mail me or otherwise serve me with a copy oI the written Order, either Ior the guilty conviction in the underlying case or
the contempt order. I was Iorced into handcuIIs so quickly ater Judge Howard concluded issuing his oral ruling that I was
not even able to save my notes on my computer, it was literally apparently that exigent a situation to handcuII me....Then
a Iew Marshalls place some pieces oI paper in Iront oI me and demanded I sign them, and became angry, like Veronica
and like Marshall Monte, I believe, was at the arraingment, when I asked a simple question related to due process,
something many at the RMC do not seem all that enamored with. I asked iI I could even read the papers they were
demanding I sign right then and there. The curtly and loudly said no, then dragged me away beIore I could read the
papers, much less sign them. Veronica snarled at me that that was all the service oI the Order oI Contempt and Guilty
Verdict that I would get, but that she might Iax it to me, however, no Iax has arrived, despite my illustrating the
exigencies oI receiving the Order in preparing my RelieI From Judgment Motions. Veronica continue to curtly reIuse to
provide me any copy oI any oI the previously Iiled Orders oI the Court unless I paid Ior them, despite my apparently not
having been provided a copy oI such orders in the Iirst place. I have no idea what those papers were (they certainly were
not in the property given to me upon my release Irom jail) and have received nothing in the mail, despite updating the
RMC with my new address oI: 817 N. Virginia St. #2, Reno NV 89501 and Iiling an oIIicial Change oI Address with the
USPS shortly aIter I was summarily evicted (despite there being only a No Cause Summary Eviction notice against my
commercial lease, something entirely probibited against under NRS 40.253. Not only was I denied my Sixth Amendment
Right to Counsel where jail time was a possibility (and where, I, in Iact was jailed, immediately). I was denied a
continuance in this matter despite a written assent to one by Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts and despite the Iact that the
4 Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
744
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
Reno City Attorney was given one by my supposed appointed counsel Lew Taitel (whom is "associated with"
( http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html ) an entity that I happen to be suing Nevada Court Services, incident to the same
eviction proceeding Ior which Mr. Taitel did grant, and the RMC did grant, a continuance in the other RMC case against
me, the trespass action that was set Ior trial on December 13th, because Richard G. Hill, who I am also suing in
connection with the wrongIul eviction against, was going to be on vacation and the RMC apparently Iound that a good
reason Ior a continuance, compared to the RMC Ieeling my being eviction on or around November 13th, then wrongIully
arrested in connection with the eviction, under a trespass charge, and incarcerated Ior a number oI days, all while Richard
Hill applied an unlawIul rent distraint upon many exculpatory materials that would speak to a stated and express
retaliatory motive on the part oI Walmart and the RSIC, and other exculpatory materials being wrongIully withheld under
an unlawIul rent distraint by Richard G. Hill, Esq., the same person Mr. Taitel, the Reno City Attorney, and the RMC
decided deserved such sanctity applied to his monthlong vacation Irom Thanksgiving to New Year's to grant a
continuance, with no input Irom me.
FAILURE TO AFFORD SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL OR GRANT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL;
another DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL HEREBY MADE IN EVENT OF NEW TRIAL, SIMILARLY REQUEST FOR
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS HEREBY MADE AND SUPPORTED BY ATTACHED IFP PETITION
CONCLUSION
DeIendant/Appelant Coughlin hereby respectIully requests all Orders, Convictions,
Judgments, Contempt Findings, whatever, stemming Irom the November 30
th
, 2011 Trial be Vacated
or Set Aside or Reconsidered..
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby aIIirm that the preceding document does not contain
the social security number oI any person.
DATED this 12
th
Day oI December, 2011
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
5 Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
745
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On December 12, 2011, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the Ioregoing Notice oI Appeal,
Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior Reconsideration; Motion Ior
Recusal by emailing and Iaxing and or placing in the mail a true copy thereoI to:
Pamela G Roberts Company: Reno City Attorney's OIIice - Criminal Divison Address: P.O. Box
1900 Reno , NV 89505 Phone Number: 775-334-2050 Fax number: 775-334-2420 Email:
robertspreno.gov
DATED THIS12th day oI December, 2011 BY:
-----------------------------
Zach Coughlin
DeIendant
6 Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
746
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
INDEX TO EXHIBITS:
1. EXHIBIT 1.
7 Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
747
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
EXHIBIT 1: COLLECTION OF PERTINENT PAPERS IN FACTUAL AND LEGAL
SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE MOTIONS AND PLEADINGS
8 Notice oI Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion Ior
Reconsideration; Motion Ior Recusal
748
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
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
1oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
749

ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

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
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
2oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
750
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



WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
3oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
751
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.

Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:34:25 -0800
From: Hazlett-StevensC@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
Deputy City Attorney
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
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
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
4oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
752
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>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 01:48:03 -0800
Subject: your failure to propound discovery
DearMr.Hazlett-Stevens,
IamwritingtorequestacopyoIanyandalldiscovery,pleadings,documentation,
correspondences,ormediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainstmeIor
whichLewTaitelwasapparentlymycourtappointedattorney,butwhomnolongeris.
Further,Iwishtobecopiedoneverythingpastandpresentinanywayrelatedtothis
matteruntilandaIterIprocureanotherattorney.Ididnotagreetothecontinuanceyou
sought,norwasIinIormedyouwereseekingit.IIinditparticularlytroublingthata
continuancewasgrantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhoisapplyingan
unlawIulrentdistraintonbothmyclientIiles,personalproperty,ANDTHE
EXCLUPATINGEVIDENCEINEEDTODEFENDMYSELFINTHEPETIT
LARCENYCASEFORWHICHIDETAILTHECOMPLAINTSIHAVEAGAINST
YOUANDYOUROFFICE'SHANDLINGBELOW.NOCONTINUANCEWAS
GRANTEDORAGREEDTOATTRIALBYTHERMCORMS.ROBERTS,
PERHAPSSHEWASTOOBUSYALLEGEDLYSUBORNINGTHEPERJURYOF
RSICOFFICERKAMERONCRAWFORD.
InthediscoveryyouroIIiceprovidedinthepetitlarcenymatterMs.Robertsprosecuted
againstmethereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearsto
be"page1"Iollowedbypageswithoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...
IwanttheentirecontentsoIanythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouor
anyoneconnectedwiththeRenoCityAttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt.Further,I
wantallmediaprovidedbyWalmart,andIquestionwhyyouneeded45minuteswith
thethreewitnesswhotestiIiedattheNovember30th,2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm.
Additionally,youareherebyservedaNRCP11motionrequiringyoutocorrectthe
perjuryyousubornedincourtwithrespecttothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyoI
OIIicerCrawIordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
5oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
753
Further,Ispokewithyou,Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,shortlyaItertheSeptember9,2011
arrestinthismatterdemandingacopyoIalldocumentationordiscoverythatIhadany
rightto.IwastoldIwouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriorto
thearraignment,whichwasnotsetIoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest.DoInothave
arighttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrestreport,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoI
thearrest?TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromtheRSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywritten
demandsandrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremetwithreIusalsto
providesuchmaterials,and,insomecase,claimsthatyouroIIicedidnotevenhavesuch
materialsandwouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment.Further,Ispokewithand
providedwrittenrequeststoRSICSargentAvansinowithin2daysaIterthearrestandhe
reIusedtoprovidethematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt.Pleasealertthecourt
toanywrongdoingonyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyortheRSICpartinthisregardin
prejudicingmyabilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingtheproductionoIessential
discovery,thenreIusingtoagreetoacontinuanceattrial,aIterearlierprovidinga
writtenagreementtosuchacontinuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,
18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyou
arenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIied
thatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyaction
basedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthe
namedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjrom
dsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,
coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormaton
srohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),
leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjorm
mmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.

WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
6oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
754
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids57...
7oI7 12/12/20114:21PM
755

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
ThefollowingAttorneyisassociatedwithandhighlyrecommendedbyNevadaCourtServices
"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
Page1 oI2 NevadaCourtServices-Attorney
12/12/2011 http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html
756
Copyright1997-2011- NevadaCourtServices- AllRightsReserved
Page2 oI2 NevadaCourtServices-Attorney
12/12/2011 http://www.nevcs.com/attorney.html
757
motion for continuance
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 11/11/11 1:40 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
758
RE: motion for continuance
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 11/16/11 3:35 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov

ThankYou,

WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
759
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in
Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
760
RE: motion for continuance
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 11/16/11 5:30 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
761

ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not calling any
additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send you
an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam
Roberts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
762
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance

ThankYou,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at
1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
763
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,
18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyou
arenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIied
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
764
RE: motion for continuance
RE: motion for continuance
thatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyaction
basedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthe
namedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjrom
dsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,
coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormaton
srohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),
leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjorm
mmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 11/17/11 3:37 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
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
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 1:05 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
Sincerely,
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
765
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:40:44 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: colterp@reno.gov
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart
employee) and Officers Crawford and Braunworth from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the
video at the first trial date from the Walmart employee and it is available for you to view or get a copy. You
may want to view it at the City Attorney's Office as the CD doesn't seem to work on everyone's computer. Penie
Colter will be able to assist you. I am not clear on what you think my duty is, but I know what my duty is and I
will not debate it via email. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:30:36 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
766

ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not calling
any additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not obligated to send
you an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation or interviews. Pam
Roberts.
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
767
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance

ThankYou,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon
at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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.
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
768
I hope your housing situation improves. See you this afternoon. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
769
temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,
18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.II
youarenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youarehereby
notiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoI
anyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntended
onlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductor
exemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthat
anydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontents
ojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthe
namedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoes
nanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojany
attorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 4:06 PM
To: howardk@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov



WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
770
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
771
RE: motion for continuance
ZachCoughlin
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 7:18 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
772
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.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this afternoon at 1:00 pm in
Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
773
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
Subject: motion for continuance
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
774
verint user agreement
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/21/11 8:40 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
775
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
F I L E D
Electronically
02-24-2012:08:22:49 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2784715
776
FIRST CONTINUATION OF
FIRST CONTINUATION OF
Re: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
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
Thereisanappropriatemannerinwhichtotender"motions"tothecourt.Theyaretobeproperly
preparedandIiled.Donotusethise-mailaddresstocommunicatedirectlywiththejudge.
KenHoward
RenoMunicipalCourtJudge
Department4
(775)326-6673
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
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



WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
777
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
778
ZachCoughlin
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.1hismessageisconfidential,intendedonlyforthenamedrecipient(s)
andmaycontaininformationthatisprivileged,attorneyworkproductorexemptfromdisclosureunderapplicablelaw.Ifyouare
nottheintendedrecipient(s),youarenotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distributionoranyactiontakenoromittedtobetakenin
relianceonthecontentsofthisinformationisprohibitedandmaybeunlawful.Ifyoureceivethismessageinerror,orarenotthe
namedrecipient(s),pleasenotifythesender,deletethise-mailfromyourcomputer,anddestroyanycopiesinanyformimmediately.
Receiptbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecipient(s)isnotawaiverofanyattorney-client,workproduct,orotherapplicable
privilege.

WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
779
RE: motion for continuance
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 1:33 PM
To: robertsp@reno.gov
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.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
780
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:59:37 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
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 Judge 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 view the 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:05:28 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
781
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:40:44 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
CC: colterp@reno.gov
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
Mr. Coughlin, the three witnesses who were there at the first trial date include: Thomas Frontino (Walmart
employee) and Officers Crawford and Braunworth from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police. I obtained the
video at the first trial date from the Walmart employee and it is available for you to view or get a copy. You
may want to view it at the City Attorney's Office as the CD doesn't seem to work on everyone's computer.
Penie Colter will be able to assist you. I am not clear on what you think my duty is, but I know what my duty
is and I will not debate it via email. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:30:36 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
782

ZachCoughlin,Esq.
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
LicensedinNevada
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,
18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyou
arenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIied
thatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyaction
basedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthe
namedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjrom
dsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,
coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormaton
srohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),
leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjorm
mmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,work
roduct,orotheralcablervleye.

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:21 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 am not
calling any additional witnesses that are not already mentioned in the reports/statements, I am not
obligated to send you an additional list of witnesses. I am also not obligated to do any further investigation
or interviews. Pam Roberts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:48 -0800
Subject: RE: motion for continuance
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
783

ThankYou,

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:36:45 -0800
From: robertsp@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 from the Court that your trial date has been continued, you will need to appear this
afternoon at 1:00 pm in Courtroom B 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. Pam Roberts, Deputy City Attorney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
To: <robertsp@reno.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:40:53 -0800
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
784
Subject: motion for continuance
ZachCoughlin
121RiverRockSt.
Reno,NV89501
7753388118
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacy
Act,18U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)
only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youare
herebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthe
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
785
FW: temporary address change and instruction to pursue a continuance
takingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,
ntendedonlyjorthenamedrecent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneywork
roductorexemtjromdsclosureunderalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youare
notjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceon
thecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,or
arenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,and
destroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snota
waverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcablervleye.

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
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.
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
786
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

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


ZachCoughlin,
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 3:37 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
787

ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
788
FW: your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 12/04/11 3:45 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us

WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
789
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov; kadlicj@ci.reno.nv.us
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
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
790
your cop lying, see your video drivers license produce ap overview at
6:49 mark

ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
791
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
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
THEOFFICERSAREKAMERONCRAWFORDANDBRAUNWORTH,WHOCAMEACROSSA
FARMORECOGNITIVELYIMPAIREDINCOURTTHANHEDIDINPERSON,TOANEXTENT
THATWOULDSUGGESTHEWASDISHONORINGTHELEGALPROCESSBYHIS
"PARTICIPATION",ANDITSALLONTAPE.
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
792
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
793
discovery request;
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/07/11 1:16 AM
To: robertsp@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov


WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
794
RE: your failure to propound discovery


ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 12/08/11 3:44 PM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
795



ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenot
theintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyou
havereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthe
contentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
796
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatonsrohbted
andmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),leasenotjythe
sender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.Recetbyanyone
otherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,orotheralcable
rvleye.

Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:34:25 -0800
From: Hazlett-StevensC@reno.gov
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
Deputy City Attorney
City of Reno
Tel: 326-6628
Fax: 334-4226
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>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 01:48:03 -0800
Subject: your failure to propound discovery
DearMr.Hazlett-Stevens,
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
797
IamwritingtorequestacopyoIanyandalldiscovery,pleadings,documentation,
correspondences,ormediainanywayconnectedtothetrespasscaseagainstmeIorwhich
LewTaitelwasapparentlymycourtappointedattorney,butwhomnolongeris.Further,I
wishtobecopiedoneverythingpastandpresentinanywayrelatedtothismatteruntil
andaIterIprocureanotherattorney.Ididnotagreetothecontinuanceyousought,nor
wasIinIormedyouwereseekingit.IIinditparticularlytroublingthatacontinuancewas
grantedinthetrespasscasetothesamemanwhoisapplyinganunlawIulrentdistrainton
bothmyclientIiles,personalproperty,ANDTHEEXCLUPATINGEVIDENCEINEED
TODEFENDMYSELFINTHEPETITLARCENYCASEFORWHICHIDETAILTHE
COMPLAINTSIHAVEAGAINSTYOUANDYOUROFFICE'SHANDLING
BELOW.NOCONTINUANCEWASGRANTEDORAGREEDTOATTRIALBY
THERMCORMS.ROBERTS,PERHAPSSHEWASTOOBUSYALLEGEDLY
SUBORNINGTHEPERJURYOFRSICOFFICERKAMERONCRAWFORD.
InthediscoveryyouroIIiceprovidedinthepetitlarcenymatterMs.Robertsprosecuted
againstmethereisaIaxIromtheRSICtoyouthathasaIaxheadingIorwhatappearsto
be"page1"Iollowedbypageswithoutthatheading...thenaheadingwith"page4"etc...I
wanttheentirecontentsoIanythingprovidedbytheRSICandWalmarttoyouoranyone
connectedwiththeRenoCityAttorneyortheRenoMunicipalCourt.Further,Iwantall
mediaprovidedbyWalmart,andIquestionwhyyouneeded45minuteswiththethree
witnesswhotestiIiedattheNovember30th,2011trial,Irom1pmto1:45pm.
Additionally,youareherebyservedaNRCP11motionrequiringyoutocorrectthe
perjuryyousubornedincourtwithrespecttothepatentlycontradictorytestimonyoI
OIIicerCrawIordvisavisthevideoevidenceyouyourselIprovidedindiscovery.
Further,Ispokewithyou,Mr.Hazlett-Stevens,shortlyaItertheSeptember9,2011arrest
inthismatterdemandingacopyoIalldocumentationordiscoverythatIhadanyrightto.
IwastoldIwouldnothaveanyopportunitytoreviewsuchmaterialspriortothe
arraignment,whichwasnotsetIoraIull30daysoutIromthearrest.DoInothavea
righttoacopyoIthepcsheet,arrestreport,andwitnessstatementswithin48hoursoIthe
arrest?TheIaxtoyouroIIiceIromtheRSICisdated9/12/2011,yetmywrittendemands
andrequestsIorsuchdiscoveryanddocumentationweremetwithreIusalstoprovidesuch
materials,and,insomecase,claimsthatyouroIIicedidnotevenhavesuchmaterialsand
wouldnotgetthemuntilaIterthearraignment.Further,Ispokewithandprovidedwritten
requeststoRSICSargentAvansinowithin2daysaIterthearrestandhereIusedtoprovide
thematerials,asdidtheRenoMunicipalCourt.Pleasealertthecourttoanywrongdoing
onyour'sortheRenoCityAttorneyortheRSICpartinthisregardinprejudicingmy
WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
798
abilitytodeIendmycasebydelayingtheproductionoIessentialdiscovery,thenreIusing
toagreetoacontinuanceattrial,aIterearlierprovidingawrittenagreementtosucha
continuance.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
817N.VirginiaSt.#2
Reno,NV89501
tel:7753388118
fax:9496677402
LicensedinNevadaandUSPTO
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18
U.S.C.2510-2521,andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouare
nottheintendedrecipientoranagentresponsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthat
youhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbased
onthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.Thsmessayesconjdental,ntendedonlyjorthenamed
recent(s)andmaycontannjormatonthatsrvleyed,attorneyworkroductorexemtjromdsclosure
underalcablelaw.ljyouarenotthentendedrecent(s),youarenotjedthatanydsclosure,coyny,
dstrbutonoranyactontakenoromttedtobetakennrelanceonthecontentsojthsnjormatons
rohbtedandmaybeunlawjul.ljyourecevethsmessayenerror,orarenotthenamedrecent(s),lease
notjythesender,deletethse-maljromyourcomuter,anddestroyanycoesnanyjormmmedately.
Recetbyanyoneotherthanthenamedrecent(s)snotawaverojanyattorney-clent,workroduct,or
otheralcablervleye.

WindowsLiveHotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsdd...
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 7
811
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 7
812
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 3 of 7
813
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 4 of 7
814
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 5 of 7
815
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 6 of 7
816
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
F I L E D
Electronically
02-24-2012:08:22:49 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2784715
817
SECOND CONTINUATION OF
SECOND CONTINUATION OF
Case 1:05-cv-02827-GET Document 1 Filed 11/02/05 Page 7 of 7
818
11 cr 22176 2I
x
Judge Howard
Zachary Barker Coughlin
November 30,
2011
1pm
Zach Coughlin
29th
November
2011
"Ellis" or "John", Customer Service Manager or ASM W. 7th St. Walmart 89503
Loss prevention manager and
819
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 1
820
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 2 of 19 Pg ID 2
821
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 3 of 19 Pg ID 3
822
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 4 of 19 Pg ID 4
823
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 5 of 19 Pg ID 5
824
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 6 of 19 Pg ID 6
825
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 7 of 19 Pg ID 7
826
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 8 of 19 Pg ID 8
827
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 9 of 19 Pg ID 9
828
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 10 of 19 Pg ID 10
829
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 11 of 19 Pg ID 11
830
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 12 of 19 Pg ID 12
831
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 13 of 19 Pg ID 13
832
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 14 of 19 Pg ID 14
833
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 15 of 19 Pg ID 15
834
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 16 of 19 Pg ID 16
835
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 17 of 19 Pg ID 17
836
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 18 of 19 Pg ID 18
837
2:06-cv-10887-GCS-VMM Doc # 1 Filed 02/28/06 Pg 19 of 19 Pg ID 19
838
6 again, that is rmc 11 cr 22176
839
RENOMUNICIPALCOURT
P.O.Box1900
Reno,NV89501
(775)334-2290
Fax(775)334-3824
E-mailaddress:RenoMuniRecordsreno.gov
RECORDREQUEST
INSTRUCTIONS:RequestDate:
1.PrintoutthisrequestIorm.
2.FilltheIormoutcompletely.
3.Mail,IaxoremailyourrequesttotheCourt.
4.YouwillbenotiIiedwhenyourrecordsarereadyIorpickup.
Copiesmaytake3-4weeks
FileInformation:
DeIendantsName:DateoIBirth:
RenoPoliceCase/CitationNumber:
(IIyoudonothavethisnumberyoucancontactRenoPoliceDepartmentat775-334-2175)
Charge(s):
ChargeDate:
Requestor:
Name:
MailingAddress:
PhoneNumber:FaxNumber:
E-mailaddress:
CHECKONE:
Computerprintout:Thisincludescasehistoryanddisposition.($0.30perpage)
Certifiedcomputerprintout:Thisincludescasehistoryanddisposition,allcopiescertiIied.($3.00perpage)
I.N.S.Certifiedcopies:($3.00perpage)
Otherdocuments:(PleasespeciIy)
Youwillbenotifiedbyphoneore-mailofthecostandwhentopickupyourrecords
11 28 2011
Zach Coughlin
9/27/1976
trespass
November 13th, 2011
Zach Coughlin
817 N. Virginia St
775 338 8118
949 667 7402
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
x
x
and and all documents, and audio/video materials
pc sheet, witness statements, related police reports
dispatch recordings, 911 calls or other phone calls
Reno Police #11-22185
840
Court Rules and Procedures
Rule 1: Applicability of Rules
A. These rules may be referred to as the Reno Municipal Court rules and
may be abbreviated as R.M.C.R. These rules are intended to supercede
the rules promulgated and made effective on January 1, 1980 by the
Reno Municipal Court.
B. Whenever it appears that a particular situation does not fall within the
purview of a rule, or that a literal application of a rule would cause a
hardship or injustice in a case, the court may make such order as the
interests of justice require.
Rule 2: Organization of the Court
A. The Municipal Court consists of a number of departments designated by
City Council resolution, each presided over by a judge duly elected or
appointed to that position. Judges pro tem may sit in each department
from time to time as authorized by law. A judge pro tem duly appointed
and authorized by the presiding judge of a particular department to sit in
that department shall have the same jurisdiction as the presiding judge,
except that the judge pro tem has jurisdiction only over matters to be
heard on his or her assigned docket. Judges pro tem are not permitted to
act on any motion filed in any case, except those requiring resolution
before a case can proceed on the docket to which the pro tem judge is
assigned.
B. All cases set for trial or other post-arraignment proceeding, except a
sentencing set by the arraigning judge, shall be randomly or sequentially
assigned to one of the departments. Insofar as is practical, all cases
pertaining to a defendant shall be assigned to the same judge. In the
event a judge must recuse himself or herself, the matter shall be sent to
the administrative judge for reassignment to another department.
C. The elected or appointed judges of each department may act for one
another by mutual agreement as circumstances dictate.
D. Each year, the elected or appointed judges shall select one of their
number to act as administrative judge for the upcoming fiscal year. The
administrative judge shall handle all court administrative matters and
shall be authorized to speak publicly for the court on matters of court
policy.
841
Rule 3: Authorization to Represent
A. Attorneys representing defendants shall promptly serve written notice of
their appearance with the City Attorney and file the same with the Court.
B. An attorney desiring to withdraw from a case shall file a motion with the
court and serve the City Attorney with the same. The court may rule on
the motion or set a hearing.
Rule 4: Motions
A. Except for good cause shown, all motions shall be accompanied by
affidavit, and, when appropriate, by points and authorities. All motions
must be served on the opposing party and must be file stamped along
with accompanying proof of service.
B. The opposing party may file and serve answering points and authorities
on the moving party within 10 days after service of a motion.
C. The moving party may file and serve reply points and authorities within 5
days thereafter.
D. Upon the expiration of any time period set for response by this rule,
either party may file and serve a written request for submittal of the
motion, or the court may consider the motion submitted.
E. An opposition to a motion must state the reason(s) for objection.
F. Motions shall be decided without oral argument unless oral argument is
ordered by the court.
Rule 5: Motions by Facsimile
A. All rules and procedures that apply to motions filed in person at the
court shall also apply to motions filed by facsimile, except as otherwise
specified in this rule.
B. All persons are eligible to use motion-by-facsimile procedures.
C. All motions filed by facsimile must be accompanied by a cover sheet
which must include the persons name, address, fax number and
telephone number.
D. All facsimile motions filed by an attorney must include the attorney's
name, the firms name, address, fax number and telephone number. In
addition, the attorneys state bar number must be conspicuously
displayed on the cover sheet.
E. All motions filed by facsimile must be accompanied by proof of service.
842
Service may be accomplished by facsimile when the receiving party is a
governmental agency, an attorney, or with the consent of the receiving
party. If service of the motion is accomplished by facsimile the 3-day
allowance for mailing shall not be computed into the time for response.
F. A defense attorney filing a motion in the first instance must also file a
proper authorization to represent.
G. Any motion received by the court after 4:30 p.m. or on a non-court day
shall be filed on the following court day.
Rule 6: Continuances
No continuance shall be granted, including a stipulated continuance, except
for good cause. A motion or stipulation for continuance must state the reason
therefore and whether or not any continuance has previously been sought or
granted.
Rule 7: Corporations
Except with the permission of the court, a corporation or other business entity
shall not appear in propria persona.
Rule 8: Courtroom Conduct and Attire
Proceedings in court should be conducted with dignity and decorum. All
persons appearing in the court must be appropriately attired. All attorneys
must wear appropriate business attire.
Rule 9: Appeals to District Court
Except as otherwise provided in NRS 177.015 a defendant in a criminal action
tried before a Municipal Court Judge may appeal from the final judgment
therein to the Second Judicial District Court, at any time within 10 days from
the date that judgment is rendered.
Effective January 1, 2000
843
11 cr 22176 2I
x
Judge Howard
Zachary Barker Coughlin
November 30,
2011
1pm
Zach Coughlin
29th
November
2011
Loss prevention manager and
Janice store clerk walmart arrest receipt cashier 2nd St. 89501 Walmart
844
11 cr 22176 2I
x
Judge Howard
Zachary Barker Coughlin
November 30,
2011
1pm
Zach Coughlin
29th
November
2011
Loss prevention manager and
Brian Bain 2nd st Walmart Reno and LP supervisor 2nd St. 89501 Walmart
845
11 cr 22176 2I
x
Judge Howard
Zachary Barker Coughlin
November 30,
2011
1pm
Zach Coughlin
29th
November
2011
Loss prevention manager and
faxed to or
asdfsadf Declaration
29th
NOvember, 2011
29th
November 2011
/s/ zach coughlin, signed electroncially
29th
dsafsdfaasdffdasfsafds
df
under penalty of perjury NRS
Janice cashier
, Brian Bain Store Manager; LP manager, 2nd ST. Walmart
John Ellis and ASM "Connie" 7th St. Walmart
emailed
NOvember 2011 notary not required where
Declaration under penalty
of perjury made NRS
and subpoena duces tecum
please appear and further bring any evidence including media related to
retaliatory threats by walmart staff or lp personnel
846
1. Odor v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Ltd. Partnership,
Slip Copy, 2011 WL 3203760, E.D.Ky., July 07, 2011 (NO. CIV.A.
10-287-WOB)
...endangerment in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor. FN4. KRS
446.070 provides: Penalty no bar to civil recovery: (1) A person injured by the
violation oI any statute may recover Irom the oIIender such damages as he sus-
tained ...
...DeIendant violated these statutes. In Iact, the only Iacts asserted are that
PlaintiII was struck by an automobile while in Wal Mart's parking lot and that
Wal Mart Iailed to use appropriate and reasonable means to properly control,
operate and/or manage its premises. (R. 141, ...
2. White v. Wyeth,
227 W.Va. 131, 705 S.E.2d 828, 2010 WL 5140048, W.Va., December 17, 2010
(NO. 35296)
...applicable to a common-law Iraud claim applied, the Supreme Court noted that
|r|eliance is not a general limitation on civil recovery in tort. Id. at 655, 128
S.Ct. 2131. The Court went on to say in Bridge that while it may ...
...must, iI possible, be given to every section, clause, word or part oI the statute.
Syl. Pt. 3, Meadows v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 207 W.Va. 203, 530 S.E.2d 676
(1999) We recognize that some states require reliance on the deceptive...
3. Crouch v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co., Inc.,
Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1530152, D.N.J., April 15, 2010 (NO.
CIVA09-CV-2905(DMC))
...construed to limit a person's right to seek punitive damages where appropriate.
FN4. K.R.S. 446.070 Penalty no bar to civil recovery. A person injured by the
violation oI any statute may recover Irom the oIIender such damages as he sus-
tained by ...
...2006 to 2008 purchased DeIendants' products. J & J is a New Jersey corpora-
tion engaged in business throughout the United States. Wal-Mart is an Arkansas
corporation engaged in business throughout the United States. ThereIore, the
Kentucky State contacts in the instant matter...
4. Kelly v. Palmer, ReiIler, & Associates, P.A.,
681 F.Supp.2d 1356, 2010 WL 111492, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 599, S.D.Fla.,
QUERY - "CIVIL RECOVERY" W/255
WAL-MART
DATABASE(S) -
ALLCASES,ST-ANN-ALL,NV-RULES,NV-AD
C,ALR,AMJUR,LAWREV-PRO
2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
847
January 11, 2010 (NO. 08-21843-CIV)
...with either oI these claims suIIicient to send them to the jury. 18 FN18.
PlaintiIIs Iocus on the allegedly deceptive civil recovery practices employed by
the Palmer Law Firm but do not claim the amount oI money Simon and Baum
paid was ...
...pursue civil theIt claims against them. Notwithstanding PlaintiII Simon's testi-
mony that she did not believe her son stole anything Irom Wal-Mart and she
only paid because she wanted to avoid being sued and incur additional legal ex-
penses |D.E. 165-3 at ...
...oI these PlaintiIIs can legitimately claim that there was no possible basis Ior re-
covery under 772.11 , which contemplates civil recovery Ior attempted
shopliIting. See 772.11(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing
evidence that he or...
5. Robinson v. Rooto Corp.,
617 F.Supp.2d 748, 2008 WL 1999325, W.D.Tenn., May 06, 2008 (NO. 07-2543)
...E.D.Pa.2007) I adopt the view oI those courts that the FHSA has no private
right oI action Gibson v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 189 F.Supp.2d 443, 449
(W.D.Va.2002) The FHSA provides Ior no private right oI action State tort ...
...precedents outside the Third Circuit, I Iind that the FHSA does not contain a
private cause oI action. Isgett v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 976 F.Supp. 422, 429
(S.D.Miss.1997) In sum, except Ior the Iirst Cort inquiry, all oI the other ...
...Cross v. Bd. oI Supervisors, 326 F.Supp. 634 (N.D.Cal.1968) (holding, seven
years beIore the Supreme Court decided Cort, that | c]ivil | r]ecovery under the
FHSA may be applied under appropriate circumstances |2| A Iew courts have
also applied the reasoning oI Riegel...
6. Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
151 S.W.3d 781, 2004 WL 2363767, 150 Lab.Cas. P 59,920, 21 IER Cases 1682,
Ky., October 21, 2004 (NO. 2001-SC-0262-DG)
...a claim Ior common law invasion oI privacy, the trial court appears to have
treated Appellants' claim as one Ior civil recovery Ior a violation oI a statute. Ac-
cordingly, we, like the Court oI Appeals below, will evaluate the claim as Appel-
lants ...
...The Court oI Appeals held that: (1) the trial court erred when it granted partial
summary judgment Ior Appellants because Wal Mart's conduct in recording
conversation in the claims area as a mere incident oI their intent to video the area
QUERY - "CIVIL RECOVERY" W/255
WAL-MART
DATABASE(S) -
ALLCASES,ST-ANN-ALL,NV-RULES,NV-AD
C,ALR,AMJUR,LAWREV-PRO
2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
848
Iall|s| short oI intent |W|e are convinced that the acts oI Wal Mart were not oI-
Iensive to the eavesdropping statute ; and (2) Appellees were entitled to a direc-
ted verdict at trial because Appellants ...
...suIIered as a result oI the recorded conversations, and we think it incumbent
upon appellees to demonstrate injury resulting Irom Wal Mart's audio surveil-
lance. Hence, we are oI the opinion that appellees Iailed to prove damages Ilow-
ing Irom the illegally recorded conversations...
QUERY - "CIVIL RECOVERY" W/255
WAL-MART
DATABASE(S) -
ALLCASES,ST-ANN-ALL,NV-RULES,NV-AD
C,ALR,AMJUR,LAWREV-PRO
2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
849
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
F I L E D
Electronically
02-24-2012:08:22:49 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2784715
850
851
RenoMuniRecordsreno.gov
October 3, 2011
Dear Reno City Attorney Records Department,
My name is Zach Coughlin. I wish to obtain any and all records available
incident to an arrest at the E. 2nd St. Walmart by the Reno Sparks Indian
Colony Police on or about Saturday October 10th, 2011 at between
approximately 9pm and 10:30pm. I want any and all records, video, audio,
paper documentation or otherwise that I have a right to. I am representing
myselI. I have sought these records Irom the Reno Municipal Court's
Records OIIice and they kept telling me they didn't have them yet and that I
should return sometime soon. Finally, they admitted the do not keep these
records and they must be obtained Irom your oIIice. This delay has unduly
prejudiced my case and I request that you provide these records to me at
once, with no delay, please. The RS Indian Colony Police reIused to give me
a copy oI these records. I believe this case should be dismissed.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin signed electronically and signed in attached PDF. I can come
pick the records up with identiIication iI that is required or I hereby give you
permission to email them to me or mail them to the address below:
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
`` Notice`` This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain conIidential inIormation intended Ior the speciIied individual (s) only. II you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible Ior delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiIied that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking oI any action based on the
contents oI this inIormation is strictly prohibited.
852
C0NFl0ENTlALlTY N0TlCE
Ths messaye s conjdental, ntended only jor the named recent(s) and may contan njormaton that s
rvleyed, work roduct or exemt jrom dsclosure under alcable law. lj you are not the ntended recent(s),
you are notjed that any dsclosure, coyny, dstrbuton or any acton taken or omtted to be taken n relance on
the contents oj ths njormaton s rohbted and may be unlawjul. lj you receve ths messaye n error, or are not
the named recent(s), lease notjy the sender, delete ths e-mal jrom your comuter, and destroy any coes n
any jorm mmedately. Recet by anyone other than the named recent(s) s not a waver oj any attorney-clent,
work roduct, or other alcable rvleye.
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-23-2012:13:17:52
Clerk Accepted: 02-23-2012:14:14:57
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Answering Brief
Filed By: PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
902
F I L E D
Electronically
03-08-2012:04:41:14 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2813932
903
904
905
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 02-24-2012:08:22:49
Clerk Accepted: 02-24-2012:10:46:09
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Supplemental ...
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
906
F I L E D
Electronically
03-15-2012:06:21:48 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2829786
907
908
909
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR11-2064
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 03-08-2012:16:41:14
Clerk Accepted: 03-08-2012:16:42:00
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title: ZACH COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Ord Denying Motion
Filed By: MaryBeth Stackhouse
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
910
F I L E D
Electronically
03-15-2012:06:21:48 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2829786
911
912
913
914
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
DocumentCode:
ZachCoughlin
NevadaBarNo:9473
POBOX60952
Reno,NV89506
Tele:775-338-8118
Fax:949-667-7402
AttorneyIorProSeAppellantdeniedSixthAmendmentRightToCounsel
INTHESECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASHOE
ZACHCOUGHLIN;
Appellant,
vs.
CityoIReno;
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CaseNo:CR11-2064
DeptNo:10
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, OR PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND
COMESNOW,Appellant,ZachCoughlin,byandthroughhimselIashewasdeniedhis
SixthAmendmentRightToCounsel,andIilesthisMOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDIN
THEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND,baseduponthepleadingsandpapers
onIileinthismatter,bothinthisappealandtheunderlyingRMC11CR22176andtheIollowing
legalargument.TheundersignedIilesthisMotionwiththeintenttoIileaSupplementaltoitand
IurtherseeksanextensionoItimetodosogivenhewasevictedIromhishomelawoIIiceon3/15/12
bygunpointaIterWashoeCountySheriII'sDeputiesseeminglyIailedtoIollowthelawin'serving
-1-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
F I L E D
Electronically
03-26-2012:11:33:50 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2849615
915
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
anevictionorder(onedoesnotaccomplish'personalservicebybreakingandenteringatgunpoint,
constructiveserviceiswhatthelawcallsIor,regardoIwhetheronethinks'theusualandcustomary
practiceoItheWCSOistantamounttoblackletterlaw,NRS40requiresthatNRCPcontrolin
landlordtenantmatters,thusNRCP6(a)and6(e)shouldbecontrolling.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
RMCFilingOIIiceSupervisorDonnaBallardhasadmittedtotheundersignedthatshe
completelyIailedinupholdingherdutiesintheIilingoIIiceintermsoImakingsuretherecordon
appealwasanaccurate,legible,IaithIullreproductionoIwhatwasIiledbytheundersigned.To
wit,entireIilignaremissingIromtherecordonappealandasystemiclackoIoversightinthe
RMCandimpermissiblelesseningoItheoversightIunctionIotheRMCIilingoIIiceisevident
IromadmissionoIRMCstaIIandactionsbytheRMCIilingoIIiceandCourtAdministrator
CassandraJacksonandRMCFilingOIIiceSupervisorDonnaBallard.Furtheranimpermissilbe
lackoItransparencyexistsintheRMCFilingoIIiceandtheaccesstojusticeandrecordsbythe
publiciscurtailedtoanunacceptableextentintheRMCIilingoIIice.
One,PamRobertslosesunderaPolkanalysisonwhetheranacutalcourthearingis
requiredinthiscriminalappealbyherIailuretoopposetheundersignedargumentthatthestatue
requiresahearingandRobertsIailedtosetIorthanargumentagainstsuch.Further,Roberts
convenientlychosenottorespondtoanyoItheundersignedargumentinhisOpeningBrieI,and
wherePolkhasbeenappliedbythisveryDepartmentinothercasesrecentlywherethe
undersignedisaparty,IairnessmaysuggestitshouldbeappliedtoRobertsandtheCityoIReno
here.
NRCPRULE59.NEWTRIALS;AMENDMENTOFJUDGMENTS(a)
Grounds.AnewtrialmaybegrantedtoalloranyoIthepartiesandonallorpart
-2-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
916
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
oItheissuesIoranyoItheIollowingcausesorgroundsmateriallyaIIectingthe
substantialrightsoIanaggrievedparty:(1)IrregularityintheproceedingsoIthe
court,jury,master,oradverseparty,oranyorderoIthecourt,ormaster,or
abuseoIdiscretionbywhicheitherpartywaspreventedIromhavingaIairtrial;
TherecordonappealIorwardbytheRMCandthecertiIieddocketaresubstantiallydeIicientand
RMCIilignoIIicesupervisorDonnaBallardhasindicatedalackoIconerninthatrespecttothe
undersignedrecently,indicatingthatthe'Departmentscontroleverythingandthat'shejustdoes
