Johnny E. McMahon (Inmate #1022589), currently at Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, NV, has been imprisoned for nearly two decades. In his filings, he alleges deeply flawed procedures, faulty DNA evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and a lack of a valid arrest warrant—claims he says point to systemic abuse and corruption in Nevada’s justice system.
This timeline was compiled several months ago from existing filings. It is an abridged account; a full version is available upon request. It reflects Mr. McMahon’s understanding of events based on his filings and statements.
Content & Legal Notice: The timeline may include real names of private and public individuals drawn from the public record. Some items are allegations or opinions and may be disputed. Do not use this material to harass or threaten anyone. Where individuals were under 18 at the time of the events, identifying details may be abbreviated or redacted.
Background on Arrest and Charges
- Oct 2004: While McMahon was out of state, the babysitter (age 15) accessed adult chat rooms from his apartment, claiming to be 21. After he returned and fired her, McMahon says FBI agents threatened her unless she implicated him.
- She later filed a police report alleging sexual activity.
- Police seized blood-stained sheets; McMahon says this was later explained as menstrual blood.
- During a voluntary interview, a detective falsely told McMahon the girl was pregnant to pressure a confession; he later admitted it was a tactic.
- The accuser allegedly recanted privately; McMahon says no arrest warrant was issued at that time.
- Dec 12, 2005: After a police-orchestrated meet-up, McMahon was arrested (expired plates + sexual assault allegations) in a single booking event.
- During the initial 72-hour detention, McMahon says he was denied a probable cause hearing. A “declaration warrant” and two witness affidavits appeared hours after a magistrate appearance where the state had admitted no evidence.
- He alleges the magistrate failed to challenge the arrest; counsel did not move to dismiss or request bail.
- Mar 23, 2006: At a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor allegedly represented that a warrant existed (McMahon claims it did not) and stated he fled the state; counsel did not challenge these points.
- McMahon further alleges improper joinder and the use of a second alleged babysitter’s case (later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) to bolster the main case.
- He says he went 96 days without a proper probable-cause hearing (NRS 173.035), was never properly arraigned, and had no opportunity for a plea or bail.
Counsel Performance (as alleged)
McMahon contends his trial lawyer failed to: secure computer/cell-phone data, subpoena alibi/character witnesses, retain a DNA expert, interview key witnesses, or challenge prosecutorial misconduct. He also alleges the trial judge publicly signaled guilt before trial. Later, he cites testimony from his former attorney’s separate criminal case about a past head injury and “diminished capacity,” arguing this compounded ineffective assistance.
Broader Context Allegations
McMahon links his case to earlier FBI attention surrounding the “Gentlemen Bandits” investigation and friction in Las Vegas related to his proposed Flying Saucer Resorts concept. He alleges powerful interests and officials colluded to target him.
Conviction and Sentences (May 8, 2008 — Clark County, NV)
- Counts: Three counts of sexual assault of a minor under 16; one count of misdemeanor open/gross lewdness.
- Sentence: Life with parole eligibility after 20 years on each sexual assault count (concurrent) + 12 months on the misdemeanor (concurrent).
Federal Habeas Filings
- 2012 — 2:12-cv-00774-MMD-CWH: Dismissed without prejudice for unexhausted grounds; no evidentiary hearing.
- 2014 — 2:14-cv-00076-APG-CWH: Grounds included improper joinder; insufficient evidence; counselor testimony; ineffective assistance (multiple failures listed); counsel mental incompetency; denial of effective appellate counsel (including failure to file reply brief and challenge “flight” instruction).
Precedent Cited (examples)
- Lafler v. Cooper (2012) — plea advice/IAC.
- Martinez v. Ryan (2012) and Trevino v. Thaler (2013) — IAC gateway for federal review.
- Brown v. McDaniel (Nev. 2014) — state-law precedent cited.
Court’s Decision on Second Petition
Sept 29, 2017: Second-Amended §2254 petition denied in full; certificate of appealability denied; no evidentiary hearing.
Notice of Appeal
Oct 10, 2017: Docket No. 17-17031; COA denied.
Post-Conviction Petitions & Additional Allegations
McMahon says key issues were never raised by post-conviction counsel: want of subject-matter jurisdiction, concealment of exculpatory DNA, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias.
He also alleges:
- Arrest Warrant: For over 16 years, no court has physically inspected/produced the original warrant; he argues it does not exist.
- DNA Evidence: Fraudulent concealment of exculpatory DNA; misstatements of forensic statistics.
- Conflict-Free Counsel: He says the judge forced him to rehire his former attorney, violating his right to conflict-free counsel.
- Misrepresentations: He claims the attorney misled appellate courts about his role/appointments, amounting to fraud.
Current Legal Actions (as described, non-exhaustive list)
- Writ of Prohibition (9th Cir., pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3371(d)(3)) — Johnny E. McMahon v. Warden Nethanjah Breitenbach and the State of Nevada (case number pending).
- Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus — filed in the 11th Judicial District Court.
For more motions not listed here, go the Legal Motions page.
McMahon’s Stated Objectives
- Secure release by establishing that evidence was illegally obtained/used.
- Demonstrate constitutional structural errors rendering the judgment void.
Public Campaign & Potential Civil Action
Given the procedural barriers he describes, McMahon’s supporters encourage public review of the filings and sharing of records. He is also evaluating a potential 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights action.
Important Note: The statements above reflect McMahon’s filings and allegations. As of the date of this post, no court has overturned his conviction. Readers are encouraged to review the primary documents linked by his supporters for context.
Leave a Reply