Whitehead v. Nevada Com'n on Judicial Discipline

• Decision Date: 24 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. 24598,24598
• Citation: 893 P.2d 866,111 Nev. 70
• Parties: In re Petition for a Writ of Prohibition or in the Alternative For a Writ of Mandamus. The Honorable Jerry Carr WHITEHEAD, Petitioner, v. NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 866

893 P.2d 866

111 Nev. 70

In re Petition for a Writ of Prohibition or in the Alternative For a Writ of Mandamus The Honorable Jerry Carr WHITEHEAD, Petitioner, v. NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, Respondent.

No. 24598.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Feb. 24, 1995.

Ohlson & Springgate, Hamilton & Lynch, Reno, Gentile and Porter, Laura Wightman FitzSimmons, Las Vegas, for petitioner.

Leonard I. Gang, Carson City, for respondent. ²

Peter Alpert, Las Vegas, Gerald Stern, New York City, for amicus curiae Ass'n of Disciplinary Counsel.

Leo Puccinelli, Elko, for amicus curiae Ad Hoc Committee for the Preservation of an Independent Judiciary.

Geoffrey Giles, Reno, for amicus curiae American Judicature Society.

                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                SYLLABUS BY THE COURT ..................................................... 872
                PREFACE ................................................................... 872
                PART I:     CONFIDENTIALITY ............................................... 884
                PART II:    THE REAL ISSUES ............................................... 898
                            A.    THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITION ....................... 898
                            B.    UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURES AND EXPANSION OF MATTERS AT ISSUE .. 899
                            C.    FURTHER ESCALATING EVENTS AND ACCUSATIONS ............... 900
                            D.    THE "WAR" IN NEVADA AND THE CRISIS IN PUBLIC CONFIDENCE . 901
                            E.    THE THREAT TO A FAIR, IMPARTIAL, AND INDEPENDENT
                                    JUDICIARY ............................................. 902
                            F.    UNIFORM PROCEDURES ...................................... 903
                PART III:   THE COMMISSION'S AD HOC APPROACH .............................. 904
                            A.    OBJECTIONS OF COUNSEL ................................... 904
                            B.    JUDGE D ................................................. 905
                            C.    JUDGE STRINGFIELD ....................................... 909
                            D.    CONCLUSION .............................................. 909
                PART IV:    JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE .................................... 912
                            A.    THE "COMPLAINT SEEKING DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE."  914
                                  1.    THE CAMPBELL COMPLAINT IS NOT MADE UNDER OATH, AS
                                          REQUIRED BY ARJD 12(1) .......................... 915
                                  2.    THE CAMPBELL COMPLAINT IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ARJD
                                          12(2) ........................................... 915
                                  3.    THE COMMISSION RULES DO NOT PERMIT THE COMMISSION
                                          THROUGH COUNSEL, TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS BY
                                          FILING ITS OWN INITIATING COMPLAINT ............. 916
                                  4.    THE COMMISSION MAY NOT PROCEED TO A PROBABLE CAUSE
                                          HEARING ON THE BASIS OF THE CAMPBELL
                                          INVESTIGATION AND COMPLAINT BECAUSE CAMPBELL WAS
                                          CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED FROM ACTING ....... 920
                                  5.    THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS OF
                                          MISCONDUCT ...................................... 920
                                  6.    CONCLUSION ........................................ 923
                            B.    REMAINING PROCEDURAL CONCERNS ........................... 924
                                  1.    THE PROPER SCOPE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
                                          PRIOR TO A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING ............... 924
                                  2.    THE RESPONDENT JUDGE'S RIGHT TO INSPECTION UNDER
                                          ARJD 14(5) ...................................... 927
                                  3.    THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S INQUIRY AT A
                                          PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING .......................... 928
                                  4.    WHETHER PETITIONER COULD RECEIVE DUE PROCESS IN
                                          ANY FUTURE PROCEEDING, IN LIGHT OF THE BREACHES
                                          OF CONFIDENTIALITY .............................. 928
                PART V:     PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE MEMBERS OF THE
                              COMMISSION .................................................. 930
                            A.    THE HONORABLE NANCY BECKER .............................. 930
                            B.    CHAIRMAN GUY SHIPLER .................................... 930
                            C.    THE REMAINING COMMISSION MEMBERS ........................ 931
                PART VI:    ADDENDUM RE DISSENTING VIEWS .................................. 931
                            A.    ALLEGED DISTORTIONS OF THE RECORD ....................... 931
                            B.    CRITICISM OF MEDIA ...................................... 933
                            C.    JUSTICE SHEARING'S ANALYSIS OF COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION
                                    OVER SUBSTANTIVE CHARGES .............................. 936
                            D.    JUSTICE SHEARING'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ARJD ........... 938
                            E.    JUDGE GUY'S CONCURRING AND DISSENTING ADDENDUM .......... 939
                PART VII:   CONCLUSION .................................................... 941
                ----------
                

OPINION

STEFFEN, Justice.

