Amicus brief filed in the RJ case on behalf of the ACLU, the Nevada Press Association, the First Amendment Lawyers Association, and the Center for American Liberty. Some pretty vicious barbs in there.
“Once the press managed to squeeze through the door, it walked into a
hellscape adorned with a Constitutionally obscene horror – a prior restraint.” Randazza is unhinged in the best way possible
NVSC do the right thing and put this citation in your ruling and publish it so that we can cite to it as binding authority. It will really tie Nevada jurisprudence together.
WOW, somebody’s a soothsayer here, out saying sooths. Benchslap has already been filed:
“Petitioners argue that the district court manifestly abused its
discretion in several respects, including by issuing an unconstitutional prior
restraint and violating its right of access to the court. We agree.”
“But because this issue has statewide implications, an opinion further elucidating our decision in this matter will be forthcoming.” That’s going to be an interesting read.
Not a Judge Peterson fan but you got to admit she is not afraid to make a decision-hard decisions. Unpopular decisions. Never takes the easy way out. Takes on tough cases. This is what we want judges to do. Not afraid of adverse publicity.
…what? Are you saying we want judges to make unconstitutional rulings because they’re unpopular decisions? What’s your thesis here, son? Tell Pappy what you’re trying to say.
I disagree with you; however I will say that you never have to doubt that she is very sure that she is right (even when she is very wrong). I have taken her in those moments to just trying to slow and calm her down into bite-sized pieces. Sometimes if you can show her that she is dead wrong she will reverse course
I knew one of the sitting judges who tried to help JP when she took the bench and was rebuffed that no judge of the same level was going to tell her what to do.
Guest
Anonymous
January 28, 2026 9:49 am
A week or so ago, I pointed out the pattern/template the RJ follows when reporting on itself. They followed it closely, but not perfectly, again today.
And naturally it is the lead front page story in the paper today. Luckily there’s nothing else going on so a petty dispute with the Judge is likely the most important thing in the world. I obviously think 1A is important, i just find the RJ’s need to make themselves the story and center of attention is a bit obnoxious.
Freedom of the press is f-ing important. Bravo RJ and NV Supremes. If people would simply follow the black letter law when dealing with the RJ, then the RJ wouldn’t have to report on itself.
Jessica Peterson above the fold again, tomorrow morning.
Guest
Anonymous
January 28, 2026 10:02 am
Ed. this comment has been removed. If you want to repost it, please do so in the special post we made for discussing legal aspects of current events, ICE, Minnesota, etc. here
Law Dog – For the sake of decorum, it would be helpful to zap all posts concerning ICE, Trump or whomever, regardless of which side the poster is on. These posts are partisan points of view but often are only offered as baiting a nasty reply.
Discussion of law, fine and welcome.
As an outside observer, I was very much entertained by the dunking invective in the amicus curaie briefing, re: prior restraint. The invective, however, is so aggressive that it risks becoming counter productive. It’s unlikely the Court will push back on it, but it also wouldn’t be surprising. Sometimes, when there really is no doubt on the outcome, a restrained tone is most effective. Even where a party is the overwhelming favorite, there are often peripheral issues which are not as clean, and of course winning is more than a ruling in a parties favor, it is how the remedy is crafted. This kind of over-the-top tone, while fun to read, compromises both for an otherwise very sympathetic party (the press).
Recently, I was waiting for my case to be called watching another matter before the Court. Counsel A fucked up ethically, quite badly. The Court lowered the boom, it was difficult to watch. Counsel B didn’t say a word during the hearing. Later, I looked up the briefing, and unsurprisingly, Counsel B had used the restrained tone I’m talking about. That made it much, much worse for Counsel A than if Counsel B had dunked on Counsel A in briefing with alliterations and amplifying adjectives. Sometimes, less is more. This LVRJ Writ is/was one of those times.
Oh, my delicate little flower, should I get you a fan and some smelling salts? Or are your delicate sensibilities too shocked for such gentle ministrations?
This is almost always the right approach because if you go scorched earth on someone, it is very possible that the court will just tune you out or write you off as some over the top opposing counsel.
Guest
Anonymous
January 28, 2026 6:49 pm
We have some very very decent judges. The next generation of Walls and Togliattis. And Bell. Except there is one judge who thinks she’s Bell because she clerked for him. But she’s is royally disliked by the speciality teams which appear in front of her. People are praying she’ll become chief judge just so someone else gets the homicide calendar.
Both Bells were very good judges (in very different ways). So who thinks she is Bell?
Guest
Anonymous
January 28, 2026 6:54 pm
Dear judges — please start your calendars on time. Please. Please.
And if you can’t, please just move your calendars to a later time.
And to the judges who take the bench on time — or even early — and whiz through calendars, please cut us some slack. We have multiple departments we’re bouncing between.
Please. No one is trying to be disrespectful. We are all just doing our best. It’s awful getting to court after waiting in one department only to be told your case got passed to another day.
Review journal article on chasing horse today…
If a prosecutor told the jury outright that a witness was “credible” and “told the truth,” is that improper vouching?
However, it happens often. A contemporaneous objection and a curative instruction would suffice. With no contemporaneous instruction it’s probably not an appealable issue.
Amicus brief filed in the RJ case on behalf of the ACLU, the Nevada Press Association, the First Amendment Lawyers Association, and the Center for American Liberty. Some pretty vicious barbs in there.
Case number?
Case is 92008
“Once the press managed to squeeze through the door, it walked into a
hellscape adorned with a Constitutionally obscene horror – a prior restraint.” Randazza is unhinged in the best way possible
Please tell me Randazza quoted noted free speech scholar Walter Sobchak
HE DID!!!!
(citing SOBCHAK, W., THE BIG LEBOWSKI, 1998) (“For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!”)
