Uploaded February 2026 | Updated September 2026, 5 hours ago
The Ninth Circuit might find Chille DeCastro's factual background to be of enough complexity that oral argument and additional briefing is needed. If so, the chances of reversal goes up. Here's why. Chille's case has been before both the state and federal courts. The obstruction and resisting charges are overlapping and badly written. The Willson court could not find much basis for the 1911 statue, and tried to "update" it without invalidating it. Then, when Willson was being decided, that appellate court never reviewed Hiibell, a case I presented in a video that meant no jail time for similar charges. Nevada broke away from the Ninth Circuit when it went with "officer safety." This case presents many interesting Constitutional questions, and regardless of whether Chille wins or loses, the Ninth Circuit might want to address that break away and how the obstruction and resisting arrest charges impact due process. Chille will argue against the motion in limine which prevented the jury from hearing what was decided in the state court. Since the jury found "probable cause" (as did the federal judge), Chille's arguments will need to refute it. There's more, to be sure. We don't have the reasons why the judge granted the motion in limine. I also don't have access to the recorded transcripts. Interestingly, now that the Willson decision redefined the "obstruction" charge as "fighting words" and "physical conduct," its exception includes passive aggressive actions such as refusing to obey a lawful order. I replayed the tape where I think it shows Chille disobeying a lawful order. The federal jury instructions included the Willson exception. The Judge Leavitt order overturning the convictions fails to mention the Willson exception. There's so much here. Let's wait for the briefing.
None of this is legal advice, and just the observations from a lawyer in California who is not licensed in Nevada, and offers this for entertainment purposes and news purposes only. I am commenting on a public issue, as is my right. I helped to sponsor the "feed" from One Nevada Judges, and this case has generated a strong public interest, including it being discussed in newspapers in Clark county, and discussed thousands of times on Youtube. No attorney-client relationship is expressed or implied, and no solicitation of employment is meant at all. I reserve all of my rights, including those under California's anti-Slapp statute.
The Ninth Circuit might find Chille DeCastro's factual background to be of enough complexity that oral argument and additional briefing is needed. If so, the chances of reversal goes up. Here's why. Chille's case has been before both the state and federal courts. The obstruction and resisting charges are overlapping and badly written. The Willson court could not find much basis for the 1911 statue, and tried to "update" it without invalidating it. Then, when Willson was being decided, that appellate court never reviewed Hiibell, a case I presented in a video that meant no jail time for similar charges. Nevada broke away from the Ninth Circuit when it went with "officer safety." This case presents many interesting Constitutional questions, and regardless of whether Chille wins or loses, the Ninth Circuit might want to address that break away and how the obstruction and resisting arrest charges impact due process. Chille will argue against the motion in limine which prevented the jury from hearing what was decided in the state court. Since the jury found "probable cause" (as did the federal judge), Chille's arguments will need to refute it. There's more, to be sure. We don't have the reasons why the judge granted the motion in limine. I also don't have access to the recorded transcripts. Interestingly, now that the Willson decision redefined the "obstruction" charge as "fighting words" and "physical conduct," its exception includes passive aggressive actions such as refusing to obey a lawful order. I replayed the tape where I think it shows Chille disobeying a lawful order. The federal jury instructions included the Willson exception. The Judge Leavitt order overturning the convictions fails to mention the Willson exception. There's so much here. Let's wait for the briefing.
None of this is legal advice, and just the observations from a lawyer in California who is not licensed in Nevada, and offers this for entertainment purposes and news purposes only. I am commenting on a public issue, as is my right. I helped to sponsor the "feed" from One Nevada Judges, and this case has generated a strong public interest, including it being discussed in newspapers in Clark county, and discussed thousands of times on Youtube. No attorney-client relationship is expressed or implied, and no solicitation of employment is meant at all. I reserve all of my rights, including those under California's anti-Slapp statute.