whatsheistoldandthatshe'can'trememberiIsheprintedoutcopiesoItheIilingsthatsheagree
theundersignedwasallowedtoIilethroughemailmeans,orwhethershepassedsuchprintoutstothe
appropriatejudicialassistantorcourtadminstrator.Further,PamRobertswasprovidedaCD
transcriptoItheshort6hourtrialanditwassuIIicientlycitedtointheOpeningBrieItojustiIy
reversingthetrialcourt'sdecision.
(2)MisconductoIthejuryorprevailingparty;
PamRobertssubornedperjuryincountenancingthetestimonyoIKameron
CrawIordwherehistestimonydirectdlyconIlictedwiththevideoevidence
RobertsherselIpropouneddurignthediscoveryphase.
(3)Accidentorsurprisewhichordinaryprudencecouldnothaveguarded
against;
TheundersignedpowerwasimpermissilbyshutoIIbyNVEneregyon
approximatelyFebruary3
rd
2012,inamannerthatisviolativeoIstateand
IederallawandbaseduponaretaliatorymotiveonNVEneregy'spart,and
interIerencebythedomesticabusersagainstwhomprotectionorderswhere
issuesinFV12-00188,187.
(4)NewlydiscoveredevidencematerialIorthepartymakingthemotionwhich
thepartycouldnot,withreasonablediligence,havediscoveredandproducedat
thetrial;\\
evidenceevincingaretaliatoryintentonWal-Mart'spartisnowavailabetothe
udnersignedwhereasbeIoretheunlawIulrentdistraintappliedbyRichardHill
-3-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
917
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
incidenttoanimpermissilbeSummaryEvictionOrderoI10/31/12isnot
availabletotheundrsignedanisnecessaryIorthiscourttoreviewtoreachajust
result,particularywhereapropertyright,theundersignedlawlicensevisavis
SCR111isatstake.
(5)ManiIestdisregardbythejuryoItheinstructionsoIthecourt;(6)Excessive
damagesappearingtohavebeengivenundertheinIluenceoIpassionor
prejudice;or,
ThisisparticularlytrueoIJudgeHoward'ssentencingtheudnersignedto3days
incarcerationwhilsedenytingtheSixthamdnmentrighttocounelwhilethe
(7)Errorinlawoccurringatthetrialandobjectedtobythepartymakingthe
motion.OnamotionIoranewtrialinanactiontriedwithoutajury,thecourt
mayopenthejudgmentiIonehasbeenentered,takeadditionaltestimony,
amendIindingsoIIactandconclusionsoIlawormakenewIindingsand
conclusions,anddirecttheentryoIanewjudgment.
InreOverstreet,851S.W.2d458(Ky.,Jan21,1993)(NO.91-SC-596-OA)
HistoryDirectHistory~1InreOverstreet,851S.W.2d458(Ky.Jan21,1993)
(NO.91-SC-596-OA)KEYCITEInreOverstreet,851S.W.2d458(Ky.Jan21,
1993)(NO.91-SC-596-OA)CitingReIerencesSecondarySources(U.S.A.)1
Am.Jur.2dClerksoICourts20,GroundsIorremoval(2012)HN:1(S.W.2d)2
Am.Jur.2dClerksoICourts21,GroundsIorremoval-Particularapplications
(2012)HN:1(S.W.2d)3STATECONSTITUTIONALLAWSURVEY,21N.
Ky.L.Rev.257,267(1994)HN:1(S.W.2d)JudgesandAttorneysSupreme
CourtoIKentucky.InreRayL.OVERSTREET,CaseyCircuitCourtClerk.No.
91SC596OA.Jan.21,1993.AsAmendedJan.21,1993.RehearingDenied
April22,1993.Inoriginalproceedingtoshowcausewhycountycircuitcourt
clerkshouldnotberemovedIromoIIiceorotherwisedisciplined,theSupreme
Court,Stephens,C.J.,heldthatIailureoIclerkoIcourttomaintainproper
records,todepositmoniesintactpromptlyintostatedepositorybankandto
maintainappropriatebankaccountaccruinginterestpaidtoStateTreasurywas
goodcauseIorremovingclerkIromoIIice.Soordered.WestHeadnotesClerks
oICourts79879ClerksoICourts79k8k.Resignation,Suspension,or
Removal.MostCitedCasesFailureoIclerkoIcourttomaintainproperrecords,
todepositmoniesintactpromptlyintostatedepositorybankandtomaintain
appropriatebankaccountaccruinginterestpaidtoStateTreasurywasgood
causeIorremovingclerkIromoIIice;clerkwasprovidedsuIIicienteducational
opportunitiesandmaterialstoenablehimtoknowhowtoproperlyIulIillhis
legalresponsibilities,anditwashisresponsibilitytoremitthepublicIundseven
iIheemployedanotherpersontoperIormcertainbookkeepingandministerial
dutiesIortheoIIice.Const.114(3).*459OPINIONANDORDERThisisan
originalproceedinginthisCourtwhichrequiresRayL.Overstreet,Casey
CountyCircuitCourtClerk,toshowcausewhyheshouldnotberemovedIrom
-4-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
918
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
oIIiceorotherwisedisciplinedpursuanttoSection114(3)oItheKentucky
ConstitutionIorreasonsallegedinareportbytheAuditoroIPublicAccounts
IortheCommonwealthoIKentucky.Thequestiontobedeterminediswhether
certaindeIicitsorotherreportedallegedimproprietiesintheoIIiceoIRayL.
OverstreetresultedIromtheimproperhandlingoIstateIundsorwerepartoIa
seriesoItransactionsthatconstitutedimproperhandlingoIstateIunds.OnJune
25,1991,OverstreetwasorderedtoappearbeIoretheSupremeCourtoI
KentuckyonAugust20,toshowcausewhyheshouldnotberemovedIrom
oIIiceorotherwisedisciplined.InanorderenteredAugust29,theCourt
determinedthatitwasnecessarytoreceiveevidenceinordertoresolvethe
matter,andaSpecialCommissionerwasappointedtoreceiveevidenceandIilea
report,includingIindingsoIIact,conclusionsoIlawandrecommendations.The
KentuckyConstitutionSection114(3)statesinpertinentpartthatclerksoIthe
circuitcourtshallberemovableIromoIIicebytheSupremeCourtIorgood
causeshown.NootherpenaltyisprovidedbytheConstitution.K.R.S.
30A.010.250imposescertaindutiesoncircuitclerksincludingtheK.R.S.
30A.080requirementoImaintainingproperrecords,theK.R.S.30A.120and.
200requirementsoIdepositingmoniespromptlyinastatedepositorybank,and
theK.R.S.30A.205requirementoImaintaininganappropriatebankaccount
accruinginterestIortheCommonwealthoIKentucky,tobepaidtotheState
TreasuryasareothermoniesduetheState.Wemustconcludethattheoperation
oItheCaseyCircuitClerk'soIIiceviolatesthesestatutorystandards.Itisthe
responsibilityoItheclerktoremitthepublicIundseveniIheemploysanother
persontoperIormcertainbookkeepingandministerialdutiesIortheoIIice.The
principalevidenceisthe1991reportoItheAuditoroIPublicAccounts
regardingtheresponsibilitiesoItheCaseyCircuitClerkIortheIiscalyear
endingJune30,1990.TheauditIoundviolationsoIthestatutesandthe
AdministrativeOIIiceoItheCourtsaccountingmanualconsistingoI1)adeIicit
oI$27,211.00,$5,074oIwhichhadaccumulatedinthelastIiscalyear;2)a
IailuretodepositreceiptsintacttothebankinatimelyIashion;3)aIailureto
recordandremittotheState$9,039ininterestdatingbackto1984;4)aIailure
tomaintainpayableledgercards;and5)aIailuretopreparebankreconciliations.
ForhisdeIense,OverstreetseekstoshiItresponsibilityIortheproblemsoIthe
circuitclerk'soIIicetoAOC.OverstreetmadeIullrestitutionwithoutcontesting
theamountalthoughhechallengedtheproprietyoItheproceedingstoremove
him.ThetestimonyoIOverstreet'sChieIDeputyandwiIe,NinaOverstreet,
establishedthatshehadsomeyearsoIexperienceinhandlingmoneyinseveral
publicoIIicesandhadservedasSpecialTaxCommissionerIorCaseyCounty
sheriIIsbeginningin1970whenherhusbandwasIirstelectedtothatpostand
continuinguntil1990.TheclerkmustassumeresponsibilityIorhisoIIice.Heor
shecannotattempttotransIerresponsibilitytoanyotherpersonorentity.The
evidenceinthiscaseindicatesthattheAOCprovidedsuIIicienteducational
opportunitiesandmaterialstoOverstreetinordertoenablehimtoknowhowto
properlyIulIillhislegalresponsibilities.ThereisevidencethatOverstreetand
hiswiIeattendedseveraloItheeducationalpresentationsmadebytheAOC.
TestimonyalsoindicatedthatthemanualsprovidedIorcircuitclerksarewritten
-5-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
919
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
inaclearandeasilyunderstoodlanguagesothatIollowingthedirectionsoIthe
manualarerelativelysimple.WebelievethattherewassuIIicienteducational
andtrainingopportunitiesprovidedIororavailabletoOverstreet.Therewasalso
considerableevidencethattheAOCprovidedassistancewhenrequestedIrom
Overstreet.*460Althoughthe1991auditwastheIirsttowhichtheCasey
CircuitClerk'soIIicehadbeenexposedsinceOverstreetassumedoIIicein1976,
thisdoesnotexcusetheIailuretore-portorproperlyhandlestateIundsinthe
amountoI$27,211.ItistheresponsibilityoIthecircuitclerktocomplywiththe
statutesoIthisCommonwealth.FailuretodothatwillsubjecttheClerkto
removalIromoIIiceIorgoodcauseshown.WebelievethatRayL.Overstreet
hasIailedtoproperlydischargethedutiesimposeduponhimasCircuitClerkoI
CaseyCountyasdetailedinK.R.S.30A.010.250.AmongthedeIicienciesare
theIailuretomaintainproperrecords,theIailuretodepositmoniesintact
promptlyintoastatedepositorybankandtheIailuretomaintainanappropriate
bankaccountaccruinginterestwhichistobepaidtotheStateTreasury.WeIind
thatRayL.OverstreethasnotprovidedareasonableexplanationIorthe
deIiciencies.ThereIore,weIindthatgoodcauseexistsIorremovingRayL.
Overstreet,ClerkoItheCaseyCountyCircuitCourt,IromoIIiceIorthe
remainderoIhispresenttermandheisnowsoremoved.Section114(3)
KentuckyConstitution.TheOIIiceoIClerkoItheCaseyCountyCircuitCourtis
declaredvacant.Ray...431ProIilerENDOFDOCUMENTAmerican
Jurisprudence,SecondEditionDatabaseupdatedFebruary2012ClerksoICourt
LonnieE.GriIIith,Jr.,J.D.III.Title,Tenure,Removal,orSuspensionC.
RemovalorSuspensionIromOIIice1.RemovalIromOIIiceTopicSummary
CorrelationTableReIerences21.GroundsIorremovalParticular
applicationsWest'sKeyNumberDigestWest'sKeyNumberDigest,ClerksoI
Courts8ExamplesoIsuIIicientgroundsIorremovingaclerkoIcourtIrom
oIIiceinclude:misappropriationoIIundstotheclerk'spersonaluse|1|a
convictionoItheItinoIIicegivingrisetoastatutorydisqualiIication|2|the
Iailuretomaintainproperrecordsandaccounts|3|makingdisparaging
statementsaboutajudge|4|anoIIenseinvolvingmoralturpitude|5|willIul
misconductinoIIice|6|IailuretoIollowtotheletterandintheutmostgood
IaiththedirectionoIthejudge|7|misIeasanceinoIIiceorneglectoIoIIicial
dutytantamounttoIraud|8||FN1|Lewisv.Stateexrel.Evans,387So.2d795
(Ala.1980).|FN2|Stateexrel.Corriganv.Haberek,35OhioSt.3d150,518
N.E.2d1206(1988).|FN3|InreOverstreet,851S.W.2d458(Ky.1993).|FN4|
Voigtv.Savell,70F.3d1552(9thCir.1995).|FN5|Lewisv.Stateexrel.
Evans,387So.2d795(Ala.1980).|FN6|InreAntonelli,429Mass.644,711
N.E.2d104(1999).|FN7|Stateexrel.Corev.MerriIield,202W.Va.100,502
S.E.2d197(1998).|FN8|Commonwealthexrel.AttorneyGeneralv.Furste,
288
Ky.358,156S.W.2d198(1941).2012ThomsonReuters.33-34B2012Thomson
Reuters/RIA.NoClaimtoOrig.U.S.Govt.Works.Allrightsreserved.AMJURCLERKSOFCT
21ENDOFDOCUMENTAmericanJurisprudenceProoIoIFacts3dDatabaseupdatedJune
-6-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
920
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
2011CategoricalListoIArticlesTerminationorDemotionoIaPublicEmployeeInRetaliation
ForSpeakingOutAsaViolationoIRightoIFreeSpeechHon.D.DuIIMckee|*|TABLEOF
CONTENTSArticleOutlineScopeIndexResearchReIerencesTopicoIArticle:ProoIthata
publicemployeewasterminatedordemotedinretaliationIorjumpingthechainoIcommandto
blowthewhistleonasuperior,inviolationoItheemployee'sconstitutionalrightoIIreespeech.
Theissuemayariseinanyemploymentcaseinvolvinganadversepersonnelactiontakenin
apparentretaliationIortheemployeespeakingoutonacontroversialsubjectoronasubject
criticaloIthepublicagency,itspolicies,oritsadministrators,orinrevealinginstancesoI
malIeasanceormisIeasanceonthepartoItheagencyoritsadministrators.ARTICLEOUTLINEI
BackgroundAPreliminaryMatters1Introduction2ScopeoIarticleBElementsoISection
19833Ingeneral4DeIendantsinSection1983actionsGovernmententities5DeIendants
inSection1983actionsGovernmentemployeessuedinindividualcapacity6Pleading
considerations7ChoiceoIIorum8Pendentjurisdiction9Jurytrialvs.courttrialC
ApplicationToEmploymentCases10TheSupremeCourtdecisions11Constitutional
requirementsIorthecauseoIaction12FalsespeechasadeIense13Strategicconsiderations
14TheIirsttest:speechonamatteroIpublicconcernGenerally14.3TheIirsttest:speechon
amatteroIpublicconcernSpeechaspartoIcustomaryduties;policymakers14.5TheIirst
test:speechonamatteroIpublicconcernConsiderationoIemployee'smotive14.7TheIirst
test:speechonamatteroIpublicconcernEmployeespeakingasacitizen15Thesecondtest:
abalancingoIinterests16Thethirdtest:proximatecause17TheIinaltest:deIenseoI
inevitability18Problemsinevaluation18.5Pretext;intenttoretaliateDDamages19
RemediesavailableunderSection198320GeneraldamagesIoremotionaldistress21Front
payasanelementoImonetarydamages22Punitivedamages23Damages;checklist24
-7-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
921
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
AttorneyIeesEDeIenseConsiderations25OverviewoIdeIensestrategy26StatutesoI
limitationsIIDiscoveryAStrategicConsiderations27PlanningIorwrittendiscovery28
UtilityoIFreedomoIInIormationrequests29Depositionstrategies30WhotodeposeB
ModelDiscoveryRequests31RequestIoradmissions32InterrogatoriestodeIendant33
RequestIorproductionoIdocumentsIIIElementsoIProoI34ElementsoIclaim;checklistIV
ProoIoIRetaliatoryDischargeAIntroduction35FactsandbackgroundBPlaintiII'sTestimony
36Witnessintroductionandbackground37AbsenceoIgoodreasonIordemotion38
ValidityortruthIulnessoIcriticismsandstatementsmade39SubjectoIcomplaintsarematters
oIpublicconcern40TheincidentoIclaimedIreespeech41PolicechieIretaliates42
PlaintiII'sdamagesCMayor'sTestimony43Introductionandpreliminarymatters44Mayor's
versionoItheconversationswiththedeputy45DeputychieI'scomplaintsweremattersoI
publicconcern46CitydelegatesauthoritytopolicechieI47DeputychieI'scomplaintsnot
Ialseormalicious48RetaliationaproximatecauseoIthedemotion49Thebalancingtest;no
legitimateinterestinsuppressingsuchspeech50Furtherretaliation;IailuretoreappointD
Expert'sTestimony:RetiredDivisionCommander51Eventsleadinguptothedemotion52
IncidentoIclaimedIreespeech53PlaintiII'scomplaintslegitimate54PlaintiII'sdemotion
55NovalidreasonIordemotionorIailuretobereappointed56Thebalancingtest;nolegitimate
interestinsuppressingsuchspeechVJuryInstructions57"Goodcause"requirement58
Constitutionalissues59BurdenoIprooI60DamagesVIBibliography61Booksand
periodicalsResearchReIerencesTopicoIArticle:ProoIthatapublicemployeewasterminatedor
demotedinretaliationIorjumpingthechainoIcommandtoblowthewhistleonasuperior,in
violationoItheemployee'sconstitutionalrightoIIreespeech.Theissuemayariseinany
employmentcaseinvolvinganadversepersonnelactiontakeninapparentretaliationIorthe
-8-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
922
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
employeespeakingoutonacontroversialsubjectoronasubjectcriticaloIthepublicagency,its
policies,oritsadministrators,orinrevealinginstancesoImalIeasanceormisIeasanceonthepart
oItheagencyoritsadministrators.INDEXAbsenceoIgoodreasonIoradverseemployeeaction
taken,37,55Administrativeremedies,exhaustion,8Admissions,requestIor,31
ApplicationoI42USCA1983toemploymentcases,1018Appointedemployee,Iailureto
reappoint,50,55AttorneyIees,24AuthoritydelegatedtopolicechieIbycity,46
BackgroundinIormation,126,35,36BalanceoIintereststest,constitutionalrequirementsIor
causeoIaction,10,11,15,49,56Benchtrialvsjurytrial,9Bibliography,61Booksand
periodicals,bibliography,61BurdenoIprooI,5etseq.CapacityoIdeIendants,oIIicialvs
individual,46Causation,constitutionalrequirementsIorcauseoIaction,10,11,16,48
Checklists,23,34ChieIoIpolice,caseinvolvingdeputychieIoIpolice,3556ChoiceoI
Iorum,7ChoiceoIlaw,7,26CommanderoIdivision'stestimony,caseinvolvingdeputychieI
oIpolice,5156Compensatorydamages,19Constitutionalissues,juryinstructions,58
ConstitutionalrequirementsIorcauseoIaction,1017,39,45,48,49,56Damages,3,4,19
24,42,60DecisionsoISupremeCourt,10DeIendants,generally,46DeIensesanddeIense
considerations,3,5,12,17,25,26DelegationoIauthoritytopolicechieIbycity,46Deposition
strategies,29,30DeputypolicechieIaspublicemployee,caseinvolving,3556Discovery,
2733Divisioncommander'stestimony,caseinvolvingdeputychieIoIpolice,5156
Documentproduction,request,33ElementsoIclaim,checklist,34ElementsoIprooI,34
ElementsoI42USCA1983,39Emotionaldistress,generaldamages,20Evaluation
problems,18Eventsleadinguptodemotion,51Exemplarydamages,4,22ExhaustionoI
administrativeremedies,8Expert'stestimony,5156Facts,prooIoIretaliatorydischarge,
35Failuretoreappointemployee,50,55FalsenessoIemployee'scomplaints,47Falsespeech
-9-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
923
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
asdeIense,12Fees,attorney,2442USCA1983causeoIaction,1etseq.Forumchoice,
7FreedomoIinIormationrequests,utility,28FrontpayaselementoImonetarydamages,21
Furtherretaliation,50GeneraldamagesIoremotionaldistress,20Goodcauserequirement,
juryinstructions,57GoodreasonabsentIoradverseemployeeactiontaken,37,55Governing
law,7,26Immunity,deIenses,3,5IncidentoIclaimedIreespeech,40,52Individual
capacityoIdeIendants,46InevitabilitydeIense,17Injunctions,3,19Instructionstojury,
5760Interestbalancingtest,constitutionalrequirementsIorcauseoIaction,10,11,15,49,56
InterrogatoriestodeIendant,32Introductiontoarticle,1Jurisdiction,7,8Juryinstructions,
5760Jurytrialvscourttrial,9Lawyers,Iees,24LegitimacyoIinterestinsuppressing
speech,balanceoIintereststest,10,11,15,49,56LegitimacyoIplaintiII'scomplaints,53
LimitationoIactions,26MaliciousnessoIemployee'scomplaints,47Mayor'stestimonyin
caseinvolvingdeputychieIoIpolice,4350Mentaldistress,generaldamages,20Model
discoveryrequests,3133OIIicialcapacityoIdeIendants,46OverviewoIdeIensestrategy,
25Pendentjurisdiction,8Periodicalsandbooks,bibliography,61PlaintiII'stestimonyin
caseinvolvingdeputychieIoIpolice,3642PlanningIorwrittendiscovery,27Pleading
considerations,6PolicechieI,caseinvolvingdeputychieIoIpolice,3556Powerdelegated
topolicechieIbycity,46Privateemployees,1Privilegesandimmunity,deIenses,3,5
Probablecause,constitutionalrequirementsIorcauseoIaction,10,11,16,48Problemsin
evaluation,18ProductionoIdocuments,request,33Proximatecause,constitutional
requirementsIorcauseoIaction,10,11,16,48Publicconcernmatters,constitutional
requirementsIorcauseoIaction,10,11,14,39,45Punitivedamages,4,22QualiIiedimmunity
deIense,5ReappointmentoIemployeedenied,50,55ReasonIoradverseemployeeaction
taken,absenceoIgoodreason,37,55ReinstatementoIemployee,19,21RemediesandrelieI,
-10-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
924
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
3,4,8,1924,42,60RemovaloIcaseIromstatetoIederalcourt,7Requests,modeldiscovery,
3133RequestsunderIreedomoIinIormationstatutes,utility,28Respondeatsuperior,4
Retiredpolicedivisioncommander'stestimony,5156ScopeoIarticle,2Sovereign
immunity,3StatutesoIlimitations,26Strategicconsiderations,13,2730SuppressionoI
speechandlegitimacyoIinteresttherein,balanceoIintereststest,10,11,15,49,56Supreme
Courtdecisions,10Testimony,3656Tests,constitutionalrequirementsIorcauseoIaction,
1017,39,45,48,49,56TruthIulnessoIcriticismsandstatementsmade,38UtilityoIIreedom
oIinIormationrequests,28ValidityoIcriticismsandstatementsmade,38Whotodepose,
30Witnesses,3656Writtendiscovery,planning,27I.BackgroundA.PreliminaryMatters
1.Introduction|CumulativeSupplement|ThedoctrineoIemploymentatwill,permittingthe
unIetteredterminationoIemploymentatanytimeandIoranyreason,hasbeen
underattackIoryearsinboththepublicandprivatesectors.|1|Whilethemainenginesdriving
thecampaignaregenerallytheoriesoIcontract|2|andtort,|3|aspecialnicheexistsintheareaoI
publicemploymentovertheso-calledwhistleblowertheemployeeatwillwhorevealssome
unsavoryIactabouthisemploymentoremployerorspeaksoutonanysubjectdeemed
inappropriatebyhissuperiorsandisthenIiredordisciplinedinretaliation.|4|Here,whena
publicemployeeisdischarged,demoted,orotherwisesubjectedtoanadversepersonnelactionin
retaliationIorspeakingoutagainsthisorheremployer,anactiontoseekredressIorthewrong
maybegroundedupontheFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionoItheUnitedStates.|5|The
premiseadvancedisthatterminationoIemploymentasaconsequenceIorthemakingoIcritical
comment,regardlessoIhowmotivatedordirected,violatestheindividual'sprotectedrightoI
IreedomoIspeech,guaranteedbytheFirstAmendment.|6|AproIusionoIlitigationIoundedon
thispremisehasbeenpouringIorthinIederalcourtsandisbeginningtospillintostatecourts.
-11-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
925
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
Thisconstitutionalremedyisnotgenerallyavailableintheprivatesector.Intheprivatesector,iI
thewhistleblowertriestoseekredressIortheaction,acasemustbeIoundeduponothertheories,
includingstatuteorpublicpolicy.SeveralstateshaveenactedspeciIicstatutesprotectingthe
whistleblowerIromaretaliatorydischarge.|7|Thesestatutesusuallyprotectanemployeewho
reportsactivitiesattachedtoaspeciIicsubject,suchasviolationsoIenvironmentallawsor
violationsoIhealthorsaIetyregulations.|8|Litigantsintheprivatesectormayalsorelyuponthe
publicpolicyexceptiontotheemployment-at-willdoctrine,arguingthatitisagainstpublicpolicy
todischargeanemployeeIorblowingthewhistleonhisemployer.|9|However,thetheories
availableintheprivatesectordonotoIIerthesameprotectionastheFirstAmendmenttheories
availabletothepublicemployee.NordoprivateemployeeshavetheremediesoIIeredbySection
1983.|10|TheconstitutionalimplicationsoItheFirstAmendmentandthedirectcauseoIaction
IoranyinIringementavailablethroughSection1983makethepublicemployee'ssituationunique.
Thisarticleexaminesthosecircumstances.CUMULATIVESUPPLEMENTCases:Judicial
deIerencetostateactingasemployer:ConstitutionalreviewoIstategovernment'sdealingswith
citizenemployeesaIIordsstategreaterleewaythanconstitutionalreviewoIstateinitsexerciseoI
regulatoryorlicensingpower.Engquistv.OregonDept.oIAgr.,128S.Ct.2146,170L.Ed.2d
975,27I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1121,91Empl.Prac.Dec.(CCH)P43213(U.S.2008);West'sKey
NumberDigest,States53.OnconstitutionalreviewoIstategovernment'sdealingswithcitizen
employees,courtbalancesemployees'constitutionalrightsagainstrealitiesoIemploymentcontext
byconsideringwhetherassertedemployeerightimplicatesbasicconcernsoIrelevant
constitutionalprovision,orwhetherclaimedrightcanmorereadilygivewaytorequirementsoI
governmentasemployer.Engquistv.OregonDept.oIAgr.,128S.Ct.2146,170L.Ed.2d975,
27I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1121,91Empl.Prac.Dec.(CCH)P43213(U.S.2008);West'sKeyNumber
-12-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
926
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
Digest,States53.IIdeIendant'sconductsatisIiesstate-actionrequirementoIFourteenth
Amendment,conductalsoconstitutesaction"undercoloroIstatelaw"Ior1983purposes.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.14;42U.S.C.A.1983.BrentwoodAcademyv.TennesseeSecondary
SchoolAthleticAss'n,531U.S.288,121S.Ct.924,148L.Ed.2d807,151Ed.LawRep.18
(2001);West'sKeyNumberDigest,CivilRights197.HatchActlimitsthepoliticalactivitiesoI
IederalemployeesintheinterestsoIpromotingeIIicient,merit-basedadvancement,avoidingthe
appearanceoIpolitically-drivenjustice,preventingthecoercionoIgovernmentworkerstosupport
politicalpositions,andIoreclosinguseoIthecivilservicetobuildpoliticalmachines.5U.S.C.A.
7321-7326.Burrusv.Vegliante,336F.3d82,172L.R.R.M.(BNA)3155,148Lab.Cas.
(CCH)59777(2dCir.2003);West'sKeyNumberDigest,Elections311.2(1).Expressive
conduct:Femalecountyemployee'sactoIwearingaskirttowork,althoughexpressive,wasnot
typeoI"expressiveconduct"requiredtoinvokeIreespeechclauseinchallengingcounty's
mandatethatallpublictransportationemployeeswearpantstowork;ordinaryviewerwouldglean
noparticularizedmessageIromemployee'swearingoIaskirtratherthanpantsaspartoIher
uniIorm.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.Zalewskav.CountyoISullivan,NewYork,316F.3d314,90
FairEmpl.Prac.Cas.(BNA)1193(2dCir.2003);West'sKeyNumberDigest,ConstitutionalLaw
90.1(7.2).PublicemployeesdonotnecessarilyshedtheirFirstAmendmentrightsoIspeechand
politicalassociationinexchangeIortheirjobs,buttheyoItenmustmakeadjustment;thatistosay,
