At an evidentiary hearing, former City Attorney David Olsen was called to explain why a prosecution dismissed in June 2016 remained unfiled for nearly a year, only to be resurrected days after John Hunt sued Boulder City. The explanation District Court Judge Richard Scotti ultimately accepted would become the source of yet another controversy. The Police Video at the Center of Hunt's Civil Rights Claims After Boulder City initially dismissed the charges, Olsen provided Defense Attorney Stephen P. Stubbs with a DVD containing police dash-camera footage. Hunt did more than question the recording himself. He submitted it to forensic audio experts, including Los Angeles examiners W. Kent Gibson and audio expert Arlo E. West. According to Hunt's federal complaint, Gibson concluded that the Boulder City police recording provided to Hunt was not authentic, while West concluded that the police recording was not authentic, original, or accurate and appeared to be a re-recorded version of the original that had been redacted before being paired with video and burned to DVD. Hunt also located footage from a second police dash camera that he said preserved audio missing from the recording originally produced by Boulder City. To Hunt, the differences were not merely technical; they went directly to how his conduct—and the justification for his arrest—was portrayed. The police video dispute continued years later. In an October 2, 2024, presentation, Hunt examined the recordings in detail and explained why he believes they were altered. He discussed expert findings, other recordings he had located, suspected frame duplication, and what he described as a new method for investigating possible video manipulation through duplicated frames. Hunt's position is unequivocal: he believes the police video evidence was altered. Understanding the dispute over the recordings is important to understanding why a relatively minor crosswalk prosecution developed into years of civil rights litigation and challenges to the conduct of Boulder City officials. The Testimony That Changed Judge Scotti's Mind The July 23, 2020, evidentiary hearing gave Boulder City another opportunity to present evidence supporting the prosecution—and gave Olsen an opportunity to explain the nearly year-long gap between the original dismissal of Hunt's charges and their refiling days after Hunt sued the city. Boulder City presented the results of Hunt's federal civil-rights litigation, where the federal district court had entered judgment in favor of Boulder City and Sergeant John Glenn. The Ninth Circuit later upheld that judgment, which Judge Scotti cited in applying issue preclusion to Hunt's First Amendment retaliation claim; this left standing only the question as to why Boulder City waited nearly a year to refile the criminal charges. Six days after Hunt filed his federal lawsuit, on June 5, 2017, Boulder City refiled the original charges and added new charges as well. Judge Scotti acknowledged that the timing could create an appearance of prosecutorial vindictiveness, and heard evidence on the issue. Olsen testified that during the months preceding the refiling, he had been preparing to retire, handling loose ends, and had been without a paralegal for several weeks. According to Olsen, Hunt's federal lawsuit reminded him that the criminal charges still needed to be filed. Judge Scotti found this testimony "credible and persuasive", distinguishing that "[t]he City's new charges against Hunt were a reaction to Hunt's Federal Complaint — but not a retaliatory reaction." Judge Scotti found that Boulder City had provided sufficient evidence to overcome the appearance of vindictiveness, reversed the original direction of the case, and vacated his original ruling dismissing Hunt's charges, going so far as to state in dicta that the reputations of Morris and Olsen "should not be tarnished due to this matter." Hunt's prosecution, he ordered, could continue. Earlier Testimony Raises New Questions Judge Scotti's reliance on Olsen's prosecutorial explanations and account as to when and why the criminal complaint was prepared became central to the prosecution's survival, and earlier videotaped deposition testimony from Olsen would further complicate the convoluted cases. During Olsen's December 12, 2017, deposition, Stubbs specifically asked whether Count 4 of the refiled complaint was new. Olsen confirmed that it was. Asked to explain the new charge, Olsen testified:

Indeed, Boulder City's own filing before the Supreme Court acknowledged Olsen's “decision to add additional charges” to the second criminal complaint. The city maintained that Olsen had conducted a “thorough review” of the available evidence and that Hunt's federal lawsuit merely “reminded” him that the new complaint had not yet been filed. That explanation suggests a straightforward sequence: Olsen had already reviewed the evidence, had been working on the new complaint, and intended to prosecute Hunt. But Olsen's earlier testimony contradicted as follows: while “quickly preparing” the complaint to meet the filing deadline, Olsen testified, another offense “occurred” to him—and he added it. Adding further tension to the timeline was another of Olsen's answers specific to one of the new charges included after Hunt's federal lawsuit. Olsen acknowledged "a mistake on [his] part" in that the charge should not have been refiled because the underlying citation had already been disposed of. Asked whether he had reviewed Hunt's case again after initially dismissing it, Olsen reportedly answered: “No.” Ultimately, Hunt bargained to resolve the matter:

