Law&Crime Sidebar - Man Who Attacked Las Vegas Judge Slapped with Attempted Murder Charge

Episode Date: January 13, 2024

Deobra Redden, the man seen in a viral video lunging at a Las Vegas judge, is now charged with a long list of felony counts, including attempted murder of an older person and intimidating a public officer with threat of force. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber sits down with Judge Mitch Goldberg, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to talk about the brazen attack and the consequences. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. I appreciate that, but I think it's time that he'd get a taste of something else because I just can't with that history. In accordance with the laws of state of Nevada, this is... Oh, whoa, whoa, wait! Well, he's the guy who made headlines by jumping over the bench and attacking the judge who was about to sentence him to prison. Let's do a deeper dive into this absolutely insane case with the Honorable Mitchell Goldberg, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. Jesse Weber. We got to talk about this case. It's one that actually was all over in the news, but we haven't had a chance to really tackle it. This is the guy who jumped over the bench and attacked a judge out of Nevada. You know what I'm talking about. The defendant is 30-year-old Diobre read him, and he was in Clark County District Court in front of Judge Mary Kay Holthus. This is a guy, by the way, with an extensive criminal record of felonies and misdemeanors, including for domestic violence and robberies.

And he was in court that day to face sentencing after pleading guilty to an attempted battery charge for a baseball attack, a baseball bat attack, I should say. He actually pled guilty to this reduced charge. Initially, he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. So now he's in court. He's going to be sentenced. Now, during this hearing, his attorney was asking for probation, not any kind of prison time. And Redden makes a statement that he is a person who never stops trying to do the right thing, no matter how hard it is. It says that I'm not a rebellious person.

This is what he tells the judge. But he also says that, you know, in terms of prison, if the sentence, if it's appropriate for you, then you have to do what you have to do. Okay. Well, it seemed that Judge Holt is. was going to do what she had to do because she was indicating that probation wasn't sufficient. She said, I appreciate that, but I think it's time that he get a taste of something else because I just can't with that history. Right after she makes that statement, right after Redden curses her out,

sprints towards the judge, vaults over the bench, and attacks her. It's incredible to see. I mean, really, really incredible. You want to talk about him not being a rebellious person? What do you think that is? I mean, imagine that. He ends up fighting with the judge, you know, grabs her hair, her head hits the wall. He fights the clerk, the marshal, a police officer.

He's facing a slew of new charges, counts of battery on a protected person, battery of an officer, battery by a prisoner, intimidating a public officer, extortion and even attempted murder. A court-martial had to receive all these stitches. he suffered a dislocated shoulder according to authorities apparently the judge as I said her head was hit in the wall redden actually put his hands around her throat she sustained some injuries but she was okay how do I know she was okay because she was back in court back at work only days later officially sentenced redden he was brought back into her courtroom again this time in restraints gloves spit mask she ended up sentencing him to 19 months to four years in prison on that original charge.

But now, like I said, he faces all of these new charges because of what he did in court. Now, with that in mind, let me bring on right now a special guest, the Honorable Mitchell Goldberg, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Thank you so much for coming on, Judge. What a story to talk about. Let me first just get your reaction to seeing this, because it's not every day. You see a judge being attacked in his or her own courtroom. Thank you for having me on, Jesse.

And my reaction was probably the same as every judge state and federal in the country who saw it. It was horrifying that someone with that kind of record was able to get that close to a jurist and actually inflicts them, what could have been, a lot worse harm on her and her staff. I hadn't heard the extent of the injuries, but what I observed, and I did watch the video, it could have been a lot worse. It really could have been. I mean, I've seen videos before where fights break out in courtrooms. I saw one recently where, you know, a fight breaks out with the defendant and the victim's

family and this whole melee happens in the courtroom. Somebody actually runs past the judge, but it's rare that you see a judge being attacked. And that was really disturbing to see. Have you ever felt any kind of concern or, you know, in your courtroom about what someone might do is how rare is this to see this happen? I've never seen in all my years of being a lawyer and or judge, which is coming up on about 40, and I was a state and federal prosecutor for quite some time before it became a judge. I've never seen that kind of close encounter, but it's different for each jurisdiction.

