Decision in Mosley case could affect many judges

Kim Smith

Monday, March 4, 2002 | 10:54 a.m.

District Judge Donald Mosley is not the first Clark County judge to face off with the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, but his case could be the first to have wide-reaching effects, legal experts said.

If Mosley is found guilty of any of the 10 ethics violations of which he is accused, it could change the way Clark County judges perform certain parts of their jobs.

The commission, which is made up of lay people, judges and attorneys appointed by the governor, Nevada Supreme Court and state bar, began deliberating Thursday. Once a decision is made, the panel has 20 days to make it public.

"Their decision is very important," District Judge Michael Cherry said. "Every issue they raised with Don could affect us." Mosley is accused of using his judicial stationery to write to his son's principals and of releasing a criminal defendant from jail at the request of a family friend.

In addition, Mosley is accused of meeting with a criminal defendant and his attorney numerous times without a prosecutor being present. Mosley also failed to recuse himself from the man's criminal case until the morning the defendant testified on his behalf at a child custody hearing.

If found guilty of ethics violations, Mosley could be sanctioned in any number of ways, including being removed from office.

Cherry said it would also make Clark County judges look at the way they recuse themselves, write letters and release prisoners, because Mosley's actions were not that unusual in Southern Nevada.

Three district judges, including Cherry, and one retired judge testified during Mosley's weeklong hearing that Mosley's action in releasing the prisoner was common in the courthouse.

In addition, Mosley's attorneys noted during his weeklong hearing that the judicial canons do not address the timing of recusals, nor do they ban all one-sided, or ex parte, communications between judges and attorneys.

The attorneys also noted that judges should be able to use their letterhead for personal matters if they feel it will not exert influence.

The Mosley case is being watched more closely than past cases in which the commission disciplined judges, because in the past cases, the circumstances were unique and did not have the potential to affect other judges, experts said.

Former Family Court District Judge Fran Fine was fined $5,000 in 1995 for engaging in ex parte communications in a divorce case. Three years later she was removed from office after commission members determined that she hadn't stopped the practice and was trying to exert her influence in a case.

The commission also removed North Las Vegas Municipal Court Judge Gary Davis in December 1995. They found that he borrowed money from court employees, used employees to run personal errands, played offensive music to jail prisoners, and sold antiques out of his courthouse.

The Mosley case also has judges looking for firmer guidance.

Chief District Judge Mark Gibbons said he would like the judicial canons to be more "specifically defined." He noted that while judges are required to take two hours of ethics courses per year, the classes typically address only issues confronted by attorneys.

"Judges love to have clearly defined standards on what is permissible and what is not," Gibbons said. "If they define them for us, we'll follow them, whether we disagree or not."