publicemployees'exerciseoIcertainFirstAmendmentrightsmaylegitimatelyberestrained
whereitcouldleadtoinabilityoIelectedoIIicialstogettheirjobsdoneonbehalIoIpublic.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.Gentryv.LowndesCounty,Miss.,337F.3d481(5thCir.2003);
West'sKeyNumberDigest,ConstitutionalLaw91.Federalemployee'sclaimsthathisFirst
AmendmentrightswereviolatedwhenhewasIiredinretaliationIorhis"whistleblowing"
-13-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
927
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
activitiesareprecludedbyCivilServiceReIormAct(5USCA1etseq.),including
WhistleblowingProtectionActoI1989(5USCA2302).GrishamvUnitedStates(1997,CA5
Tex)103F3d24,12BNAIERCas763,1997CCHOSHD31214.Adverseaction:Involuntary
transIeroIteachertoanotherschoolwithinschooldistricthadasuIIicientchillingeIIecttoqualiIy
asan"adverseaction"undertheFirstAmendmentretaliationanalysis.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.
Learyv.Daeschner,349F.3d888,182Ed.LawRep.743,20I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1148,2003FED
App.0409P(6thCir.2003);West'sKeyNumberDigest,ConstitutionalLaw82(12).WiIe'sclaim:
PoliceoIIicer'swiIelackedstandingtoassertFirstAmendmentclaimagainstpolicedepartment
andcityoIIicials,baseduponallegationsthatpolicepresenceatclubwhereshewasemployedas
exoticdancernegativelyimpactedherworkingconditionsandIorcedhertoquitherjob,andthat
bydischargingoIIicer,deIendantssoughttochillwiIe'sIreedomoIexpressionbyremoving
incomeIromherhome;wiIeIailedtopresentevidenceoIanyactualorinhibitoryeIIectonher
IreedomoIspeech,evidenceoIchangeinincomewasspeculative,andanyinjurytoherincome
wasnotIairlytraceabletodeIendants'conduct.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1;42U.S.C.A.1983.
Eddingsv.CityoIHotSprings,Ark.,323F.3d596,19I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1350(8thCir.2003);
West'sKeyNumberDigest,ConstitutionalLaw42.2(1).Federalemployees'compensation
restrictions:UnderNTEUmodiIicationoIPickeringbalancingtest,regulationprohibiting
compensationIorteaching,speaking,orwritingthatrelatedtoIederalemployees'oIIicialduties
didnotviolateFirstAmendmentIreeexpressionrightsoISocialSecurityAdministration(SSA)
ALJwhowasdeniedcompensationIortextbookhewroteonsocialsecuritydisabilitylawand
practice;regulationwasnarrowlytailoredtoservegovernment'sassertedinterestinavoiding
employeeimproprietyorappearanceoIimproprietygiventhatitexpresslyincorporatednexus
requirementbetweenemployee'sspeechandemployee'soIIicialduties,regulationdidnotgreatly
-14-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
928
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
burdenemployee'srighttospeak,andrestrictiononcompensationwasnotthetypeoIspeech
restrictionthatwouldpromotegovernmentcensorshipbasedonemployee'sviewpoint.U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend.1;5C.F.R.2635.807(a).WolIev.Barnhart,446F.3d1096(10thCir.2006);
West'sKeyNumberDigest,ConstitutionalLaw90.1(7.2).Priorrestraint:County'sconditioning
policeoIIicer'sreturnIromsuspensionuponoIIicer'sreIraining"atalltimes"Iromspeakingtoany
thirdpartiesaboutanyemploymentmatter"inanywaycriticalornegative"towardanycounty
employeewasoverbroadpriorrestraint,sinceconditionscouldtouchuponoIIicer'sprotectable
privatespeech;countyhadtojustiIyitsactionsasnecessarytopromoteeIIiciency.U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend.1.Mansoorv.CountyoIAlbemarle,124F.Supp.2d367(W.D.Va.2000);West's
KeyNumberDigest,Counties67.Ateacher'spubliccriticismoIhissuperiorsonmattersoIpublic
concernmaybeconstitutionallyprotectedandmay,thereIore,beanimpermissiblebasisIor
terminationoIhisemployment.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.Leachv.NewMexicoJuniorCollege,
132N.M.106,2002-NMCA-039,45P.3d46,164Ed.LawRep.462(Ct.App.2002),cert.
denied,132N.M.83,44P.3d529(2002)andcert.denied,132N.M.83,44P.3d529(2002);
West'sKeyNumberDigest,ConstitutionalLaw90.1(7.3).SomeevidencesupportedIindingthat
therewascausallinkunderWhistleblowerActbetweenIormercountyemployee'sreportoI
countyequipmentsaIetyviolationstocountyjudgeanduniIormedoIIiceroIDepartmentoISaIety
andhisterminationapproximately60dayslater;evidencethatemployeewasterminatedlessthan
90daysaIterviolationreportcreatedpresumptionoIretaliation,aIteremployeemadereportto
judge,hewassentoutbyhimselItodojobsthatnormallyrequiretwoorthreepeopletoperIorm,
andaIterhereportedtocountycommissionerthatcountypropertywasmissing,hewastoldto
keephismouthshutandtomindhisownbusiness.Vernon'sAnn.TexasCiv.St.art.6252-16a,
-15-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
929
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
3(b).UptonCounty,Tex.v.Brown,960S.W.2d808(Tex.App.ElPaso1997),reh'goverruled,
(Oct.8,1997).|TopoISection||ENDOFSUPPLEMENT|2.ScopeoIarticle|Cumulative
Supplement|ThisarticleexaminestheelementsoIprooIrequiredIoranactionbaseduponthe
wrongIuldischargeordemotionoIapublicemployeeinretaliationIorspeechorcomments
deemedoIIensivebytheemployer.ThegravamenoItheclaimisinIringementoItherightoIIree
speechprotectedbytheFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionoItheUnitedStates,presented
throughadirectactionagainstthegovernmentalagencyunderSection1983oItheUnitedStates
Code,andIiledineitherstateorIederalcourt.|11|CUMULATIVESUPPLEMENTCases:
Materialadverseemploymentaction:DecreaseinsizeoIstateuniversityemployee'soIIiceand
provisionoIantiquatedtelephonedidnotconstitutematerialadverseemploymentactions
necessarytosupportemployee'sFirstAmendmentretaliationclaimagainsthissupervisor.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.Dennisonv.MurrayStateUniversity,465F.Supp.2d733(W.D.Ky.
2006);West'sKeyNumberDigest,ConstitutionalLaw82(11).|TopoISection||ENDOF
SUPPLEMENT|B.ElementsoISection19833.Ingeneral|CumulativeSupplement|Although
deceptivelysimpleinitsconstruction,Section1983isIulloIproceduraltrapsandpitIalls.A
completeanalysisoItheproceduralintricaciesoISection1983isbeyondthescopeoIthisarticle.
|12|However,anunderstandingoIitsbasicIrameworkisnecessarytoanunderstandingoIthe
topic.ThestatutewasadoptedbyCongressin1871toenIorcetheFourteenthAmendment.It
providesIorprivateremediesintheIormoImoneydamagesandinjunctiverelieIIorthe
inIringementoIconstitutionalrights.Initsrelevantpart,thestatutereads:Everypersonwho,
undercoloroIanystatute,ordinance,regulation,custom,orusage,oIanyStateorTerritoryorthe
DistrictoIColumbia,subjects,orcausestobesubjected,anycitizenoItheUnitedStatesorother
personwithinthejurisdictionthereoItothedeprivationoIanyrights,privileges,orimmunities
-16-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
930
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
securedbytheConstitutionandlaws,shallbeliabletothepartyinjuredinanactionatlaw,suitin
equity,orotherproperproceedingIorredress.|13|AIterlayingalmostdormantIorninetyyears,it
wasresurrectedtobecometheproceduralkeystoneIorthecivilrightslitigationoIthe1960s.It
quicklybecametheengineIoraplethoraoIlitigationtestingthelimitsoIconstitutionalrights.
Privatecompaniesorprivateindividualsarenotordinarilyliabletoanaggrievedpartyunder
Section1983;|14|suchprivatepartiesarenotacting"undercolor"oIlaw.Individualsareliable
underthestatuteiItheyareactingundercoloroIstatelaw,whichusuallyrequiresthatthe
individualbeanemployeeoragentoIthestate.|15|Further,thestatutedoesnotextendtostates
orstateagencies;astatemaynotbeadeIendantinaSection1983actionbyvirtueoIthe
sovereignimmunityprovisionsoItheEleventhAmendment.|16|However,withingovernment
andexceptIorstatesthemselves,thedeIinitionoIpersonhasbeenbroadlyinterpretedtoinclude
virtuallyanygovernmentalentity,includingcites,counties,townships,municipalcorporations,
andthewidevarietyoIlocalandregionalgovernmententities.|17|ThestatuteprovidesIorcivil
redressintheIormoIinjunctiverelieIandmonetarydamagesagainstgovernmentalentitiesor
individualsactingundercoloroIlawwhoviolatetheconstitutionalrightsoIanyone.|18|Onthe
onehand,thisnarrowstheclassoIpotentialdeIendantsconsiderably.Ontheotherhand,itstill
leavesamightybigclass.TheproceduralrequirementsIorgettingtherearestiII,buttherewards
canbeconsiderablewhenatargetisisolatedandwithinsight.CUMULATIVESUPPLEMENT
Cases:UniversityoIIicialsviolatedIreespeechrightsoIuniversityproIessorwhentheyreduced
histermasdepartmentchairmanIromthreeyearstooneasresultoIcontroversialspeechmadeby
proIessoratoII-campussymposiumduringwhichproIessormadeseveralderogatorystatements,
mostlyaboutJews.JeIIriesvHarleston(1994,CA2NY)21F3d1238,9BNAIERCas686.One
cannotgointocourtandclaim"violationoI1983,"Ior1983byitselIdoesnotprotectanyone
-17-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
931
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
againstanythingrather,1983providesremedyIorviolationsoIallrights,privileges,or
immunitiessecuredbyConstitutionandlawsoIUnitedStates.42U.S.C.A.1983.RuralWater
SystemNo.1v.CityoISiouxCenter,Iowa,967F.Supp.1483(N.D.Iowa1997).|TopoI
Section||ENDOFSUPPLEMENT|4.DeIendantsinSection1983actionsGovernment
entities|CumulativeSupplement|WhenagovernmentalentityisnamedasthedeIendant,the
plaintiIImustprovethattheactsthatconstitutedtheconstitutionalinIringementorviolationwere
carriedoutbythegovernmentalentityasamatteroIdeclaredpolicyorestablishedcustom.|19|It
isnotsuIIicienttomerelyprovethattheactsweretakenbyanemployeeoragentoItheentityin
theregularcourseoIemployment.Inotherwords,respondeatsuperiorisnotsuIIicient.|20|In
addition,punitivedamagesarenotavailableIromagovernmentalagency.Whenindividual
administratorsorbureaucratsarenamedasdeIendantsintheiroIIicialcapacity,thesuitistreated
asoneagainsttheentityitselI.AsinthecaseoIsuitagainstthegovernmentalentity,individuals
actingintheiroIIicialcapacityareimmuneIrompunitivedamagesandmustbeshowntohave
actedpursuanttoadeclaredpolicyorexistingcustom.Inemploymentcases,theprinciplethatthe
agencyactionmustbebasedupondeclaredpolicyorestablishedcustomseldompresentsan
impediment.TherequirementissatisIiedwhenthegovernmentalboardorcouncileitherdirects
thepersonnelactionorratiIiestheactiontakenbyanindividualadministrator.Evenwherebased
uponindividualaction,therequirementissatisIiediItheindividualtakingtheactionisoI
suIIicientstaturetobeconsideredapolicymakerandisimplementingadecisionheorsheis
empoweredtomake.Wherethegoverningboarddelegatesauthoritytoanindividualadministrator
tomakepersonneldecisions,thedelegationisgenerallysuIIicienttorendertheagencyliableIor
anyactiontakenbytheindividualadministrator,inaccordancewiththedelegatedauthority.The
delegationoIauthorityissuIIicienttoconstitutethepolicyorestablishedcustomoItheagency.
-18-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
932
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
SincepersonnelactionsingovernmentalagenciesinvariablyrequireeitherdirectionIromthe
governingboardbeIoretheact,ratiIicationbytheboardaItertheact,ordelegationoIauthorityto
hireandIiretoanadministrator,thisthresholdrequirementIoractionagainstthegovernmental
entitydirectlyisusuallyagiven.|21|However,thereareexceptions.CaseIllustrationAIormer
citypoliceoIIicer,whohadbeenIiredIorgoingtotheattorneygeneralwithcomplaintsaboutthe
policechieI,broughtacivilrightsactionagainstthecity,citymanager,andpolicechieIIollowing
histermination.ThecourtheldthatonlythecitymanagerhadtheIinalauthorityinpersonnel
matters,notwithstandingtestimonythatthechieIhadbeengivencarteblanchetohireandIire.
AlthoughthemanagerwentalongwiththechieI'sdecision,thecourtheldthatthemanagerwas
notawareoIthechieI'swrongmotivations.ThecourtrelieduponSt.LouisvPraprotnik|22|Ior
thepropositionthatonlythoseoIIicialswiththeIinalpolicymakingauthoritymay,bytheir
actions,subjectthegovernmenttoSection1983liability.SincethechieIdidnothavetheIinalsay
andsincethecitymanagerwasnotIullyinIormedwhenhewentalong,theactionsdidnot
constituteapolicydecisionoractoIestablishedcustomonthepartoIthecity.TheplaintiII
consequentlylosthisdeeppocketandprevailedonlyinhisactionagainstthechieIindividually.
|23|AlthoughtheexistenceoItherequisitegovernmentalpolicyorcustomisgenerallypresentin
employmentcases,thisdoesnotmeanthatcounselcanassumethatitispresent.Theburdenison
theplaintiIItodemonstrateeverynecessaryelementoIthecase,andiIcarelesscounseloverlooks
makingarecordwiththenecessaryprooI,thecasemayIlyoutthewindowonatechnicality.It
maynottakemuchtomaketherecord,butitcannotbeoverlooked.CUMULATIVE
SUPPLEMENTCases:Citywasliablein42USCA1983actionarisingaIterIorcedretirement
oIassistantIirechieIinviolationoIhisFirstAmendmentrights,wherecity'sSaIetyDirector,City
Manager,andCivilServiceCommissionactedtogethertodisciplineassistantIirechieIIor
-19-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
933
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
exercisinghisconstitutionalrights;contentionthatIorcedretirementwasisolatedincidentandwas
notpursuanttooIIiciallypromulgatedpolicydidnotprecludeliability,wheredecisionwasmade
bycity'sauthorizeddecisionmakers.MeyersvCityoICincinnati(1994,CA6Ohio)14F3d1115,
63CCHEPD42807,1994FEDApp.15P.OneincidentoIallegedretaliationagainstDistrictoI
ColumbiaemployeeIorexercisingherFirstAmendmentrightsdidnotqualiIyasapervasive
policyorcustom,asrequiredtosupportmunicipalliabilityunder1983.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.
1;42U.S.C.A.1983.Tabbv.DistrictoIColumbia,605F.Supp.2d89(D.D.C.2009).|TopoI
Section||ENDOFSUPPLEMENT|5.DeIendantsinSection1983actionsGovernment
employeessuedinindividualcapacity|CumulativeSupplement|Clearlyunderthestatute,persons
maybenamedasdeIendantsintheirindividualcapacity.Whenbureaucratsaresuedintheir
individual(asopposedtooIIicial)capacity,thereisnorequirementtoshowthattheconstitutional
inIringementwastheresultoIadeclaredpolicyorestablishedcustom.Inaddition,individual
deIendantsmaybesubjectedtopunitivedamages.However,individualshaveavailablethe
deIenseoIqualiIiedimmunity.Anindividualadministrator
orbureaucrat,actingintheordinarycourseoIemployment,isimmuneIrompersonalliabilitytoa
plaintiIIunlesstheillegalityoItheactionwassoobviousthatapersonoIordinaryintelligence
wouldclearlyunderstandthattheactionsviolatedtheplaintiII'sconstitutionalrights.|24|The
privilegeisinterpretedasashield,creatingapresumptionoIimmunityIorpublicoIIicialsacting
intheir1oIIicialcapacity.|25|TheburdenoIprooIisontheplaintiIItodemonstratethatthe
privilegeshouldnotapply.AspecialcircumstanceiscreatedwhereanindividualdeIendant
assertstheprivilegeoIqualiIiedimmunityinamotionIorsummaryjudgmentandloses.|26|The
deIendantmayimmediatelyappealthedecision,notwithstandingthatadenialoIamotionIor
summaryjudgmentwouldnototherwisebeconsideredIinalorappealable|27|unlesscertiIiedIor
-20-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
934
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
interlocutoryappeal.|28|ThisspecialexceptionIoranappealoIrightwascreatedbytheSupreme
Courtin1985|29|whentheCourt,recognizingthataquestionoIimmunityisseparateIromthe
meritsoItheunderlyingactioneventhoughareviewingcourtmustconsiderIactualallegationsin
reviewinganimmunityquestion,heldthatadistrictcourt'sdenialoIaclaimoIqualiIied
immunity,totheextentthatitturnsonanissueoIlaw,isappealablenotwithstandingtheabsence
oIaIinaljudgment.|30|Thismeansthatwhencounselinsistsonretaininganindividual
deIendantinanindividualcapacity,thecasemaywellbeloopedthroughtheappellatecourt
beIoretheIirstroundoIdiscoveryislaunched.CUMULATIVESUPPLEMENTTrialStrategy
BivensActionsAgainstLawEnIorcementOIIicers,59Am.Jur.ProoIoIFacts3d291Cases:
BurdenoIovercomingqualiIiedimmunity:InordertoovercomethedeIenseoIqualiIied
immunityina1983actionIorcivildamagesIromagovernmentoIIicialperIorming
discretionaryIunctions,theplaintiIIisrequiredtoshowthattheoIIicialviolatedclearly
establishedstatutoryorconstitutionalrightsoIwhichareasonablepersonwouldhaveknown.42
U.S.C.A.1983.Connv.Gabbert,526U.S.286,119S.Ct.1292,143L.Ed.2d399(1999);
West'sKeyNumberDigest,CivilRights214(2).DeIendant'ssubjectiveintent:DeIenseoI
qualiIiedimmunitymaynotberebuttedbyevidencethatgovernmentaloIIicial'sconductwas
maliciousorotherwiseimproperlymotivated;evidenceconcerningdeIendant'ssubjectiveintentis
simplyirrelevanttoqualiIiedimmunitydeIense,althoughitmaybeessentialcomponentoI
plaintiII'saIIirmativecase.CrawIord-Elv.Britton,118S.Ct.1584(U.S.1998).CountysheriII
wasnotentitledtoqualiIiedimmunityIorherconductinrescindingjailoIIicers'commissionsas
deputysheriIIs,inoIIicers'1983FirstAmendmentretaliationclaim,allegingthatsheriII
retaliatedagainstthembecauseoItheirpoliticalsupportoIsheriII'sopponentinelection;the
rescissionexcludedoIIicers'Iromtheopportunitytoworkpaidsecuritydetails,sothattheir
-21-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
935
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
earningcapacitywasreduced,itwaswell-settledatthetimeoIsheriII'sconductthatemployer
couldnotimpactemployee'searningcapacityonbasisoIemployee'spoliticalaIIiliation,partisan
politicalloyaltywasnotalegitimatequaliIicationIordeputysheriII'sposition,andsheriIIcould
nothavereasonablybelievedthatshehaddiscretiontorescindcommissionsbasedonpolitical
aIIiliation.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1;42U.S.C.A.1983.Bergeronv.Cabral,560F.3d1,28
I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1455,185L.R.R.M.(BNA)3308(1stCir.2009).CommissioneroIPublic
SaIetywasnotentitledtosummaryjudgmentonqualiIiedimmunityissuein42USCA1983
actionarisingaItertransIeroIstatetrooperIromhispositionasresidenttrooperwithouthearing,
basedonhispoliticalactivitiesinvolvingtaxexpendituresandschoolconstructionintownin
whichheresided,wherereasonablepublicoIIicialwouldnothavebelievedthatstate'sinterests
outweighedFirstAmendmentinterestsoIstatetrooper,andwheretherewasnoevidencethat
trooper'sconducthamperedeIIicientoperationoIlawenIorcement.BieluchvSullivan(1993,
CA2Conn)999F2d666.StateoIIicialwhorevokedblindvendor'slicensetooperateincapitol
buildingbecauseoIvendor'spublicstatementswhichdealtwithmattersoIpersonalandpublic
concernwasnotentitledtoqualiIiedimmunitysinceanyreasonableoIIicialwouldhavetoknow
thatrevokingblindvendor'slicenseinretaliationIorsuchpublicly-airedcomplaintsviolatedFirst
Amendment.CopseyvSwearingen(1994,CA5La)36F3d1336.Summaryjudgmentbasedon
qualiIiedimmunitywasprecludedin42USCA1983actionbyteacherallegingsuperintendent
transIerredteacherinretaliationIorpubliccriticismoIsuperintendent'sadministration,where
uncontrovertedcircumstancessurroundingtransIer,includingmotivationoIsuperintendentin
approvingtransIer,weresuIIicienttoraisegenuineissueoImaterialIactastowhethertransIer
wasinviolationoIteacher'sFirstAmendmentrights.TompkinsvVickers(1994,CA5Miss)26
F3d603.TodeIeatclaimoIqualiIiedimmunityin1983action,contoursoIrightmustbe
-22-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
936
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
suIIicientlyclearthatreasonableoIIicialwouldunderstandthatwhatheisdoingviolatesthat
right;oIIicialisnotrequiredtoguessdirectionoIIuturelegaldecisions,butmustrelyon
preexistingcaselawIorguidance.42U.S.C.A.1983.Conrodv.Davis,120F.3d92(8thCir.
1997).SupervisorswereentitledtoqualiIiedimmunityin42USCA1983actionbyagency
employeewhoclaimedhisFirstAmendmentrightswereviolatedwhenhewasdischargedaIterhe
criticizedagencyprograms;employee'sIreespeechrightswerenotclearlyestablished,where
evidenceshowedemployee'scomplaintsaIIectedmoraleoIworkIorceandIunctioningoIentire
operation.GranthamvTrickey(1994,CA8Mo)21F3d289.TherightoIaschoolteacherto
claimthatattendancerecordswereinaccuratewasnotsoclearlyestablishedthatdistrictoIIicials
knewtheywereviolatingthelawwhentheyterminatedhimallegedlyinretaliationIorthe
remarks,andtheoIIicialshadqualiIiedimmunityIromclaimsthattheiractionsviolatedthe
teacher'sFirstAmendmentrights;whiletheteacher'sstatementsinvolvedanareaoIpublic
concern,thestatementsdisruptedharmonywithintheschool'sstaII,theworkingrelationship
betweenteachersandsuperintendentsisclose,andrequiresmutualtrustoIthesortdisruptedby
theteacher'sstatements,thestatementsinterIeredwiththeteacher'sdischargeoIhisownduties,
thestatementsweredirectedtoschooloIIicials,ratherthanthepublic,andtheallegationswere
ultimatelyprovenIalse.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.Brewsterv.BoardoIEduc.oILynwood
UniIiedSchoolDist.,149F.3d971,128Ed.LawRep.50(9thCir.1998).ShiItingburdenoI
prooI:IndeterminingwhetheremployeehassuIIicientlyallegedthatpublicemployerviolated
FirstAmendmentright,IorpurposesoIqualiIiedimmunityanalysisinretaliationaction,court
mustIirstdeterminewhetheremployee'sspeechinvolvedmatteroIpublicconcern,andthenmust
balanceemployee'sinterestsinmakingstatementagainstemployer'sinterestsineIIectiveand
eIIicientIulIillmentoIitsresponsibilities;iIbalancetipsinIavoroIemployee,thenheorshemust
-23-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
937
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
showprotectedspeechwasmotivatingIactorindecision,andburdenthenshiItstoemployerto
showbypreponderanceoIevidencethatitwouldhavereachedsamedecisioninabsenceoI
protectedactivity.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.Butlerv.CityoIPrairieVillage,Kan.,172F.3d736
(10thCir.1999);West'sKeyNumberDigest,CivilRights238.WhereemployeeoIsheriII's
departmenttestiIiedundersubpoenainactionbroughtbyotheremployeesoIdepartmentcharging
sheriIIwithracialandsexualdiscrimination,employee'sspeechdealtwithmattersoIpublic
concernandwasthereIoreprotectedbyFirstAmendmentsinceemployee'stestimonydidnot
constituteemployeegrievancemotivatedmerelybyselIinterest;Iurther,sincesheriIIwaswarned
byjudgenottoretaliateagainstemployeeIorhertestimony,sheriIImusthaverealizedthat
terminationwouldconstituteretaliation,andthereIoresheriIIwasnotentitledtoqualiIied
immunity.TindalvMontgomeryCountyComm'n(1994,CA11Ala)32F3d1535,66BNAFEP
Cas36,8FLWFedC702.FreespeechprotectionsaIIordedtomiddleschoolmusicteacher's
speechagainstprincipal,especiallyhiscommentstolocalnewspapers,wereclearlyestablished,
suchthatprincipalwasnotentitledtoqualiIiedimmunityIromteacher's1983retaliationsuit.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1;42U.S.C.A.1983.Valentiv.TorringtonBd.oIEduc.,601F.Supp.
2d427(D.Conn.2009).FirstAmendmentlawwasclearlyestablishedthatschoolboardmembers
couldnotretaliateagainstIilingoIlawsuitbyschooldistrictemployeesorIoremployees'political
speech,andnoreasonablegovernmentoIIicialinmembers'positioncouldhavebelievedthat
retaliatingagainstemployeesbytakingadverseemployment-relatedactionswasappropriate
conduct,andthusmemberswerenotentitledtoqualiIiedimmunity,inemployees'1983
retaliationaction.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1;42U.S.C.A.1983.Pribulav.WyomingArea
SchoolDist.,599F.Supp.2d564(M.D.Pa.2009).QualiIiedimmunity:Instructorsatpolice
academy,whohadprovidedexperttestimonyagainstpoliceinexcessiveIorcecaseinanotherpart
-24-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
938
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
oIstate,suIIicientlyestablisheddeprivationoIstatutoryrightonpartoIpolicechieIsandsheriIIs,
inprocessoIreIutingqualiIiedimmunitydeIense,byclaimingthatoIIicialskepttheirpersonnel
awayIrominstructors'classes,causingthemtoberelievedoIteachingdutiesIollowingtheir
testimony,inviolationoIstatuteprohibitinginIliction
oIinjuryinretaliationIortestimony.42U.S.C.A.1985.Kinneyv.Weaver,111F.Supp.2d831
