Judge in Ponder sexual assault case previously touted his endorsement

The judge presiding over Hope for Prisoners founder Jon Ponder’s pending sexual assault case previously had advertised his election endorsement on her campaign website before removing it following his arrest.

The case, which was shuffled among different departments in Las Vegas Justice Court because of potential conflicts of interest, eventually landed in Justice of the Peace Noreen DeMonte’s courtroom.

A campaign representative for DeMonte, who is running for the District Court Department 28 judgeship against attorney Danielle Tarmu, said DeMonte made the necessary disclosures in court and had an obligation to decide matters on cases she was assigned, including when no legitimate conflict of interest exists.

“Her involvement with Hope for Prisoners and this endorsement was disclosed to all parties once counsel for each side had properly confirmed on the case as required by the Judicial Code of Conduct,” DeMonte’s campaign manager Tom Letizia told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Parties to this action did not raise any issue regarding conflict, and requested Judge DeMonte remain on the case. Judge DeMonte takes her ethical obligations and duty to sit seriously.”

Aftermath of Ponder’s arrest

Ponder, the founder and then-acting CEO of the well-known prison reentry program, was arrested on Aug. 18 following a several-months-long investigation into accusations of sexual assault and abuse of power.

He faces nine felonies and 11 gross misdemeanors, including sexual assault, suspicion of unauthorized contact with a prisoner by a prison employee or volunteer, attempted coercion and attempted unauthorized contact with a prisoner.

Several organizations that partnered with or donated financially to Hope for Prisoners have since suspended or terminated their support following Ponder’s arrest and his placement on administrative leave.

The Internet Archive, known as the Wayback Machine, also showed that Ponder’s name appeared on the endorsement page of DeMonte’s campaign website.

DeMonte’s campaign confirmed the earlier placement and its removal after his arrest.

“Over the years, Mr. Ponder and Hope for Prisoners were widely recognized in Southern Nevada for their reentry work, and Mr. Ponder offered support to a number of judges, elected officials, and community leaders across the political spectrum,” Letizia said. “His endorsement was listed on the campaign website in that context in January, well before any allegations or charges were brought against him … Due to the seriousness of the allegations and Judge DeMonte’s obligation to the integrity and independence of the court, the campaign determined it was not appropriate to continue displaying it. Its removal reflects no view on the merits of the pending case.”

Rules for judges

Ponder’s case was initially assigned to Justice of the Peace Nadia Wood and then to Justice of the Peace Harmony Letizia, before being randomly assigned to DeMonte.

“We’re going to be hard-pressed to find any judge here in Clark County, Nevada, that hasn’t participated in those Hope for Prisoners graduations, and I’m certainly no exception to that,” DeMonte said at a preliminary hearing on Aug. 25.

Ponder’s then-defense attorney Robert DeMarco and Chief Deputy District Attorney William Rowles said they had no objection at that time to DeMonte presiding over the case.

Benjamin Edwards, associate dean for faculty development and research at the UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law, said generally speaking, the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

He said those circumstances could include, but are not limited to, personal bias toward one party or his or her attorneys and personal knowledge of facts in dispute during the proceedings. He added that judges should recuse themselves if they make any public statement, outside of a court proceeding, that commits them to reaching a particular result.

The mere receipt of an endorsement or campaign contribution is not an automatic disqualifier, Edwards said.

“It’s just one of those things that happens when you elect judges,” Edwards said. “Sometimes people that are involved in or leading organizations that endorse judges end up appearing as parties in cases.

“It is not the law that attorneys or others who donate to judges cannot appear in front of them. An enormous number of judges are going to be receiving donations from lawyers who regularly appear in front of them.”

Case in point, a few of the attorneys that have represented Ponder during early proceedings appear on DeMonte’s campaign finance reports from before his arrest. District Attorney Steve Wolfson, who removed himself from the case because of a potential conflict of interest from his previous dealings with Ponder, also previously contributed to her campaign.

Edwards said a judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible disqualification, even if the judge believes there’s no basis for disqualification.

“One of the things you have to keep in mind is if you’ve had a number of other judges recuse, somebody still has to hear the case,” Edwards said. “I sort of suspect the judge here would have preferred, as a lot of others, that it land somewhere else, but if she is able to hear the case and adjudicate it impartially and doesn’t have an objection from the parties, sometimes that’s what you have to do.”