WINNEMUCCA — The Nevada Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday (May 6) in the long-standing dispute between 6^th Judicial District Court Judge Richard Wagner and Humboldt County Public Defender Matt Stermitz.

The court ruled that Wagner showed sufficient proof he was biased against Stermitz and therefore his March 9, 2009 recusal from cases involving Stermitz was appropriate; however, the NSC ruled the judge exceeded his authority beginning on March 12, 2009 when he issued an order that reassigned cases where Stermitz was the counsel of record to other attorneys.

The NSC directed the district court to vacate the order in which Wagner reclaimed cases he recused himself from and all subsequent case-reassignment orders concerning Stermitz, which involves dozens and dozens of cases currently in the court and some that have been resolved.

The decision is shown in its entirety on page 2.

HISTORY:  There has been friction between the two men for about two years with Stermitz alleging the judge improperly interfered in the business of the public defender’s office. Each has accused the other of unethical and dishonest behavior.

Matters came to a head in March 2009 when Stermitz delivered a letter to Judge Wagner in which he allegedly attacked the judge’s integrity and questioned his honesty.

Wagner responded on March 9, 2009 by recusing himself from all of Stermitz’s cases.

Then, on March 12, Wagner issued a second ruling in which he removed Stermitz from all the cases coming before him and reassigned those cases to the Pershing County Public Defender, Steve Cochran.

REASSIGNING CASES:   It’s important to understand that indigent defendants are assigned public defenders at the justice-court level. The result of Judge Wagner’s March 12, 2009 order was defendants (who were charged with gross misdemeanors and felonies) would start out with one attorney at the justice-court level then would be reassigned to a new attorney at the district-court level if the case was before Judge Wagner.

That, Stermitz argued, was unfair to the defendants.

However, Wagner explained the reassignment order was done in the interest of fairness to the other district court judge.  With only the recusal order in place,  Judge Michael Montero would receive the lion’s share of criminal cases coming out of justice court, and Montero had just taken office two months before.  By reassigning cases, the workload would be more evenly distributed, he argued.

THE NSC RULES:  In both the documents that were filed with the NSC and in arguments, Judge Wagner argued he had a duty under Nevada’s Code of Judicial Conduct to recuse himself because he could no longer be impartial.

“We conclude that the facts presented in this case demonstrate extreme bias, warranting and supporting Judge Wagner’s voluntary recusal,” the NSC noted. “The case before us does not involve a mere allegation of bias, but rather, an unequivocal admission of bias.”

“The animosity between Judge Wagner and Stermitz is undisputed and the friction between the two stems from ongoing controversies concerning the operation of the Humboldt County Public Defender’s Office,” they continued. “As a result of the dispute, both raised questions about the other’s honesty and ethical standards.”

As a result, Judge Wagner’s March 9, 2009 recusal stands.

However, once the judge recused himself he could no longer legally issue any more orders in the matter, the court found, which included the reassignment orders.

“…we conclude that Judge Wagner exceeded his authority when he entered the reassignment orders because he had no authority to take further action in petitioner’s cases,” the court wrote.

CONCLUSION:   During the January 2010 arguments before the NSC, Stermitz was asked to articulate the relief he was seeking.

He replied if the court found that Wagner was indeed biased and the March 9, 2009 recusal was appropriate, that cases coming out of justice court that were assigned to him should go to Judge Montero’s court.

In order to even out the caseloads between the two judges, since such a decision would mean more criminal cases for Montero, Stermitz suggested Wagner could take more civil cases to evenly distribute the workload.

Previous posts on this topic:
NSC hears arguments in Stermitz v Wagner
NSC to hear arguments in court dispute
Dispute spills over into courtroom