From RJ: “Henderson Councilwoman Carrie Cox was indicted Wednesday on a felony charge after authorities accused her of hiding behind a curtain and illegally recording a conversation involving a fellow councilwoman.”
10:39 AM-The newspaper article is not very clear. Nor is the law regarding when you can record conversations and when you can not. One party can not record a phone conversation without the other parties consent. Recording conversations in person secretly is problematic. It is assumed she was hiding and recording a private conversation not public which can be a problem because you are not a party to the conversation. Very weird to say the least.
4:22 pm. The law is quite clear about in person recordings? This is what I thought until I saw the broadcast and the article. Expectation of privacy is vague. For a criminal prosecution the law must precisely proscribe what is prohibited not subject to the prosecutor defining it. This is not clear at all.
It is now advisable that you seek permission to record conversations in person to protect yourself. Private and insurance investigators do this all the time–they secretly record conversations when interviewing in person and don’t tell and don’t ask for permission. Is this permissible with the DA’s approach? The only thing which is clear is that you can’t record telephone conversations without both parties consent. Now this is being expanded to surreptitious recording of conversations outside the telephone. I suppose placing a bug in a home or office would violate the statute but someone recording on their person is a stretch.
Re: Recording
Was there an expectation of privacy?
If a one to one telephone conversation, yes. The statute covers it.
But I think not here. It was in a public building at a retirement party. The conversation recorded was, I believe between three persons. The conversation could be heard by anyone walking or standing nearby.
Could be wrong, but I don’t think the law concerns expectation of privacy. The law seems to be about recording conversations without appropriate consent.
Curious how the expectation of privacy interplays with the one-party consent requiring that the recorder be a party to the conversation. If two of my neighbors stand in my driveway and talk and my Ring camera records their conversation I’ve got to believe I’ve done nothing wrong. In this case if the fraudster and the people she were communicating with were standing off in a corner of a party and Cox snuck in behind them behind a curtain it would be a very close call.
Guest
Anonymous
November 6, 2025 12:27 pm
Speaking of tape recording, I have encountered an increasing number of clients who attempt to tape record telephonic consultations.
It is only ok if you consent. So many of clients are from elsewhere. When I practiced in Arizona, clients used to try to ensnare their own attorney or opposing counsel. You had to be very careful. So few meetings are in person. I always announce that I am not giving my permission to record a conversation whether in person or on the phone. It makes folks uptight but you have to do this to protect yourself. You have to always think have I said something that I would regret if it were repeated or recorded.
I am thinking about recording all my meetings from now on. I think it is a pretty good thing to have a record like that. Really comes in handy if someone tries to claim you said something you didn’t. There is a good reason that huge companies record every single call and it isn’t to improve their customer service like they claim.
2:10 PM-Recording all meetings from now? Meetings with clients, opposing parties and counsel? Which are you referring to? If you are a party or counsel on behalf of a party can you record meetings without permission. I think the law on this unclear. The matter involving the Henderson Councilwoman involved her secretly recording a conversation where she was not a party. Sounds like we need a thread on this.
2:10 here, doesn’t have to be without permission. Just tell the client you record all meetings to provide the utmost customer service.
Guest
Anonymous
November 6, 2025 1:45 pm
Why don’t the big billboard plaintiffs’ firms go after health insurance companies with the same fervor they bring to car crash insurance cases? Is it because the cases are more complex? Less lucrative? Or are they simply reluctant to step outside their comfort zone? What’s going on here?
More complex. Those are insurance bad faith cases, they take more work and time (and can have big payouts). There’s good firms out there that do this work.
Billboard attorneys have to keep the settlements rolling to fund the marketing, so car accidents get settled quick so they can move onto the next one.
There was a big judgment a couple of years ago regarding a guy who was denied the type of radiation treatment recommended by his doctor, instead receiving a different treatment that was far more painful. The insurance company got smacked hard, and deserved every penny of it. I agree that there should be more of these cases. The behavior of these companies is absurd and borderline criminal. Some guy in Pakistan looks at the file for twenty seconds and overrules the treating physician. Should not be allowed.
