The State of Nevada vs Jose "Chille" DeCastro
A controversial YouTuber pushes police boundaries while First Amendment "auditing".
Mr. DeCastro faces a jaywalking charge.
DeCastro's Civil Rights Complaint Fails, Federal Jury Renders Verdict In Favor of LVMPD
Leo Clark, Senior Reporter
Feb 13, 2026, 9:00:00 PM
On February 9, 2026, a federal jury was impaneled to decide Jose "Chille" DeCastro's civil rights complaint filed against LVMPD. The trial spanned 5 days, during which testimony from several officers was heard. Officer Torrey testified he had been a sergeant for 2 and a half years, and cited his detective work in counterterrorism. He mentioned discussions with several officers already on scene and focused on his responsibility to make sure constitutional policies were followed, including whether LVMPD had probable cause to arrest Mr. DeCastro. "I told [DeCastro] he was getting arrested for obstruction because DeCastro didn't back up," Torrey explained, "if there was any backing up it was less than a foot. [DeCastro] said if we don't let him out of handcuffs, he will sue." "[DeCastro] was irrational from the beginning. I've never seen anyone ... when an officer tells someone to back up and they immediately become irrational. A rational person obeys police," Officer Sandoval testified, "consequences to his arm and sight was ... a consequence of him not being rational." Mr. DeCastro's attorney Michael Mee asked, "Obey cops even if it doesn't make sense to you, just obey?" "Yes," Sandoval responded. "[Officer] Burque needed backup," Officer Dingle testified, "it took me less than 5 minutes, I was pretty close. Mr. DeCastro was resistant and non-compliant. At the scene ... I had no idea who he was but then he said he had over a million followers." LVMPD's Assistant General Counsel Michael Dickerson asked, "they get treated the same despite them saying they are First Amendment auditors?" "Correct," Dingle answered. Body worn camera footage depicted an exchange between Mr. DeCastro and Officer Dingle. DeCastro: "I sue lots of cops, you gonna get sued. I don't have weapons on me, get your fucking hands off me!" Officer Dingle: "He was a First Amendment auditor, he was filming Metro in the Walmart parking [lot] ... and that's when I put two and two together ... that he was the same subject. I've seen non-excessive force being used on DeCastro." DeCastro: "Let go of my cuffs! I'm not a threat, I don't have any firearms." Mr. Mee asked, "no weapons were discovered?" To which Officer Dingle responded, "correct. We heard Mr. DeCastro complaining about his arm." Mr. Dickerson prompted, "based on what you observed that day, was DeCastro hit in [his] privates?" "My observation, no," responded Officer Dingle. Officer Sorenson testified, "I'm observing an individual who is non-compliant. I did not physically intervene. He adjusted his feet and looked around multiple times." In discussing LVMPD's duty to intervene, Sorenson explained, "to make sure a good person doesn't do a bad thing. Police are trained to deescalate situations. My stern talk ... hopefully deescalates situations. You can get someone to comply by applying some pain." When Mr. Mee asked "why did you believe DeCastro might spit in your face?" Sorenson responded, "[DeCastro was] calling us derogatory terms." Mr. DeCastro personally took the stand. "We have too many laws," he testified, "I grew up in Alaska with 2000 people from [ages] 5 to 18. On June 19, 2020, I started my YouTube channel. I taught constitutional law on my channel. When I see police stop someone over I stop and record. It's very important to identify yourself to the police right away. I walk up and I say I'm a member of the press, I film any government official in their official capacity. First Amendment auditing is a gigantic business, I had more views than Jake Paul! I don't work for state funded media, I work independently. As soon as I decide to work on something ... I'm a member of the press. On my first video on June 19, 2020, I had 1 million views. I don't think defense counsel is non-profit, neither am I. January 2023 I opened an office in Las Vegas Charleston. I was doing shopping at Target when I saw a woman getting pulled over. I was getting supplies for the office, my dog was with me. I researched if it was okay to speak to the driver, there is no statute that says that. She