(E.D.Tex.2000);West'sKeyNumberDigest,CivilRights214(6).CountysheriII'squaliIied
immunityIromdeputysheriII's1983FirstAmendmentretaliationclaimprotectedhimIrom
havingtogototrial,notjustIromdamages;deputycouldnotobtainanyremedyIromhim.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1;42U.S.C.A.1983.CockroItv.Moore,638F.Supp.2d1024(W.D.
Wis.2009).|TopoISection||ENDOFSUPPLEMENT|6.Pleadingconsiderations|Cumulative
Supplement|ManytrapscanbeIallapleaderwhoisnotcareIulintheselectionoIdeIendants.
SincesuinganindividualinheroIIicialcapacityistreatedasasuitagainsttheentity,itmaybe
redundanttonameboththegovernmentalentityandanyoIitsadministratorsintheiroIIicial
capacity.UnlessthereissomequestionoverthelegalidentityoIthenamedentity,oraquestion
overwhetheritcanbesuedinitsownname,littleisgainedbyaddingtheindividual
administratorsintheiroIIicialcapacity.PleadingpracticesvaryIromjurisdictiontojurisdiction.
|31|WherethepracticeistosuetheoIIicialsexoIIicio,itisunnecessarytoseparatelynamethe
entity;wherethepracticeistosuetheentity,itisredundanttonametheoIIicialsexoIIicio.The
bestcaseresultinredundantpleadingisasimpleordertostrikeordismisstheunnecessaryparties.
TheworstcaseresultisaRule11sanctionagainstthedraItsman.|32|BecauseoIthesetraps,
cautionshouldbeexercisedinselectingthedeIendantsandindesignatingtheircapacity.Unless
counselissatisIiedthattheconstitutionalinIringementisobviousandthattheindividualactorwas
knowledgeableandculpablyvindictivethusjustiIyingthepursuitoIpunitivedamageslittle
-25-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
939
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
morethanadditionalhassleliesinthepathoItheplaintiIIwhonamesindividualdeIendantswith
abandon.ThesetacticalconsiderationsareimportanttothedraIteroIthecomplaint.ThespeciIic
Iactsaresubjecttoscrutinyearlyinthelawsuit,andinterlocutoryappealscanbetakenasamatter
oIcoursetoderailordelaytheprogressoIthecase.Thecourtsareincreasinglyinsistingthatthe
complaintclearlystatespeciIicallywhattheoryoIliabilityisbeingpursuedagainstindividual
deIendants,andthespecteroIRule11sanctionshauntsthecarelesspleader.|33|CUMULATIVE
SUPPLEMENTCases:AplaintiIIsuingapublicoIIicialunder1983mustIileacomplaintthat
restsonmorethanconclusionsalone;iIadeIendantraisesthedeIenseoIqualiIiedimmunity,the
districtcourtmayordertheplaintiIItoIileareplytailoredtoanswerthedeIendant'sassertionoI
qualiIiedimmunity,and,incasesinvolvinganallegationoIimproperdiscriminatorymotive,the
districtcourtmaysuasponteoronthedeIendant'smotionordertheplaintiIItoputIorward
speciIic,nonconclusoryIactualallegationsthatestablishimpropermotivecausingcognizable
injuryinordertosurviveaprediscoverymotionIordismissalorsummaryjudgment.42U.S.C.A.
1983;FedRCivPRule7;Shippv.McMahon,199F.3d256(5thCir.2000);West'sKey
NumberDigest,CivilRights238.InordertostateFirstAmendmentclaimagainstpublic
employer,publicemployeemustshowthat(1)heorsheengagedinconstitutionallyprotected
speech,(2)employertookadverseemploymentactionagainstemployee,and(3)employee's
speechwasasubstantialormotivatingIactorIortheadverseaction.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.
Careyv.MaricopaCounty,602F.Supp.2d1132,92Empl.Prac.Dec.(CCH)P43500,157Lab.
Cas.(CCH)P60770(D.Ariz.2009).|TopoISection||ENDOFSUPPLEMENT|7.ChoiceoI
Iorum|CumulativeSupplement|Section1983actionsmaybemaintainedineitherstateorIederal
districtcourts.Federalcourtshaveoriginaljurisdiction,|34|andactionsmaybeIiledinIederal
courtswithoutregardtodiversityoramountsincontroversy.Statecourtshaveconcurrent
-26-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
940
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
jurisdiction.WhenaSection1983actionisIiledinstatecourt,thecourtisobligatedtoapply
IederallawtotheconstitutionalissuesandtoallproceduralmattersiIIollowingstatelawwould
baraccesstothecourts.|35|IIanactioniscommencedinstatecourt,thedeIendanthastheoption
oIremovaltoIederalcourt.|36|TheoverwhelmingnumberoIpureSection1983actionshave
beenmaintainedinIederalcourts.CommentatorssuggestthatthishasbeenbecauseoIthe
perceptionthatIederaljudgesaremorereceptiveoIandknowledgeableaboutconstitutional
claims.Forthisreason,thegreatwealthoIauthorityinthisareawillbeIoundinIederalcases.
However,commentatorsnotearecentphenomenaoIburgeoningstatecourtactionsIoundedupon
Section1983thatdeIendantsarenotremoving.|37|CounselshouldbeawareoIagrowingbody
oIcasesamongthestates.ThechoiceoIIorumbetweenstatecourtandIederalcourtbelongsto
theplaintiIIintheIirstinstance.|38|IItheplaintiIIchoosesastatecourt,thedeIensemayremove
toIederalcourt.|39|IItimelymade,theremovalisautomaticandnondiscretionary.Thereisno
provisiontoremoveacasetheotherway(i.e.,IromIederalcourttostatecourt).Onceacaseisin
Iederalcourt,whetherbyinitialIilingorremoval,theIederalcourtwillremandbacktostatecourt
onlyiIthebasisIorIederaljurisdictionislostorabandoned.ThismeansthattheplaintiII'scounsel
mustalwaysbepreparedtolitigateinIederalcourtwheninitiatingsuitunderSection1983,
whetherstartedinIederalcourtornot.CUMULATIVESUPPLEMENTCases:ABivensactionis
theIederalanalogtosuitsbroughtagainststateoIIicialsunder1983.ItprovidesvictimsoIa
constitutionalviolationbyaIederalhavearighttorecoverdamagesagainsttheoIIicialinIederal
courtdespitetheabsenceoIanystatuteconIerringsucharight.42U.S.C.A.1983.Hartmanv.
Moore,126S.Ct.1695,164L.Ed.2d441(U.S.2006);West'sKeyNumberDigest,UnitedStates
50.1.|TopoISection||ENDOFSUPPLEMENT|8.PendentjurisdictionActionsIoundedupon
employmentclaimsareIrequentlystatedinalternativecounts.Aretaliatoryterminationthat
-27-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
941
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
allegedlyviolatesaIederalconstitutionalrightmayalsoviolateastatestatute,governmental
regulation,orthetermsoIanexpressorimpliedcontract.Wheresuchstatelawclaimsare
combinedwithaSection1983actionIiledinorremovedtoaIederalcourt,theIederalcourtwill
retainjurisdictionoIallclaimsunderthedoctrineoIpendentjurisdiction.|40|ThedecisionoI
whethertoincludealternativecountswithaSection1983actionmayinvolvetheissueoI
exhaustionoIadministrativeremedies.WhereaviolationoIconstitutionalrightshasoccurred,an
aggrievedemployeeneednotexhaustadministrativeremediesbeIoreIilingaSection1983action.
Theemployeemaywellberequiredtodoso,however,beIoremaintaininganycompanionstate
lawclaims.|41|Unlesstheadministrativeremedieshavebeenexhausted,orplaintiIIiswillingto
dosobeIoreproceedingwiththeSection1983action,itisapoortactictocombinestatelaw
claimswithaclaimunderSection1983.Eithertheactionwillbestayeduntiltheadministrative
remediesareexhausted,orthestateclaimsandperhapstheentireactionwillbedismissed.9.
Jurytrialvs.courttrialIItheactionisprimarilyadvancedIormoneydamages,ajurytrialis
availableupontimelydemandoIeitherparty.|42|IItheactionisprimarilyadvancedIor
injunctiveordeclaratoryrelieI,theissuesaretobedeterminedbythecourtandneithersideis
entitledtoajury.Wherebothremediesareincludedandeithersidedemandsajury,thelegal
damageclaimsmustbetriedIirsttoajury,withtheequitableclaimslaterresolvedbythecourt.In
suchanevent,thecourtshouldbeboundbytherelevantjuryIindingsontheIactsinanylater
determinationonequitableissues.|43|C.ApplicationToEmploymentCases10.TheSupreme
Courtdecisions|CumulativeSupplement|OnceSection1983wasrediscoveredinthecivilrights
area,itsapplicationwasalmostimmediatelyextendedintoeveryareaoIconstitutionalinquiry.
TheIirstcasetoconnectawrongIuldischargeclaimtotheconstitutionalrightoIIreespeech
throughthevehicleoISection1983,PickeringvBoardoIEducation,wasdecidedin1968,when
-28-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
942
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
thecourtheldIortheIirsttimethatapublicemployeecouldnotbesummarilydischargedIor
exercisingtheconstitutionallyprotectedrightoIIreespeech.|44|ItwastheIirstrecognized
departureIrompriorrulingstotheeIIectthatpublicemployeescouldberequiredtoIoregotheir
rightoIIreespeechasaconditionoIcontinuedemployment.Thepriorlawwasembodiedinthe
oIt-quotedphraseoIJusticeOliverWendellHolmes,whoaschieIjusticeoIthesupremecourtoI
Massachusettssaid,"Hemayhaveaconstitutionalrighttotalkpolitics,buthehasno
constitutionalrighttobeapoliceman."|45|However,thecourtdidnotrulethattherightoIIree
speechwasabsolute.Instead,itheldthatthecourtmustbalancetherightoIIreespeechagainst
thegovernmentalemployer'sin-terestinmaintainingtheintegrityandeIIiciencyoIthepublic
serviceentity.WhilethisdidnotgranttopublicemployeesanabsoluterightoIIreespeech,it
openedadoorthathadlongbeenclosed.|46|Overthenexttwentyyears,Iivemorecasesreached
theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,reIiningandIillingouttheprinciplesstartedinPickering.In
1972,thecourtruledthattheFirstAmendmentprotectionwasanexceptiontotheemployment-at-
willdoctrine;anemployeeatwillinthepublicsectorcannotbeterminatedinretaliationIorthe
exerciseoIprotectedIreespeech.|47|In1977,thecourtdeIinedtheprooI
oIcausationrequiredtosustainawrongIulterminationactionandruledthatanemployercould
deIendagainstanapparentretaliationcasebydemonstratingthattheadversepersonnelaction
wouldhavebeentakenanyway.|48|In1979,thecourtruledthatprivatespeechcouldbe
protectedaswellaspubliccomment.|49|In1983,thecourtruledthat,inordertobeprotected
undertheFirstAmendment,thesubjectoIthechallengedspeechhadtobeamatteroIpublic
concern,establishingasecondprongtothetestIordeterminingtheavailabilityoIconstitutional
protection,overlayingthebalancingrequirementestablishedinPickering.|50|Finally,in1987,
thecourtruledthatwheretheemployeeservednoconIidential,policymaking,orpubliccontact
-29-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
943
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
role,anyimpactupontheeIIiciencyoItheoperationoIthepublicentityIromadversespeech
wouldprobablybeminimalandwouldrequireasubstantialshowingtoovercometheemployee's
rightoIIreespeech.|51|WhiletheSupremeCourtgraduallyrecognizedandreIinedtheprinciples
involved,thecourthasinnosensedeclaredanopenseasononemployers.Tothecontrary,the
proceduralhurdlesthatexistandthesubjectivityoItheteststobeappliedpresentconsiderable
obstaclestoanyplaintiIIconsideringthecourseoIlitigation.Thecourtconsistentlycommentsthat
whileFirstAmendmentrightsareoIsigniIicantimportance,governmentemployersshouldhave
considerablediscretioninpersonnelmattersandthatcaremustbetakentoensurethatthespecter
oIFirstAmendmentclaimsdoesnotundulyinterIerewiththerightoIanemployertojustly
disciplineandmanageitsemployees."GovernmentoIIicescouldnotIunctioniIevery
employmentdecisionbecameaconstitutionalmatter."|52|CUMULATIVESUPPLEMENT
Cases:GovernmentemployeedoesnotrelinquishallFirstAmendmentrightsotherwiseenjoyed
bycitizensjustbyreasonoIhisorheremployment;ontheotherhand,governmentalemployer
mayimposecertainrestraintsonspeechoIitsemployeesthatwouldbeunconstitutionaliIapplied
tothegeneralpublic.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.CityoISanDiego,Cal.v.Roe,125S.Ct.521,
22I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1(U.S.2004);West'sKeyNumberDigest,Bankruptcy82(11).Speakingas
citizenorasemployee:Indeterminingwhetherpublicemployee'sspeechisprotectedbyFirst
Amendment,speechisentitledtoPickeringbalancingonlywhenemployeespeaksascitizenupon
mattersoIpublicconcernratherthanasemployeeuponmattersonlyoIpersonalinterest.U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend.1.CityoISanDiego,Cal.v.Roe,125S.Ct.521,22I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1(U.S.
2004);West'sKeyNumberDigest,Bankruptcy90.1(7.2).Courtsmustexaminecontent,Iorm,and
contextoIgivenstatement,asrevealedbythewholerecord,inassessingwhetherpublic
employee'sspeechaddresses"matteroIpublicconcern"IorFirstAmendmentpurposes.U.S.C.A.
-30-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
944
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
Const.Amend.1.CityoISanDiego,Cal.v.Roe,125S.Ct.521,22I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1(U.S.
2004);West'sKeyNumberDigest,Bankruptcy90.1(7.2).PornstarpoliceoIIicer:OII-duty
activitiesoIpoliceoIIicer,whovideotapedhimselIstrippingoIIgenericpoliceuniIormand
engaginginactsoImasturbationandwhooIIeredhome-madevideosIorsaleononlineauction
site,IelloutsideFirstAmendmentprotectionaIIordedbyNTEUlineoIcasesIorspeechunrelated
toemploymentandhavingnoeIIectonmissionandpurposeoIemployer;althoughoIIicer's
activitiestookplaceoutsidetheworkplaceandpurportedtobeaboutsubjectsnotrelatedtohis
employment,policedepartmentdemonstratedlegitimateandsubstantialinterestsoIitsownthat
werecompromisedbyoIIicer'sspeech.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.CityoISanDiego,Cal.v.Roe,
125S.Ct.521,22I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1(U.S.2004);West'sKeyNumberDigest,Bankruptcy
90.1(7.2)."Publicconcern":StandardIordeterminingwhethergovernmentemployee'sexpression
isoI"publicconcern"IorFirstAmendmentpurposesissamestandardusedtodeterminewhether
commonlawactionIorinvasionoIprivacyispresent;"publicconcern"issomethingthatis
subjectoIlegitimatenewsinterest,i.e.,subjectoIgeneralinterestandoIvalueandconcernto
publicattimeoIpublication.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.CityoISanDiego,Cal.v.Roe,125S.Ct.
521,22I.E.R.Cas.(BNA)1(U.S.2004);West'sKeyNumberDigest,Bankruptcy90.1(7.2).In
determiningvalidity,underFirstAmendment,oIrestraintonjob-relatedspeechoIpublic
employees,courtmustarriveatbalancebetween(1)interestsoIemployee,ascitizen,in
commentinguponmatteroIpublicconcern,and(2)interestoIstate,asemployer,inpromoting
eIIiciencyoIpublicservicesthatstateperIormsthroughitsemployees.UnitedStatesvNational
TreasuryEmployeesUnion(1995,US)130LEd2d964,115SCt1003,95CDOS1300,95
DailyJournalDAR2307,10BNAIERCas452,8FLWFedS590,laterproceedingUnitedStates
vNationalTreasuryEmployeesUnion(1995,US)131LEd2d193,115SCt1310.A
-31-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
945
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
governmentemployerviolatestheFederalConstitution'sFirstAmendmentwhere(1)anemployee
engagesinspeechthatisprotectedundertheFirstAmendment;and(2)theemployer,holdingan
erroneousandunreasonablebelieIaboutwhattheemployeesaid,disciplinestheemployeebased
ontheemployee'sspeech.WatersvChurchill(1994,US)128LEd2d686,114SCt1878,94
CDOS3850,94DailyJournalDAR7224,9BNAIERCas801,8FLWFedS163,motionden
(US)130LEd2d10,115SCt49.|TopoISection||ENDOFSUPPLEMENT|11.
ConstitutionalrequirementsIorthecauseoIaction|CumulativeSupplement|AsaresultoIthese
cases,theessentialelementsoIawrongIulterminationorwrongIuldemotioncaseIoundedonthe
FirstAmendmenthavebeenboileddowntothreetests:MatteroIpublicconcernTheIirsttestis
thethresholddetermination.DoesthespeechinvolveamatteroIpublicconcern?Theevaluation
isbaseduponthecontent,Iorm,andcontextoIthegivenstatementasrevealedbytheentire
record.IItheanswer
Indeed,NRCPRULE5.SERVICEANDFILINGOFPLEADINGSANDOTHER
PAPERSrequiresthat:
'(a)Service:WhenRequired.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedintheserules,every
orderrequiredbyitstermstobeserved,...(b)(2)Serviceunderthisruleismadeby:
(A)Deliveringacopytotheattorneyorthepartyby:(i)handingittotheattorneyor
totheparty;(ii)leavingitattheattorney`sorparty`soIIicewithaclerkorother
personincharge,oriIthereisnooneincharge,leavingitinaconspicuousplacein
theoIIice;or(iii)iItheoIIiceisclosedorthepersontobeservedhasnooIIice,
leavingitattheperson`sdwellinghouseorusualplaceoIabodewithsomepersonoI
suitableageanddiscretionresidingthingacopybyelectronicmeansif the attorney
or the party served has consented to service by electronic means...Theserved
attorney`sorparty`sconsenttoservicebyelectronicmeansshallbe expressly stated
and filed in writing with the clerk of the courtandservedontheotherpartiestothe
action.ThewrittenconsentshallidentiIy:(i)thepersonsuponwhomservicemustbe
made;(ii)theappropriateaddressorlocationIorsuchservice,suchastheelectronic-
mailaddressorIacsimilenumber;(iii)theIormattobeusedIorattachments;and(iv)
anyotherlimitsonthescopeordurationoItheconsent.Anattorney`sorparty`s
consentshallremaineIIectiveuntilexpresslyrevokedoruntiltherepresentationoIa
partychangesthroughentry,withdrawal,orsubstitutionoIcounsel.Anattorneyor
partywhohasconsentedtoservicebyelectronicmeansshall,within10daysaIterany
-32-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
946
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
changeoIelectronic-mailaddressorIacsimilenumber,serveandIilenoticeoIthe
newelectronic-mailaddressorIacsimilenumber.(3)Servicebyelectronicmeans
underRule5(b)(2)(D)isnoteIIectiveiIthepartymakingservicelearnsthatthe
attemptedservicedidnotreachthepersontobeserved.(4)ProoIoIservicemaybe
madebycertiIicateoIanattorneyoroItheattorney`semployee,orbywritten
admission,orbyaIIidavit,orotherprooIsatisIactorytothecourt.Failuretomake
prooIoIserviceshallnotaIIectthevalidityoIservice.
NRCP59(e):(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a 1udgment. Amotiontoalteroramendthe
judgmentshallbeIilednolaterthan10daysaIterserviceoIwrittennoticeoIentryoIthejudgment.
RTollingEIIectoISomePost-JudgmentMotionsJustbecausepost-judgmentmotionshavebeen
Iileddoesnotmeanthatthetimetoappealtheprincipaljudgmentisautomaticallytolled.Rather,
onlysomepost-judgmentmotionshaveatollingeIIectandothermotions,whicharenot
independentlytolling,haveatollingeIIectonlywhencombinedwithotherpendingtollingmotions.
Forthemostpart,however,theonlytollingmotionsaretheIourlistedinNRAP4(a)(4).MotionIor
Reconsideration/RehearingAmotionIorreconsideration/rehearingIiledundertheauthorityoI
EDCR2.24,orothersimilarlocalrules,mustbeIiledwithin10daysaIterserviceoIthenoticeoIthe
orderorjudgment.
ItwasreversibleerrorintheunderlyingmatterwheretheCourt:reIusedtogranta
continuanceoItheNovember30
th
,2011Trial,IailedtoprovidetheSixthAmendmentsguaranteeoI
aRighttoCounselbothinthepetittheItTrialandonceeventhespecteroIaSummaryContempt
Iindingwasannounced.WaytooprejudicialtodenytherighttocounselthenannouncetheCourt
wouldnailtheundersignedwithcontemptIorattemptingtozealouslyadvocateonhisownbehalI.
Further,reIusingtoallowinquiryintothestatedretaliatorymotivesoIWal-MartanditsAsset
Protectiondivision,especiallyvisavis,Wal-Mart'sestablishedpractice,evenbyitsmanagers,oI
outrightlyingthethepublicrepeatedlyaboutthetermsandeIIectoIthepostedReturnPolicy
applicabletopurchasesinWal-Martstores.Additionally,prosecutorialmisconduct,(suborning
-33-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
947
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
perjury,Iailingtoturnoverdiscoveryinatimelymanner,lyingaboutwhethertheRenoCity
AttorneyhadreceivedanythingIromtheRSIC,etc)justiIyoverturningtheverdict.Additionally,the
prosecutionsimpropermotiveinthisretaliatoryprosecutionstemsIromadesiretounderminethe
undersigned'scredibilityandabilitytolitigateespeciallyvisavisthewrongIularrest,negligent
hiringtrainingandsupervisionlawsuitthattheRenoCityAttorneyreceivedwarningoIwellin
advanceoIthearrestinthismatter.FurtherimproprietiesanddueprocessdeIicienciesintheReno
MunicipalCourtanditsIilingoIIicejustiIyoverturningtheconviction.Additionally,aNoticeoI
EntryoIOrderhereIromtheRMCislikelyrequiredgiventheOrderwascompleteoutsidethe
presenceoIoneoItheparties(madeinabsentia),andthereIorerenditionoIOrderislikelynot
suIIicient.Further,theprosecutiondidnotmeetitsburdentoproveanyoItheelementsoIthecrime
charged:'(a)Intentionallysteals,takesandcarriesaway,leadsawayordrivesaway...EachoIthe
threewitnessescontradictedthemselvesasthematerialIacts,includingwhethertheUPCatissue
appearedonbothreceiptsandwhethertheundersignedprovidedhisdriver'slicensetotheRSIC
OIIicers,whichthevideoshowedhedid,andthereIore,theprobablecausetoconductasearch
incidenttoacustodialarrestisvitiatedandperjuryapparentbyallthreewitnessesandmisconduct
bytheRenoCityAttorney.Allargumentsmadebelow,whetheratTrialorinthepapersonIileor
otherwisesubmittedtotheRMCareherebyincorporatedbyreIerence.
RMCSec.8.10.040.-Petitlarceny:ItisunlawIulIoranypersontotakeorcarryawaythe
propertyoIanotherwiththeintenttodeprivetheowneroIhispropertytherein,inanyvaluelessthan
$250.00,andIorhisconvictionthereIor,heshallbeIinedinanamountnotmorethan$1,000.00
and/orbeincarceratednotmorethansixmonths.Inadditiontoanyotherpenalty,thecourtshall
orderthepersontopayrestitution.(Code1966,11.12.003;Ord.No.2762,1,8-13-79;Ord.No.
3866,1,9-25-89;Ord.No.4815,1,10-28-97;Ord.No.5058,1,11-12-99)StatelawreIerence
-34-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
948
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
Petitlarceny,NRS205.240.NRS205.240Petitlarceny;penalty.1.Exceptasotherwise
providedinNRS205.220,205.226,205.228and475.105,apersoncommitspetitlarcenyiIthe
person:(a)Intentionallysteals,takesandcarriesaway,leadsawayordrivesaway:(1)
Personalgoodsorproperty,withavalueoIlessthan$650,ownedbyanotherperson;(2)
Bedding,Iurnitureorotherproperty,withavalueoIlessthan$650,whichtheperson,asalodger,is
touseinorwithhisorherlodgingandwhichisownedbyanotherperson;or(3)Real
property,withavalueoIlessthan$650,thatthepersonhasconvertedintopersonalpropertyby
severingitIromrealpropertyownedbyanotherperson.(b)Intentionallysteals,takesandcarries
away,leadsaway,drivesawayorenticesawayoneormoredomesticatedanimalsordomesticated
birds,withanaggregatevalueoIlessthan$650,ownedbyanotherperson.2.Unlessagreater
penaltyisprovidedpursuanttoNRS205.267,apersonwhocommitspetitlarcenyisguiltyoIa
misdemeanor.Inadditiontoanyotherpenalty,thecourtshallorderthepersontopayrestitution.
|1911C&P374;A1947,85;1949,127;1943NCL10324|(NRSA1965,300,1007;1967,
500;1969,531;1983,547;1985,751;1989,1434;1995,13;1997,342,1114;1999,3109;2009,
1243;2011,165)NRS205.251DeterminationoIvalueoIpropertyinvolvedinlarcenyoIIense.
ForthepurposesoINRS205.2175to205.2707,inclusive:1.ThevalueoIpropertyinvolvedina
larcenyoIIenseshallbedeemedtobethehighestvalueattributabletothepropertybyanyreasonable
standard.2.ThevalueoIpropertyinvolvedinlarcenyoIIensescommittedbyoneormore
personspursuanttoaschemeorcontinuingcourseoIconductmaybeaggregatedindeterminingthe
gradeoIthelarcenyoIIenses.Grantv.State,24P.3d761234LARCENY234IIProsecutionand
Punishment234II(B)Evidence23454WeightandSuIIiciency234k57k.Intent.Nev.,2001
RequisiteIindingoIintenttopermanentlydepriveowneroIpropertywassupportedingrandlarceny
prosecutionbyevidencethatdeIendantwasseentuckingcasinopatron'spurseintohisjacketseveral
-35-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
949
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
timesandheadingtowardslobbyandexitoIcasino.N.R.S.205.220,subd.1,205.222,subds.2,3.
Hoganv.State,536P.2d1028Nev.,1975TherewassuIIicientevidenceoIIeloniousasportationsoI
airconditionerIromIencedcompoundatrearoIstoretosupportconvictionsIorgrandlarceny
notwithstandingdeIendants'assertionsthattheyIoundtheairconditioneroutsidetheIenceand
believeditwasabandoned.N.R.S.205.220.Statev.Phipps,282P.1024Nev.,1929Evidencein
prosecutionIorlarcenyoIminingpropertyheldnottoshowcodeIendant'sintenttotake,steal,or
carryawaypersonalproperty.Statev.Ward,10P.133Nev.,1886TheIactsthatdeIendanttooka
horseIromthepremisesoIitsownerwithouthisknowledge,androdeitIoracertaindistance,and
thenabandonedit,aIterremovingandconcealingthesaddleandblanket,aresuIIicienttojustiIya
IindingoIintentpermanentlytodeprivetheowneroIhisproperty,althoughdeIendanttestiIiesthat
hehadengagedanothertotakeitback,andwhenhedidnotappearheexpectedsomeonetotakeit
back,orthattheanimalwouldstrayback.NRS205.0824'DeprivedeIined.'Deprivemeans
towithholdapropertyinterestoIanotherpersonpermanentlyorIorsolongatimethatasubstantial
portionoIitsvalue,useIulnessorenjoymentislost,ortowithholditwiththeintenttorestoreitonly
uponthepaymentoIarewardorothercompensation,ortotransIerordisposeoIitsothatitis
unlikelytoberecovered.NRS205.0832ActionswhichconstitutetheIt.1.Exceptasotherwise
providedinsubsection2,apersoncommitstheItiI,withoutlawIulauthority,thepersonknowingly:
(a)ControlsanypropertyoIanotherpersonwiththeintenttodeprivethatpersonoItheproperty.
(b)Converts,makesanunauthorizedtransIeroIaninterestin,orwithoutauthorizationcontrols
anypropertyoIanotherperson,orusestheservicesorpropertyoIanotherpersonentrustedtohimor
herorplacedinhisorherpossessionIoralimited,authorizedperiodoIdeterminedorprescribed
durationorIoralimiteduse.(c)Obtainsreal,personalorintangiblepropertyortheservicesoI
anotherpersonbyamaterialmisrepresentationwithintenttodeprivethatpersonoIthepropertyor
-36-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
950
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
services.Asusedinthisparagraph,'materialmisrepresentationmeanstheuseoIanypretense,or
themakingoIanypromise,representationorstatementoIpresent,pastorIutureIactwhichis
Iraudulentandwhich,whenusedormade,isinstrumentalincausingthewrongIulcontrolortransIer
oIpropertyorservices.Thepretensemaybeverbaloritmaybeaphysicalact.(d)Comesinto
controloIlost,mislaidormisdeliveredpropertyoIanotherpersonundercircumstancesproviding
meansoIinquiryastothetrueownerandappropriatesthatpropertytohisorherownuseorthatoI
anotherpersonwithoutreasonableeIIortstonotiIythetrueowner.(e)ControlspropertyoI
anotherpersonknowingorhavingreasontoknowthatthepropertywasstolen.(I)Obtains
servicesorparts,productsorotheritemsrelatedtosuchserviceswhichthepersonknowsare
availableonlyIorcompensationwithoutpayingoragreeingtopaycompensationordivertsthe
servicesoIanotherpersontohisorherownbeneIitorthatoIanotherpersonwithoutlawIul
authoritytodoso.(g)Takes,destroys,concealsordisposesoIpropertyinwhichanotherperson
hasasecurityinterest,withintenttodeIraudthatperson.(h)Commitsanyactthatisdeclaredto
betheItbyaspeciIicstatute.(i)Drawsorpassesacheck,andinexchangeobtainspropertyor
services,iIthepersonknowsthatthecheckwillnotbepaidwhenpresented.(j)Obtainsgasoline
orotherIuelorautomotiveproductswhichareavailableonlyIorcompensationwithoutpayingor
agreeingtopaycompensation.2.Apersonwhocommitsanactthatisprohibitedbysubsection1
whichinvolvestherepairoIavehiclehasnotcommittedtheItunless,beIoretherepairwasmade,
thepersonreceivedawrittenestimateoIthecostoItherepair.ItswasreversibleerrorwhereJudge
HowardDidnotcomplywiththeaboveandtheburdenoIprooIwasnotmetinconsierationIothe
evidenceoIIered.Further,AppellantwasreIusedhisopportunitytotestiIyorputonevidence,City
oIRenosubornedperjury,ect,etc.Intentwasmissingtoo,and,assumigntheaccusationsaretrue,
anyoneconsumingthatmanyoIthosecoughdropswouldnotbecapableoIIormingtherequisite
-37-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
951
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
intent.Driver'slicensewasoIIered,thereIorereversibleerrortoallowbasingthesearchonIailureto
providedriver'slicenseorsuIIicentindentiIyinginIormationtoissueacitation.FruitoIpoisontree.
Judgment294to335.
NewTrial13to168.
WestlawTopicNos.228,275.
C.J.S.Judgments275to280,282to304,331to335,345,347,350,360to362,370to
374,408to414,421,434to435,437,442to447,452,457,473,475,483to495.
C.J.S.NewTrial17to164,167to290.
NOTESOFDECISIONS
AIIidavits29
Agreementsandstipulations12
Amendmentstorule2
Appealableorders,review33
Cautiousapplication4
ConIlictoIlaws3
Constructionandapplication1
DiscretionoItrialcourt21
Disposition,review37
Evidence,jurymisconduct8
InconsistencyoIverdict16
Irregularityinproceedings14
Jurymisconduct6-8
Jurymisconduct-Ingeneral6
-38-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
952
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
Jurymisconduct-Evidence8
Jurymisconduct-ManiIestdisregardoIinstructions7
ManiIestdisregardoIinstructions,jurymisconduct7
MisconductoIcounsel10
MisconductoIparties9
MisconductoIwitnesses11
MotionIornewtrial26-28
MotionIornewtrial-Ingeneral26
MotionIornewtrial-TimeIormotionIornewtrial27
MotionIornewtrial-WaiveroInotice28
Motiontoalteroramendjudgment23-25
Motiontoalteroramendjudgment-Ingeneral23
Motiontoalteroramendjudgment-ServiceoInotice25
Motiontoalteroramendjudgment-TimeIormotiontoalteroramendjudgment24
NatureandscopeoIremedy5
Newlydiscoveredevidence22
NoticeoImotionIorappeal,review35
Nuncprotuncorders44
OrdergrantingorreIusingnewtrial30
Plainerror20
PreservationoIissueIorreviewormotion28.5
Review32-37
Review-Ingeneral32
-39-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
953
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
Review-Appealableorders33
Review-Disposition37
Review-NoticeoImotionIorappeal35
Review-ScopeoIreview36
Review-TimelinessoIapplication34
ScopeoInewtrialgrant31
ScopeoIreview36
ServiceoInotice,motiontoalteroramendjudgment25
Surprise13
TimeIormotionIornewtrial27
TimeIormotiontoalteroramendjudgment24
TimelinessoIapplication,review34
Verdictcontrarytoevidence17
Verdictcontrarytolaw18
VerdicteIIectedbypassionorprejudice,generally19
VerdictIorm15
WaiveroInotice,motionIornewtrial28
1.Constructionandapplication
Comp.Laws,3163,permittingthecourt,inIurtheranceoIjustice,uponjustterms,torelieve
apartyIromajudgment,orderorotherproceedingtakenagainsthimthroughmistake,inadvertence,
surprise,orexcusableneglect,shouldbeveryliberallyconstruedinIurtheranceoI
itspurpose.Whisev.Whise,1913,131P.967,36Nev.16.Judgment337
2.Amendmentstorule
-40-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
954
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
ThepurposeoIamendmentoIruleoIcivilproceduretoeliminateasagroundIoranewtrial
'insuIIiciencyoItheevidencetojustiIytheverdictistoprecludeatrialcourtIromsubstituting
itsviewoItheevidenceIorthatoIajuryinacasewherethelosingpartyisnotentitledto
judgmentasamatteroIlaw.NRCP59.Foxv.Cusick,1975,533P.2d466,91Nev.218.New
Trial70
3.ConIlictoIlaws
Rulegoverningmotiontoamendjudgmentdidnotnecessarilyrelatetosamesubjectasand
wasnotinconIlictwithstatutegoverningmotiontoretaxandtosettlecosts,and,thus,allegedly
morespeciIicstatutegoverningmotiontoretaxcostsdidnotcontrolphysician'schallenge
tojudgmentoI$54,958.24,whichwasentereduponoIIeroIjudgmentoI$50,000,including
costsinamountoI$4,958.24.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(e);N.R.S.18.110,subd.4.
Fleischerv.August,1987,737P.2d518,103Nev.242.Judgment90
4.Cautiousapplication
EvenbeIoreruleoIcivilprocedurerelatingtonewtrialwasamendedsoastoeliminateasa
groundIornewtrial'insuIIiciencyoItheevidencetojustiIytheverdict,thetrialcourtwas
obligedtousegreatcautionintheexerciseoIitspowertosetasideajuryverdictuponthat
ground.NRCP59.Foxv.Cusick,1975,533P.2d466,91Nev.218.NewTrial70
5.NatureandscopeoIremedy
Appellant'scontentionthatevidenceIailedtosupportjudgmentwouldnotbeconsidered
whereappellanthadmadenomotionIoradirectedverdict,Iorjudgmentnotwithstandingthe
verdict,orIornewtrial.NRCP50(a,b),59(a).BillStremmelMotors,Inc.v.Kerns,1975,531
P.2d1357,91Nev.110.AppealAndError237(5);AppealAndError238(2);Appeal
AndError294(1)
-41-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
955
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
ExceptinconIormitywithestablishedprocedures,lowercourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoalter
judgmentdismissingaquiettitleactionwithoutprejudice,anditsorderpurportingtodoso
wasvoid.NRCP59(e),60(b)(3);DistrictCourtRules,rule20,subd.4.DredgeCorp.v.Peccole,
1973,505P.2d290,89Nev.26.QuietingTitle45
Ruleprovidingthatwhereissueshavebeenlitigatedandresolved,motionmaybemadetoalter
oramendjudgmentmaynotbeutilizedtovacatedeIaultjudgment.NRCP59(e),60(b).
Chiarav.Belaustegui,1970,477P.2d857,86Nev.856.Judgment135
Factsoccurringsubsequenttotrialcannotbeconsideredwithviewtograntingnewtrialorreversing
judgmentoItrialcourt.Foxv.FirstWesternSav.&LoanAss'n,1970,470P.2d424,
86Nev.469.AppealAndError837(9);NewTrial100
AllegationthattestimonyoIwitnesswouldshowthatjudgmentwasclearlyerroneousdoes
notwarrantdisregardoIrequirementthatreasonablediligenceIorIailuretoproducewitness
attrialbeshownorauthorizegrantingoInewtrial.NRCP59(a).Snowv.PioneerTitleIns.
Co.,1968,444P.2d125,84Nev.480.NewTrial124(1)
6.Jurymisconduct--Ingeneral
InabsenceoIashowingoIplainerrororashowingoImaniIestinjustice,insuIIiciencyoIthe
evidencetosupporttheverdictisnolongerabasisIormotionIornewtrialonissueoIdamages
basedupongroundoImaniIestdisregardbyjuryoIinstructionsoIcourt.NRCP59(a),
(a)(5).Eikelbergerv.Tolotti,1978,574P.2d277,94Nev.58.NewTrial66
7.----ManiIestdisregardoIinstructions,jurymisconduct
Jury'sverdictinslipandIallcase,arisingIromIallindiningroomnearbuIIetline,wasconsistent
withjuryinstructions,andthereIorenewtrialwasnotmandateddespiteowner'scon-
tentionthatjurydisregardedinstructionsonliabilityIorpresenceoIIoreignsubstanceon
-42-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
956
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
Iloor,actualandconstructivenotice,andestablishmentoInegligencebysubjectiveevidence.
RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(5).Paulv.ImperialPalace,Inc.,1995,908P.2d226,111Nev.
1544.NewTrial72(9)
NewtrialmaybegrantedwhenjurymaniIestlydisregardscourt'sinstructions.Carlsonv.Locatelli,
1993,849P.2d313,109Nev.257.NewTrial66
JurydidnotmaniIestlydisregardinstructionconcerningcontributorynegligence,eventhough
juryleItblankthespecialverdictIorm;evidenceindicatedthatjuryhadsimplyIilledingeneral
verdictIormaItermakingnecessaryreductionsbaseduponitscomparativenegligence
Iindings.Carlsonv.Locatelli,1993,849P.2d313,109Nev.257.Trial356(1)
DistrictcourtmaygrantnewtrialiIitIindsthatjuryhasshownmaniIestdisregardIorinstructions
oIcourt.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(5).M&RInv.Co.,Inc.v.Mandarino,1987,748
P.2d488,103Nev.711.NewTrial44(1)
IIjuryhadcorrectlyappliedlawinmedicalmalpracticeaction,itwouldhavebeenimpossible
IorthemtoreachverdictinIavoroIdoctorwhowasgeneralpractitioner,whereonlytwoexpert
witnesses,whowerevascularsurgeons,testiIiedthatdoctordidnotcomplywithstandard
oIcarerequiredoIgeneralpractitionerandthatlegcouldhavebeensalvagediIpatienthadreceived
propercareonhervisittodoctor,anddoctorpresentednoevidencetocontradicttestimony
oIexpertsregardingappropriatestandardoIcare,nordidshegiveopinionastowhether
herconductviolatedstandardoIcare,eventhoughshetestiIiedthatherdiagnosiswasbased
onherknowledgeoIthehistoryandphysicalappearanceoIpatient'sleg;thus,trialcourtdid
noterrinorderingnewtrialbaseduponjury'smaniIestdisregardoIinstructions.Rules
Civ.Proc.,Rule59(a)(5).Reesv.Roderiques,1985,701P.2d1017,101Nev.302.Evidence
571(3);NewTrial72(9)
-43-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
957
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
InactionbytenantagainstsellerandinstalleroIlightIixturearisingaIterIixtureIellIrom
apartment'sceiling,strikingtenantonthehead,evidencethatIixturemayhaveIallendueto
strippedthreadsonendoIpipe,causingittobeinsecurelyIastened,permittedIinding,under
instructionsgiven,thatneithersellernorinstallerwasliable;thus,newtrialwasnotrequired,
IollowingverdictIordeIendants,ortheorythatjurymaniIestlydisregardedinstructions.Rules
Civ.Proc.,Rule59(a),(a)(5).Town&CountryElec.Co.,Inc.v.Hawke,1984,692P.2d490,
100Nev.701.NewTrial66
InactiontorecoverdamagesIorallegedbreachoIconstructioncontract,districtcourterred
bygrantingnewtrialongroundthatjuryhaddisregardeditsinstructionsregardingprevention
oIperIormance,wherejurymaywellhaveIoundthatplaintiII'sIailuretoIileIinancialstatement
wasminorbreachwhichdidnotpreventoraIIectdeIendant'sabilitytoperIormbecause
itwasignoredbyparties,andjurymayhaveIurtherconcludedthatdeIendant'sIailuretosu-
pervisesubcontractorproperlywasbreachoIsuIIicientmagnitudetowarranthisdismissal
andterminationoIcontract.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(5).WeaverBros.,Ltd.v.Misskelley,
1982,645P.2d438,98Nev.232.NewTrial66
IndeterminingproprietyoIgrantingoInewtrialIorreasonoI'|m|aniIestdisregardbythe
juryoItheinstructionsoIthecourt,questioniswhethercourtisabletodeclarethathadjurors
properlyappliedinstructionsoIcourt,itwouldhavebeenimpossibleIorthemtoreach
verdictwhichtheyreached.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(5).WeaverBros.,Ltd.v.Misskelley,
1982,645P.2d438,98Nev.232.NewTrial66
ThetrialcourtisobligatedtograntanewtrialiIthejurorscouldnothavereachedtheverdict
thattheyreachediItheyhadproperlyappliedthecourt'sinstructiononproximatecause.NRCP
59(a)(5).Taylorv.Silva,1980,615P.2d970,96Nev.738.NewTrial66
-44-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
958
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
WhereinjuredautomobiledriverarguedattrialthatearthmoverswerenegligentinIailingto
signalaturnandinIailingtoequiptheearthmoverwithturnsignalsandarearviewmirroras
wellasinomittingtolookbeIoreturningandwheredriverwhowasIollowingearthmover
wouldhavebeenIorewarnedthatearthmoverwasgoingtoturnrightiIearthmoverhad
signaledoriItherehadbeenanescortcaranddriveroIearthmoverwouldhavenoticedautomobile's
presenceiIhehadlookedanditappearedthatIailuretotakesuchprecautionswas
substantialIactorinbringingaboutaccidentinwhichearthmoverhitIrontleItIenderoIautomobile
injuringdriver,jurycouldnothaveIoundthatearthmoverwasnegligentbutthatthe
negligencewasnottheproximatecauseoIthedriver'sinjuriesiIthejuryhadcorrectlyapplied
thelawandthereIore,anewtrialwasrequired.NRCP59(a)(5).Taylorv.Silva,1980,615
P.2d970,96Nev.738.AppealAndError1177(2)
WherejuryrenderedaverdictIorplaintiIIbutalthoughproperlyinstructedastomeasureoI
damages,IailedtoawardplaintiIIanymedicalcostsotherthantheemergencyroomcharges
andtherewasunreIutedevidencethatplaintiIIsuIIeredinjuriesIorwhichheincurredIurther
medicalbills,thecasewasaproperoneIoranewtrial;however,duetointerrelationshipoIliability
anddamageissuesthecasewasnotaproperoneIoranewtriallimitedtodamagesor
mereadditur,andtrialcourthadpowertograntanewtrialonallissues,notwithstandingthat
plaintiII'smotionrequestedonlyaddituroranewtriallimitedtodamagesissued.NRCP59
(a)(5).Sherev.Davis,1979,596P.2d499,95Nev.491.NewTrial9;NewTrial74
PartymovingIornewtrialonissueoIdamagesbasedongroundoImaniIestdisregardbyjury
oIinstructionsoIcourtmustshowthathadjurorsproperlyappliedinstructionsoIcourtit
wouldhavebeenimpossibleIorthemtoreachverdictwhichtheyreached.NRCP59(a),
(a)(5).Eikelbergerv.Tolotti,1978,574P.2d277,94Nev.58.NewTrial66
-45-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
959
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
8.----Evidence,jurymisconduct
JuroraIIidavitsareinadmissibletoshowjurorsmisunderstoodjudge'sinstructions.ACPReno
Associatesv.AirmotiveandVillanova,Inc.,1993,849P.2d277,109Nev.314.NewTrial
143(4)
9.MisconductoIparties
Newtrialbaseduponprevailingparty'smisconductdoesnotrequireprooIthatresultwould
havebeendiIIerentinIirsttrialwithoutsuchmisconduct.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(2).Barrett
v.Baird,1995,908P.2d689,111Nev.1496.NewTrial28
10.MisconductoIcounsel
AnyviolationoIbyautomobilemanuIacturer'sattorney,inproductsliabilityandnegligence
actionbroughtbypassengerinjuredinasingle-carrolloveragainstmanuIactureranddriver,
oIorderinlimineregardingseatbeltevidenceandtheuseoIsuchevidence,whenmanuIacturer's
attorneyinclosingargumentassertedthatpassenger'sargumentsregardingthealleged
IailureoIpassenger'sseatbeltandautomobile'sB-pillarwereredhearingsbecausepassenger
wasnotbelted,didnotconstitutemisconductwarrantinganewtrialonasubsequentLioce
motion,wherethetrialcourtsustainedpassenger'sobjectiontotheassertionanddirected
manuIacturer'sattorneytoclariIyit,assertionwenttocausation,andjuryconcludedthatautomobile
wasnotdeIectiveandneverreachedcausationissue.BayerischeMotorenWerkeAktiengesellschaIt
v.Roth,2011,252P.3d649.NewTrial29
Orderinlimine,inproductsliabilityandnegligenceactionbroughtbypassengerinjuredina
single-carrolloveragainstautomobilemanuIactureranddriver,wasnotdeIiniteandspeciIic
regardingtheuseoIseatbeltevidence,asrequiredinorderIorremarksmadebymanuIacturer's
attorneyduringopeningstatement,thatpassengerwasejectedbecauseshewasnot
-46-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
960
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
wearingherseatbelt,thatiIshehadnotbeenejectedshewouldnothavesuIIeredaspinalcord
injury,andthatdriverwaswearingherseatbeltandwasnotejected,toconstituteattorney
misconductwarrantinganewtrialonasubsequentLiocemotion;orderallowedintroduction
oIseatbeltevidence,andlimitationthattheevidencecouldonlybeconsideredwhenevaluating
whetherautomobilewasdeIectiveandunreasonablydangerouswasnotspeciIicenoughto
makeasubsequentviolationclear.BayerischeMotorenWerkeAktiengesellschaItv.Roth,
2011,252P.3d649.NewTrial29
ShortIactualdescriptionoIthecaseoIIeredduringvoirdirebyattorneyrepresentingautomobile
manuIacturer,thatthepassengerclaimedshewasseatbeltedwhilethephysicalevidence
wouldshowthatpassengerwasnotwearingherseatbelt,didnotviolateorderinlimine
regardingseatbeltevidenceandtheuseoIsuchevidence,inproductsliabilityandnegligence
actionbroughtbypassengerinjuredinsingle-carrolloveragainstmanuIactureranddriver,
andthusthedescriptiondidnotamounttoattorneymisconductwarrantinganewtrialona
subsequentLiocemotion,astheorderinlimineclearlyallowedtheintroductionoIseatbelt
evidence.BayerischeMotorenWerkeAktiengesellschaItv.Roth,2011,252P.3d649.New
Trial29
ThestandardsthatadistrictcourtistoapplytoamotionIornewtrialbasedonattorneymisconduct
varydependingonwhethercounselobjectedtothemisconductduringtrial;Iorobjected-
tomisconduct,apartymovingIoranewtrialbearstheburdenoIdemonstratingthatthe
misconductissoextremethatobjection,admonishment,andcurativeinstructioncannotremove
itseIIect,while,iIthemisconductisnotobjected-to,thedistrictcourtshoulddeemthe
issuewaivedunlessitisplainerror,whichinthiscontextexistsonlywhenthemisconduct
amountedtoirreparableandIundamentalerrorthatresultsinasubstantialimpairmentoI
-47-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
961
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
justiceordenialoIIundamentalrightssuchthat,butIorthemisconduct,theverdictwould
havebeendiIIerent.BayerischeMotorenWerkeAktiengesellschaItv.Roth,2011,252P.3d
649.NewTrial31
ForattorneymisconducttojustiIyanewtrial,asopposedtosomeothersanction,unIairprejudice
aIIectingthereliabilityoItheverdictmustbeshown,whichincludesconsiderationoI
whethertheargumentwasactuallyproperorimproperunderthelaw.BayerischeMotoren
WerkeAktiengesellschaItv.Roth,2011,252P.3d649.NewTrial20
Incivilcases,theSupremeCourtwillconsiderargumentsoIegregiousbutunobjected-tomisconduct
attrialbycounselonlyinthoserarecircumstanceswherethecounsel'scommentsare
oIsuchsinisterinIluenceastoconstitute'irreparableandIundamentalerror,whichiserror
that,iInotcorrected,wouldresultinasubstantialmiscarriageoIjusticeordenialoIIundamental
rightsandwhichispresentonlywhenitisplainandclearthatnootherreasonableexplanation
Iortheverdictexists.Ringlev.Bruton,2004,86P.3d1032,120Nev.82.Appeal
AndError207
TowarrantreversalandanewtrialongroundsoIattorneymisconductoItheprevailing
party'sattorney,theIlavoroImisconductmustsuIIicientlypermeateanentireproceedingto
provideconvictionthatthejurywasinIluencedbypassionandprejudiceinreachingitsverdict.
DeJesusv.Flick,2000,7P.3d459,116Nev.812.NewTrial32
ThedistrictcourtmaygrantanewtrialbaseduponattorneymisconductwithoutprooIthatthe
misconductchangedtheoutcomeoItheIirsttrial.DeJesusv.Flick,2000,7P.3d459,116
Nev.812.NewTrial32
Passenger'scounselmadeimproper'goldenruleclosingargumentsinpersonalinjuryaction
againstdriveroIothervehicle,wherecounselaskedjurorsto'tapintoIeelingsaboutpassenger's
-48-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
962
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
IearsinlightoIpassenger'sphysicalcondition,askedjurors'Howdoyouputavalueon
notusingyourIingers?aItertellingjuryhewouldnottradetheuseoIhisownIingersIorten
milliondollars,andaskedjurorsto'sendamessagetolawIirmsthattrytopreventinjured
peopleIromrecoveringIortheirdamages.DeJesusv.Flick,2000,7P.3d459,116Nev.812.
Trial125(1)
TheattorneymisconductoIcounselIorplaintiIIpassenger,ininjectinghispersonalopinions
andusingimproper'goldenruleargumentsduringclosingargumentsinpersonalinjuryaction
againstdriveroIothervehicle,includinganargumentinvitingthejurytosendamessage
toalldeIenseattorneyswhotrytoshortchangeinjuredpeople,warrantedanewtrial;jury's
awardoI$1.47millionmusthavebeenbasedonpassionorprejudice,becausethemedicalexpert
testimonyregardingpassenger'sinjurieswasconIlictingandtheawardIarexceededthe
damagespassengerhadsought.DeJesusv.Flick,2000,7P.3d459,116Nev.812.NewTrial
32
DeIensecounselinmedicalmalpracticeactionengagedinmisconduct,thecumulativeeIIect
oIwhichdeprivedplaintiIIoIIairtrial,thuswarrantingnewtrial;counselaskedexpertwitness
IorhisopinionastocausationaIterspeciIicallyrepresentingtoplaintiII'scounselatwitness'
depositionthathewouldnotasksuchquestions,counselmisstatedexpert'stestimony
duringclosingargument,counselmadeimproperreIerenceduringclosingargumenttohigh
healthcarecosts,andcounselconducteddemonstrationduringopeningargumentIorwhichno
Ioundationhadbeenlaid.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(2).Barrettv.Baird,1995,908P.2d
689,111Nev.1496.NewTrial29
ComplaintsoI'highlyprejudicialandinIlammatorystatementsallegedlymadebyplaintiIIs'
counselinclosingargumentdidnotshow'egregiousconductsuchaswouldwarrantnewtrial
-49-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
963
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
inabsenceoIobjection.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(6).Beccardv.NevadaNat.Bank,
1983,657P.2d1154,99Nev.63.AppealAndError207
11.MisconductoIwitnesses
SuccessoroIshoppingcenterlessorwasentitledtonewtrialonlessee'scounterclaimalleging
breachoIexclusiverightswherelessee'scounselhad,priortowitnesstakingstand,threatened
witnessandcounselIorsuccessorwithslanderactioniItestimonyregardinglessee'smanager's
intoxicationduringbusinesshoursprovedIalse,wheretherewasnoevidencetendingto
showthatwitnesswasabouttolieandwheretrialjudgeIailedtodirectwitnesstorespondto
questionorotherwiseallayIearsaIterthreatwasmade.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a).Campus
VillageShoppingCenterTrustv.Brown,1986,714P.2d566,102Nev.17,rehearingdenied.
AppealAndError1177(2)
12.Agreementsandstipulations
UndisclosedpretrialagreementbetweenplaintiIIsandinsurancecarrierIortwodeIendants
wherebyplaintiIIswereguaranteed$20,000butagreedtolooksolelytotheotherdeIendants
totheextentoIjudgmentagainstthem,iIany,didnotcausetrialtobesounIairthatotherdeIendants
wouldbeentitledtonewtrial,thoughagreementpossessedpotentialtoencourage
suchtwodeIendantstopromoteaverdictinexcessoI$20,000,where,interalia,therewas
ampleevidencetosupporttheverdict,theotherdeIendantslimitedtheirargumenttoliability,
andsuchtwodeIendants,thoughadmittingliability,didnotindicatethatverdictshouldbein
excessoI$20,000,orinanyotheramount.NRCP59(a)(1,3).PonderosaTimber&Clearing
Co.v.Emrich,1970,472P.2d358,86Nev.625.NewTrial13
13.Surprise
NewtrialwasnotwarrantedongroundsoIsurprisebasedontestimonywhich,withreasonable
-50-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
964
