Attorneys say man who attacked Clark County judge shouldn't get new trial

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Should the man who was convicted of attacking Clark County District Judge Mary Kay Holthus get a new trial?

According to a Tuesday filing by state prosecutors, the answer is no.

You may remember the viral incident that happened on Jan. 3, 2024. Deobra Redden was in Judge Holthus' courtroom facing an attempted battery with substantial bodily harm charge. As she was preparing to hand down a sentence, Redden jumped four feet over the bench to attack her.

JANUARY 2024: Courtroom video captures attack

According to an arrest report, Holthus said Redden knocked her out of her chair and slammed her head against the wall before ripping some of her hair out. The report also stated that two marshals were notified of a panic alarm but were dispatched to the wrong courtroom.

Several people were hurt in the attack. Tuesday's filing reveals how severely Judge Holthus and Marshal Shane Brandon were injured.

The filing states that after the attack, "there was blood everywhere behind the bench, calendar papers were covered in blood and clumps of Judge Holthus's hair."

Ultimately, prosecutors said Holthus had injuries to her head, left arm, and tailbone.

"She was unable to sleep on her left side for over one month, sustained prolonged headaches and pain in her tailbone, and was unable to walk for prolonged periods of time. She also had bruises on her lower back and upper shoulder and had severe neck pain," they said.

Brandon dislocated his left arm and sustained a substantial head injury, "where part of Marshal Brandon's forehead was split open with the skin flapping."

His left arm had a torn rotator cuff, a torn labrum, and a broken bone, which required surgery and physical therapy. He also had a head injury.

JANUARY 2024: Marshal radio traffic reveals more about viral judge attack

Five days after the attack, Judge Holthus sentenced Redden to spend between 19 months and four years in prison on the attempted battery charges that he was originally facing. She previously said her sentencing decision was the same one she was going to hand down before Redden approached the bench.

As for the charges related to Holthus's attack, Redden was initially facing seven charges but pleaded guilty but mentally ill to all but one charge ahead of jury selection in Sept. 2024. He did not reach any agreement with prosecutors before pleading guilty.

DECEMBER 2024: Deobra Redden sentenced to a minimum of 26 years in prison

Redden appealed the case to the Nevada Supreme Court on Jan. 13, 2025, and his public defender, Nancy Lemcke, filed her opening brief asking the state court to consider a new trial on Dec. 22, 2025.

According to the brief, Lemcke argued that Redden's counsel, Carl Arnold, was ineffective and did not negotiate for better terms for his client.

"Although Redden had previously entered a plea of guilty to the charges excluding attempt murder, he was permitted to withdraw that plea and instead enter a plea of guilty but mentally ill to all charges, but still without any negotiations," the filing reads in part.

Lemcke also questioned why Holthus was still allowed to preside over Redden's other case after the attack.

"Although there was seemingly a conflict of interest in having Judge Holthus continue to preside over Redden's matter after the incident, no objection was lodged and no appeal was taken," Lemcke states.

She also questioned if proceedings should have been moved to another jurisdiction since the viral video and attack were seen by so many people here in Clark County.

"Trial Counsel did not ask a single question regarding the case's publicity, either to the panel or individual jurors," the filing states in part.

You can read the full filing below.

On Tuesday, state prosecutors responded to those claims.

When it comes to ineffective counsel, prosecutors stated the record alone "rarely allows this Court to assess counsel's strategic decisions."

They also argued that for the Supreme Court to review the case, two criteria have to be met:

• The District Court has already held an evidentiary hearing
• counsel's performance is so egregiously deficient that no reasonable explanation for it exists.

"Neither circumstance applies here," prosecutors stated. "Carl Arnold provided continuous, documented, and strategic representation at every stage ... and ensured (Redden) understood and approved all key decisions."

You can read the full filing below.

When looking at the Nevada Supreme Court docket, no future hearing dates or a timeline of when a decision could come down have been posted as of Tuesday afternoon.