had a wide-eyed look on her face. I asked if she was okay. The insinuation that I was hurting my dog by leaving him in the car is preposterous. My dog is a mini-celebrity. Insinuations that I would hurt my dog are sick. He told me to back up so I backed up. Turner v. Driver, I already knew I backed up ten feet, and then four more, at that point I had to do my job. I did comply and it wasn't enough. The wind was blowing hard and I wanted to hear what the cop was saying to the victim. I'm backing up more because his face is all red, I realized he was going to charge at me. [Officer] Burque got triggered and he lost his shit, as soon as I called him a 'little doggie' he arrested me. At this point I want to test Burque and challenge him, apply some pressure, he failed my First Amendment test. It's my right to use free speech anytime I want. You're supposed to uphold the rights of people even if you don't like them. You could see he wanted to put his hands on me. When is America going to realize a camera is not a threat? [Burque] believes he is giving me lawful orders, I believe he is giving me illegal directives. Sooner or later America is going to expect that holding a camera is not an officer safety issue. Maybe it's this case, maybe not ... but my rights were being violated here. Ego ruled that day. I hate being bullied. He took my glasses off of me to show he has total dominion over me. I have horrible dreams about this dude who tortured me, I'm going through it, I'm angry." At one point, Mr. DeCastro began tearing up, "my family saw me in jail in an orange [jump]suit. I'll never forget the look in my mother's eyes. I'm traumatized from this experience and I won't stop until I get justice!" While many of the issues were litigated in prior criminal proceedings, the question before the federal court was whether or not the defendants violated Mr. DeCastro's civil and Constitutional rights. Ultimately, the jury declined to find the police department had used excessive force or committed a false arrest and returned a verdict in favor of the defense on February 13, 2026.
Jury Trial, Civil rights case, United States District Court, 2:23-cv-00580-APG-EJY.
Feb 9, 2026, 9:00:00 AM
Pretrial Hearing, False info case, Las Vegas Municipal Court, 24-006842.
Aug 13, 2024, 1:30:00 PM
City of Las Vegas Voluntarily Dismisses Charges Against DeCastro
Alex Falconi, Founding Director
Aug 13, 2024, 1:30:00 PM
Assistant City Attorney Carlene Helbert filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice, voluntarily clearing Jose "Chille" DeCastro of charges accusing him of providing false information to the authorities.
Oral Arguments, Appeal, Eighth Judicial District Court, C-24-381730-A.
Jul 10, 2024, 9:00:00 AM
The State of Nevada vs Jose "Chille" DeCastro, Hearing, 46 minutes, 25 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Michelle Leavitt, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 12, presiding over oral arguments on appeal. Deputy District Attorney Alexander Chen appeared on behalf of the State. Defense Attorney Christopher Oram appeared on behalf of Mr. DeCastro. Case No. C-24-381730-A. The Court reverses convictions, orders Mr. DeCastro released. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
State Answers DeCastro's Appeal, Christopher Oram Replies
Alex Falconi, Founding Director
Jun 18, 2024, 9:00:00 AM
Chief Deputy District Attorney Alexander Chen filed an answer brief, dismissing the notion that the appeal was centered on whether Jose "Chille" DeCastro could film police officers, and redirecting the Court via a 2-page stack of federal authority limiting First Amendment rights to reasonable times, places, and manners. Defense Attorney Christopher Oram systematically replied Mr. Chen's authorities, noting the State's abandonment of its reliance on the "21-foot rule" that became the focus of the trial court below.
A DeCastro Discussion
May 30, 2024, 7:00:00 PM
Coffee, Bandiero, Szyc: A DeCastro Discussion, Perspectives, 51 minutes, 25 seconds
Panelist
Analyzed
Chief Deputy Public Defender Scott Coffee, Senior Legal Instructor Anthony Bandiero, and Defense Attorney Lisa Szyc, join us in studio for a discussion on the State of Nevada vs Jose "Chille" DeCastro. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Motion to Enlarge, Appeal, Eighth Judicial District Court, C-24-381730-A.
