Judge who said she showed compassion for sentenced defendant is suspended for disregarding the law
A Nevada judge who argued a state supreme reversal order “could mean a lot of things” has been suspended for failing to comply with the law.
Judge Erika Ballou has been suspended without pay for 18 months, with 12 months suspended if she successfully completes a probationary period of two years. She is also required to take remedial training, according to the Sept. 22 suspension order by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.
Commission decisions can be appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Ballou sits in the state’s Eighth Judicial District, which includes Las Vegas. She was accused of failing to follow orders of the Nevada Supreme Court in the case of Mia Christman, who argued she received ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing.
Ballou ruled for Christman and ordered her release from custody. Prosecutors sought a writ of mandamus, which was granted by the Nevada Supreme Court in August 2022. The court ruled the evidence did not support a finding of ineffective counsel, reversed Ballou’s order and remanded for proceedings consistent with its order.
On remand, Ballou scheduled a hearing to allow Christman to present more evidence. Prosecutors filed a petition for a writ of mandate, which was granted by the state supreme court in October 2023. The court found that Ballou failed to follow its 2022 mandate, and ordered Ballou to enter judgment for the prosecution.
Ballou didn’t immediately follow the state supreme court directive. Prosecutors filed a motion with the supreme court to enforce its previous mandates and also filed a recusal motion in Christman’s criminal case. Ballou did not stay the case at that point.
Christman filed a motion to strike the recusal motion, arguing it should have been filed in her postconviction proceedings rather than the underlying criminal case. Ballou granted Christman’s motion.
In May 2024, the state supreme court ordered assignment of the case to a different judge.
Ballou argued before the commission that the first supreme court decision that reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with its order “could mean a lot of things.” She also argued the supreme court’s second order did not impose a time limit. She also said she wasn’t required to stay the case after the recusal motion was filed because she wasn’t properly served.
The commission rejected Ballou’s arguments, finding she failed to follow the supreme court’s two orders and failed to stay the case while the recusal motion was pending.
Ballou was “a seasoned defense attorney” before taking the bench and understood criminal procedure, the commission said. And failing to properly serve a judge with a disqualification motion doesn’t mean Ballou could dismiss the motion, although it could be a reason for dismissal by a reviewing judge, the commission said.
The commission rejected allegations that Ballou committed misconduct by showing bias and by failing to cooperate with an investigator.
Arguing she was not uncooperative, Ballou said she was in a jury trial when a commission investigator called and she went on a prescheduled vacation immediately afterward. That was not a failure to cooperate, the commission said.
Regarding bias, Ballou told the commission she showed compassion for Christman rather than bias, and she was concerned about Christman’s baby being placed in the custody of Child Protective Services.
The commission found insufficient evidence that Ballou’s actions “were driven by a deep-seated favoritism as to constitute impermissible bias.”
“That said,” the commission said, “while compassion may be a virtue to a judicial officer, it should never be used as a license or excuse to violate the law.”
Ballou is represented by Thomas F. Pitaro. He did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment made in an email and in a voicemail left with his law firm.
Publications with coverage of the decision include the Las Vegas Review-Journal and 8 News Now.
The Review-Journal reports that Ballou was censured last year for social media posts and for telling a defendant he should stay away from officers. ” “I know I don’t, and I’m a middle-aged, middle-class Black woman. I don’t want to be around where cops are, because I don’t know if I’m going to walk away alive or not,” she said.
She was removed from all criminal cases in May following a complaint by a public defender, the Review-Journal reports.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
