Prosecution: Sandy inserted himself into Boyd standoff
Off-duty detective was called by mistake and was involved in several key decisions in response to homeless camper
Then-Albuquerque police detective Keith Sandy might never have been at the scene of the March 2014 standoff with homeless camper James Boyd had he not received a police dispatcher’s call by mistake.
Now retired and on trial for second-degree murder and manslaughter in Boyd’s fatal shooting, Sandy was off duty when a dispatcher telephoned him that Sunday afternoon and said police were “looking for a Taser shotgun” to use in the confrontation with Boyd, who was mentally ill, combative and refusing APD demands to come down from his illegal campsite in the Sandia foothills.
According to testimony Wednesday from then-APD homicide detective Geoffrey Stone, the dispatcher called Sandy back within a few minutes to tell him that the sergeant in charge at the scene wanted to get the Taser shotgun from the APD gang unit instead. But Sandy said he was already en route, told the dispatcher not to call the gang unit and showed up with more than the Taser shotgun.
“He took all his gear with him,” Stone testified. That included a flash-bang device, two types of bulletproof protection, sidearm and his rifle.
That was the same rifle Sandy used to fire the first shots at the 38-year-old Boyd. Police say they had to shoot Boyd because he drew his knives when a K-9 officer ran after his police service dog and got within 9 feet of Boyd.
An APD SWAT officer called to the scene, Dominique Perez, fired the fatal shot that struck Boyd in the back. Perez was
charged along with Sandy in the high-profile case, which enters its fourth day of testimony today in state District Court in Albuquerque. Both former officers face charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter.
While Sandy retired, Perez was fired, according to APD policy, once he was charged in Boyd’s death. He is appealing the termination.
Lawyers for both men say their clients should never have been prosecuted because the fatal shooting was justified under the law.
Special prosecutor Randi McGinn, in presenting her case to the jury Wednesday afternoon, focused on Sandy’s decision to insert himself into the standoff with Boyd.
Stone said Sandy had called his acting sergeant for the Repeat Offender Unit and requested he accompany Sandy to the scene. The nowdisbanded ROP unit typically worked undercover, specializing in locating and apprehending wanted fugitives and career criminals, Stone testified. It was separate from the APD SWAT team, which handles hostage situations and other evolving confrontations.
Once at the scene with his ROP sergeant, Sandy discussed bringing in a K-9 officer. Sandy was also involved in the decision to have the uniformed group of officers, which include two crisis intervention officers, disengage from their discussions with Boyd and walk down the hill and away from him.
Sandy eventually passed off the Taser shotgun to his sergeant, who was already carrying a Taser shotgun and a rifle. Sandy then decided he would head up the hill to where Boyd was at and provide “lethal cover,” Stone testified.
Stone, in responding to McGinn, said the replacement of uniformed officers with Sandy and the others in plainclothes appeared to agitate Boyd.
Stone said Sandy told him during an interview after the shooting with his lawyer and a support officer present that “we decided (to call the uniformed officers)” back down the hill because they (the uniformed officers) “didn’t have their guns drawn” and it “wasn’t safe for them.”
Sandy, a former New Mexico State Police officer, also mentioned in his interview with the homicide detective that being in the ROP unit was something he’d always aspired to and that he idolized his ROP supervisors.
Stone said Sandy also recalled how his first year in ROP he made a “huge” mistake when the team was trying to block a vehicle to keep it from getting away, but “the person got away.”
“He said he took a lot of beating up over it (from people on the ROP team),” Stone testified.
During Stone’s testimony, which continues today, the jury sent a question to the judge asking whether it was standard procedure for all police officers to get lawyers for such interviews,
Stone responded, “If they so choose to have one, yes.”
Juror tossed
The court proceedings began Wednesday with the dismissal of a juror who was overheard talking on her cellphone about how loud defense attorney Sam Bregman was during cross-examination of a national police expert the day before.
Both defense attorneys argued against removing the juror, who when questioned by state District Judge Alisa Hadfield initially denied talking to her daughter about Bregman. Later the unidentified jury told the judge she didn’t recall whether she had mentioned Bregman in the conversation outside the courthouse with her daughter.
The mention of Bregman was reported to the judge by a local television cameraman.
Bregman told the judge that the juror has a hearing problem so “it seems natural that she would talk about this loud-mouth attorney who was loud.”
Bregman defended the female juror, saying, “You can’t remove this juror for cause. This is a woman who is hard of hearing.”
Hadfield said she had instructed the jurors that they “cannot discuss any information about the case with anyone.”
Moreover, the judge said she didn’t believe the juror “to be honest with the court” when asked about the matter.
On Tuesday, Hadfield had admonished spectators to abide by her order not to disrupt the proceedings, noting that a juror reported that someone in the audience was heard speaking about jurors.