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges proceedings pending before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline (Commission) on allegations of judicial misconduct against Petitioner, Washoe County District Judge Jerry Carr Whitehead. The petition alleges that the Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction and has failed to conduct its proceedings in accordance with article 6, § 21 of the Nevada Constitution and the Administrative and Procedural Rules of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, Supreme Court Rules, Part VII (ARJD). For the reasons which follow, we reaffirm our Order of September 9, 1994, where we granted the petition, in part, and directed the clerk of this court to issue a writ (1) prohibiting the Commission from proceeding in excess of its jurisdiction, and (2) mandating that the Commission proceed in this and all other disciplinary matters in a uniform manner in accordance with the views expressed therein. The final writ issued by our Order, although reaffirmed by this opinion, is also clarified or modified in this formal opinion construing the applicable provisions of the Nevada Constitution and the ARJD.

We now issue this opinion reaffirming the granting of the writ and stating our reasons for so doing in order that the Commission will have guidance with respect to the requirements of the ARJD, ³ as the Commission requested of this court, and to set forth in considerable detail the bases for our rulings.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

PREFACE.

1. The court has been inundated in this proceeding with thousands of pages of papers

and points and authorities and has entertained what is perhaps the longest oral argument in Nevada Supreme Court history. Additionally, the court has concluded that writ relief is absolutely mandated. Therefore, further oral argument and briefing is not warranted, and Petitioner's motion for a further briefing schedule is denied.

2. Delay in resolution of the petition has been occasioned by: (1) the Commission's initial refusal to comply with an order of this court directing the production of documents for this court's in camera review; (2) the Commission's procedurally improper and substantively deficient petition for rehearing of this court's opinion in Whitehead v. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline, 110 Nev. 128, 869 P.2d 795 (1994) (Whitehead I ); and (3) various challenges brought against members of the court.

3. In finally resolving the question that these proceedings were initially undertaken to address, i.e., whether the Commission has exceeded its defined jurisdiction, it is first necessary to address certain of our dissenting colleague's assertions respecting this court's initial orders of confidentiality, and to clarify the real issues and true facts and circumstances underlying this court's consideration and resolution of the petition.

PART I: CONFIDENTIALITY.

1. Contrary to the position now advanced by Justice Shearing, this court's initial orders of confidentiality did not violate the Nevada Constitution or the United States Constitution.

2. In response to a formal request for confidentiality stated in Judge Whitehead's initial petition, this court entered an order on July 22, 1993, directing the proceedings in this court to remain confidential. On July 30, 1993, then Chief Justice Rose, Justice Springer and Justice Steffen entered a second order specifically reaffirming the prior ruling that Petitioner was entitled to confidentiality. On November 3, 1993, Chief Justice Rose, Justice Steffen, Justice Springer and Justice Shearing all signed an order concluding that Petitioner could elect to waive his right to confidentiality. The four above-named justices observed in part that the issue regarding Petitioner's request to waive confidentiality was before the court "due in part to serious breaches of confidentiality by 'unnamed sources' in apparent violation of both the Nevada Constitution and the rules of this court." (Emphasis added.) Further, this order observed that Petitioner "has borne the brunt of the press accounts of the proceedings against him...." Petitioner subsequently waived his right to confidentiality, and the proceedings before this court thereafter became public.

3. The Board of Governors of the State Bar of Nevada recognized in a public statement respecting this question: "[ARJD] 40(7) allows a judge accused of misconduct to challenge the jurisdiction of the Commission. Judge Whitehead has filed a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission. Until there has been a determination that probable cause exists, proceedings alleging misconduct are to be conducted confidentially."

4. Confidentiality of Commission proceedings is given first priority under the Nevada Constitution which provides: "[t]he supreme court shall make appropriate rules for: (a) the confidentiality of all proceedings before the commission, except...