On July 31, 2020, District Court Judge Richard Scotti entered a formal written order denying Hunt’s motion to dismiss, effectively reversing course by concluding that Boulder City had not engaged in vindictive prosecution. Judge Scotti found Olsen’s testimony credible that Hunt’s federal civil rights lawsuit merely reminded him to refile charges he had previously intended to pursue, ruling that the City's filing of new charges was only "a reaction to Hunt’s Federal Complaint — but not a retaliatory reaction." Judge Scotti also found prior federal litigation barred Hunt’s First Amendment claims under issue preclusion. Defense Attorney Craig A. Mueller subsequently replaced Stubbs as Hunt’s counsel and urged reconsideration. Mueller challenged Olsen’s explanation and argued Boulder City failed to produce objective evidence explaining why the second criminal complaint was filed less than a week after Hunt filed his federal civil-rights lawsuit. Boulder City, represented by Attorneys Craig R. Anderson, Kathleen A. Wilde, Steven L. Morris, and Gary R. Booker, opposed. Judge Scotti denied Hunt’s motion for reconsideration, concluding that his prior decision was “rightly decided, and no further elaboration is necessary.” With dismissal having failed, Hunt's arraignment was scheduled for December 3, 2020.

John Hunt was arraigned before the Boulder City Municipal Court on misdemeanor charges stemming from allegations that he repeatedly crossed a street intending to disrupt a police crosswalk checkpoint. Boulder City initially voluntarily dismissed the charges. Defense Attorney Stephen Stubbs, on behalf of Hunt, filed a federal civil rights action, which District Judge James C. Mahan disposed of in his favor, finding that Hunt returned to the crosswalk to protest the enforcement operation, and that Boulder City Police Officer John Glenn eventually recognized Hunt was making a political statement. Boulder City charged Hunt again, and the timing of Hunt's second prosecution subsequently became a central issue. Stubbs moved to dismiss the prosecution as vindictive and separately sought dismissal of the obstruction charge on First Amendment grounds. The defense pointed, in part, to former Boulder City Attorney David Olsen's handwritten notation concerning Hunt's conduct: "The reason he decided to exercise his constitutional rights." On September 19, 2018, in an appeal, Stubbs argued that Boulder City Municipal Court was not a [court of record]{A "court of record" is a court whose proceedings are recorded and available as evidence of fact.} and that de novo review was necessary. District Court Judge Richard Scotti ordered briefing. Stubbs sought dismissal on the basis of vindictive prosecution and First Amendment grounds. Boulder City Attorney Steven L. Morris opposed, arguing conceding that City Attorney David Olsen refiled charges; but, asserting that it was upon reviewing additional evidence and not in retaliation in response to federal civil rights lawsuit. Olsen acknowledged, however, that receiving the federal lawsuit reminded him that the new criminal complaint had not yet been filed.

District Court Judge Richard F. Scotti ordered dismissal, finding Boulder City acted with a vindictive motive when it refiled the charges; and, dismissed the obstruction charge separately on First Amendment grounds, finding Hunt's actions constituted protected speech. In response, Morris moved to disqualify Judge Scotti and strike the ruling, alleging procedural irregularities and improper ex parte communications with Stubbs. The City also questioned whether the District Court had properly acquired appellate jurisdiction. Judge Scotti denied any bias or improper communication occurred, and Stubbs argued the City was improperly attempting to challenge an adverse ruling through disqualification rather than the appellate process. Chief Judge Linda Marie Bell heard oral argument and refused to disqualify Judge Scotti. Boulder City filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking vacatur of Judge Scotti's order dismissing Hunt's charges, which the Supreme Court declined to consider. Stubbs moved for entry of a written final judgment, stating Hunt intended to seek attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Morris opposed the motion, and Judge Scotti denied the request, ruling that finding his 2018-minute order had become stale, and instead ordering an evidentiary hearing to reconsider his order granting dismissal of Hunt's charges. Parties reiterated in briefings their prior arguments, with Stubbs urging the issues narrowed to prevent Boulder City turning the evidentiary hearing into a criminal trial and improperly obtain a “3rd bite at the apple.” Judge Richard Scotti granted Our Nevada Judges, Inc.'s request to provide comprehensive electronic coverage of the proceedings.