Nevada Revised Statutes Governing the Commission
CHAPTER 1
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT GENERALLY
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
General Provisions
NRS CROSS REFERENCES.
Composition, terms and duties of commission, Const. Art. 6 § 21
NEVADA CASES.
Confidentiality of proceedings of commission; charges against judge are to be
made public only upon finding by commission of probable cause. Confidentiality
of proceedings of commission on judicial discipline (see A.R.J.D. 5) is given
first priority under mandate of Nev. Art. 6 § 21 that supreme court shall make
appropriate rules for confidentiality of all proceedings before commission,
except decision to censure, retire or remove justice or judge. Supreme court has
determined that such proceedings will be made public upon finding by commission
after scheduled hearing that probable cause exists for disciplinary action (see
A.R.J.D. 16). In adopting A.R.J.D. 16, supreme court has assured that every time
commission determines that there is probable cause to believe that clear and
convincing evidence could supply evidentiary basis for imposing discipline,
public will be made aware of full extent of charges against judge. (See NRS
1.425 et seq.) Whitehead v. Commission on Judicial Discipline, 111 Nev. 70, 893
P.2d 866 (1995)
Challenge to jurisdiction of commission filed with supreme court before
finding of probable cause remains confidential. Since proceedings before
commission on judicial discipline are confidential until commission determines
that probable cause for disciplinary action exists (see Nev. Art. 6, § 21 and
A.R.J.D. 5 and 16), petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging
jurisdiction or jurisdictional excesses of commission (see A.R.J.D. 40) which is
filed with supreme court after finding of probable cause would not be
confidential. However, jurisdictional challenge filed with supreme court before
finding of probable cause would merely shift proceedings, temporarily, from
commission to supreme court and, therefore, would remain confidential. (See NRS
1.425 et seq.) Whitehead v. Commission on Judicial Discipline, 111 Nev. 70, 893
P.2d 866 (1995)
In absence of dismissal of complaint against judge, commission must determine
whether or not probable cause exists; effect of determination. Pursuant to Nev.
Art. 6, § 21, commission on judicial discipline, after preliminary investigation
of complaint against judge, shall either dismiss matter or order hearing. In
support of constitutional mandate, supreme court adopted A.R.J.D. 15 which, in
absence of dismissal, requires commission to make finding whether or not
probable cause exists. Therefore, if commission determines either that basis for
finding of probable cause does not exist or, after hearing to determine probable
cause (see A.R.J.D. 14), that there is lack of probable cause to proceed,
commission must dismiss complaint, thereby preserving confidentiality of
proceedings and reputation of judge. On other hand, if commission finds
existence of probable cause, A.R.J.D. 16 requires that formal statement of
charges must be prepared and filed as public document. (See NRS 1.425 et seq.)
Whitehead v. Commission on Judicial Discipline, 111 Nev. 70, 893 P.2d 866 (1995)
