Great State of Nevada

May 3. 2026

Request for Reconsideration of Dismissal:

Veterans In Politics sent a complaint to the Nevada Judicial Disciplinary Commission, and they denied it instantly, the fastest denial we have ever seen.

In a letter sent to the commission, we are asking for a reconsideration of its decision to dismiss our complaint against Nevada Supreme Court Justice Douglas Herndon related to his conduct during the prosecution of Fred Steese, particularly the alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

The Commission declined to proceed with an investigation based on two arguments:

That the statute of limitations has expired.
2. That the conduct occurred before Herndon assumed judicial office.

I contend that both grounds are legally insufficient under Nevada law, Commission precedent, and the public policy of maintaining integrity in the judiciary.

I. Jurisdiction Over Pre-Judicial Conduct Is Valid When It Implicates Judicial Fitness or Public Trust:

Under NRS 1.425(1), the Commission has jurisdiction over “any justice or judge” regarding violations of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct. Although the conduct occurred prior to Justice Herndon assuming the bench, this does not immunize him from discipline. The Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary) mandates that “a judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Further, Rule 1.1 (Compliance with the Law) requires judges to “comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.” If Herndon violated constitutional obligations as a prosecutor and withheld evidence in the Steese case, it calls into question his present integrity, impartiality, and fitness to serve—especially as a Nevada Supreme Court Justice ruling on life-and-death matters.

Even if the alleged misconduct occurred before taking the bench, the Commission is authorized to consider it if the conduct demonstrates a lack of integrity, honesty, or fitness. The Nevada Supreme Court has consistently recognized that a judge’s background, character, and prior conduct are relevant to their qualifications and suitability under the Code.

II. Statute of Limitations Does Not Bar Jurisdiction Over Ethical Violations that Affect Current Judicial Fitness:

There is no explicit statute of limitations in NRS Chapter 1 or the Rules Governing Judicial Discipline that limits the Commission from investigating serious misconduct so long as the judge remains in office.

While NRS 1.4655 sets forth procedures for initiating disciplinary investigations, it does not impose a deadline or statute of limitations barring older misconduct. The Commission may consider factors such as delay, available evidence, or prejudice—but these are discretionary, not jurisdictional.

Moreover, Nevada follows the continuing violation doctrine, recognizing that if the effects of misconduct are ongoing—such as a wrongful conviction, public deception, or an undisclosed pattern of dishonesty—then the misconduct is not “stale.”

The Fred Steese case was not resolved until 2017 when Steese received a full pardon based on actual innocence. That pardon and the public reporting of misconduct have continued into the past decade, including mention of Justice Herndon’s role. Thus, this misconduct’s reputational impact and legal consequences are ongoing and still relevant today.

III. The Commission Has an Ethical Duty to Uphold Public Confidence in Judicial Integrity:

Nevada citizens expect judges—particularly those on the Supreme Court—to be held to the highest standard. The allegations in this case are not minor procedural issues; they involve wrongful conviction, Brady violations, and a man spending over 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Ignoring such allegations because they predate the bench would invite public perception that judicial accountability ends when a person dons a robe. That is precisely what Canon 1 and 2 of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct were designed to prevent.

IV. Request for Relief:

I respectfully request that the Commission:

Reconsider the dismissal of my complaint based on the above arguments;
2. Open an investigation into whether Justice Herndon’s alleged misconduct—especially the withholding of exculpatory evidence—constitutes a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
3. Clarify in writing the Commission’s position on whether pre-judicial misconduct implicating honesty, integrity, or criminal procedure can be the basis for judicial discipline.

Impeachment:

In Nevada, the process for impeaching a judge or a Supreme Court justice is outlined in Article 7 of the Nevada Constitution. Here’s a clear summary of how it works:

Grounds for Impeachment

A judge or justice can be impeached for misdemeanor in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Initiation in the Assembly

The Nevada State Assembly (the Legislature’s lower house) holds the exclusive power to impeach.
A majority vote of the members of the Assembly is required to approve articles of impeachment.

Trial in the Senate

If the Assembly votes to impeach, the case moves to the Nevada State Senate for trial.
Senators act as jurors, and if the impeachment involves the governor or a justice, the Supreme Court Chief Justice presides (or another justice if the Chief is on trial).

Conviction and Removal

A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required to convict and remove the official from office.
If convicted, the official is removed from office and may be barred from holding future public office in Nevada.