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
diligence,couldhavebeenanticipated.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59.DeLeev.Roggen,
1995,907P.2d168,111Nev.1453.NewTrial90
InactionbroughtbylessorsoIautomobileagainstlesseeIordamagesandreplevinoIautomobile,
lessee'sIailuretocallawitnesswhomlesseehadstatedsheintendedtocallattrialdid
notwarrantthegrantingoIlessors'motionIornewtrial,sincelessorswerenotiIiedbeIoretrial
thatlesseewouldnotcallsuchwitnesstotestiIy,andlessors'Iailuretoeitherexercisereasonable
diligencetoprocurewitness'testimonyorseekacontinuancetoallowthemtosubpoena
thewitnessprecludedaclaimoIsurprise.NRCP59(a).Havasv.Haupt,1978,583P.2d
1094,94Nev.591.NewTrial95
PlaintiIIsintroducedanaccountshowingageneralindebtednesstothemoI$2,000,inwhich
therewasamistakeoI$700incomputinginterest.Theerror,thoughpatent,escapednoticeat
theIirsttrial.Atthesecondtrial,thecourtwasnotadvisedoItheerroruntilaIterthesubmission
oIthecausetothejury.ThejuryIoundaverdictIordeIendant.OneoIplaintiIIsmadeaIIidavit
thathebelievedthattheverdictwasrenderedIordeIendantowingtothejury'sdiscovery
oItheerror,whichplaintiIIsdidnotknowoIuntilthetestimonyhadbeenclosed,thatsaid
accountwasnotmadeupbyhim,orhiscoplaintiII,butbyanotherperson,whomtheybelieved
tobeacorrectaccountant,andthattheydidnotexaminethesame.Held,thatthe
groundoIsurprise,withinthemeaningoIthestatute,wasestablished,andthattheorderoIthe
districtcourtgrantinganewtrialwascorrect.Sultanv.Sherwood,1884,5P.71,18Nev.454.
NewTrial89
14.Irregularityinproceedings
BeneIiciaryoIIamilytrustIailedtodemonstratethatproceduralirregularitiesdeniedhima
IairhearingregardingpetitionIorinstructionsrelatingtotrustadministration,andthuswas
-51-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
965
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
notentitledtoanewhearing,thoughbeneIiciaryallegedthattrialcourtIailedtoallowhimto
callwitnessesorpresenttestimonyatthehearing,asbeneIiciarydidnotspeciIywhatwitnesses
orevidencehewouldhavepresentedorhowhewasprejudiced.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule
59.Hannamv.Brown,1998,956P.2d794,114Nev.350.Trusts267
Factsthatjurorsknockedonjuryroomdoorandjudge'ssecretaryappeared,thatjurortoldher
thatjuryhadaquestionregardinganinstruction,thatsecretaryinstructedjurortoreducequestion
towritingandinIormedjurythatjudgeandattorneyswerenotpresentlyavailable,and
thatjuryarrivedatverdictwithoutsubmittingwrittenquestiontotrialjudge,didnotamount
toirregularityinproceedingsoIjuryineminentdomainactionsuIIicienttosupportanewtri-
al.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59.Pappasv.Stateexrel.Dept.oITransp.,1988,763P.2d348,104
Nev.572.EminentDomain224
15.VerdictIorm
TrialcourterredingrantingnewtrialonbasisoIjury'sIailuretoIillinspecialverdictIorm;
evidenceindicatedthatjuryhadmadenecessaryIindingsastocomparativenegligenceand
simplyIilledinbottomlineIigureongeneralverdict.Carlsonv.Locatelli,1993,849P.2d
313,109Nev.257.NewTrial58
16.InconsistencyoIverdict
Wherejuryreturnsinconsistentverdict,itisincumbentupontrialcourttoattempttoclariIy
verdict,andsuchaneIIorttodeterminewhatjuryintendedbyitsverdictgenerallywillnot
impermissiblydelveintomentalprocessesoIjuryinreachingtheverdict;wherepossible,verdict
shouldbesalvagedsothatnonewtrialisrequired.Carlsonv.Locatelli,1993,849P.2d
313,109Nev.257.Trial344
17.Verdictcontrarytoevidence
-52-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
966
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
JuryverdictinIavoroIservicestationbuyer,inbreachoIcontractactionagainstseller,was
notagainsttheclearweightoItheevidence,andthereIoredistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretion
ingrantingsellernewtrial;substantialevidencewentbothwaysonpointsonwhichdistrict
courtbelievedthatjuryhadIailedtoappreciateorconsidercertainIacts,andassumptionthat
jurydidnotconsiderbuyer'sIailuretomitigatedamageswasunwarrantedinlightoIverdict
thatwasapproximately$800,000lessthanbuyerrequested.UnionOilCo.oICaliIorniav.
TerribleHerbst,Inc.,2003,331F.3d735,certioraridenied124S.Ct.1060,540U.S.1107,
157L.Ed.2d892.FederalCivilProcedure2341
Documentrecitingthatdevelopmentagreementhadbeenenteredintodidnotrenderjury's
verdictIorpropertyownersmaniIestlyandpalpablycontrarytoevidencesoastoauthorize
newtrialinowners'actionagainsttitlecompanyIorbreachoIescrowagreementrequiring
thatdeveloperandIinancecompanyenterintodevelopmentagreementbycertaindatebeIore
titlecompanycouldconveyowners'properties,wheretherewasnocopyoIdevelopment
agreement,titlecompanydeededoutbulkoIpropertiesonetothreemonthsaIterdatespeciIied
inescrowagreementandtitlecompanydidnotnotiIyownersoIconveyances.Rules
Civ.Proc.,Rule59.KroegerProperties&Development,Inc.v.SilverStateTitleCo.,1986,
715P.2d1328,102Nev.112.NewTrial72(8)
WhereevidenceintrialoInegligenceactionisinconIlictandquestionastoplaintiII'scontributory
negligenceisoneuponwhichreasonablemenmightdiIIer,itiserrortograntnew
trialongroundthatevidencewasinsuIIicienttojustiIyverdict.NRCP59(a).SierraPac.
PowerCo.v.Day,1964,391P.2d501,80Nev.224.NewTrial71
18.Verdictcontrarytolaw
CourtmaynotsubstituteitsownjudgmentinplaceoIthejury'sjudgmentonmotionIornew
-53-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
967
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
trialunlessthejuryerredasamatteroIlaw,andcourtmaynotgrantanewtrialiIthequestion
onlyconcernstheweightoItheevidence.Brasciav.Johnson,1989,781P.2d765,105
Nev.592.NewTrial72(2)
PlaintiII'scontentionthatevidenceestablishedliabilityoIdeIendantasmatteroIlawwasnot
groundIormotionIornewtrialinabsenceoIplainerrorinrecordorshowingoImaniIestinjustice.
Amundsenv.OhioBrassCo.,1973,513P.2d1234,89Nev.378.NewTrial68.1
PlaintiIIwhichmadenoobjectiontoanyerroroIlawtouchingonpunitivedamageswasnot
entitledtolimitednewtrialonthatissueunderruleprovidingthatnewtrialmaybegrantedto
alloranyoIthepartiesonallorpartoItheissuesIorerrorinlawoccurringattrialandobjected
tobythepartymakingthemotion.NRCP59(a)(7).CityoIRenov.SilverStateFlying
Service,Inc.,1968,438P.2d257,84Nev.170.NewTrial9
19.VerdicteIIectedbypassionorprejudice,generally
AviolationoIanordergrantingamotioninliminemayonlyserveasabasisIoranewtrial
whentheorderisspeciIicinitsprohibition,theviolationisclear,andunIairprejudiceis
shown.BayerischeMotorenWerkeAktiengesellschaItv.Roth,2011,252P.3d649.NewTrial
20
OnappealoIanorderIoranewtrialthatisconditionalupontheplaintiII'sreIusaltoacceptan
orderoIremittitur,appellatecourtaccordsdeIerencetothetrialjudge'sdecisionandrejectsa
challengetothejudge'sdiscretioniIthereisamaterialconIlictoIevidenceregardingtheextent
oIthedamages,butiIthereisnoconIlict,theordertoremitbecomessuspectunlessthe
amountawardedbythejuryissoexcessiveastosuggestpassionandprejudice.Canterinov.
TheMirageCasino-Hotel,2001,16P.3d415,117Nev.19,opinionreinstatedonrehearing,
rehearinggranted31P.3d1005,modiIiedonrehearing42P.3d808,118Nev.191,rehearing
-54-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
968
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
denied.AppealAndError1015(4)
DamagesawardstohotelpatronwhowasseverelybeatenandrobbedinhotelhallwayoI
$500,000Iorpastphysicalpainandmentalanguish,$1,500,000IorIuturephysicalpainand
mentalanguish,$500,000Iorpastphysicalimpairment,and$1,500,000IorIuturephysical
impairmentwerenotexcessive,inlightoIuncontradictedevidenceoImedicalexpertsthat
patronsuIIeredpermanentneurologicaldamage,includinghearing,balance,andpyramidal
trackimpairment,andsuIIeredpsychologicalinjuries,includingagoraphobia,panicdisorder,
andpost-traumaticstressdisorder,whichkepthimvirtuallyhousebound,unabletoworkor
participateinsportsoractivitieshehadpreviouslyenjoyed.Canterinov.TheMirageCasino-
Hotel,2001,16P.3d415,117Nev.19,opinionreinstatedonrehearing,rehearinggranted31
P.3d1005,modiIiedonrehearing42P.3d808,118Nev.191,rehearingdenied.Damages
127.15;Damages127.17;Damages140.7
InactionsIordamagesinwhichthelawprovidesnolegalruleoImeasurementitisthespecial
provinceoIthejurytodeterminetheamountthatoughttobeallowed,sothatacourtisnot
justiIiedinreversingthecaseorgrantinganewtrialonthegroundthattheverdictisexcessive,
unlessitissoIlagrantlyimproperastoindicatepassion,prejudiceorcorruptioninthe
jury.Canterinov.TheMirageCasino-Hotel,2001,16P.3d415,117Nev.19,opinionreinstated
onrehearing,rehearinggranted31P.3d1005,modiIiedonrehearing42P.3d808,118
Nev.191,rehearingdenied.AppealAndError1015(4);Damages96;Damages
104;Damages119
AwardoIpunitivedamagesshouldnotbedisturbedunlessitissolargeastoappeartohave
beengivenundertheinIluenceoIpassionorprejudice.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(6);N.R.S.
42.010.Halev.RiverboatCasino,Inc.,1984,682P.2d190,100Nev.299.NewTrial
-55-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
969
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
77(2)
LargeawardoIpunitivedamagesalonedoesnotconclusivelyindicatethatpassionandprejudice
inIluencedthetrieroIIact.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(6);N.R.S.42.010.Halev.Riverboat
Casino,Inc.,1984,682P.2d190,100Nev.299.NewTrial77(2)
AwardtocustomeroIcasinooIpunitivedamagesoI$97,900,whichawardamountedtoless
than1.5oIcasino'sannualnetproIitandlessthan1/2percentoIitsnetworth,wasnotexcessive,
wherecustomerhadconscientiouslyattemptedtoassurethereturnoIalostwallet,
and,Iorhisconcern,washarassed,threatened,imprisoned,andmanacledaIterbeingphysically
assaulted,wasthenescortedtojailandhandcuIIed,booked,andheldinjailIoragood
portionoIanight,andwassubsequentlyIorcedtoincurthesubstantialexpenseandignominy
oIacriminaltrialaItercasinopursuedcriminalprosecution.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(6);
N.R.S.42.010.Halev.RiverboatCasino,Inc.,1984,682P.2d190,100Nev.299.Damages
94.10(1)
AmountoIawardoIpunitivedamagesneednotbeproportionaltotheamountoIcompensatory
damages.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(6);N.R.S.42.010.Halev.RiverboatCasino,Inc.,
1984,682P.2d190,100Nev.299.Damages94.6
SumoI$50,000wasmaximumamountthatcouldreasonablybeawardedtogubernatorial
candidatedeIamedonlivetelevisionbroadcastbystatementthathebouncedcheck,andimplication
thathedidnotpayhisbillsandwasnothonorable;thus,juryawardoI$675,000was
excessive,notsupportedbyevidence,musthavebeengivenunderinIluenceoIpassionorprejudice,
andconstitutedthreatstoexerciseoIIreespeech.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a)(6);
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1.NevadaIndependentBroadcastingCorp.v.Allen,1983,664P.2d
337,99Nev.404,37A.L.R.4th1070.LibelAndSlander121(2)
-56-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
970
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
MereIactthatverdictislargeisnotconclusivethatitisresultoIpassionorprejudice.Rules
Civ.Proc.,Rule59(a)(6).Beccardv.NevadaNat.Bank,1983,657P.2d1154,99Nev.63.Appeal
AndError1004(5)
SincemaliceinIacthadtobeinIerredIromdisregardoIknownsaIetyproceduresbydeIendants,
andinviewoIsubjectivenatureoIpunitivedamages,absenceoIworkablestandards
withwhichtoevaluateproprietyoIamountoIpunitivedamages,andarguableconIlictoI
evidenceregardingmaliceinIact,grantingconditionalmotionIornewtrialunlesseach
plaintiIIwouldaccept$85,000remittituroI$125,000punitivedamagesthathadbeenawarded
eachplaintiIIalongwithcompensatoryawardsoI$35,000and$150,000respectivelywasnot
abuseoIdiscretioninactionIorinjuriessustainedwhenplaintiIIsinhaledchlorinegasaIter
cylinderoIthatgasexplodedspewingcompressedchlorineoverswimmingpoolandpatio
area.(PerThompson,J.,withoneJusticeconcurringandoneJusticespeciallyconcurring.)
N.R.S.42.010;NRCP59(a)(6).Lesliev.JonesChemicalCo.,Inc.,1976,551P.2d234,92
Nev.391.NewTrial162(1)
Wherereviewingcourtwaswhollyunabletodeclarethathadthejurorsproperlyappliedthe
instructionsoIthecourtitwouldhavebeenimpossibleIorthemtoreachtheverdictwhich
theyreachedinIavoroIIollowingmotoristinactionbyprecedingmotoristandhispassenger
againstIollowingmotoristIorinjuriessustainedinrear-endcollision,grantoInewtrialcould
notbesustained.NRCP59.Foxv.Cusick,1975,533P.2d466,91Nev.218.AppealAndError
1015(1)
AbsentanyinIormationastonetworthoIindividualdeIendantbywhichreasonablenessoI
awardoIpunitivedamagesoI$10,000tooneplaintiIIand$5,000toanotherplaintiIIcouldbe
judgedandabsentevidencethattrialcourtinawardingsuchamountsactedunderpassionor
-57-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
971
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
prejudice,appellatecourtwouldnotquestionamountsoIawardsorsetthemasideasbeing
excessive.N.R.S.42.010;NRCP59.Caplev.RaynelCampers,Inc.,1974,526P.2d334,90
Nev.341.AppealAndError705
MereIactthatpunitivedamageawardislargeisnotconclusivethatitisresultoIpassionor
prejudice.NRCP59(a).NevadaCementCo.v.Lemler,1973,514P.2d1180,89Nev.447.
Damages94.1
Districtcourt,inpersonalinjuryactioninwhichjuryawardedplaintiII,whohadincurred
$529.50specialdamages,$10,000compensatorydamages,possessedpowertoenterorder
grantingnewtrialunlessplaintiIIacceptedremittituroI$7,500.NRCP59(a)(6).Harrisv.
Zee,1971,486P.2d490,87Nev.309.NewTrial162(3)
AwardinamountoI$2,500IorphysicalandmentaldistresssuIIeredbyplaintiIIwhenhepartially
consumedthecontentsoIabottledbeveragecontainingadecomposedmousewasnotso
excessiveastosupportdeterminationthatthedamagesmusthavebeengivenundertheinIlu-
enceoIpassionorprejudice.NRCP51,59(a)(6).ShoshoneCoca-ColaBottlingCo.v.Dolinski,
1966,420P.2d855,82Nev.439.Damages127.11;Damages140.7
DamagestocompensateIorinjurytoreputation,humiliation,embarrassment,mentalsuIIering
andinconvenienceoIplaintiIIsuingIormaliciousprosecutionshouldnotbegivenbyjuryunder
inIluenceoIpassionorprejudice.NRCP59(a)(6).Millerv.Schnitzer,1962,371P.2d
824,78Nev.301.MaliciousProsecution69
20.Plainerror
Incivilcases,theSupremeCourtwillconsiderargumentsoIegregiousbutunobjected-tomisconduct
attrialbycounselonlyinthoserarecircumstanceswherethecounsel'scommentsare
oIsuchsinisterinIluenceastoconstitute'irreparableandIundamentalerror,whichiserror
-58-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
972
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
that,iInotcorrected,wouldresultinasubstantialmiscarriageoIjusticeordenialoIIundamental
rightsandwhichispresentonlywhenitisplainandclearthatnootherreasonableexplanation
Iortheverdictexists.Ringlev.Bruton,2004,86P.3d1032,120Nev.82.Appeal
AndError207
TheinIlammatoryqualityandsheerquantityoIattorneymisconductwarrantedreview,toprevent
plainerror,astotheclosingargumentoIcounselIorvehiclepassengerinpersonalinjury
actionagainstdriveroIanothervehiclewhohadIorcedpassenger'svehicleoIItheroad,
thoughthedeIendanthadIailedtoobjecttotheclosingargumentattrial.DeJesusv.Flick,
2000,7P.3d459,116Nev.812.AppealAndError207
PlainerrorormaniIestinjusticeexceptiontoRulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59,eliminatinginsuIIiciency
oIevidenceasgroundIorgrantingnewtrial,mustbestrictlyconstrued.KroegerProperties
&Development,Inc.v.SilverStateTitleCo.,1986,715P.2d1328,102Nev.112.New
Trial70
IISupremeCourt,onappealIromordergrantingnewtrialonbasisoIinsuIIiciencyoIthe
evidencetojustiIytheverdict,perceivesplainerrororthereisashowingoImaniIestinjustice,
itmaysustainthelowercourtinorderinganewtrial.NRCP59.Foxv.Cusick,1975,
533P.2d466,91Nev.218.AppealAndError1015(1)
21.DiscretionoItrialcourt
DecisiontograntordenymotionIornewtrialrestswithinsounddiscretionoItrialcourt,and
SupremeCourtwillnotdisturbthatdecisionabsentpalpableabuse.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule
59(a).EdwardsIndustries,Inc.v.DTE/BTE,Inc.,1996,923P.2d569,112Nev.1025;DeLee
v.Roggen,1995,907P.2d168,111Nev.1453;SouthernPac.Transp.Co.v.Fitzgerald,1978,
577P.2d1234,94Nev.241,rehearingdenied579P.2d1251,94Nev.245.
-59-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
973
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
StandardoIreviewIorgrantingordenyingmotionIornewtrialisabuseoIdiscretion.Rules
Civ.Proc.,Rule59(a).DowChemicalCo.v.Mahlum,1998,970P.2d98,114Nev.1468,rehearing
denied973P.2d842,115Nev.13.AppealAndError977(3);AppealAndError
977(5)
AnordergrantinganewtrialIorinsuIIiciencyoIconIlictingevidencewillnotbedisturbedin
theabsenceoIaclearabuseoIdiscretion.GoldIieldMohawkMiningCo.v.Frances-Mohawk
Mining&LeasingCo.,1913,129P.315,35Nev.423.AppealAndError979(2)
22.Newlydiscoveredevidence
DivorcedwiIe'sclaimpresentedIorIirsttimeinmotionIornewtrial,thatvalueoIparties'
houseincreasedinvalueinexcessoIthatIixedindecreemustbeconsideredbelated,sinceit
mighthavebeendiscoveredandproIIered,beIorecourt'sdecision,bymotiontoreopencase
Ioradditionalevidence.NRCP59(a)(4).Burrv.Burr,1980,611P.2d623,96Nev.480.Divorce
151
'NewlydiscoveredevidencereIerstoevidenceoIIactsexistingattimeoItrial,notIactsoccurring
subsequenttotrial.Foxv.FirstWesternSav.&LoanAss'n,1970,470P.2d424,86
Nev.469.NewTrial100
MotionIornewtrialbaseduponnewlydiscoveredevidencewhichcouldnotbebroughtunder
ruleprovidinggroundsIormotionIornewtrialbecausetimeIorIilinghadexpiredcouldnot
bebroughtunderruleprovidinggroundsIorrelieIIromjudgment,sincenewlydiscovered
evidencewasnotagroundIorrelieIunderthatrule.NRCP59(a),60(b).Hortonv.D.I.Operating
Co.,1968,448P.2d36,84Nev.694.Judgment378
WhilenewlydiscoveredevidenceisagroundIormotionIornewtrialunderRule59(a)itis
notgroundIorrelieIIromajudgmentunderRule60(b)andtheappellantwasnotentitledto
-60-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
974
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
anorderremandingthecaseIorIurtherconsiderationonthegroundthatcertainevidencewas
discoveredaItertheappealwastaken.RulesoICivilProcedure,rules59(a),60(b);Fed.Rules
Civ.Proc.,rule60(b),28U.S.C.A.Childv.GeorgeMiller,Inc.,1958,327P.2d342,74Nev.
223.AppealAndError1177(1);Judgment378
Theallegednewlydiscoveredevidencemustbematerialorimportanttothepartyseekinga
newtrial.Whisev.Whise,1913,131P.967,36Nev.16.NewTrial103
NewlydiscoveredevidenceonamattercollateraltotheissuesisseldomgroundIoranewtrial.
Whisev.Whise,1913,131P.967,36Nev.16.NewTrial103
InordertocompelthegrantingoIanewtrial,newlydiscoveredevidencemustbesostrongas
tomakeitprobablethatadiIIerentresultwouldbeobtainedinanothertrial;itnotbeingsuIIicient
merelythatit'mightchangetheresult.Whisev.Whise,1913,131P.967,36Nev.16.
NewTrial108(1)
Newlydiscoveredevidence,whichcouldonlybeusedbywayoIimpeachment,isnotground
Iorgrantinganewtrial,unlessevidenceoIthewitnesssoughttobeimpeachedwassoimportant,
andtheimpeachingevidencesoconvincing,thatadiIIerentresultwouldnecessarilyIollow
theadmissionoItheimpeachingevidence.Whisev.Whise,1913,131P.967,36Nev.16.
NewTrial108(2)
23.Motiontoalteroramendjudgment--Ingeneral
Solongasapost-judgmentmotionIorreconsiderationisinwriting,timelyIiled,statesits
groundswithparticularity,andrequestsasubstantivealterationoIthejudgment,notmerely
thecorrectionoIaclericalerror,orrelieIoIatypewhollycollateraltothejudgment,thereis
noreasontodenyitstatusasamotiontoalteroramendjudgment,whichtollsthetimein
whichapartyhastoIilenoticeoIappeal;disapprovingAlvisv.State,GamingControlBd.,
-61-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
975
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
99Nev.184,660P.2d980,Nardozziv.ClarkCo.SchoolDist.,108Nev.7,823P.2d285,and
Whiteheadv.NormanKayeRealEstate,80Nev.383,395P.2d329.AAPrimoBuilders,LLC
v.Washington,2010,245P.3d1190.AppealandError428(2)
Petitioner'spostjudgmentmotionstoamendormakeadditionalIindingsoIIactortoalteror
amendthejudgmentdenyinghispetitiontosealcourtrecordswere'tollingmotions,and
thus,petitioner'snoticeoIappealIiledbeIoretrialcourt'sdispositionoIsuchmotionswas
Iiledtooearlytovestjurisdictionintheappellatecourt.InreDuong,2002,59P.3d1210,118
Nev.920.Records32
Petitioner'strialcourtmotionsrequestingadditionalIindingsoIIactandrequestingthatthe
trialcourtalteroramendtheorderorjudgmentdidnottollorextendthetimetoIileanotice
oIappealIromthetrialcourt'sorderdenyingpost-convictionpetitionIorwritoIhabeascorpus.
Kleinv.Warden,2002,43P.3d1029,118Nev.305.HabeasCorpus819
ThecivilprocedureruletollingthetimeIorIilinganoticeoIappealiItheappellantmakesa
trialcourtmotionrequestingadditionalIindingsoIIactorrequestingthatthetrialcourtalter
oramendtheorderorjudgmentdoesnotapplytostatutoryproceduresgoverningthelitigation
oIpost-convictionhabeascorpuspetitions.Kleinv.Warden,2002,43P.3d1029,118Nev.
305.HabeasCorpus819
AdistrictcourtlacksjurisdictiontoallowamendmentoIacomplaint,onceIinaljudgmentis
entered,unlessthatjudgmentisIirstsetasideorvacatedpursuanttothestate'srulesoIcivil
procedure.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rules59(e),60(b).Greenev.EighthJudicialDist.CourtoI
Nevadaexrel.CountyoIClark,1999,990P.2d184,115Nev.391.Pleading245(7)
MotiontoamendIindingsoIIactorconclusionsoIlawindistrictcourtorderdirectingpartial
distributionoItestateestatedidnottollrunningoI30-dayperiodIorappealinginterlocutory
-62-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
976
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
probateorders.N.R.S.155.190;RulesApp.Proc.,Rule4(a)(2);RulesCiv.Proc.,Rules52(b),
59.MatteroIEstateoIMiller,1995,888P.2d433,111Nev.1.ExecutorsAndAdministrators
314(12)
Motiontoamendjudgment,ratherthanmotiontoretaxandtosettlecosts,waspropermethod
IoramendingjudgmentoI$54,958.24,whichwasbaseduponoIIeroIjudgmentoI$50,000,
includingcostsoI$4,958.24,wherecostswereneverdisputed,butamountoItotaljudgment
wasdisputed.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(e);N.R.S.18.110,subd.4.Fleischerv.August,1987,
737P.2d518,103Nev.242.Judgment90
MotiontoamendjudgmentbystrikingawardoIcostswasuntimelywhenserved27daysaIter
serviceoInoticeoIentryoIjudgmenteventhoughmemorandumoIcostshadnotbeenserved
withinIivedaysaIterentryoIjudgmentwhere,whenmemorandumoIcostswasnotIiled,
motiontoamendjudgmentcouldhavebeenmadewithintimelimits,andthusnoticeoIappeal
IiledaIterentryoIamendedjudgmentwhichdidnotaIIectmeritsoIjudgmentwasuntimely.
RulesApp.Proc.,Rule4(a);RulesCiv.Proc.Rule59(e).Morrellv.Edwards,1982,640P.2d
1322,98Nev.91.AppealAndError428(2);Judgment321
ThoughmotionsIorsummaryjudgmentshouldordinarilybeinwriting,wherecodeIendants
orallyjoinedinawrittenmotionsubmittedbyanothercodeIendantandplaintiIImadenoobjection
tosuchprocedureduringargumentonthemotion,andwheretherewasnoprejudiceto
theplaintiII,whichwasaIIordedanopportunitytopresentargumentonthemeritsoIissue
raisedinmotiontoamendsummaryjudgmentbydenyingtheoralsummaryjudgmentmotions,
therewasnoerrorindenialoIthemotiontoamend.NRCP56,59.Exber,Inc.v.Sletten
Const.Co.,1976,558P.2d517,92Nev.721.Judgment183
MotiontoalteroramendjudgmentcouldnotbeutilizedbydeIendanttoalteroramendorder
-63-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
977
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
denyingdeIendant'smotiontosetasidedeIaultenteredagainstitandwasnotthereIoreavailable
totoll30-dayappealperiod,whichhadexpiredattimedeIendantIilednoticeoIappeal,
IromorderdenyingmotiontosetasidedeIault.NRCP59(e),60(b),73(a).ParadisePalmes
CommunityAss'nv.ParadiseHomes,1970,477P.2d859,86Nev.859.AppealAndError
346.2;Judgment173
MotiontoamendjudgmentwasnotinvalidatedbyIactthatitwasnotinwritingwheremotion
wasstatedinwrittennoticeoIhearingoImotion.NRCP7(b)and(1),59(e).UnitedPac.Ins.
Co.v.St.Denis,1965,399P.2d135,81Nev.103.Judgment319
MotiontoalteroramendjudgmentmuststategroundswithparticularityandrelieIsought.
NRCP59.UnitedPac.Ins.Co.v.St.Denis,1965,399P.2d135,81Nev.103.Judgment
319