NVSC do the right thing and put this citation in your ruling and publish it so that we can cite to it as binding authority. It will really tie Nevada jurisprudence together.
See, e.g, Woo v. Rug, 276 Cal. Rptr. 3d, 694, 701 (2021).
The Chinaman is not the issue on this writ!
Whoever disliked this comment is clearly not a Lebowski fan. And also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
Of course, he did.
Judge Peterson has badly stepped in it here. Hopefully the Nevada Supreme Court takes up the case expeditiously and issues a swift benchslap.
Obviously, you’re not a golfer.
WOW, somebody’s a soothsayer here, out saying sooths. Benchslap has already been filed:
“Petitioners argue that the district court manifestly abused its
discretion in several respects, including by issuing an unconstitutional prior
restraint and violating its right of access to the court. We agree.”
“But because this issue has statewide implications, an opinion further elucidating our decision in this matter will be forthcoming.” That’s going to be an interesting read.
“an opinion further elucidating our decision in this matter will be forthcoming.”
So you’re telling me that there’s still a chance Nevada incorporates the Sobchak Doctrine.
Damn, that was fast.
I am not ashamed to say that I have a legal crush on Maggie McLetchie and her 1st Amendment work.
Same.
Not a Judge Peterson fan but you got to admit she is not afraid to make a decision-hard decisions. Unpopular decisions. Never takes the easy way out. Takes on tough cases. This is what we want judges to do. Not afraid of adverse publicity.
…what? Are you saying we want judges to make unconstitutional rulings because they’re unpopular decisions? What’s your thesis here, son? Tell Pappy what you’re trying to say.
That’s what she said
Sadly, she makes things way more complicated than they need to be. Someone should check on her. Seriously.
I disagree with you; however I will say that you never have to doubt that she is very sure that she is right (even when she is very wrong). I have taken her in those moments to just trying to slow and calm her down into bite-sized pieces. Sometimes if you can show her that she is dead wrong she will reverse course
I knew one of the sitting judges who tried to help JP when she took the bench and was rebuffed that no judge of the same level was going to tell her what to do.
A week or so ago, I pointed out the pattern/template the RJ follows when reporting on itself. They followed it closely, but not perfectly, again today.
And naturally it is the lead front page story in the paper today. Luckily there’s nothing else going on so a petty dispute with the Judge is likely the most important thing in the world. I obviously think 1A is important, i just find the RJ’s need to make themselves the story and center of attention is a bit obnoxious.
See also Rossi Ralenkotter (2018).
Freedom of the press is f-ing important. Bravo RJ and NV Supremes. If people would simply follow the black letter law when dealing with the RJ, then the RJ wouldn’t have to report on itself.
Jessica Peterson above the fold again, tomorrow morning.
Ed. this comment has been removed. If you want to repost it, please do so in the special post we made for discussing legal aspects of current events, ICE, Minnesota, etc. here
Law Dog – For the sake of decorum, it would be helpful to zap all posts concerning ICE, Trump or whomever, regardless of which side the poster is on. These posts are partisan points of view but often are only offered as baiting a nasty reply.
Discussion of law, fine and welcome.
I like this method of THWACKAGE. Very civilized.
As an outside observer, I was very much entertained by the dunking invective in the amicus curaie briefing, re: prior restraint. The invective, however, is so aggressive that it risks becoming counter productive. It’s unlikely the Court will push back on it, but it also wouldn’t be surprising. Sometimes, when there really is no doubt on the outcome, a restrained tone is most effective. Even where a party is the overwhelming favorite, there are often peripheral issues which are not as clean, and of course winning is more than a ruling in a parties favor, it is how the remedy is crafted. This kind of over-the-top tone, while fun to read, compromises both for an otherwise very sympathetic party (the press).
Recently, I was waiting for my case to be called watching another matter before the Court. Counsel A fucked up ethically, quite badly. The Court lowered the boom, it was difficult to watch. Counsel B didn’t say a word during the hearing. Later, I looked up the briefing, and unsurprisingly, Counsel B had used the restrained tone I’m talking about. That made it much, much worse for Counsel A than if Counsel B had dunked on Counsel A in briefing with alliterations and amplifying adjectives. Sometimes, less is more. This LVRJ Writ is/was one of those times.
Oh, my delicate little flower, should I get you a fan and some smelling salts? Or are your delicate sensibilities too shocked for such gentle ministrations?
This is almost always the right approach because if you go scorched earth on someone, it is very possible that the court will just tune you out or write you off as some over the top opposing counsel.
We have some very very decent judges. The next generation of Walls and Togliattis. And Bell. Except there is one judge who thinks she’s Bell because she clerked for him. But she’s is royally disliked by the speciality teams which appear in front of her. People are praying she’ll become chief judge just so someone else gets the homicide calendar.
“homicide calendar”–another reason I’m so very glad I don’t practice criminal law.
Both Bells were very good judges (in very different ways). So who thinks she is Bell?
Dear judges — please start your calendars on time. Please. Please.
And if you can’t, please just move your calendars to a later time.
And to the judges who take the bench on time — or even early — and whiz through calendars, please cut us some slack. We have multiple departments we’re bouncing between.
Please. No one is trying to be disrespectful. We are all just doing our best. It’s awful getting to court after waiting in one department only to be told your case got passed to another day.
Can 25 just move her calendar to an hour later?
Review journal article on chasing horse today…
If a prosecutor told the jury outright that a witness was “credible” and “told the truth,” is that improper vouching?
Yep. Browning v. State, 120 Nev. 347, 91 P.3d 39 (2004).
However, it happens often. A contemporaneous objection and a curative instruction would suffice. With no contemporaneous instruction it’s probably not an appealable issue.