If you watched the news in January 2024, you probably remember the video. Deobra Redden was standing in a Las Vegas courtroom, about to be sentenced by Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus. Then, in a flash, he leaped over the bench and attacked her.
He grabbed her hair, slammed her head against the wall, and knocked her out of her chair. Blood-covered papers were behind the bench, and clumps of Judge Holthus’s hair were left at the scene. A marshal and a police officer were also hurt. The whole thing was caught on video and went viral around the world.
The Nevada Supreme Court has disciplined Las Vegas attorney Carl Arnold for mishandling the appeal of Deobra Redden, the man who attacked a judge during a 2024 sentencing hearing. pic.twitter.com/qo5zYSzuA7
— Las Vegas Locally 🌴 (@LasVegasLocally) March 16, 2026
Most Nevadans thought the story ended when Judge Susan Johnson sentenced Redden to 26 to 65 years in prison in December 2024.
As Johnson put it at the time:
“It was not just retaliation or an attack on Judge Holthus. It was also an attack on the judiciary.”
But the story isn’t over.
The Lawyer Who Dropped the Ball
After the sentencing, Redden’s attorney Carl Arnold began the appeals process. That’s normal. What isn’t normal is what happened next.
Arnold failed to timely file a rough draft transcript request, failed to file a docketing statement, failed to review transcripts for appeal, failed to prepare an opening brief, and failed to file an appendix despite the court’s notices and orders. The Nevada Supreme Court eventually removed him from the case and referred him to the State Bar.
This week, the court made it official. Arnold received a six-month suspension from practicing law, stayed for one year. He will have to cooperate with a mentor, who will provide quarterly reports to the State Bar during the stay period. He will also have to pay for the costs of the disciplinary proceedings and avoid any other reprimands during that one-year stay.
Arnold responded to the ruling with a statement.
“I appreciate, understand and will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling,” he said.
“I never intentionally would miss a court’s deadline and instructions, but I will always exhaustively extend myself to help others and be their voice when facing this criminal justice system.”
Arnold also said he hadn’t been receiving emails from the court, and that:
“once we received them, we attempted to file, but it was too late.”
Now Redden Wants a New Trial
Because Arnold dropped the ball on the appeal, Redden’s new public defenders are now arguing he had ineffective legal representation. Public defender Kelsey Bernstein claimed that Arnold:
“failed to file any pretrial litigation” and “abandoned his client on appeal,” adding that Redden pleaded guilty “without any negotiations” and gained nothing in return for that plea.
Bernstein’s filing asks the state high court to either reverse Redden’s convictions outright or order a new trial.
The man who attacked a judge on video, in front of witnesses, who pleaded guilty to attempted murder, is now asking for another shot in court. All because his lawyer missed some filing deadlines.
Why This Matters to Conservatives
For people who believe in limited government, personal responsibility, and a justice system that actually delivers justice, this case is a gut punch. The system worked when it convicted Redden and put him away for decades. Then a series of procedural failures opened a door that should have stayed shut.
Conservatives understand that a justice system only works when every part of it does its job. Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and yes, the courts themselves all have roles to play. When someone drops the ball, real consequences follow.
In this case, the consequence could be a new trial for a man who attacked a sitting judge in open court.
Prosecutors have pushed back, stating that Arnold provided:
“continuous, documented, and strategic representation at every stage.”
They argue Redden does not deserve a new trial.
What Comes Next
The court could request more briefing, review the trial record, or deny the petition without a hearing. Any ruling could take months. Whatever the Nevada Supreme Court decides will determine whether Redden’s sentence stands or whether parts of the case get a fresh look.
For now, Nevadans who care about judicial safety and court accountability should keep watching this one.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
