On Thursday, August 7, 2025, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a Las Vegas judge defended her actions during a judicial discipline hearing that scrutinized her conduct. District Judge Erika Ballou faced allegations from the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, which claimed she disregarded a ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court and violated the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct.
The controversy revolves around Ballou’s decision to release a prisoner, Mia Christman. Following this release, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed her decision, but Ballou allegedly failed to ensure Christman’s return to custody. Additionally, she issued orders while a motion to recuse her was pending, which another judge deemed unlawful, according to the commission’s filing.
During the hearing, Ballou, alongside her attorney Tom Pitaro, presented a counter-argument to the commission’s claims. Pitaro asserted that the hearing would demonstrate that Ballou acted appropriately within her judicial role. “What Judge Ballou did is what a judge is supposed to do,” he stated, emphasizing that judges must consider the matters before them and make decisions accordingly.
While the commission did not announce a decision regarding potential disciplinary actions at the conclusion of the hearing, Special Counsel Thomas Bradley urged the panel to impose a punishment more severe than a previous censure that Ballou had received. He characterized the case as one of honor and integrity, asserting that Ballou’s actions reflected a repeated failure to adhere to Supreme Court mandates and were not merely mistakes.
Bradley questioned Ballou about a specific 2022 Nevada Supreme Court order that reversed her earlier decision regarding Christman’s case. He argued that the order was clear; however, Ballou disagreed, suggesting that “proceedings consistent with this order could mean a lot of things.”
Further complicating the matter, a January 2023 hearing revealed a conversation where a Chief Deputy District Attorney, Christopher Hamner, questioned Ballou’s intention to gather more evidence to support her original ruling. Ballou confirmed that she intended to hold a new evidentiary hearing, which led to another appeal by prosecutors. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled in October 2023 that Ballou should vacate the hearing and rule in favor of the prosecutors.
Ballou explained that she did not immediately comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling because Christman’s attorney had filed additional motions. She stated that she believed she needed to address these motions before issuing an order. Following the Supreme Court’s order, Ballou allowed Christman additional time to arrange care for her six-month-old child before being taken back into custody, citing concerns about the child’s welfare.
Pitaro defended Ballou’s actions, arguing that her considerations for the child’s situation did not reflect dishonor on the court. He expressed disbelief at the notion that providing time for a parent in a difficult situation could be seen as disrespectful.
In April 2024, prosecutors requested Ballou’s recusal from Christman’s case; however, she claimed she had not been properly served with the recusal motion. Following the hearing, Hamner stated that he believed Ballou had indeed been served. The Supreme Court subsequently assigned a different judge to Christman’s case in May 2024, expressing concerns about Ballou’s compliance with judicial directives.
In May 2025, Chief District Judge Jerry Wiese removed Ballou from all criminal cases after a public defender raised issues about her conduct, which included allegations of inappropriate comments. This situation follows a prior censure by the commission related to Ballou’s social media activity and remarks made during a sentencing hearing.
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
