Mosley: Charges should be dismissed

Thursday, May 4, 2000 | 10:50 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- District Judge Donald Mosley says charges that he misused his office to grant judicial favors should be dismissed because they are untrue and because the complaint against him is improper and violates his constitutional rights.

Mosley, through his Las Vegas lawyer, Neil Galatz, filed his answer Wednesday to the allegations that he gave favored treatment in court cases to those who supported him in his child-custody battle and that he used official stationery in a personal matter to influence the outcome.

The state Judicial Discipline Commission now has 60 days in which to schedule a public hearing for Mosley, who has been a District Court judge for 16 years and could lose his job if the allegations are proven true.

Mosley and his former girlfriend were involved in a bitter custody battle over their son. The judge said he eventually won a District Court order giving him custody. That custody battle sparked the judicial complaint filed against him.

One serious allegation is that Mosley had improper "ex parte" conversations with attorney Catherine Ann Woolf, who represented Joseph McLaughlin, who at the time was awaiting sentencing by Mosley. The complaint, filed in March, said Woolf and Mosley met Aug. 14, 1997, and they talked about the potential testimony McLaughlin and his wife could provide for Mosley in the custody dispute.

Mosley said the only matter discussed was the custody case and there was no talk about the McLaughlin sentencing. In fact, Woolf approached the judge with the McLaughlin testimony in an effort to get Mosley off the case because he had a reputation for harsh sentencing, the judge said.

Seven days later there was another meeting between Mosley and Woolf with McLaughlin present this time in the offices of Las Vegas attorney Carl Lovell, who represented the judge in the custody battle. There were more conversations about the potential testimony that McLaughlin and his wife could provide to help Mosley who was still sitting on the McLaughlin criminal case.

Mosley, through his attorney Galatz, said the only mention of the criminal case came when it was noted Mosley would probably have to step aside in the McLaughlin case if either of the McLaughlins testified in the custody case.

Galatz said the only testimony claiming that the McLaughlin criminal case was discussed in that meeting came from McLaughlin himself, who was a "convicted felon."

"McLaughlin's lack of credibility is further illustrated by his own admission he violated the District Court's sequestration order when he testified in the custody hearing," Galatz said.

Everybody should have known, Galatz said, that the judge's recusal "in the sentencing of McLaughlin was inevitable if Mr. or Mrs. McLaughlin testified in respondent's (Mosley's) custody matter."

Mosley stepped aside, and another judge sentenced McLaughlin but not before McLaughlin had testified in the custody hearing.

The response filed Wednesday by Mosley said he had no chance in open court to step aside in the McLaughlin case before the custody hearing. And he said an order that disqualified him from the McLaughlin case was not filed in time because of "circumstances beyond anyone's control."

Mosley admits that after McLaughlin was sentenced to prison he talked with prison authorities about the safety of McLaughlin. He interceded with the prison to get McLaughlin transferred because he was in the same prison as a co-defendant against whom he had testified.

Mosley said that conversation does not violate the rules of judicial conduct.

The judge also denied he interceded on behalf of Mrs. McLaughlin to get her car back from a third party after the sentencing.

In another count, Mosley is charged with doing a favor for a friend who had testified in his behalf in the custody case. The judge was accused of having ex-parte conversations with Barbara Orcutt, a long-time friend, concerning the arrest and release of Robert D'Amore, who had been picked up on a bench warrant.

Mosley, according to the complaint, ordered the release of D'Amore on his own recognizance, even through Mosley was not the presiding judge. Mosley said in his answer he contacted the other judge about freeing the criminal suspect. And the other judge raised no objections.

Mosley admitted he ordered the release of the suspect without conferring with the district attorney's office, but he added that is not a necessary requirement.

Two other charges against Mosley accuse him of using his judicial stationery to write letters to school officials about his son and making statements about the child's mother. The judge admitted he wrote the letters on court stationery but that the school officials already knew he was a judge. He said there was no intent to influence the school officials.

The letters went to Frank Cooper, the principal of Howard Wasden Elementary School, and the other to Diane Reitz, principal of the same school in February 1998.

Galatz said the canon governing the use of official stationery is "unconstitutionally vague and is, therefore, invalid as purportedly applied herein" in the complaint.

In addition, Galatz said there is an imbalance on the Judicial Discipline Commission with the membership unfairly weighted to represent judges and citizens from Northern Nevada, "leaving judges and citizens of Southern Nevada under-represented."

Due-process rights are also violated, Galatz said, because the staff, investigators and prosecutors of the discipline commission have been merged and intermingled. There is no independence on the part of the commission because of this intermingling of employees.

Reno attorney Mary Boetsch, who was chairwoman of the state Ethics Commission, was hired as a special prosecutor in this case. If the commission finds Mosley guilty of the allegations, the discipline could range from a reprimand up to removal from office.