May 23, 2024, 8:30:00 AM
The State of Nevada vs Jose "Chille" DeCastro, Hearing, 4 minutes, 17 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Michelle Leavitt, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 12, presiding over a motion hearing. Deputy District Attorney Alexander Chen appeared on behalf of the State. Defense Attorney Christopher Oram appeared on behalf of Mr. DeCastro. Case No. C-24-381730-A. Motions granted. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Unpersuasive Appeal
May 8, 2024, 4:50:00 PM
Pat: An Unpersuasive Brief, Perspectives, 24 minutes, 11 seconds
Jose “Chille” DeCastro just filed his appellate brief on 5/6/24. It was timely under the 40 day “Fast-Track” appellate rules. I was unpersuaded by this brief. Procedurally (and I’m not a Nevada lawyer) the appellate rules limit briefs to 16 pages, not 31. It's possible they either violated the rule or have permission from a different rule I am not aware of. There are also requirements that must be addressed separately, such as grounds for jurisdiction, errors at the trial court that warrant scrutiny, etc. I didn’t see any of that specifically listed. There were typographical errors, and attempts to creatively abstract this case to the George Floyd murder and to racism. None of this was addressed at trial, and isn’t part of the record. Instead of a focused brief on the narrow issues of statutory interpretation, it was skimmed over. The manner in which the brief was written failed to grab my attention and persuade me. The brief took a very risky approach, and heavily criticized Judge Zimmerman, and threw Michael Mee “under the bus.” Take great caution in how you attack a judge, and if you take such a bold move, be sure you are right. Many justices/judges will view such an attempt as the last refuge of legally dead arguments. The brief also contained a robotic style of writing. I deleted clauses and revised sentences for clarity. This was my "Delete Clawz" satire. I didn’t see the how the brief could rely very heavily on First Circuit authority, when we are in the Ninth Circuit, and point to law review articles, which are pretty much ignored by California lawyers. Maybe this is a different in Nevada? None of this legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is expressed, implied and is flatly rejected. I am not licensed in Nevada, and am not offering any legal advice in that state. I am merely commenting on a public issue. This is for entertainment only. I reserve all rights, including California's anti-SLAPP laws. I am not suggesting or inferring that anyone committed malpractice or violated any standard of care. This video is just my personal reaction. There can be legitimate and strategic reasons persons or lawyers took the actions that they did, and not as a result of some error.
Incommunicado
May 7, 2024, 12:40:00 PM
Pat: Chille Incommunicado?, Perspectives, 16 minutes, 2 seconds
Very bizarre hearing. Again, lets thank Our Nevada Judges for the footage. Please subscribe and contribute to their channel. In this run-of-the-mill hearing in Las Vegas Municipal Court, a number of bizarre things unfolded. First, his appellate lawyer, Mr. Oram, made a "special appearance," meaning he isn't counsel of record for this Vegas case. Chille did not show - not even by remote video. Oram made it clear that he is not representing Chille in this case. Chille didn't have a lawyer, and Oram apparently said that Chille doesn't have the money for one. Hasn't Chille raised a lot of money for his legal challenges? Second, why did Vegas threaten an arrest warrant? Chille is already locked up. He can appear remotely. Chille can't appear unless he is allowed to. Third, why was there a need for Oram to specially appear, when Chille could have been transported or appeared via video? Fourth, Oram said he would notify Chille "by letter" regarding the upcoming and continued hearing date. Why "by letter"? Why not just call, visit or email him? Is Oram possibly admitting that he wants no further connection with Chille, and is being especially careful to keep everything in writing to disavow any claim that he is counsel in this case? For attorneys, once they appear in a court as attorney of record, they are on the case until the client or the court releases them. Oram was making extra careful to let the court know he isn't involved in this legal matter, even though it is just a misdemeanor case for which he has tremendous experience. Again, why? Has the drama regarding Chille and Judge Zimmerman caused Oram to back away, and to conclude the appellate briefing and then no longer represent Chille? Also, with Chille's criticisms of Mee, he is making even harder to find a lawyer. We don't have solid answers, but this hearing raise many questions. None of this legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is expressed or implied and is flatly rejected. I am not licensed in Nevada, and am not offering any legal advice. This is for entertainment only. I reserve all rights, including California's anti-SLAPP laws. I am not suggesting or inferring that anyone committed malpractice or violated any standard of care. This video is just my personal reaction. There can be legitimate and strategic reasons persons or lawyers took the actions that they did, and not as a result of some error.
