Mosley, Curtas battle over ethics down to the wire

Kim Smith

Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2002 | 9:44 a.m.

The acrimonious battle for District Court Department 14 continued right up until the last minute with District Judge Donald Mosley calling challenger John Curtas a liar and Curtas accusing Mosley of "stifling" his First Amendment rights.

Last week Mosley filed a complaint with the state Judicial Discipline Commission alleging Curtas violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

Mosley said Curtas knowingly made false statements about Mosley's record while on "Face to Face With Jon Ralston" on Las Vegas ONE on Oct. 8.

On Monday, the committee ruled that Curtas' facts were inaccurate in two of four instances cited by Mosley.

However, the commission's Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Elections Practices decided Curtas should not be reprimanded because he "did not knowingly misrepresent" the facts.

"I'm disappointed, but not surprised," Mosley said. "My thinking was that an attorney with his experience, or at least the experience he has been touting, would be able to read the record and understand the facts, but he's being allowed to slide this time."

Curtas said he feels he has been vindicated by the committee.

"Judge Mosley was once again trying to cover up his ethical violations and stifle my First Amendment rights," Curtas said. "As matter of fact and a matter of law, he has been found to be an unethical judge."

Curtas has reminded voters again and again that Mosley was found guilty of violating seven judicial canons of ethics in March. Mosley is in the process of appealing the decision and maintains the charges stem from a particularly nasty custody battle.

Curtas said the errors he made while on the Ralston show were inconsequential.

Curtas alleged Mosley met numerous times with a criminal defendant in his chambers without a prosecutor present, Mosley said.

The state's commission on judicial conduct actually found that Mosley violated a judicial canon by meeting with the defendant's attorney without a prosecutor being present.

Mosley said Curtas further misled voters by alleging Mosley was reversed six times in six weeks without explaining the circumstances.

Actually, several judges were reversed because of a recent Nevada Supreme Court decision that states all convicted defendants must be present during certain appellate hearings, Mosley said.