Bail reform good, but burglar case shows guidance needed
It seemed simple enough.
Amend the New Mexico Constitution to do away with the “money-for-freedom system” of bail bonds. The amendment would allow judges to hold defendants behind bars pending trial if they posed a danger to the community while allowing the release of low-level offenders who posed little or no threat but were incarcerated because they couldn’t make even a minimal amount of bail.
It was a good amendment and was approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2016. But the thorny issue of pretrial detention has proved to be anything but simple — at least in its implementation by state district judges.
So the question is once more before the state Supreme Court, this time with prosecutors asking the justices to weigh in on exactly what evidence must be presented to meet the requirement that there are “no conditions of release” that would protect the community from the defendant.
They picked an interesting case — one that understandably has riled up victims.
Jesse Mascareno-Haidle, 18, is a suspect in 80 home burglaries in the Albuquerque area. He and juvenile accomplices allegedly targeted mostly high-end homes that often backed up to golf courses or open space. They entered the homes at night — while residents were sleeping — through windows that were cracked open or doors that weren’t locked or barred. They allegedly stole property ranging from guns to televisions to laptops to Xboxes to cellphones. In some cases, they took car keys and drove away with the stolen loot in the victim’s vehicle. They allegedly roamed from the Sandia Heights to the West Side down to Los Lunas.
Brazen stuff, although we can be thankful this crew was never confronted by a resident. The ring was busted after an enterprising off-duty APD detective put together a case by studying similar break-ins. According to court records, Mascareno-Haidle has confessed to 26 burglaries and been charged with two in criminal complaints.
The office of District Attorney Raúl Torrez asked for pretrial detention in Mascareno-Haidle’s case, arguing that prosecutors had proved the defendant’s “conduct presents an enormous risk to public safety.”
They won on that score, but Judge Courtney Weaks sided with the Public Defender’s Office on the second part of the legal equation, ruling Mascareno-Haidle could be released with conditions that included a GPS monitor, drug testing and reporting in to his lawyers. Assistant Public Defender Noah Gelb says the fact his client has complied and hasn’t re-offended in two months shows the decision was correct.
The DA disagrees and wants the Supreme Court to give guidance that would apply in future cases at the time the decision is made — not with a couple months’ hindsight. “These crimes are extremely high-risk criminal conduct,” Torrez said.
Several of the victims agree, and said so in an op-ed in the April 7 Journal and signed by Heather Ferguson, John Mallory, Annie Gomez and Anthony Pepito. “We were all very lucky to not have been physically harmed in the process of a potentially heavily armed burglary crew breaking into our homes and our lives,” they wrote.
The Supreme Court has looked at the pretrial detention issue before, ruling prosecutors don’t have to call witnesses and judges can consider all past conduct even if charges haven’t been filed. They have given trial judges considerable discretion in making the detention decision.
Public Defender Bennett Baur says that he understands victim sentiment and sympathizes with it but that defendants can’t be “punished” before conviction.
Fair enough. But in their overwhelming approval, voters assumed dangerous defendants would be kept behind bars. If voters knew releasing someone suspected in 80 late-night burglaries and creeping around occupied homes would fall into the “release” category, this reform amendment may very well have gone down in flames.
If the justice system hopes to retain a modicum of public faith and confidence in what should be a better system than the old bail bond model, another dose of commonsense guidance from the Supreme Court would be more than helpful.