Which firms are doing this work on the plaintiffs’ side?
Guest
Anonymous
November 6, 2025 3:34 pm
“You’re in for a wild ride.”
The facts here are so outrageous that only real life and law school hypotheticals produce a fact pattern like this.
At the center of the storm is Devyn Michaels — a porn star. Devyn has two minor children with the now-beheaded Johnathon Willette. Devyn, however, is married to Johnathon’s son, Deviere Willette, the two having wed on March 30, 2022. Devyn and Deviere have been having sex since he was but a teenage lad.
Just months before the beheading, Johnathon was granted custody of the minor children. Devyn then moves in with Johnathon shortly before the killing — all while still legally married to his son. The triangle is as messy as it sounds.
Then, on August 7, 2023, Devyn reports that Johnathon forced her to perform oral sex. What follows is the grisly climax: Devyn decapitates Johnathon. His head is never recovered; reportedly, Devyn disposed of it through Republic Services — and to this day, the head has not been located.
Oh, how I wish I was called for jury duty for this case.
Looking forward to seeing how Draskovich and Horvath point the finger at Deviere.
A-20-813945-C | Allie Mead, Plaintiff(s) vs. General Motors, LLC, Defendant(s)
Guest
Anonymous
November 7, 2025 8:15 am
Just got an ECF notification that the NV USDC will be closed Monday due to the ongoing shutdown. I don’t recall them taking this step in connection with prior shutdowns, but I could be mistaken. Thoughts on how long the court closure will last, how it will impact case deadlines, and whether ECF filing will be impacted in any material way?
Re Carrie Cox: I could not figure out what she was accused of doing. Did she plant a bug or tape recorder?
From RJ: “Henderson Councilwoman Carrie Cox was indicted Wednesday on a felony charge after authorities accused her of hiding behind a curtain and illegally recording a conversation involving a fellow councilwoman.”
When does the Henderson circus stop performing?
A new Chief of Police every year or so, always conflict in the City government, Council and staff.
Wasn’t Shauna Hughes there for years? What happened?
What kind of nutcase does that?
10:39 AM-The newspaper article is not very clear. Nor is the law regarding when you can record conversations and when you can not. One party can not record a phone conversation without the other parties consent. Recording conversations in person secretly is problematic. It is assumed she was hiding and recording a private conversation not public which can be a problem because you are not a party to the conversation. Very weird to say the least.
Henderson is a weird place. Almost as weird as Boulder City. And for the same reason.
In the midnight hour, they cried Mo, Mo, Mo.
As a “Mo” I laughed, 12:22 PM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSpOjj4YD8c&t=3s
The law is actually quite clear. In person recordings require the consent of one party, phone calls require the consent of all parties.
4:22 pm. The law is quite clear about in person recordings? This is what I thought until I saw the broadcast and the article. Expectation of privacy is vague. For a criminal prosecution the law must precisely proscribe what is prohibited not subject to the prosecutor defining it. This is not clear at all.
It is now advisable that you seek permission to record conversations in person to protect yourself. Private and insurance investigators do this all the time–they secretly record conversations when interviewing in person and don’t tell and don’t ask for permission. Is this permissible with the DA’s approach? The only thing which is clear is that you can’t record telephone conversations without both parties consent. Now this is being expanded to surreptitious recording of conversations outside the telephone. I suppose placing a bug in a home or office would violate the statute but someone recording on their person is a stretch.
She wasn’t a party to the conversation.
Re: Recording
Was there an expectation of privacy?
If a one to one telephone conversation, yes. The statute covers it.
But I think not here. It was in a public building at a retirement party. The conversation recorded was, I believe between three persons. The conversation could be heard by anyone walking or standing nearby.
Could be wrong, but I don’t think the law concerns expectation of privacy. The law seems to be about recording conversations without appropriate consent.
Curious how the expectation of privacy interplays with the one-party consent requiring that the recorder be a party to the conversation. If two of my neighbors stand in my driveway and talk and my Ring camera records their conversation I’ve got to believe I’ve done nothing wrong. In this case if the fraudster and the people she were communicating with were standing off in a corner of a party and Cox snuck in behind them behind a curtain it would be a very close call.
