Disbar Nevada Judge Valorie Vega







Judge Valorie Vega must be removed from office and disbarred. These actions must be taken in response to Judge Vega’a unjust, appalling, and egregious actions in the case of Ms. Kirstin Blaise Lobato, a young women unjustly convicted of and imprisoned for the murder of Duran Bailey.


Ms. Lobato was accused of killing Mr. Bailey on July 8, 2001, in Las Vegas, Nevada, when Ms. Lobato was age 18. Ms. Lobato was arrested later that month and convicted of first degree murder and sexual penetration of a dead body in 2002. In 2004 these convictions were overturned on account of a grievous trial error. In 2006 Ms. Lobato was retried and convicted of manslaughter and sexual penetration. She was sentenced to 13 to 35 years in prison. Clark County Judge Valorie Vega presided at both of these trials.


Yet both trials and sets of convictions are demonstrably erroneous and extremely unjust. Valorie Vega has demonstrated blatant bias and furtherance of injustice of immense proportions in her presiding over the several trials of Ms. Kirstin Lobato, an innocent women. Valorie Vega displayed an enormous classist bias and favoritism to the prosecution in her unjust and absurd rulings.


Specifically Ms. Vega has:


1. Permitted the double hearsay testimony of Laura Johnson, a juvenile probation officer. Laura Johnson had heard an acquaintance relate an incident that Ms. Lobato related to her about repelling an would be rapist with a knife. This incident occurred over a month before Duran Bailey was killed. Not only was the testimony of Ms. Johnson hearsay, but she only related what she believed the hearsay testimony of her acquaintance to have been. Yet Ms. Vega allowed this hearsay testimony to be permitted in both trials of Ms. Lobato.


2. Ms. Vega disallowed the testimony of multiple alibi witnesses who would have testified that Ms. Lobato told them days preceding the July 8 death of Duran Bailey that Ms. Lobato repelled a rape attempt with a knife in Las Vegas. Thus the prosecution was enabled to produce double hearsay evidence while the defense was unable to provide the evidence that refuted this testimony. These actions alone demonstrate the inability of Ms. Vega to practice law in an ethical and legal manner.


3. Ms. Vega allowed extensive testimony concerning the presumptive luminal and phenolphthalein tests on Ms. Lobato’s car that in fact did not demonstrate the presence of blood. Confirmatory DNA tests excluded the presence of blood in the car.


4. Ms. Vega allowed the incompetent police detective investigating the case, Thomas Thowsen to provide a great amount of hearsay testimony. In particular without supporting evidence Mr. Thowsen was allowed to testify that hospital personnel and urologists told him no reports of a male groin or penis knife wound had been filed in the months of May, June, and July 2001. Mr. Thowsen was also allowed to testify that no state required medical reports had been filed for non-accidental knife wounds.


4. Ms. Vega allowed Thowsen to testify as an expert even without any qualifications as a psychology or medical expert that Ms. Lobato’s statement to Las Vegas detectives does not provide any information matching the details of the Bailey murder and location because methamphetamine use caused her to jumble the details of the event.


5. Ms. Vega aided the prosecution allowing two of its proposed instructions to the jury that shifted the prosecution’s burden of proving guile beyond a reasonable to Ms. Lobato to prove her innocence. Thus the prosecution was enabled to skate around the absence of incriminating evidence against Ms. Lobato by providing the basis for their arguments that the jury could convict Ms. Lobato because it is possible she might have committed the crime.


6. Ms. Vega demonstrated her hateful bias against the defendant by imposing the very maximum sentence with three consecutive maximum sentences upon Ms. Lobato, who had no prior convictions at her second trial. Ms. Vega pronounced these appalling sentences even though post trial psychosexual evaluation reports by both prosecution and defense experts determined Ms. Lobato was a very low risk to commit a sexual crime and was not a danger to the community. Ms. Vega not only demonstrated an obvious and noxious bias in her sentencing but also in effect nullified the verdict of the jury which acquitted Ms. Lobato of murder. The sentencing fo Ms. Lobato alone clearly demonstrates the unfitness Ms. Vega to be a member of the judiciary and to practice law.


7. On March 1, 2011, Ms. Vega denied the petition of numerous new grounds demonstrating the innocence of Ms. Lobato in 770 pages without any appearance of having read or reviewed the defense document. Ms. Vega also failed to recuse herself from the review of new defense appeal despite its contentions concerning her rulings in earlier trials. Thus Ms. Vega has deliberately provided a biased uninformed ruling detrimental to the American system of justice. This ruling alone demonstrates the unfitness of Ms. Vega to hold judicial office.


By the number and magnitude of her unjust, biased, and in fact illegal rulings Valorie Vega has more than amply demonstrated her lack of character to hold a position of public trust or to practice law. Valorie Vega has no credibility as a judge or lawyer for honest and reasonable people. In the interests of justice and legal accountability, Ms. Vega must be disbarred and removed from office immediately.


State Bar of Nevada

P.O. Box 50

Las Vegas, NV, 89135-0050




Resource Materials:













Hans Sherrer Kirstin Blaise Lobato’s Unreasonable Conviction (Seattle, 2010).


























Write To: