A shocking courtroom attack in Las Vegas in January 2024 was one of the most widely circulated videos of violence inside a US court: Deobra Redden, then 30, jumped over the judge’s bench and attacked Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus as she prepared to sentence him in an earlier criminal case.
On surveillance cameras in the courtroom, Redden leapt over the bench and hit the judge. Court staff, marshal and others rushed to restrain him as the courtroom turned into a scene of chaos.
He stood in front of the judge and told her he was working, staying out of trouble and "in a better place in my mind." She said she was sending him to prison anyway. Before she could finish the sentence, he was flying over her bench: In the video below, the courtroom camera catches the whole thing. January 3, 2024. Clark County District Court, Las Vegas. Deobra Redden was 30, a three-time felon, there to be sentenced for attempted battery. He'd beaten a man with a baseball bat the year before. He'd even said he understood. "If it's appropriate for you, then you gotta do what you gotta do." Then Judge Mary Kay Holthus started reading out the prison term. He ran at her, cleared the bench in one jump and landed on top of her. Her marshal, her clerk and a lawyer in the room piled on to drag him off. The marshal was treated for a head injury. The clerk was scraped up. The judge was back on the bench the next day. Afterwards he told guards he'd had a bad day and tried to kill the judge. He had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. His lawyer said he hadn't been taking his medication. He pleaded guilty but mentally ill to attempted murder and five other charges. In December 2024 he got 26 to 65 years. At sentencing he said he didn't remember much of that day, and that he isn't an evil person. The judge testified she thought she was going to die. Does untreated mental illness change how much blame he deserves, or is attacking a judge in her own courtroom unforgivable no matter what?
— Sutton (@suttonwwwen) November 11, 2026
The attack injured Judge Holthus and a courtroom marshal needed medical treatment. He returned to work the following day.
The case later took a dramatic turn when Redden pleaded guilty but was mentally ill to attempted murder and other charges related to the assault. In December 2024 he was sentenced to between 26 and 65 years in prison.
His defence raised untreated schizophrenia (his lawyer said Redden had not been taking his medication at the time of the attack). The case has since re-ignited debate about the relationship between serious mental illness, criminal responsibility and public safety.
What happened during the Las Vegas Courtroom Attack?
The incident occurred on January 3, 2024 in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Redden was before Judge Mary Kay Holthus for sentencing in a separate felony battery case. He had pleaded guilty to attempted battery resulting in substantial bodily harm after an earlier incident with a baseball bat.
At the hearing Redden addressed the judge and asked for leniency. He said he was someone who was trying to change his behaviour and that he was in a better place mentally.
He also said that the judge had to make the decision she thought was right.
But it all changed when Holthus said she was going to send him to prison.
As the judge was about to say the sentence Redden suddenly charged towards the bench, jumped over it and landed on top of her.
Courtroom video shows him grabbing the judge as she falls backwards. An American flag also toppled during the struggle.
The judge’s marshal, law clerk and others in the courtroom jumped in. People tackled Redden and tried to pull him away from Holthus.
The footage showed the extent of what happened and how quickly an ordinary sentencing hearing turned into a violent confrontation.
Judge Mary Kay Holthus and Court Staff Were Injured
The attack injured the judge and court staff.
Judge Holthus was injured during the assault but not hospitalised. She returned to court the following day.
The courtroom marshal had a head injury (a bleeding wound on his forehead) and dislocated shoulder. He needed hospital treatment.
The law clerk was also injured in the incident.
Holthus later testified during proceedings connected with the case that she was afraid for her life when Redden attacked her.
Her testimony established the seriousness of the assault and how it affected those who were present.
Deobra Redden's Schizophrenia Diagnosis Became a Major Issue
One of the most important things about the case was Redden’s mental health history.
His defence lawyer Carl Arnold said Redden had schizophrenia and was not taking his medication at the time of the attack.
The defence said his untreated mental illness was part of the explanation for his behaviour.
Redden’s lawyer said the eventual guilty-but-mentally ill plea was an effort “to say that it was serious but acknowledge the role of his mental illness”.
However, schizophrenia does not mean that someone is legally insane or doesn’t understand what they are doing.
These are medical and legal questions. Someone can have a serious psychiatric condition and still meet the legal criteria for criminal responsibility.