Speaking of tape recording, I have encountered an increasing number of clients who attempt to tape record telephonic consultations.
I had an opposing attorney who recorded a meet and confer phone call without consent.
They were somewhat distraught when they realized they committed a felony.
Reddit B-RB? Izzat you?
It is only ok if you consent. So many of clients are from elsewhere. When I practiced in Arizona, clients used to try to ensnare their own attorney or opposing counsel. You had to be very careful. So few meetings are in person. I always announce that I am not giving my permission to record a conversation whether in person or on the phone. It makes folks uptight but you have to do this to protect yourself. You have to always think have I said something that I would regret if it were repeated or recorded.
I am thinking about recording all my meetings from now on. I think it is a pretty good thing to have a record like that. Really comes in handy if someone tries to claim you said something you didn’t. There is a good reason that huge companies record every single call and it isn’t to improve their customer service like they claim.
2:10 PM-Recording all meetings from now? Meetings with clients, opposing parties and counsel? Which are you referring to? If you are a party or counsel on behalf of a party can you record meetings without permission. I think the law on this unclear. The matter involving the Henderson Councilwoman involved her secretly recording a conversation where she was not a party. Sounds like we need a thread on this.
2:10 here, doesn’t have to be without permission. Just tell the client you record all meetings to provide the utmost customer service.
Why don’t the big billboard plaintiffs’ firms go after health insurance companies with the same fervor they bring to car crash insurance cases? Is it because the cases are more complex? Less lucrative? Or are they simply reluctant to step outside their comfort zone? What’s going on here?
The “big billboard plaintiffs’ firms” are not lawyers… they are marketing companies posing as lawyers
More complex. Those are insurance bad faith cases, they take more work and time (and can have big payouts). There’s good firms out there that do this work.
Billboard attorneys have to keep the settlements rolling to fund the marketing, so car accidents get settled quick so they can move onto the next one.
There was a big judgment a couple of years ago regarding a guy who was denied the type of radiation treatment recommended by his doctor, instead receiving a different treatment that was far more painful. The insurance company got smacked hard, and deserved every penny of it. I agree that there should be more of these cases. The behavior of these companies is absurd and borderline criminal. Some guy in Pakistan looks at the file for twenty seconds and overrules the treating physician. Should not be allowed.
Which firms are doing this work on the plaintiffs’ side?
“You’re in for a wild ride.”
The facts here are so outrageous that only real life and law school hypotheticals produce a fact pattern like this.
At the center of the storm is Devyn Michaels — a porn star. Devyn has two minor children with the now-beheaded Johnathon Willette. Devyn, however, is married to Johnathon’s son, Deviere Willette, the two having wed on March 30, 2022. Devyn and Deviere have been having sex since he was but a teenage lad.
Just months before the beheading, Johnathon was granted custody of the minor children. Devyn then moves in with Johnathon shortly before the killing — all while still legally married to his son. The triangle is as messy as it sounds.
Then, on August 7, 2023, Devyn reports that Johnathon forced her to perform oral sex. What follows is the grisly climax: Devyn decapitates Johnathon. His head is never recovered; reportedly, Devyn disposed of it through Republic Services — and to this day, the head has not been located.
Oh, how I wish I was called for jury duty for this case.
Looking forward to seeing how Draskovich and Horvath point the finger at Deviere.
thanks for the summary. that is wild!
How did Draskovich get this case. Who is paying his fee? Is he Court Appointed??
Huh. I usually skip over the backstory.
great tea
great summary, so much easier to follow than newspaper account
Eglet gave closing arguments in products liability trial today. Anyone catch it?
Last time I heard him speak he was leaning on a cane and had a very weak voice in court.
Case number??
A-20-813945-C | Allie Mead, Plaintiff(s) vs. General Motors, LLC, Defendant(s)
Just got an ECF notification that the NV USDC will be closed Monday due to the ongoing shutdown. I don’t recall them taking this step in connection with prior shutdowns, but I could be mistaken. Thoughts on how long the court closure will last, how it will impact case deadlines, and whether ECF filing will be impacted in any material way?