And I'm certainly not familiar with state court practices and safety practices and protecting judges in the same. state of Nevada. And I think that was a state court matter, if I'm not mistaken. So I'm in the federal court where we have the privilege and the honor of being protected by the United States Marshal Service. And I'm not sure of the resources, but I'm going to, I'm going to guess, Jesse, that the resources, the funding to the United States Marshal Service that's tasked with protecting federal judges, both in and out of the courtroom, the resources, the resources. are plentiful. So I have in the courtroom, you're always a little bit on edge, but it really, you know, depends on who is appearing in front of you. So for instance, I just sentenced someone

not more than 20 minutes ago to life in prison who was involved in a very, very serious crime involving kidnapping, retribution for stealing drugs, and the kidnapping resulted in an execution. So in that instance, I'm sitting on the edge of my seat a little bit more. I'm aware that the person has a history of being dangerous and violent. And our marshal service, the persons who transport the prisoners that are in our courtroom in federal court, they're aware on who's in court and what the crimes were and what their history was. So appropriate security, you know, was taken for each case. Now, we, in federal court, we do a lot of financial crimes where there's no history of violence. So I'm going to assume that the Marshal Service, I mean, they protect us

beautifully, you know, no matter what is happening in a criminal case. But I think there's certainly a ramp up and a ramp down, depending on who appears in front of us. And I appreciate you saying that the difference between the resources that you have at your disposal versus what a state court has, I mean, I will tell you, I'm bothered by the lack of courtroom security there. I mean, the fact that the court clerk had to throw in punches. I mean, that's what it observed to me in this courtroom. You know, I was covering the Harvey Weinstein trial out in New York. Again, this is a guy who was convicted of sex crimes, very serious. But, you know, no kind of criminal history. When that sentencing happened, when the sentencing happened,

there were court marshals lined all across that court. I mean, on each side. Now, I have imagine it was also because they wanted to make sure none of the reporters in there. We're going to be taking photos or videos. But whenever a sentencing is about to happen, that feels like one of the most dramatic moments. Now, we've seen cases before where, you know, defendants fight their attorneys during a regular hearing. But during a sentencing especially when someone is going to be sentenced to prison and their

life is going to be changed, you would have thought maybe in that courtroom there should have been a little bit more precautions put in place. Are you bothered by what you saw there? maybe a lack of courtroom security? Bothered that the poor judge had to endure what happened. But I don't really want to comment on the security. I mean, I watched the video like you did. I wasn't able to see how the defendant was able to get from counsel table to the bench.

And I don't know the resources that the state of Nevada and that courtroom are dealing with. So, you know, I don't want to openly criticize them. And just to be clear. And just to be clear, he had taken a deal where he wasn't technically in custody so they didn't have him in restraints. He wasn't in jail guard. They might be rethinking that protocol moving forward, but because he took a deal with prosecutors to this reduced charge. So that was one of the reasons he wasn't shackled up. But I'll give you the next point on that. Well, we, I will comment on, you know, what I've observed as the beneficiary of the marshal's security. I'm not in charge of

security, but we work very closely together. So by way, way of one example about four years ago, I had a multi-defendant case where the defendants were accused of robbing, kidnapping, and torturing drug dealers. So these folks were really, really dangerous. And the Marshal Service and I, we had daily meetings about the high level of security that needed to happen in that courtroom. And there were quite a few options. So we had ended up with, and this is all public, so I'm not disclosing any confidential information, we ended up with dividing up the case. It was a 20 defendant matter. We took five of the most culpable defendants first. Five is what the marshals felt comfortable offering security for

