IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ‘STATE OF NEVADA In the Mater of ‘THE HONORABLE ERIKA BALLOU, District Court adge, Eig Judicial District Court, Clark County, State of Nevada, AG. SERIE (Case No. 2022-173-P (Case Nos. 2022-124-P and 2022-134-P Respondent CERTIFIED COPY OF STIPULATION AND ORDER OF. ‘CONSENT TO PI RE Pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 28, {hereby certify hat the document atached hereto jis @ tue and conect copy of the STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CONSENT TO PUBLIC ‘ENSURE filed withthe Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline on June 11,2024 DATED this 11th day of June, 2028 NEVADA COMMISSION (ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, P.O. Box 18125, Reno, NV 89511 (775) 687-4017 By: PAUL C. DEVHLE General Counsel and Executive Director [Nevada Bar No. 6954 a= 2038 |Nb 112026 BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCirLine IN THE MATTER OF THE HONORABLE, ERIKA BALLOU, District Court Judge, Case No.:2022-173-P Eighth Judicial District Cour, Clark County, | Case Nos. 2022-124-P and 2022-134-P State of Nevada, Respondent. su ND ORDER OF CONSENT TO PUBLIC CENSURE In onder to resolve the Formal Statements of Charges pending before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline (the “Commisson”), the Respondent, Honorable ERIKA BALLOU, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District Cour, Clark County, State of Nevada Respondent” or “Judge Ballou”), and the Commission stipulate to the following pursuant 19 Commission Procedural Rule 29: 1 CaseNo 20221734 1. Respondent admits thet she violated Canon 1 of the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Code"), Rule 1.1, requiting Respondent to comply with the law including the Code; and Rule 1.2, requiring the Respondent to act at all mes in a manne that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; Canon 2, Rule 2.1, requiring Respondent's dies of judicial office, as prescribed bylaw, to tke precedence overall of Responds personal and extrajudicial activities; and Rule 2.4(C), requiring Respondent to not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a postion to influence the Respondent, and Canon 3, Rule 3.1(C), requiring Respondent to not participate in activities that ‘would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the Respondent’ independence, integrity, or Impartiality, or ether ofthese rules, inher capacity asa district court judge in and fr the Eighth Judicial Distict Court, in Clark County, State of Nevada, by knowingly or unknowingly engaging in an at, a combination of acts, oral ofthe fllowing acts, which occured during the circumstances stated below A, While attending music festival on Sunday, September 19, 2021, JudgeBallou published an inappropriate statement about her judicial duties on social media. At 10:46 1pm, Judge Ballou posted on Instagram, “Life is STILL beautiful, despite the fact that Bile Eilish doesn't START for 30 minutes and I have an 8:30 calendar tomorrow,” and included hashtags, “VacateTheShitOuttOutofCustody Cases” and “WherelaTheWorlsCarmensanDieg.” B. In April of 2022, Judge Ballou published an inappropriate statement on 1. Judge Ballou posted a photograph on her Facebook page of herself in aot tub with two public defenders, one female and one male, withthe caption, “Robson is surrounded by great tits” C. Respondent notes the following mitigating factors: (Despite the Instagram post described in section I, paragraph (1) (A) above, Respondent did not vacate of continue any hearings in her cour. Gi) The public defenders in the Facebook post described in section I, paragraph (1) (B) above did not have any improper influence over Respondent. (iil) Respondent intended the posts described in section I, paragraphs (1) (A) and (B) above to be private and not publicly disseminated. 2. Respondent admits to all the allegations and mitigating factors in section 1, ‘paragraph (1) (A) through (C) asset forth above. 3. Respondent agrees to waive her right to present her ease and contest the allegations in the information set forth above in a formal hearing pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 18, Respondent also agrees that this Stipulation and Order of Consent to Public Censure (“Order”) takes effect immediately, pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 29. The Commission accepts Respondent's waiver of said right and acknowledges and agrees to the immediate effect ofthis Orde. 4. Respondent agrees and acknowledges that this Order will be published on the ‘Commission's website and filed with the Clerk ofthe Nevada Supreme Court 5. Respondent and the Commission hereby stipulate to Respondent's consent to public censure pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 29. Notwithstanding the mitigating factors (as noted above), Respondent nevertheless stipulates to the following substantiveprovisions |A. She understands the evidence available to the Commission would establish by clear and convincing proof that she violated the Code, including Canon 1, Rules 1.1 and 1.2; Canon 2, Rules 2.1 and 2.4(C); and Canon 3, Rule 3.1(0), B. She further understands that her words and/or actions described in this ‘matter merit the specific discipline stipulated to herein. C. She agrees the discipline ofa public censure is justified and authorized by Article 6, Section 21(1) of the Nevada Constitution; NRS 1.4653; NRS.1.4677(1)(a); NRS 1.4694; and Commission Procedural Rule 29, D. She stipulates to a public censure for violations ofthe Judicial Canons and Rulls as set forth above in section I, paragraph (1) (A) through (B).. E, Within four (4) months ofthe filing date ofthis Order, she agrees to (1) ‘complete the National Judicial College online course entitled, “Judicial Ethics and Social Media: ‘A Lightning Course”, and (2) review and fami (a publication ofthe National Center for State Courts Center for Judicial Ethics), Volume 39, No, 1 (Spring 2017) Edition entitled, “Social media and judicial ethies: Part 1”, and Volume 39, No. 2 (Summer 2017) Euition entitled, “Social media and judicial ethies: Part 2”. 6, In consideration of Respondent entering into this Order, and to save the time and ‘expense of proceeding toa public hearing, the Commission has agreed to not amend the Formal Statement of Charges or pursue a separate Commission action for Respondent posting on Facebook, on or about January 27 or 28, 2024, in response to the Commission’ filing of public charges in this matter, the lyrics of rapper Cardi B's song, “Get up 10°. 7. The Respondent understands and agrees that, by accepting the terms ofthis Order, she waives her right to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, pursuant to Rule 3D of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. Respondent also waives all other forms of extraordinary relief for purposes of challenging this Order. mw wv2 3 14 15 16 ” 18 1» 20 2 2 2B 24 25 26 a 8 n 32002-1241 : 1. Respondent adits that she violated Canon 1 of the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (“Code”), Rule 1.1, requiring Respondent to comply with the law, including the Code; and Rule 12, requiing the Respondent 1o act tall ines ina manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; and Canon 2, Rule 2.2, requiring Respondent io uphold and apply the law, and perform all duties of juical office fairly and impanially; and Rule 2.3(A) and (B), requiring Respondent to perform the duties of judicial oie without bis or prejudice, and to not, by words oF conduct, manifest bis or prejudice, or ether ofthese rules, in her capacity as a district court judge in and for the Eighth Judicial District Court, in Clark County, State of Nevada, by knowingly or unknowingly engaging in an act, a combination of 01, o ll ofthe following acs, which occured during the circumstances stated below: A. On November 10, 2021, at a sentencing hearing in Siew. Marshal Borner, C-21-356579-1 (volving a defendants devsion to fle fom police in veicle pursuit on the Las Vegas Srp, in response to the prosecutor arguing that there was no reason forthe defendant to run ftom the police, Respondent made the following statements to the prosecute: “elnd there being no reason to run from the police, clearly you're nota black person inthe United States of America, because there are absolute reasons to run fom the police”, and “(so justas someone who, you know; has lived inthe United States as Black person, that’s absolutly an untrue statement that he didn't have any reason to un.” B On July 11, 2022, at a suspended sentence revocation hearing in Stare y. Lamar Siringr, C-21-359532-1, Respondent made the following statements to the defendant: “you've a lack man in America, you know you don't want tobe eround where cops are”, and “[yJou know you don’t want to be nowhere where cops are because I know I don’t and I'm a middle aged, middle clas black woman. I don’t want to be around where cops ae because 1 don't know if 'm going to walk away alive or not” C. Respondent notes the following mitigating factors: (@ Respondent has not had any prior disciplinary action imposedagainst her by the Commission Gi) No prosecuting agency (distctattomey or attorney general) has sought Respondent's recusal in any criminal matter for bias or prejudice against any law enforcement agen, or for showing preferential treatment to anyone. Gi) Inher opinion, Respondent is known to praise the police; Gv) Inher opinion, neither statement made by Respondent in section Il paragraphs (1) (A) and (1) (B) above is untrue. 2 Respondent admits to all the allegations and mitigating factors in section Il, paragraph (1) (A) through (C) as set forth above. 3 Respondent agrees to waive her right to present her case and contest the allegations in the information set forth above in a formal hearing pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 18, Respondent also agrees that this Stipulation and Order of Consent to Public Censure (“Onder”) takes effect immediately, pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 29. The ‘Commission accepts Respondent's waiver of said right and acknowledges and agrees to the immediate effect ofthis Order. 4 Respondent agrees and acknowledges tht this Onder willbe published on the ‘Commission's website and filed with the Clerk of the Nevada Supreme Court. 