In Redden’s case, medical tests had found him competent to stand trial in the earlier proceedings. At his later sentencing the judge also mentioned medical tests showing he knew right from wrong.
What Does 'Guilty But Mentally Ill' Mean?
Redden pleaded guilty but mentally ill in September 2024 to attempted murder and five other charges connected with the courtroom attack.
The plea is an important distinction in American criminal justice.
A guilty-but-mentally-ill plea acknowledges criminal responsibility but also recognises that the defendant was suffering from a mental illness relevant to the case.
This is different from an insanity defence which can lead to a finding that the defendant is not criminally responsible under the applicable legal standard.
A mental illness diagnosis is not enough to establish legal insanity. Courts generally look at whether the defendant’s mental state met the legal requirements at the time of the offence (i.e. was it insane?).
In Redden’s case, the guilty-but-mentally ill plea didn’t save him from a long prison sentence.
It also didn’t mean the court ignored his mental health history. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences for which he took responsibility.
Deobra Redden Sentenced to 26 to 65 Years in Prison
On December 10, 2024 Judge Susan Johnson sentenced Redden to between 26 and 65 years in prison in Nevada for the courtroom attack.
The sentence followed his guilty-but-mentally ill plea to six charges.
At the sentencing hearing Redden said he was not an evil person and that he had not meant to kill Judge Holthus.
He also said he didn’t remember much of what happened during the attack and was distressed about what he had done.
His lawyer said he was remorseful and that he had reacted strongly after seeing the courtroom footage.
But the prosecution also said that the assault was severe and had affected the judge and the judicial system.
Judge Johnson called it an attack on the judiciary: “Violence against a judge in a courtroom is an attack on the justice system itself — violence against someone who is supposed to be protecting us.”
Redden’s sentence means he is likely to be eligible for parole sometime in the 2050s (depending on prison rules and the outcome of his appeal).
He was also separately sentenced to 19 to 48 months for the original battery case.
What Happened to Redden's Appeal?
Redden then appealed his conviction and sentence to the Nevada Supreme Court.
His appeal questioned the legal representation he was getting. The case went through appellate filings but then the Clark County Public Defender’s Office took over his defense after that.
In March 2026 the Nevada Supreme Court reprimanded his former lawyer Carl Arnold for not doing his job (missed filings and failing to meet court requirements) in handling the appeal.
The disciplinary action was one matter concerning the lawyer’s conduct; it did not overturn Redden’s conviction or sentence.
At the time of the most recent reports reviewed for this article, the appeal was still pending in court; no final decision had been made overturning conviction or sentence in the reporting.
Does mental illness change criminal responsibility?
The Redden case poses a difficult question about how criminal justice systems should treat people who commit serious violent offences while suffering from mental illness.
Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia can affect a person’s perception, thinking and behaviour. But the impact varies between people and cannot be inferred from diagnosis alone.
There are several considerations courts can take into account:
- Whether the defendant knew what he was doing and what would happen.
- Whether the person could distinguish right from wrong under the applicable legal standard.
- Whether a psychiatric condition affected the person’s decision making at the time.
- Whether the defendant was receiving treatment or taking medication prescribed by a doctor.
- Whether medical assessments back up the defence’s case.
Mental illness may inform criminal responsibility, sentencing and treatment decisions but it does not take away accountability for violent behaviour.
The legal system has to take into account safety and rights of victims, court personnel and the public as well.
A Case That Raises Questions About Justice and Mental Healthcare
The attack on Judge Mary Kay Holthus is still a disturbing reminder of how quickly violence can escalate in a courtroom.
Redden’s schizophrenia diagnosis and claim that he was not taking his medication gave the case an important dimension but court proceedings also showed that a mental health condition and legal responsibility are not mutually exclusive.
The case reinforces the need for better access to mental healthcare, treatment and monitoring for people with serious psychiatric conditions who have had contact with the criminal justice system.
But at the same time protecting victims and safety inside courts are still responsibilities.
Ultimately, Deobra Redden is about how mental healthcare works alongside individual accountability and public safety. Not acknowledging that mental illness plays a part doesn’t mean ignoring the harm violence does; not holding someone accountable doesn’t mean overlooking their need for psychiatric care.
Comments