DeCastro Files Opening Brief Asserting First And Sixth Amendment Violations
Alex Falconi, Founding Director
May 6, 2024, 9:00:00 AM
Defense Attorney Christopher Oram, on behalf of Jose "Chille" DeCastro, filed an opening brief asserting several errors occurred; namely, that the laws relied upon were unconstitutionally vague and violated he First Amendment, that Justice of the Peace Ann Zimmerman was biased, First Amendment violations, vagueness, and that Defense Attorney Michael Mee's incompetence implicated Sixth Amendment violations.
Civil Infraction, Failure to obey case, Goodsprings Justice Court, 23CCG005348.
Apr 23, 2024, 10:00:00 AM
An Appellate Prediction
Apr 12, 2024, 4:25:00 PM
Pat: Will It Reverse?, Perspectives, 14 minutes, 44 seconds
The recent decision of Willson v. 1st Judicial District (2024), created a substantial revision to the “Obstruction” charge that Jose “Chille” DeCastro was convicted of. This law was passed in 1911, and has no legislative history or appellate history. I criticized heavily this statute as overbroad and unconstitutional. The Appellate Court tried to rework the statute because it is that bad, and made it a “specific intent” crime (e.g., you had the intent to do it), and it only applies to “physical conduct” and “fighting words.” However, the Appellate Court stated that conduct that impedes, even if not physical, can still be deemed “obstruction.” We will review the bodycam, and Chille’s video and trial testimony, to see if there is enough evidence to conclude that Chille still violated the statute, as amended. The Appellate Court admits that the statute needed major revisions to prevent it from being unconstitutional. While it states that protected speech is not subject to this statute, it still leaves areas in dispute. I went through the evidence, and there looks to be sufficient grounds to uphold the conviction. The District Court will likely uphold the conviction, and it’s possible the Appellate Court for the Eighth District will revisit it and see if it can be clarified or changed further, and even so, at this stage, absent some good case authority, I see the conviction still standing. Appellate Courts look for errors in the case. They don't weigh witness credibility. They look for mistakes that affected the trial, such as overruling an objection in error, or admitting incompetent evidence, etc. In the video that Chille took, he made several statements that could be interpreted as specific intent. I will go over those statements. The cop told Chille to come over to his car, and Chille twice say "No." That would be specific intent. Specific intent can be inferred or based upon Chille saying that the cop gave him "unlawful commands." Saying the commands were "unlawful" could make it look like he really intended to disobey them, which is willful. This bodycam coverage wasn't what was admitted at trial. It gave a better audio of what Chille was saying. The new changes in the law allow for insults and irritating the cop. The statute prohibits "fighting words" - those that never get constitutional protection and which tend to incite. However, in the right context, even protected speech can be obstructionist. The Appellate Court admitted that "physical conduct" could include passive aggressive acts, such as impeding an officer by "going limp." The Appellate Court admits that it cannot draft a statute that fits all situations. They are on a short briefing schedule, which actually hurts Chille, as he has fewer pages to make his case, less time, and the same level of research. My prediction is that the District Court will uphold the conviction for obstruction. From there, Chille would need to file a writ and seek further appellate review. From my vantage point, and unless there is better authority out there that favors him, the conviction looks very difficult to overturn. Shout out to Caphalea for putting together this great combination of videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtA7-eFsGW8&t=373s
Cop-Attorney Reaction
Apr 12, 2024, 1:30:00 PM
Ehline: Cop & Lawyer React, Perspectives, 1 hour, 40 minutes, 4 seconds