in the courtroom, not more than five. And shackles were used on the ankles. Now, you're probably aware that when there's a jury, and this was a jury trial, you can't show the jury that the defendant is currently in custody. It's unfair to the defendant. So how do you impart security when that happens? Well, first of all, the defendants are not brought in in front of the jury in prison garb, you know, the red or orange jumpsuits. They're given access to suits and nice clothing, and then how do we, how did the marshals effectuate the ankle bracelets? What we did was we set up aprons in front of counsel table. We brought the defendants in first before the jury. We got them seated. Their handcuffs were taken off. So it's very complicated because

we deal with, all courts deal with in criminal cases, they're very, sometimes very dangerous people, but we have to afford them their rights as well, so they're not prejudiced in front of the jury. Yeah, it's a complicated issue. Completely understand that. I did want your perspective on some of the actions from the judges in this case because there were two. So the judge, Mary Kay Holthus, she comes back to court. I mean, incredibly brave to do this, but also her obligation. She was the sentencing judge here.

And our understanding is she sentences him to 19 months to four years in prison. But that was going to be her original sentence. She didn't change it despite the attack on her. Very bold, very, I have to give her credit for doing that. What was your take on that? Well, I think that she probably knew that the defendant was going to be charged for the assault on her. And there would be a reckoning if he was found guilty of that at another time. In federal court, again, I'm not proficient.

in the state criminal laws in Nevada. In federal court, we're allowed to consider what's called relevant conduct. So we consider the crime. We consider a lot of other factors, rehabilitation, safety of the community, and other things under the appropriate statute. We can also consider what's called relevant conduct. That is conduct that's separate from the actual crime. And in federal court, the sentencing judge could have considered that conduct, which we all saw, which was him flying over the bench trying to injure the judge. The fact that she didn't consider it, I can only guess that she knew he was going to be charged and, if convicted, brought to justice and sentenced anew on that crime. And we're going to talk about those extra charges in a second,

but just with respect to the charge that he's now sentenced to, in light of everything that's happened. I can't see him getting out before four years. Would I be totally wrong about that? I mean, four years is the maximum on the charge that he was just sentenced to. But in light of everything that we just saw, any chance that that charge specifically, that he'd get out before then? I don't know the sentencing standards in Nevada state law, but he's serving already four years, right? On the initial crime, he's been charged with. assault. If he's convicted of that, I can tell you if he was in Pennsylvania, I don't think he would be getting out before four years. Well, let's now talk about these other charges.

So obviously, he's hit with a slew of battery charges for just attacking so many people in the courtroom. The two charges that I thought were really interesting were attempted murder and extortion. Do you think that applies in this kind of scenario with the attack on the judge. Do you think it's too aggressive? I mean, as I mentioned, he had his hands on her throat. And so what did you think of attempted murder and extortion charges? I'm not sure I understand the extortion charge, but I'll say this about the attempted murder. As a former state and federal prosecutor, generally, the strategy is you look at the facts that you could prove. you look at the elements of the crimes,

and you generally charge the most serious charges that you can to gain prosecutorial advantage. Whether, I don't know the extent of the injuries. I haven't talked to the judge, and it was hard to see what happened when she was tackled behind the bench, hypothetically, if there was an attempt to strike. her, then perhaps an attempted murder charge would be warranted.

But the prosecutors initially are always going to charge what they believe are the most serious charges. Whether attempted murder can be borne out, that's up to the Nevada courts to figure it up. And in terms of extortion, this is the best way I think I can explain it, is that because she is a public official, he was trying to influence what she would do. by threatening her? I don't know. What do you think?

I think I'll pass on that one because I'm not sure what I think. All right. That's fine. I don't want a second guess to the prosecutors in Nevada and I don't want a second guess to the judges in Nevada. These are just charges to remember. Let's also remember this is a crime. You're innocent until proven guilty.

