There is no ‘good reason’ to break law
On April 23, the state Supreme Court turned a blind eye when a state prosecutor presented illegally obtained evidence to a grand jury. The trial court dismissed the indictment as punishment for introducing illegally obtained evidence to the grand jury, but our Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision.
In short, the court ruled that a prosecutor can break the law.
If this seems unbelievable, read Justice (Charles) Daniel’s opinion in New Mexico vs. Martinez (S-1-SC-35757). The court stated that “a century of judicial precedents in New Mexico hold that…a court may not overturn an otherwise lawful grand jury indictment because of trial inadmissibility or improprieties in the procurement of evidence that was considered by the grand jury.”
The court had an opportunity to demand that grand jury evidence be lawfully obtained; however, refused to do so.
The Martinez case allows police and prosecutors to illegally obtain evidence and then use that unlawful evidence to obtain an indictment. Attorney General Hector Balderas defended prosecutors’ illegal actions.
In fact, Balderas argued that illegal evidence should be admissible before a grand jury. Our state’s highest law enforcement officer argued it was proper for prosecutors to break the law. That scares me and should worry New Mexicans. In fact, the prosecutor in the Martinez case who obtained evidence illegally was appointed to replace the very judge who ruled that using illegally obtained evidence to secure an indictment was unfair. Once again, crime pays in N.M. as long as you are committing the crime for a “good reason.”
At what point do New Mexicans say enough is enough and stop allowing those entrusted to uphold the law to break it? The American contract requires each of us to follow... our laws.
Another case in point is District Attorney Raul Torrez’s refusal to move from the use of the grand jury, which serves as a rubber stamp for prosecutors on virtually all routine criminal matters, to preliminary hearings — a fairer process where a defendant essentially receives a “mini-trial” before a judge.
The preliminary hearing allows an accused to present evidence and keeps innocent people from facing a lengthy and costly jury trial that could destroy their career, financial security and reputation. Preliminary hearings allow judges to stop prosecutors from bringing cases that have no chance to succeed and keeps those cases from overburdening the judicial system and costing the taxpayer.
Torrez and Balderas are opposed to using preliminary hearings. They do not want law enforcement who engage in illegal activity to get indictments to be held accountable. They would like to continue to overburden our judicial system with cases that will never reach a “guilty” verdict so they can justify artificially inflated budgets.
With preliminary hearings, there will be fewer cases like the Victoria Martens’ case, a glaring example of an incompetent system. Several charges against various defendants in that case had to be dropped after a more detailed investigation.
Prosecutors should not be allowed to use illegal evidence to exact punishment for a crime, no matter how politicized the crime. Otherwise, the wrong individuals get punished while the real perpetrator walks free. The Martens’ case is a prime example.
I support law enforcement implicitly. However, a line must be drawn. We must make sure that bad actions are not disguised as “right reason.”
As attorney general, I will hold law enforcement to the highest legal, moral, and ethical standard. First, I will use preliminary hearings and insist upon legally obtained evidence. Second, I will investigate and prosecute, when appropriate, law enforcement officers who violate the law. Qualified immunity cannot mean absolute immunity. Third, I will fire any OAG prosecutor who violates the law or the ethical standards.
It is time New Mexicans demand better. That should be New Mexico True.