Ex-deputy district attorney may wish she’d never hit ‘send’ on emails

The thrust of all this coverage? When did the couple begin dating?

While that sounds trivial, the question was one of judicial and legal ethics: Did Willardson appear before Jones in court when they were dating? That would have been an unethical conflict-of-interest on both their parts by placing defense attorneys at a disadvantage.

Then-District Attorney David Roger launched a grand jury probe into whether the two had perjured themselves in sworn affidavits. Roger also filed a complaint against Jones with the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. A complaint was filed against Willardson with the State Bar of Nevada.

The conflict pitted Family Court judges against prosecutors and court administrators, and nobody looked righteous.

This week, new District Attorney Steve Wolfson told me, “There is no longer any grand jury investigation going on. My understanding, from speaking to some of my colleagues, is that there was initially interest in pursuing perjury charges. There’s no longer an issue or desire to do that. It’s my decision.”

Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens explained the basis of the decision. Essentially, the grand jury subpoenaed records of communications between the judge and the prosecutor. After a review of those records, the decision was made to drop it. No witnesses were ever subpoenaed.

It’s obvious emails and texts didn’t prove perjury, though emails Willardson wrote Oct. 26 and Oct. 27 said that she and Jones were dating.

Jones and Willardson, who are both single and remain a couple, insisted they weren’t dating until November.

Much was made about an under-the-table photo of Jones’ hand near Willardson’s knee at an Oct. 28 party. The photo was taken by Deputy District Attorney Michelle Edwards who, with Deputy District Attorney Janne Hanrahan, took the photo to supervisors, who transferred Willardson Oct. 31.

A furious Jones banned the two prosecutors from his court for “unprofessional conduct.” Then Roger fired Willardson and sought to have Jones removed from child abuse and neglect cases.

A nightmare ensued. Judges were signing affidavits saying they didn’t say what administrators said they said. Either Jones fought to keep Willardson in his court, or he didn’t. With the conflicting he said/she said/they said, the truth was lost. Cases were delayed.

I’m told Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Nancy Saitta became involved and told the feuding sides to find a resolution because a public rift between the DA’s office and Family Court judges wasn’t appropriate.

The resolution was this: Jones remained the primary judge handling child abuse and neglect cases. If Hanrahan and Edwards had cases, they would be heard by Family Court Judge Frank Sullivan.

Willardson wrote in an email that the period between mid-December and now was devastating. “The situation has broken my heart and makes me question the very institution that I gave my heart and soul to for many years.”

She conceded she should have been more circumspect in her emails, where she told Jones (and others) he was “hot.”

Jones was advised not to speak to me by his attorney James Jimmerson because the Judicial Discipline Commission, which has yet to decide whether to file a complaint or drop it. (I can’t imagine those commissioners, or the State Bar, will move forward when Wolfson has found the allegations unworthy of a grand jury’s time.

Judge Jones has survived another challenge to his reputation and continues to handle child abuse and neglect trials.

Unfortunately, the now unemployed Willardson’s own enthusiastic emails about their dating, and their timing, certainly made it seem she and the judge lied.

Sometimes you create your own problems, and live to regret it.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.