5. Respondent and the Commission hereby stipulate to Respondent’s consent 10 public censure pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 29. Notwithstanding the mitigating factors (as noted above), Respondent nevertheless stipulates to the following substantive provisions: ‘A, She understands the evidence available to the Commission would establish by clear and convincing proof that she violated the Code, inchuding Canon 1, Rules 1.1 and 1.2; and Canon 2, Rules 2.2 and 2.3(A) and (B). B, She further understands that her statements described in this matter merit the specific distipine stipulated to herein C. She agrees the distipline of a publi censure is justified and authorized by le 6, Section 21(1) of the Nevada Constitution; NRS 1.4683; NRS 1.4677(1)(@); NRS1.4694; and Commission Procedural Rue 28. D. She stipulates to public censure for violations of the Judicial Canons and Rules asset forth above in setion Il, paragraph (1) (A) through (B) 6. The Respondent understands and agrees that, by accepting the terms ofthis Onder, she waives he ight to appeal othe Nevada Supreme Cour, pursuant to Rule 3D ofthe Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. Respondent also waves all ther forms of extraordinary reli for purposes of challenging this Order. L 2 2022-173-P IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent is hereby publicly censured for violating the (Code, Canon 1, Rules I.1 and 1.2; Canon 2, Rules 2.1 and 2.4(C); and Canon 3, Rule 3.1(C)- IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall within four (4) months of the filing 7 date of this Order (1) complete the National Judicial College online course entitled, “Judi Ethics and Social Media: A Lightning Course”, and (2) review and familiarize herself with the Judicial Conduct Reporter (a publication of the National Center for State Courts Center for Judicial Ethies), Volume 39, No, 1 (Spring 2017) Eaton entitled, “Social media and judicial ethies: Part 1", and Volume 39, No. 2 (Summer 2017) Eaton ended, “Social media and judicial ethies: Part 2" TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Executive Director of the Commission take the necessary steps to file this document in the appropriate rezords and on the website of the Comission and withthe Cle ofthe Nevada Supreme Cour. M, Case Nos: 2002-124-P and 2022-1342 ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent is hereby publicly censured for violating the Code, Canon 1, Rules 1. and 1 snd Canon 2, Rules 2.2 and 2.44) and (B) wv a aIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Executive Director of the Commission take the necessary steps to file this document in the appropriate records and on the website of the Commission and with the Clerk ofthe Nevada Supreme Cout DATED: May 3°, 2024 1S) ERIKA BALLOU ERIKA BALLOU Respondent DATED: May 30,2024 DYER LAWRENCE, LLP 56) E303 Ua FRANCIS C, FLAHERTY, Speci Counce! fe the Ned mission on Judicial Discipline Case No. 2022-173-P DATED: MayBO, 2024 DYERLAWRENCE,LLP gg #r5203| how) Detar ‘THOMAS 1. DONALDSON, BQ, ‘Special Counsel forthe Nevada ‘Commission on Jusiial Discipline (CaseNos:2022-124-P and 2022-134-PNEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE ‘The Commissioners listed below accept the tems of this Stipulation and Order of Consent to Public Censure, They further authorize the Chairman, i quested, o sign on behalf of the Commission, as a whole, this document containing the Stipulation and Order of Consent to Publie Censure ‘While the Commission concurs with the public censure for each ofthe matters at issue, the Commission takes isue with the alleged mitigating factors. Mitigating factors are facts or situations that do not justify oF excuse a wrongful actor offense but that reduce the degree of culpability, See CIRCUMSTANCE, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Nevada Supreme Cour Rule 1025. As to Case No, 2022-173-P, the representation that [despite the Instagram post deseribed in section 1, paragraph (1) (A) above, Respondent did not vacate or continue any hearings in her court” isa ve Gable and valid mitigating factor, and the same ean be said as to the representation in Case No.’s 2022-124-P and 2022-134-, that “Respondent has rot had any prior disciplinary action imposed aginst her by the Commission.” However, the representation tat “[nJo prosecuting ageney (disict attomey or atlomey general) has sought Respondent's recusal in any criminal matter for bias or prejudice against any law enforcement agency, or for showing preferential treatment to anyone” is verifiably untue as of April 24, 2024, prior to the date of the Stipulation. See Eighth Judvil District Court Case No, C-13- 287140-2, Additionally, the remainder of the mit factors cited and relied upon by Respondent are not mitigating; are opinion; or are otherwise not verifiable a a 7 m m‘To the extent such alleged mitigating factors are imputed as being relied upon and accepted by the Commission in support of the adoption ofthe Stipulation, they are rejected. Signed by: Dated June 11,2024 GARYVA im STEFANIE HUMPHREY, VICE-CHAIR KARI ARMSTRONG PATRICIA HALSTEAD HON, DAVID HARDY JOHN KRMPOTIC HON, THOMAS STOCKARD10 n B 4 1s 6 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 2s 26 2 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby cetify tht Iam an employee ofthe Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline and that fon the 11th day of June, 2024, 1 served copy of the CERTIFIED COPY OF STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CONSENT TO PUBLIC CENSURE by email and U.S. Mall, addressed tothe following ‘TOM PITARO. ATTORNEY ATLAW. 6601 LAS VEGAS BLVD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NV 89101, [email protected] Counsel for Respondent FRANCIS “FRANK” C. FLAHERTY DYER LAWRENCE 2805 MOUNTAIN STREET CARSON CITY.NV 89703 [email protected] Special Counsel ‘THOMAS 1, DONALDSON DYER LAWRENCE 2805 MOUNTAIN STREET CARSON CITY, NV 89705 ‘[email protected] Special Couns By: