District Court Judge Tina Talim granted Our Nevada Judges, Inc.'s request to provide comprehensive electronic coverage of the State of Nevada vs Larry Johnson.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Madilyn Cole briefed District Court Judge Tina Talim in opposition to Defense Attorney Melissa Barry's request to sever her client, David Judd's, trials from those of his co-defendants, arguing that limiting instructions and ordinary procedures would adequately mitigate misjoinder concerns. Defense Attorney Melissa Barry replied, elaborating on anticipated statements that would be made by co-defendants admitting guilt, which would prejudice Mr. Judd.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Madilyn Cole briefed District Court Judge Tina Talim in opposition to the request for the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, also requesting in-camera review of the informant's file. Defense Attorney Melissa Barry replied, pointing out that some identifying information had already been released, and filing separately briefing urging the Court to sever her client, David Judd's trial from those of his co-defendants because he was only facing five counts and would otherwise suffer unfair spillover from unrelated drug and firearm charges.

In compliance with District Court Judge Tina Talim's order, Defense Attorney Melissa Barry, on behalf of David Judd, filed a motion to motion to compel the disclosure of the confidential informant's identity, arguing that the informant was a material witness whose testimony was central to the charges. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on April 13, 2026, at 8:30 a.m.

District Court Judge Tina Talim denied a request by Defense Attorney Melissa Barry, on behalf of David Judd, that would have disclosed a confidential informant's identity, citing a failure to file a motion to compel.

The State agreed to allow David Judd to make a trip to Reno while remaining on house arrest. In a stipulation between Parties, Mr. Judd was given 24 hours to travel to Reno, obtain a vehicle from a friend, and return to Clark County. Mr. Judd was also required to keep a log.

District Court Judge Tina Talim granted Our Nevada Judges, Inc.'s request to provide comprehensive electronic coverage of the State of Nevada vs Salvador Ramirez and Casey Dunne.

Anthony Cooper agreed to plead guilty to mid-level possession of a controlled substance and racketeering, with eligibility for probation subject to the court's discretion. The State agreed to make no recommendation at sentencing, and all remaining counts were to be dismissed when Cooper was adjudged guilty and sentenced. Separately, District Court Judge Tina Talim postponed Nelson Cintron's jury trial to March 1, 2027; and, granted Our Nevada Judges, Inc.'s request to provide comprehensive electronic coverage of the State of Nevada vs Anthony Cooper.

Salvador Ramirez agreed to plead guilty to high-level possession of a controlled substance and attempted racketeering, with all remaining counts to be dismissed. The State agreed to make no sentencing recommendation and did not oppose concurrent sentences. The agreement was expressly contingent on co-defendant Casey Dunne accepting negotiations.

A Clark County grand jury returned a true bill charging multiple defendants authorizing prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle, racketeering, and related offenses. District Court Judge Jasmin Lilly-Spells ordered the superseding indictments filed and set Larry Johnson's, Anthony Cooper's, and Casey Dunne's bail at $20,000. David Bryant Judd was allowed a release on own recognizance. Mr. Johnson's co-defendants include David Bryant Judd, Joshua Rios, Anthony T. Cooper, Casey Dunne, Salvador Ramirez, James Brooks, Christopher Ferguson, Dave Neubert, Shaun Long, Ethan Cintron, and Nelson Cintron. District Court Judge Joe Hardy granted Our Nevada Judges, Inc.'s request to provide comprehensive electronic coverage of the State of Nevada vs Ethan Cintron and Shaun Long.

District Court Judge Bita Yeager entered a written order denying the Cintrons' demand for the return of their seized cell phones, finding that exigent circumstances and probable cause justified the warrant seizure, concluding that LVMPD reasonably retained the phones during an ongoing criminal investigation and that any suppression issue was not ripe because the phones had not yet been searched. Stephen Stubbs, on behalf of the Cintrons, appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which ultimately dismissed the appeal because the requisite filing fee was not paid.

District Court Judge Bita Yeager entered a minute order extending evidentiary proceedings and clarified that factual issues above and beyond body-worn camera footage would be considered in order to determine whether warrantless seizure and retention of property was consistent with NRS 179.085 or exigent circumstances precedent. LVMPD supplemented its opposition by submitting declarations authenticating body-worn camera footage that had been challenged by Petitioners. Petitioners objected to the supplement and moved to strike, arguing incomplete, irrelevant, and inadmissibly altered footage. District Court Judge Bita Yeager approved Our Nevada Judges, Inc.'s request to provide comprehensive electronic coverage of the proceedings.

The Cintrons supplemented briefing alleging LVMPD unlawfully seized their cell phones without a warrant or consent and urged the return of their property. Their attorney, Stephen Stubbs, argued that any evidence obtained from the phones would be inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. LVMPD opposed, conceding phones were seized but arguing that they had not yet been searched, reiterating District Court Judge Joanna Kishner's role in mooting the issue due to her issuance of a warrant after seizure but before search had been executed.

Petitioners, Nelson and Ethan Cintron, seek the return of two cell phones seized by LVMPD during what they allege as a pretext traffic stop in Henderson in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Though no criminal proceeding is pending, their attorney, Stephen Stubbs, further argued that any derived information is inadmissible in any judicial or grand jury proceeding. "I then denied him my phone but he took it out of my hands," Ethan Cintron said. LVMPD opposes and argues for dismissal, citing mootness because District Court Judge Joanna Kishner issued a warrant after the seizure occurred, but before any search was executed. The police department's attorney, Lyssa Anderson, further argued that body camera footage showed the Cintrons consented, contradicting their declarations and that exigent circumstances justified the seizure given the ease of remotely deleting phone data. Ms. Anderson also alleged that Nelson Cintron's role as Sergeant at Arms of an outlaw motorcycle club show retention was unreasonable while a shooting investigation connected to this case remains active. Mr. Stubbs disputed that body worn camera footage contains no audio or video corroborating LVMPD's assertions and denounced any notion that consent occurred as "incredible and [] arguably preposterous."