However, it's on video. So not sure what, you know, short of some type of diminished capacity, mental health defense, I'm not sure what the defense is going to be. That's fair. And there have been reports about his mental health concerns and issues there. But the fact, it seems to me, would it benefit him to plead guilty to these charges in light of so much strong evidence he committed these crimes? In federal court, and I'm sure, because I'm very familiar still with Pennsylvania state criminal law,

and I think I'll even go out in a limit and say it probably applies in Las Vegas and Nevada. A showing of remorse and contrition is always a positive factor in sentencing. I did want to ask you before I let you go. There was an legal issue that happened with one of the judges, and we wanted a lot of a little explanation the best that you can. So let me lay this out for everybody to explain it. When he was originally being sentenced before he attacked the judge, he was actually eligible for $54,000 bail.

And our understanding is in Nevada. If he put up a certain percentage of it, about like $8,000, he could technically be released. Okay. Then he attacks Judge Halthus. He has to appear in another courtroom for a bail hearing. And prosecutors were adamant. that they were looking for no bail setting. In fact, they didn't want him to have any option of bail.

The other judge, this was not Judge Halthus, this was another judge that was determining the bail, she needed, what happened was she wanted him to be in the courtroom, but Redden refused to leave his jail cell. He wouldn't come to the bail hearing. And this judge said, well, if he's not going to be here, I don't think it's fair. I don't want to set conditions of his bail or change his bail if he's not present.

The Clark County DA, Mr. Wolfson said, well, we asked for a no bail setting. We ask that he be detained because we believe that he is a danger to the community. The world has seen what happened yesterday, and this person's behavior in court, and I've almost seen nothing else like this, so we believe he's an extreme danger to the community. He was disappointed that the judge would not, you know, take away the bail setting. But again, it's now moot because he's already been sentenced, and he's now has all these charges. But what would have led a judge to decide that after he attacks another judge to not change the bail settings, regardless of whether he's in that courtroom or not, regardless of whether he chooses not to be in that courtroom or not? I would say he forfeited his right.

And in light of what he just did to this judge, I was curious about that, wanted to ask you your perspective on it real quick. Sure. Well, you have to remember that as a jurist, as a judicial officer, we, especially in criminal, matters, we have to think about the rights of both sides, but in criminal matters, when you're talking about the possibility of someone's liberty being at stake, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the defendant, and the burden always goes to the prosecution. Now, Jesse, I can comment on what would happen the process that I would impart, and I can't really say whether it has or not, so this is more than a hypothetical. But let's suppose in a similar proceeding,

Let's take the bail proceeding. We have bail proceedings in federal court. And let's say a defendant is brought over to the courthouse, he's in the holding cell, and we say, let's start the proceeding, and it's reported to me by the marshals. The defendant is refusing to appear. So the question I think you're posing is, would I proceed or not? Okay. So what I think I would do in your hypothetical is, and I have done actually, I'll tell you,

you have the marshal you swear in the marshal and you say marshal i want you you've now been sworn in i want you to go down to the holding cell and i want you to say the following to the defendant mr defendant we are going to conduct a bail hearing you have an absolute right to be here i would prefer that you are here i would prefer that you're here because i want to hear your side of the story you have a right to come to my courtroom i do not want to proceed without you And the marshal relays that to the defendant. The marshal comes back up under oath and relays what is the defendant's position is.

And in order to, you know, move things along in situations where defendants refuse to be part of a proceeding after a lot of steps are taken and after a careful record is made, my view is that you can proceed. And I'm not criticizing the Las Vegas judge, but, you know, at some point, a defendant can be found to forfeit their very precious right to be in a courtroom during all proceedings. I appreciate that, providing a little bit more clarity on what potential options could have be. In terms of Mr. Redden, I'll let everybody know, he appeared in court this past week for a different judge and a preliminary hearing has been set for February 14th on all of these new charges that he is going to be facing. The Honorable Mitchell Goldberg, thank you so much for making your sidebar debut. Really appreciate you taking the time. And hopefully the next time we talk, it's not about a judge being attacked, but maybe some other kind of case. But thank you so much, sir.

Thank you, Jesse. Take care. All right, everybody. That is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.

You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.