Uploaded November 2023 | Updated September 2026, 6 minutes ago
Former Assistant District Attorney Patrick D'Arcy is predicting that Chille DeCastro’s will be convicted in his upcoming criminal case in the Justice Court in Nevada, where he is charged with two misdemeanors, the first being a violation of NRS 197.190 (Obstructing Public Officer), and the second being a violation of NRS 199.280.3. The statutes are sufficiently vague that conviction is easier to obtain. I will walk through the language of these statutes to show how they can trap persons (even those who are innocent). These types of cases usually go against the defendants. The cop will have bodycam usually. If they don't, and it's his word against theirs, they can more easily convict him. These are the types of charges that DA's like to take to trial, as it shows respect for the police. I have pulled the docket, a bio on the judge, the statutes in question, and some film clip from Nevada State Judges. That’s a great channel. Stop by and pay them homage. They petitioned the court for an order allowing them to film, and their videos are simply fantastic.
Chille refused a plea deal. A plea deal meant - from my experience - that he had to plead guilty to at least one charge, with either minimal jail or something along those lines. I don't have first-hand knowledge of this plea, but they always include a conviction. Since DeCastro is about changing (or even abolishing) some facets of criminal law, I think he had to, on principle, take it to trial.
I based this on watching his other videos on his channel, where he calls cops “pigs,” cusses at them, and otherwise shows a pattern of contempt. I am not saying that he is guilty of anything. I do not know. But my deductions are as a former prosecutor, and the way the statutes can be applied against anyone - guilty or innocent. These two charges are very vaguely worded, making conviction more probable. I admit that I do not know the background for this particular situation, nor have I seen any of the evidence, so it's possible he could walk and be acquitted. DeCastro is, of course, presumed innocent. Maybe there are grounds to exonerate him, and maybe I am completely wrong here. I am not stating as fact that he has committed any crime, given the presumption of innocence and that I have not reviewed the evidence. My prediction is just that – a prediction. While “contempt of cop” is not sufficient to warrant a conviction, the vagueness and widespread latitude of construing the statutes poses a serious risk of conviction. I am sure that the prosecutor will review his Youtube channel, and pull up instances – if any exist- that show willful refusal to comply with lawful orders, acts that hinder or delay the implementation of a lawful order, and other such conduct.
The “good news” for DeCastro is that, if he is a first-offender, he is very likely to get a suspended sentence. If he complies with probation, then no jail, but probably community service and the standard probation terms. Then, upon full compliance, the conviction is tossed. If he fails to comply, then the guilty plea stands, and he could face jail time for the charges he was convicted on, plus additional time for the probation violation too.
None of this is legal advice, and it's possible I am wrong, and that DeCastro will beat the charges. Many things can happen at a trial - a witness fails to appear, a statement is made that ruins a case, etc. We'll have to see how this unfolds.
Former Assistant District Attorney Patrick D'Arcy is predicting that Chille DeCastro’s will be convicted in his upcoming criminal case in the Justice Court in Nevada, where he is charged with two misdemeanors, the first being a violation of NRS 197.190 (Obstructing Public Officer), and the second being a violation of NRS 199.280.3. The statutes are sufficiently vague that conviction is easier to obtain. I will walk through the language of these statutes to show how they can trap persons (even those who are innocent). These types of cases usually go against the defendants. The cop will have bodycam usually. If they don't, and it's his word against theirs, they can more easily convict him. These are the types of charges that DA's like to take to trial, as it shows respect for the police. I have pulled the docket, a bio on the judge, the statutes in question, and some film clip from Nevada State Judges. That’s a great channel. Stop by and pay them homage. They petitioned the court for an order allowing them to film, and their videos are simply fantastic.
Chille refused a plea deal. A plea deal meant - from my experience - that he had to plead guilty to at least one charge, with either minimal jail or something along those lines. I don't have first-hand knowledge of this plea, but they always include a conviction. Since DeCastro is about changing (or even abolishing) some facets of criminal law, I think he had to, on principle, take it to trial.
I based this on watching his other videos on his channel, where he calls cops “pigs,” cusses at them, and otherwise shows a pattern of contempt. I am not saying that he is guilty of anything. I do not know. But my deductions are as a former prosecutor, and the way the statutes can be applied against anyone - guilty or innocent. These two charges are very vaguely worded, making conviction more probable. I admit that I do not know the background for this particular situation, nor have I seen any of the evidence, so it's possible he could walk and be acquitted. DeCastro is, of course, presumed innocent. Maybe there are grounds to exonerate him, and maybe I am completely wrong here. I am not stating as fact that he has committed any crime, given the presumption of innocence and that I have not reviewed the evidence. My prediction is just that – a prediction. While “contempt of cop” is not sufficient to warrant a conviction, the vagueness and widespread latitude of construing the statutes poses a serious risk of conviction. I am sure that the prosecutor will review his Youtube channel, and pull up instances – if any exist- that show willful refusal to comply with lawful orders, acts that hinder or delay the implementation of a lawful order, and other such conduct.
The “good news” for DeCastro is that, if he is a first-offender, he is very likely to get a suspended sentence. If he complies with probation, then no jail, but probably community service and the standard probation terms. Then, upon full compliance, the conviction is tossed. If he fails to comply, then the guilty plea stands, and he could face jail time for the charges he was convicted on, plus additional time for the probation violation too.
None of this is legal advice, and it's possible I am wrong, and that DeCastro will beat the charges. Many things can happen at a trial - a witness fails to appear, a statement is made that ruins a case, etc. We'll have to see how this unfolds.