Lawyer Reaction/Cop Reaction - Retired Patriot Cop Breaks Down His View of DeltaHawk Arrest Video - Good Cops hate Bad Cops Series. Welcome back to our 'Good Cops hate Bad Cops' series, where today, we have a unique treat; a video titled "Lawyer Reaction/Cop Reaction - Retired Cop Breaks Down His View of DeleteLawz Arrest Video." In this engaging discussion, we delve deep into a retired cop's perspective on the arresting practices shown in a DeleteLawz video. Check out our Guest: https://www.youtube.com/@UCDwowvFDAGLJoDkFwIfYkFA Check out DeleteLawz: @deletelawz1984 Check out Angry Texan: @angrytexan25 As always, in this series, we aim to foster understanding and promote transparency in law enforcement, utilizing the good old banter between retired cops and lawyers. Your interactions, your likes 👍, comments 💬, and shares 🔄, help keep this important dialogue alive. So don't forget to engage with us! "Only through open discussions can we strive for a better system." Stick around till the end, as we have some thought-provoking points to cover: The legality of arrest procedures featured in DeleteLawz videos 📹. The retired cop's take on it 👮♂️. The role and impact of such videos on society's perception of law enforcement 👥. Remember, you play an integral part in this conversation. We look forward to hearing your thoughts and insights. Enjoy the video 🎥, spread the word 📣, and let's work towards well-informed advocacy together. Tags: #LawyerReaction #CopReaction #GoodCopBadCop #DeleteLawz #ArrestVideo #RetiredCop #LawEnforcement #chilledecastro #judgezimmerman #personalinjuryattorney #accidentlawyer #heresthedeal #bzwatchdog #civilrights #2aaudits #firstamendmentaudits #federallaw #cops #lasvegaspolice #police #falsearrest #21footrule #ehline #audits #auditor #lawyerobservtion #torturecuffs #filmingpolice
Bail Prediction
Apr 9, 2024, 2:00:00 PM
Pat: Bail Prediction, Perspectives, 10 minutes, 35 seconds
I took a look at the docket for the appeal, and reviewed the motion. It's largely the same as the earlier 4/1/24 motion before Judge Zimmerman. The motion leaves a lot to be desired. No recent Constitutional authority, and no compelling reasons for bail to be issued. Chille's last name continues to be misspelled (e.g., "Castro"). It may be strategy by his current lawyers to play coy with the cases to prevent the DA from having advanced time to do counter legal research. I really don't know. This is just my perspective from California. It is not a legal opinion and I am not saying that any of the lawyers have made any mistakes or did anything wrong. No attorney client relationship is created. Trial strategy is kept close to the vest. Nothing herein can be relied upon, and all defenses are reserved for commenting on a public issue, including California's anti-SLAPP laws, most notably, CCP 425.16(e). My interest is in the Constitution, not the participants. This cases raises Constitutional questions.
Oram Files Notice of Appearance, District Court Judge Michelle Leavitt Summarily Denies Request
Alex Falconi, Founding Director
Apr 9, 2024, 9:00:00 AM
Defense Attorney Christopher Oram appeared on Jose "Chille" DeCastro's behalf as appellate counsel and filed a motion for bail or in the alternative, own recognizance release, which District Court Judge Michelle Leavitt summarily denied by minute order on April 9, 2024.
Bail Denied
Apr 4, 2024, 3:20:00 AM
Pat: Failed Bail, Hearing, 16 minutes, 48 seconds
Analyzed
This is just my insight from being in the trenches for 18 years. I am not accusing any lawyer of doing something wrong, or anything that would amount to malpractice. Lawyers have their own style. Some may decide it isn't a good idea to show your cards too early. Others may need more time to develop the strategy, and aren't forced to make a decision just yet. In this bail hearing, I would have - and again - this is just my approach - "beefed up" the wafer-think bail motion, and included the Constitutional authorities and relevant Nevada case law allowing the judge to even reconsider her ruling, and at the very least, get all of this into the record for Judge Leavitt. In addition, the new lawyer for Chille looks like he is throwing Michael Mee "under the bus." The new lawyer mentioned how the "briefing" on the First Amendment "issues" should have been done. I remember Chille saying that Mee didn't do a good job, but that he liked him as a person. It was along those lines. Making these statements about your lawyer in public will make other lawyers shun working with Chille. Mee is a fine lawyer, and we don't know the arrangements that Chille wanted that blocked Mee from doing his job. However, Mee said the briefing was submitted on March 18, 2024, the day before trial. The DA got it in the morning of the trial. Mee didn't specifically mention any case authority during closing argument. Also, was it Chille's job to do this, since