MotiontoalteroramendjudgmentmaynotbebypassedoravoidedbyobtainingIromcourt,
onexparteapplication,ordertoshowcause,whichalsoavoidsandbypassesrequirementthat
groundsoImotionshallstatewithparticularitygroundsthereIorandshallsetIorthrelieIor
ordersought.NRCP59.UnitedPac.Ins.Co.v.St.Denis,1965,399P.2d135,81Nev.103.
Judgment319
24.----TimeIormotiontoalteroramendjudgment
RuleoIcivilprocedureregardingmotionstoamendjudgmentandruleoIappellateprocedure
thatallowssuchmotionstotolltimeinwhichtoIilenoticeoIappealechoIederalrules,anda
courtmayconsultIederallawininterpretingthem.AAPrimoBuildersv.Washington,2010,
2010WL5422614.Courts97(1)
Contractor'spost-judgment'motiontoamendorderqualiIiedasamotiontoalteroramend
judgment,whichtolledthetimecontractorhadtoIilenoticeoIappeal;themotionwasinwriting,
-64-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
978
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
invokedruleonamendmentoIjudgments,askedtovacatethejudgmentoIdismissal,and
appendedprooIthatthecharter,IorwantoIwhichcontractor'ssuitwaslost,hadbeenrestored
andurgedthedistrictcourttoconsiderstatute,whichprovidedthatreinstatementoIan
administratively
revokedlimitedliabilitycharterrelatedbacktothedateonwhichthecompanyIorIeited
itsrighttotransactbusinessasiIsuchrighthadatalltimesremainedinIullIorceand
eIIect;disapprovingAlvisv.State,GamingControlBd.,99Nev.184,660P.2d980,Nardozzi
v.ClarkCo.SchoolDist.,108Nev.7,823P.2d285,andWhiteheadv.NormanKayeRealEstate,
80Nev.383,395P.2d329.AAPrimoBuilders,LLCv.Washington,2010,245P.3d
1190.AppealandError428(2)
TimelymotionsIoramendmentoItrialcourt'sIindings,amendmentoIthejudgmentandnew
trialtolledrunningoIappealperiodandrenderedineIIectiveallnoticesoIappealwhichwere
IiledbeIoreIormaldispositionoIthetimelypostjudgmentmotionsandthus,trialcourterred
inconcludingthatitlackedjurisdictiontoentertainthetimelytollingmotions.Rules
Civ.Proc.,Rules52(b),59(a,e);RulesApp.Proc.,Rule4(a)(2).ChapmanIndustriesv.United
Ins.Co.oIAmerica,1994,874P.2d739,110Nev.454.AppealAndError346.2;Appeal
AndError428(2)
GrantoImotionIorstayoIexecutiondoesnotprovidebasisIordistrictcourttosuspendthe
timeIorIilingmotiontoalteroramendjudgment.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rules59(e),62(b).Stapp
v.HiltonHotelsCorp.,1992,826P.2d954,108Nev.209,rehearingdenied.Judgment
321
Districtcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoconsideruntimelymotiontoamendjudgment,and
thusamendedjudgmententeredpursuanttheretowasvoid.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(e).Stapp
-65-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
979
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.HiltonHotelsCorp.,1992,826P.2d954,108Nev.209,rehearingdenied.Judgment
321
FilingnoticeoIappealbeIoredistrictcourtenteredorderdenyingrehearingdidnotrenderappeal
void,ontheorythatmotionIorrehearingisIunctionalequivalentoImotiontoalteror
amendjudgment,andthusIallswithinCivilProcedureRuleprovidingthatappealisvoid
whennoticeisIiledbeIoreIormaldispositionoItimelypostjudgmentmotion.Rules
Civ.Proc.,Rules50(b),52(b),56(e),59(e).Nardozziv.ClarkCountySchoolDist.,1992,823
P.2d285,108Nev.7,rehearingdenied.AppealAndError337(2)
Wheremotion'Ioranorderamendingandalteringthejudgmenthereinregardingattorney's
IeeswasnotIileduntilmorethantendaysaItermovants'counselwasservedwithnoticeoI
entryoIordergrantingsuchjudgment,districtcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoconsidermotion;
and,thus,ordergrantingmotionwasvoid.NRAP4(a),26(a);NRCP59,59(e).Oelsner
v.CharlesC.MeekLumberCo.oICarsonCity,1976,555P.2d217,92Nev.576.Judgment
321
25.----ServiceoInotice,motiontoalteroramendjudgment
IImotiontoalteroramendjudgmentisnotservedwithintendaysaIterserviceoIwrittennotice
oIentryoIjudgment,timeIorappealisnottolled.RulesApp.Proc.,Rule4(a);Rules
Civ.Proc.,Rule59(e).Morrellv.Edwards,1982,640P.2d1322,98Nev.91.AppealAndError
346.2
WheremotiontoalteroramendjudgmentbystrikingawardoIcostswasnotIileduntil27
daysaIterserviceoInoticeoIentryoIjudgment,serviceoImotiondidnottolltimeIorappeal.
RulesApp.Proc.,Rule4(a);RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(e).Morrellv.Edwards,1982,640
P.2d1322,98Nev.91.AppealAndError346.2
-66-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
980
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
DistrictcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoamendjudgmentinIavoroIplaintiIIsbecausenonotice
toamendwasIiledandnonoticewasgiventoplaintiIIs.RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(e).
Horvathv.Gladstone,1981,637P.2d531,97Nev.594.Judgment323
26.MotionIornewtrial--Ingeneral
Wheredaughter,whoIiledmotionaIterdistrictjudgedenieddaughter'smotiontocompel
IathertocomplywithsupportprovisionsoIdivorcedecree,merelyrequestedanopportunity
torearguethelawanddidnotseekanewtrialontheIacts,themotionwasamotionIorreargument
ratherthanmotionIornewtrial,and,thus,daughterwasnotboundbyproceduralconstraints
inrulerelatingtomotionsIornewtrial.NRCP59,59(b).Gibbsv.Giles,1980,607
P.2d118,96Nev.243.ChildSupport469
27.----TimeIormotionIornewtrial
Ten-daytimeperiodIorIilingmotionsIorjudgmentasamatteroIlawandIoranewtrial
shouldbecalculatedIirstunderruleexcludingintermediateSaturdays,Sundays,andnonjudi-
cialdays,andthenthreeadditionaldaysshouldbeaddediIserviceoIwrittennoticeoIentry
oIjudgmentwasmadebymailorelectronicmeans;abrogatingCustomCabinetFactoryoI
NewYorkv.DistrictCourt,119Nev.51,62P.3d741,andRossv.Giacomo,97Nev.550,635
P.2d298.WinstonProductsCo.v.DeBoer,2006,134P.3d726,122Nev.517.Time8.5;
Time10(6);Time10(7)
Litigant'stimelyIiledmotionIorjudgmentasamatteroIlaworIoranewtrialtolledthetime
toappealIrompost-judgmentorderawardingattorneyIees,andthusappealwastimely.Winston
ProductsCo.v.DeBoer,2006,134P.3d726,122Nev.517.AppealAndError345.1
;AppealAndError346.1
AtimelyIiledtollingmotiondirectedattheIinaljudgment,suchasamotionIorjudgmentas
-67-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
981
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
amatteroIlaworamotionIoranewtrial,tollsthetimetoappealIromboththeIinaljudgment
andspecialordersenteredaIterIinaljudgment.WinstonProductsCo.v.DeBoer,2006,
134P.3d726,122Nev.517.AppealAndError345.1;AppealAndError346.1
Litigant'smotionIorjudgmentasamatteroIlaworIoranewtrialwastimelyIiledaItertenday
periodIorIilingwasextendedunderruleexcludinginterveningSaturdays,Sundays,and
nonjudicialdays,andthreeadditionaldayswereaddedIorservicebymail,andthusmotion
eIIectivelytolledthetimetoappeal.WinstonProductsCo.v.DeBoer,2006,134P.3d726,
122Nev.517.AppealAndError345.1;AppealAndError346.1;Time8.5;
Time10(7)
AnoticeoIappealIiledaIterthetimelyIilingoIapost-judgmenttollingmotion,butbeIore
theIormaldispositionoIthemotion,isineIIectiveandIailstovestjurisdictionintheappellate
court.Moranv.BonnevilleSquareAssociates,2001,25P.3d898,117Nev.525.Appeal
AndError428(2)
TimelymotionIornewtrialisatollingmotionIorpurposesoIruleprovidingthatnoticeoI
appealIiledbeIoreIormaldispositionoIanytimelypostjudgmentmotionshallhavenoeIIect.
RulesCiv.Proc.,Rule59(a);RulesApp.Proc.,Rule4(a)(2).ChapmanIndustriesv.UnitedIns.
Co.oIAmerica,1994,874P.2d739,110Nev.454.AppealAndError428(2)
ServiceoImotionIornewtriallessthantendaysaIterserviceoIwrittennoticeoIentryoI
judgmentwastimely.NRCP59(b).LandmarkPlaza,Inc.v.Deligatti,1964,389P.2d81,80
Nev.48.NewTrial138
WherewrittennoticeoIentryoIjudgmentwasservedandIiledonMay5andonMay12
partiessignedstipulationextendingtimetomoveIornewtrialtoJune6,courtcouldnot,by
exparteorderenteredonJune2,extendtimetomoveIornewtrialuntilJune27,eveniIextension
-68-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
982
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
bystipulationwasvalid.NRCP6(b),59(b),73(a).CulinaryandHotelServiceWork-
ersUnion,LocalNo.226v.Haugen,1960,357P.2d113,76Nev.424,certioraridismissed81
S.Ct.1349,366U.S.906,6L.Ed.2d239.NewTrial118
WherethestatuterequiresnoticeinwritingoIthedecisionoIthecourttobeserved,tocause
thetimetorunagainstamotionIoranewtrial,awaiveroItherightoIdeIendanttonoticeoI
judgmentagainsthimcannotbeinIerredIromanoralrequestbyhisattorney,madeonthe
streettoplaintiII'sattorney,thatheaddnomorecostsinenteringjudgmentthanhecanhelp.
Statev.Murphy,1885,6P.840,19Nev.89.NewTrial138
WhereanattorneywaswillingtogiveanextensionoItimeIorpreparingastatementoIthe
caseIorthepurposeoIanewtrial,iIhecoulddosowithoutwaivinganyrightoIhisclientin
otherrespects,butwasveryguardedinsigninganystipulationnottowaiveotherrights,there
wasnowaiveroIanoticeoInewtrial.Killipv.EmpireMillCo.,1866,2Nev.34.NewTrial
139
WhennonoticeoIintentiontomoveIoranewtrialismadewithintwodaysoItherendition
oIjudgment,thecourt,byadjourninginthemeantime,losesjurisdictionoIthecase,andhas
noauthoritysubsequentlytograntleavetogivethenoticenuncprotunc.Killipv.Empire
MillCo.,1866,2Nev.34.NewTrial138
UnderPrac.Act,195,whichrequiresanoticeoIintentiontomoveIoranewtrialtobegiven
withintwodaysaItertrial,andwithinIivedaysthereaIterthenecessarystatementoraIIidavits
tobeIiled,butwhichdoesnotintermsrequirenoticeoIintentiontobegiveninwriting,
amereverbalnoticeoIanintentiontomoveIoranewtrial,givenoutoIcourtinaconversation
withthesuccessIulparty,isnotsuIIicient;butthenoticemustbeinwriting,orin
opencourt,andaminutemadeoIit.Killipv.EmpireMillCo.,1866,2Nev.34.NewTrial
-69-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
983
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
137
28.----WaiveroInotice,motionIornewtrial
WherenoticeoIanintentionbysomeoIseveraldeIendantstomoveIoranewtrialiswaived
byaco-deIendant,byjoininginthestatementonsuchmotion,neitherhenortheplaintiIIcan
complain,onanappealIromanorderdenyingthemotionIornewtrial,oItheIailuretoserve
suchnoticeontheco-deIendant.Judgment(1899)56P.231,24Nev.422,aIIirmed.Blissv.
Grayson,1900,59P.888,25Nev.329.AppealAndError882(20)
28.5.PreservationoIissueIorreviewormotion
Passenger'smotioninlimineregardingseatbeltevidenceandtheuseoIsuchevidence,in
productsliabilityandnegligenceactionbroughtbypassengerinjuredinasingle-carrollover
againstautomobilemanuIactureranddriver,didnotserveasacontinuingobjectionunder
LiocetoallegedmisconductbymanuIacturer'sattorneyintheuseoIsuchevidenceduring
openingstatement;statutepreventingtheuseoIseatbeltevidencetoestablishdutyorIaultdid
notprohibittheadmissionoIseatbeltevidenceinallproceedings,orderspeciIicallyallowed
seatbeltevidencetobeintroduced,allowingmanuIacturertointroduceseatbeltnonuseevidence
withoutarguingcausationwasadelicateanddiIIicultlinetodraw,andpassengerwasrequired
toobjectduringopeningstatementinordertoallowthetrialcourttodeIinetheboundaries
oItheorderinlimine.BayerischeMotorenWerkeAktiengesellschaItv.Roth,2011,252
P.3d649.PretrialProcedure3
Passengerinjuredinsingle-carrolloverwaived,IorpurposesoIasubsequentLiocemotionIor
anewtrial,objectionthatremarksmadebyautomobilemanuIacturer'sattorneyinopening
statement,thatpassengerwasejectedbecauseshewasnotwearingherseatbelt,thatiIshehad
notbeenejectedshewouldnothavesuIIeredaspinalcordinjury,andthatdriverwaswearing
-70-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
984
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
herseatbeltandwasnotejected,violatedorderinlimineregardingtheuseoIseatbeltevidence
inproductsliabilityandnegligenceactionagainstmanuIactureranddriver,wherepassenger
didnotcontemporaneouslyobjecttosuchremarks.BayerischeMotorenWerkeAktiengesellschaIt
v.Roth,2011,252P.3d649.NewTrial31
29.AIIidavits
TheaIIidavitsonamotionIoranewtrialonthegroundoInewlydiscoveredevidencemust
containtheIactswhichshowtheuseoIreasonablediligencetodiscoversuchevidencebeIore
trial,andamereassertionthatallreasonablediligencewasusedisinsuIIicient.Pinschowers
v.Hanks,1883,1P.454,18Nev.99.NewTrial150(4)
30.OrdergrantingorreIusingnewtrial
WhenrulingonamotionIoranewtrialbasedonattorneymisconduct,districtcourtsmust
makeexpressIactualIindings,applyingtheLiocestandards.BayerischeMotorenWerke
AktiengesellschaIt
v.Roth,2011,252P.3d649.NewTrial29;NewTrial163(1)
UnderrulesoIcivilprocedure,trialcourt,ingrantingdeIendant'smotionIornewtrialbased
onseveraldiIIerentgroundswasnotrequiredtostateinwritingthegroundsuponwhichit
grantedthenewtrial.N.C.L.1929,8877;N.C.L.1931-1941Supp.9385.53;RulesoICivil
Procedurerule59.Pagniv.CityoISparks,1956,293P.2d421,72Nev.41.NewTrial
163(1)
31.ScopeoInewtrialgrant
Wheresublessors,suingsublessees-tenantsholdingoverIorpossession,backrentanddamages,
neitherobjectedintrialcourtnorquestionedonappealinstructionthatjurywastodetermine
amountoIdamagessuIIeredbysublessorsbecauseoIsublessee'scontinuedpossession
-71-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
985
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
iItheyIoundthatsubleasehadbeenvalidlyterminated,sublessors,inordertoobtainadditur,
hadtodemonstrate,thathadsuchinstructionbeenproperlyapplied,itwouldhavebeen
impossibleIorjurytoreachconclusionthatsublessors'damagesweretheamountawarded.
NRCP59(a),(a)(5).Eikelbergerv.Tolotti,1978,574P.2d277,94Nev.58.NewTrial
161(3)
32.Review--Ingeneral
WhereevidenceconIlictedconcerningexactlywhathappenedinautomobileaccidentcase,
SupremeCourtwasrequiredtoreviewtheevidenceinlightmostconsistentwiththejuryverdict
onappealIromgrantoImotionIornewtrial.Brasciav.Johnson,1989,781P.2d765,105
Nev.592.AppealAndError933(5)
WiIe'smotionsIorrelieIIromjudgmentandIoranewtrialshouldbeIiledandheardinthe
districtcourt,whichiIinclinedtograntrelieIshouldsocertiIytotheSupremeCourt,atwhich
pointarequestIorremandoIappealIromportionsoIdivorcedecreedistributingproperty
wouldbeappropriate.NRCP59(a),60(b).Huneycuttv.Huneycutt,1978,575P.2d585,94
Nev.79.Divorce151
WhereappellantsdidnotspeciIyandcourtwasnotabletoIindanythinginrecordIromwhich
itcouldconcludethatitwasclearthatawrongconclusionhadbeenreachedinjudgment
whichwassustainedbysubstantialevidence,SupremeCourtwouldnotdisturbjudgment.NRCP
52(b),59(e).Brechanv.Scott,1976,555P.2d1230,92Nev.633.AppealAndError
1010.1(6)
33.----Appealableorders,review
AlthoughnotseparatelyappealableasaspecialorderaIterjudgment,anorderdenyingamotion
toalteroramendjudgmentisreviewableIorabuseoIdiscretiononappealIromtheunderlying
-72-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
986
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
judgment.AAPrimoBuilders,LLCv.Washington,2010,245P.3d1190.Appeal
andError113(5);AppealandError876
Trialcourt'sdenialoIpetitioner'smotions,requestingadditionalIindingsoIIactandrequesting
thatthetrialcourtalteroramendtheorderdenyingthepost-convictionpetitionIorwritoI
habeascorpus,wasnotindependentlyappealable.Kleinv.Warden,2002,43P.3d1029,118
Nev.305.HabeasCorpus814
Ordercaptionedorderdeclaringmistrialwasanordergrantinganewtrial,and,thus,appealable;
whenorderwasissued,bothverdictshadbeenreturnedandtrialhadbeenconcludedand
orderwasissuedsubsequenttomotionandhearingIollowingconclusionoItrial.Carlsonv.
Locatelli,1993,849P.2d313,109Nev.257.AppealAndError110;NewTrial
163(1)
WhenacourtwhichhaslostjurisdictionoIacaseimproperlygrantsleavetogivenoticeoIin-
tentiontomoveIoranewtrial,andaIterwardsgrantsthenewtrial,itissuIIicienttoappeal
Iromthelatterorderonly.Killipv.EmpireMillCo.,1866,2Nev.34.AppealAndError
110
34.----TimelinessoIapplication,review
InabsenceoIcompliancewithjurisdictionalrequirementIorIilingoInoticeoIappealwithin
timelimitedbyrules,courtcannothearappealonmerits.NRCP6(b),59(b),73(a).Culinary
andHotelServiceWorkersUnion,LocalNo.226v.Haugen,1960,357P.2d113,76Nev.424
,certioraridismissed81S.Ct.1349,366U.S.906,6L.Ed.2d239.AppealAndError
430(1)
35.----NoticeoImotionIorappeal,review
UponanappealIromajudgmentbytwooIseveraldeIendants,noticeoIappealneednotbe
-73-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
987
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
serveduponco-deIendantsastowhomtheactionwasdismissed,overtheobjectionoIappellants,
beIorethejudgmentwasrendered.Judgment(1899)56P.231,24Nev.422,aIIirmed.
Blissv.Grayson,1900,59P.888,25Nev.329.AppealAndError415
OneoIseveraldeIendantswhohasIiledamotionIornewtrial,baseduponthejointstatement
oIallthedeIendants,isnotanadverseparty,uponwhomnoticeoIappealmustbeservedon
appealbyhisco-deIendantsIromanorderdenyingtheirmotionIornewtrial,whetherhisseparate
motionissustainedordenied.Judgment(1899)56P.231,24Nev.422,aIIirmed.Bliss
v.Grayson,1900,59P.888,25Nev.329.AppealAndError414
36.----ScopeoIreview
Employer'sobjectionattrialinemployee'sactionIorbreachoIemploymentagreement,that
closingargumentoIemployee'scounselimpliedthatemployer'scounselhelpedemployerIabricate
employer'stestimony,didnotpreserveappellatereviewoIaclaimthatcallingawitness
aliarwasimproper.Ringlev.Bruton,2004,86P.3d1032,120Nev.82.AppealAndError
232(.5)
SupremeCourtcouldnotreviewtrialcourt'sIailuretoawardattorneyIeeswhereithadgranted
motionIornewtrialandruledthatdeIendant'smotionIorcostsandIeeswasthusdeIaulted.
RulesApp.Proc.,Rule3A.Brasciav.Johnson,1989,781P.2d765,105Nev.592.Appeal
AndError177
Contentionthatopposingparty'scounselerredinmakingcertainargumenttojurywouldnot
beconsideredonappealwhereobjectiontosuchargumentwasIirstraisedinmotionIornew
trial.NRCP59(a)(7).SouthernPac.Transp.Co.v.Fitzgerald,1978,577P.2d1234,94Nev.
241,rehearingdenied579P.2d1251,94Nev.245.AppealAndError230
Anexceptiontothegeneralrulethatwhenthereissubstantialevidencetosustainajudgment
-74-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
988
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
itwillnotbedisturbedobtainswhere,uponalltheevidence,itisclearthatawrongconclusion
hasbeenreached.NRCP52(b),59(e).Brechanv.Scott,1976,555P.2d1230,92Nev.
633.AppealAndError1010.1(6)
UnderActs1869,195,subd.6,andId.197,asamendedbyActs1893,p.89,providing
that,whenthenoticeoIanintentiontomoveIoranewtrialdesignatesasagroundtheinsuIIiciency
oItheevidence,itshallbeasuIIicientassignmentoIerrortospeciIythattheverdictor
judgmentisnotsupportedbytheevidenceoriscontrarytotheevidence,thesuIIiciencyoIthe
pleadingsanderrorsappearinginthejudgmentrollmaybeconsideredonanappealIroman
orderdenyinganewtrial.Judgment(1899)56P.231,24Nev.422,aIIirmed.Blissv.
Grayson,1900,59P.888,25Nev.329.AppealAndError867(1)
ThelowercourtisthesolejudgeoIthecredibilityoItestimonygiveninsupportoIamotion
IoranewtrialonthegroundoIsurprise.Sultanv.Sherwood,1884,5P.71,18Nev.454.Appeal
AndError994(3)
37.----Disposition,review
SupremeCourtmayupholdthegrantoIanewtrialeveniIitisjustiIiedonadiIIerentground
thanthetrialcourtIound.Brasciav.Johnson,1989,781P.2d765,105Nev.592.AppealAnd
Error856(5)
SupremeCourtwouldreverselowercourt'sordergrantingmotionIornewtrialwhereappellants
madeprimaIacieshowingonpartialrecordthatlowercourterredingrantingmotionIor
newtrial,andrespondentIailedtodesignateanypertinentportionsoItrialtranscripttorebut
thisshowing.Jaramillov.Blackstone,1985,704P.2d1084,101Nev.316.AppealAndError
1015(1)
Trialcourtordersdeterminingthatstock,whichwassubjectoIoption,hadnorealvalueon
-75-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
989
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
stateddayandreleasingsuretiesonoptionor'ssupersedeasbondwereerroneouswhere,on
previousappeal,SupremeCourthaddeterminedthatoptionorhadbreachedagreementand
hadremandedIordeterminationoImarketvalue,nonewtrialhavingbeengrantedorsought.
NRCP59(a).Brombergv.Finnell,1964,391P.2d31,80Nev.189,certioraridenied85S.Ct.
700,379U.S.988,13L.Ed.2d610.AppealAndError1212(4)
44.Nuncprotuncorders
WiIe'smarriagetohersecondhusbandwasvoidbecauseshewasstillmarriedtoherIirsthusband
whensheparticipatedinamarriageceremonywithsecondhusband,and,sincenuncpro
tuncordercouldonlyreIlectthatwhichwasactuallydone,trialcourtcouldnotmodiIythedivorce
decreeintheIirstmarriagebynuncprotuncentryoIthedivorcedecreetoadaybeIore
thesecondmarriageIorthepurposeoIlegitimizingtheotherwisevoidsecondmarriage;
court'sdecisiontoapprovepetitionIordivorcewasnotequivalenttotheexerciseoIaclerical
dutythatthecourtcouldlateramendatitsdiscretion.McClintockv.McClintock,2006,138
P.3d513,122Nev.842.Divorce163;Marriage11
Civ.Proc.Rules,RULE59,NVSTRCPRULE59
AppellantsincorporatesbyreIerenceallarguments,Iilings,correspondenceetcmadeinthe
trialcourtorsoIarinthisappeal,especiallythoseintheOppositiontoMotiontoDismiss.
` The2008LimitedCourtJurisdictionBenchBookandits2010SupplementsetIortha
numberoIappealableissuesinthismatter,including:
SUMMARYPUNISHMENTSummarypunishmentisonlypermissibleIordirectcontempts(those
actsidentiIiedinNRS22.010committedwithintheimmediateviewandpresenceoIthejudge).
QuestionstoanalyzeIorSummaryPunishmentIsthecontempteligibleIorsummary
punishment??ActoromissionperIormedinpresenceoICourt?Immediatejudicialactionwas
requiredtomaintainorrestoreauthority/justice/dignityoItheCourt?Wasthereanorderthat
spelledoutthedetailsoIcomplianceinclear,speciIicandunambiguoustermssothattheperson
shouldhavereadilyknownexactlywhatdutiesorobligationswereimposedonhim??Isthe
contemptoninwhichthepersonhasomittedperIorminganactwhichisyetinthepoweroIthe
persontoperIorm?WhattypeoIcontemptexists??Civilinwhichpunishmentisappropriate??
-76-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
990
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
CivilinwhichimprisonmenttoIorceperIormanceisappropriate??Criminalinwhichadjudication
oIamisdemeanorisappropriate?Whatisthesentenceimposed??Imprisonmentincountyjail
nottoexceed25days?Finenottoexceed$500(payabletocounty/citytreasurer)?Bothabove
mentionedIineandimprisonment?IIcivil,expenses,includingattorneyIees,oIinjuredpartyiIthe
contemptinvolvesdisobediencetoalawIulorderorwrit?IsthecontemptonethatinvolvesIailure
todoanactwhichisyetinthepoweroIthepersontoperIorm?IIso,isimprisonmentinthecounty
jailnecessaryorappropriatetoIorcethepersontocomplywiththeact??IsthecontemptIailureto
appearortestiIybeIoreagrandjury?IIso,imprisonmentmustceasewhenthegrandjuryisno
longerempanelled.Haveyoucompletedthewrittenorder?(MusthaveawrittenorderIiled)?
RecitestheIactsconstitutingthecontemptintheimmediateviewandpresenceoIthecourtor
judge;?FindsthepersonguiltyoIthecontempt;and?PrescribesthepunishmentIorthecontemp
CONCLUSION
BasedupontheIoregoingtheundersignedrespectIullyrequeststhatthisCourtvacate,
overturn,orotherwisesetasidetheunderlyingJudgmentandOrderoIConvictioninthismatter
(RMC11CR22176).AppellantDeclaresunderpenaltyoIperjury,pursuanttoNRS53.045,thatthe
assertionsinthisdocumentaretrueandcorrect.
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030
TheundersigneddoesherebyaIIirmthattheprecedingdocumentdoesnotcontainthesocial
securitynumberoIanyperson.

Dated:March26,2012
/S/ZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin,Appellant
AttorneyIorProSeAppellantdeniedSixthAmendmentRightToCounsel
-77-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
991
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
PursuanttoNRCP5(b),IcertiIythatIservedacopyoItheIoregoingdocumentuponthe
IollowingpartybyelectronicallyIilingonthisdateandthereIoreservinguponregisteredeIiler:
PamelaRoberts,Esq.
RenoCityAttorney'sOIIice-CriminalDivison
P.O.Box1900Reno,NV89505
Tel:775-334-2050
Fax:775-334-2420
robertspreno.gov
AttorneyIorCityoIReno
DatethisMarch26,2012:
/S/ZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin,Appellant
-78-
MOTIONFORNEWTRIAL,ORPLEDINTHEALTERNATIVE,MOTIONTOALTERORAMEND
992
F I L E D
Electronically
03-27-2012:02:55:59 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2851733
993
994
995
996

You might also like