Lymon lawyers target 1st-degree murder charge
Attorneys for suspected cop killer Davon Lymon are asking the court to dismiss a first-degree murder charge against him, arguing there is no evidence of a “deliberate intention to kill.”
The motion was one of a handful of filings — including a second request to have defense attorneys held in contempt of court — submitted last week in the highprofile and increasingly high-tension case centered on the death of Albuquerque officer Daniel Webster. Police allege Lymon fatally shot Webster during a traffic stop in October 2015.
Jeff Rein, Lymon’s public defense attorney, writes that evidence drawn from 132
witness interviews shows no proof of the intent required for a first-degree murder conviction.
But prosecutors argue in a response that intent is rarely proven with direct evidence and is instead inferred from other facts in the case. They say there are “numerous facts that support the first-degree murder charge” and because facts in the case are in dispute, it would be inappropriate for the court to consider dismissal.
“Here, the parties disagree on every material fact and even whether some facts are in existence,” Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Armijo Hughes wrote.
In an interview Tuesday, Rein said that if the judge grants the motion, Lymon would instead face a lesser charge, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter.
In a separate motion, Rein asked the court to order prosecutors to turn over any information they have that shows intent. Rein points out that a willful and deliberate first-degree murder conviction requires a jury to find a deliberate intention to kill. Legal requirements for a first-degree murder conviction, he says, specify that a “mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not a deliberate intention to kill.”
In yet another motion, Lymon’s defense attorneys express concern that Webster’s widow, a Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputy, has access to law enforcement tools and could use them for “professional and independent or rogue investigation” in the case. Fellow officers, “out of legitimate care and concern” for her or for Webster, could do the same, Rein writes.
Although he said he is not aware that such investigations have happened, he wrote that he hopes the motion will push the state to remind officers that interfering “even with the most honorable intentions” could cause the case to be dismissed. Rein asks the court to order the state to disclose any recent efforts to reach a key state’s witness in the case, along with any efforts to reach a woman who defense attorneys say was with Lymon on the night of the shooting. He also asks for details of any contact with those witnesses.
“The tone of the prosecution raises alarm as to a need for protection of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings,” Rein wrote, “so that the AG’s demonstrated zeal for a high profile conviction does not misinform its judgment.”
In a response, prosecutors ask the judge to hold Lymon’s attorneys in contempt of court — again — and to “impose a fine that will actually deter their continued unethical behavior.”
Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Gilbert wrote that the motion is “meritless” and that the defense is accusing officers, “including the victim’s widow,” of plotting to intimidate a witness. He argues that it “amounts to nothing more than an improper attack on the character of a grieving widow and her law enforcement associates.”
Asked for comment Tuesday, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office said the defense “requests have no merit,” and the office looks forward to “bringing justice for the widow and her family.”
It’s unclear when 2nd Judicial District Judge Briana Zamora might rule on the motions. Lymon is scheduled for trial in March.