he apparently wanted to first chair the case? We really don't know. Further complicating this is that Mee appeared on the notice of appeal, which would undermine any arguments that he was "ineffective," and make it much harder to raise such an argument. The "goal" here - at least from my perspective - is to transform this "bail" hearing into a new briefing schedule, where the new lawyer includes what Mee had as case law and then adds it to the motion. Then, seek approval to postpone the hearing so that the DA could file a written opposition, and if the authorities are strong, give some credence to the idea that bail is appropriate if the conviction is at risk. In this hearing, the marching orders are simple: the DA must uphold the conviction; the Judge must stay consistent in her reasons for conviction; Chille's lawyer must try to build a stronger record for the appeal. As it stands, the Judge very easily affirmed the record of her decision. The new lawyer for Chille was understandably in a bind - he just got done with a murder case, and had a lot of information to deal with and very little time. Chille is always talking to the public, which makes a lawyer's job maddening. I wouldn't doubt that Chille was trying to run Mee, who I think is a fine lawyer, into a subservient role and not allowing him to really argue and defend the case. The DA was well-prepared, and held the line. The new lawyer go it wrong on thinking the Judge added extra time for Chille's outbursts. In any event, how a lawyer runs a case is their idea. It doesn't make me right and them wrong. They may want to hold back on their arguments at this time, and have a plan in the works that would maximize the chance for reversal. These are the types of battles that are drawn out everyday in the courtroom. I am not a Nevada lawyer and none of this is legal advice. Grab some popcorn. Do not rely on this information, and always hire a locally licensed attorney for any legal questions. No attorney client relationship is implied or expressed, and this information cannot be relied upon.
Bail Hearing, Obstruction case, Las Vegas Justice Court, 23-CR-013015.
Apr 1, 2024, 8:00:00 AM
The State of Nevada vs Jose "Chille" DeCastro, Hearing, 10 minutes, 49 seconds
Presiding
For the State
The Honorable Ann Zimmerman, Las Vegas Justice Court, Department 8, presiding over a hearing on bail. Deputy District Attorney Agnes Botelho appeared on behalf of the State. Defense Attorney Christopher Oram appeared on behalf of Mr. DeCastro. Case No. 23-CR-013015. Motion denied. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Notice of Appeal
Mar 26, 2024, 7:00:00 PM
Pat: An Appellate Prediction, Perspectives, 10 minutes, 6 seconds
Trial lawyer Patrick D'Arcy gives a candid assessment of the chances Jose "Chille" DeCastro can overturn these two convictions on appeal. The odds are very low. It turns out Nevada has "fast track" rules for Justice Court cases, where it can take just a few months to have the matter heard. Chille's lawyer is having a hearing to get him out while on appeal. That goes before Judge Zimmerman again. I doubt she'll grant it. For the appellate work I have handled on First Amendment cases, which is the crux of Chille's defense, I am unbeaten in the Appellate Courts, and 13-1 in First Amendment cases overall. I have considerable experience in this arena, even recently defeating a petition before the California Supreme Court, and getting three defendants immediately dismissed from a lawsuit after filing three anti-SLAPP motions. I look at the issues his appellate attorney is certain to raise, and give my assessment. I don't see much shot at a victory in Nevada, and his best chance will be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, as the Nevada Supreme Court broke away from the Ninth Circuit in upholding what I call the "officer safety" cases. This was a main point brought up by the DA. The Constitutional defenses that were argued did not actually cite to any specific authority, and spoke of them in broad terms. The judge said she never saw the authorities and the DA claimed to have received them the morning of trial, which will generate objections. It's clear the judge ruled without having considered them. Appeals are different - we are looking for errors in how the trial was handled. The appellate court will not decide who lied, nor will it weigh the evidence. It is looking for errors that affected the outcome. If not objected to during trial, it is usually waived.
The Conviction
Mar 20, 2024, 5:42:00 PM
Pat: Chille Walked Into A Conviction, Hearing, 21 minutes, 43 seconds
Analyzed
California trial lawyer gives you the key excerpts from the Jose "Chille" DeCastro misdemeanor trial, where he was convicted on both counts, and sentenced to consecutive 90 days sentences. A recurring mystery was the person possibly farting, or was it just the chairs? They were loud, and a B flat pitch-wise. The DA only sought anger management, a $500 fine and a suspended 90 sentence. The judge rejected that, and imposed a much larger sentence. In my prior videos, I predicted that Chille would be convicted. I also warned of the possibility of consecutive sentences and that the bodycam footage could be sufficient to convict him. Once that was authenticated and entered into evidence, the judge used it to convict him. The judge did not exceed her discretion by giving mid-range sentences. Also, many of you have commented to what I thought was a "harsh sentence." Recall that I had not seen the trial and only had the docket to go from. I didn't know of Chille's misconduct and disrespect that was very demoralizing for his lawyer. Chille did not help himself by giving a "thumbs up" to hating cops, and his disrespect to the Court and its staff while she was handing down a sentence. He even called the Marshal a "pig" in front of the judge. Such behavior can easily lead to contempt charges. The judge did not hold him in contempt, and she made it clear that she based her decision on the video only. Never antagonize a judge when she is handing down a sentence as Chille did. My comments are just some observations during the trial. They would not have changed the outcome. It was more to show the rule so evidence. I am not suggesting that any lawyer didn't do a fine job. They did. Even if certain objections are not made, the evidence can come in on other grounds. I think Chillie wanted to run this trial with his lawyer as backup, and the "stand by" thing was to help when Chillie got in over his head. The judge had none of it, and switched his lawyer back in charge the morning of trial. That would startle any lawyer. His lawyer looked very uncomfortable, and probably because he wasn't allowed to be in charge, which will mess with any lawyer. Chille's lawyer is a very accomplished attorney, with some serious wins, but he has Chillie as a client. His lawyer got some huge admissions from the cop to prove the unconstitutionality of the statutes. These are just my observations. I have great respect for Chille's lawyer, so please don't send anything his way. I have stated previously that the generic nature of the charges make them hard to beat, and could easily get innocent persons convicted. Chille narrated his own video with the cop and that to me was sufficient to find him guilty of resisting arrest. The obstruction charge was, as I suggested in my other videos, based on just being non-compliant and difficult. Chille faces a tough battle in the appellate arena - the appellate court will likely affirm his conviction. The Nevada Supreme Court has held the statutes Constitutional. So he must make at least three appeals to get to the Ninth Circuit to hear his case. Also, he would be locked up while the appeal is being handled. None of this is legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is formed, and this information cannot be relied upon. Always check with a locally licensed lawyer in your area to advise you of your rights.
DeCastro Appeals, Requests Bail Or Recognizance Release Pending Disposition
Leo Clark, Senior Reporter
Mar 20, 2024, 9:00:00 AM
Defense Attorney Michael Mee, on behalf of Chille DeCastro, filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Judicial District Court. Mr. Mee also filed a motion for bail pending disposition of the appeal, which the Las Vegas Justice Court calendared for hearing on April 1, 2024. District Court Judge Michelle Leavitt set an appellate briefing schedule and scheduled oral arguments for July 10, 2024, "Failure to comply with this Order shall result in the dismissal of the appeal or any other remedy deemed appropriate by the Court." Judge Leavitt also granted Our Nevada Judges, Inc.'s request to provide comprehensive electronic coverage of the proceedings.
Bench Trial, Obstruction case, Las Vegas Justice Court, 23-CR-013015.
Mar 19, 2024, 9:30:00 AM
The State of Nevada vs Jose "Chille" DeCastro, Hearing, 1 hour, 36 minutes, 5 seconds
Presiding
For the State
The Honorable Ann Zimmerman, Las Vegas Justice Court, Department 8, presiding over a bench trial. Deputy District Attorney Agnes Botelho appeared on behalf of the State. Defense Attorney Michael Mee appeared on behalf of Mr. DeCastro. Case No. 23-CR-013015. The Court convicts Mr. DeCastro on all counts, imposes 180-day jail sentence. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
, , , .
, , , .
, , , .
, , , .
, , , .
, , , .
, , , .
, , , .
, , , .
©2026 Our Nevada Judges, Inc.
Terms & ConditionsVersion: 5.2.1Privacy Policy
An NRS Chapter 82 non-profit corporation. Recognized by the IRS as a Section 501(c)(3) organization.
