Cop appeals manslaughter conviction over juror misconduct, then AG says jury perjury is protected speech
LAS CRUCES, NM - Law Enforcement Today has been informing our readers about the case of a former Las Cruces, New Mexico police officer, Brad Lunsford, the latest victim of overzealous prosecution by political hacks looking to make a name for themselves, in this case New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a George Soros-funded radical. Now, Torrez is trying to justify perjury by a juror in an argument before the New Mexico Supreme Court to hang Lunsford out to dry for what by all accounts was a justified police shooting.
During what can only be described as a farcical trial, Judge James Foy, appointed to the bench by left-wing Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, refused to allow exculpatory testimony into evidence, including Lunsford’s training records, Las Cruces Police Department’s use of force policy, and New Mexico’s use of force standards. Furthermore, after Lunsford was convicted, Foy incarcerated him without bond, awaiting sentencing, a punishment that even some of the most heinous offenders in the country do not receive.
Following our initial coverage, Law Enforcement Today received information that Lunsford’s attorney filed a supplemental motion for a new trial. This was based on evidence that one of the jurors, who was actually chosen as the jury foreman, lied during the voir dire process when she was selected to serve on the jury. The juror's dishonesty and omission of crucial information denied Lunsford a fair trial. This conduct not only violated several federal court decisions, including some decided by the United States Supreme Court, but also the constitution of New Mexico.
The juror's misconduct included lying about having knowledge of the case, expressing preconceived notions about the guilt of the accused, and having a documented history of anti-police bias and believing police officers discriminate against people of color. In Lunsford's case, he is white, and the person he used deadly force on was black. The juror's statement that the United States “is founded on racism and continues to be a racist society” in a podcast appearance is just one of many examples of her anti-police bias.
After Lunsford’s attorney filed the motion for a new trial, Torrez is going before New Mexico’s highest court, according to the National Police Association, to argue in support of citizens committing perjury to get on a jury, as long as that jury is intended to hang a cop.
Torrez submitted a filing to the Court arguing that scrutinizing a juror’s political beliefs equates to harassment and violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. This, even though the juror lied during voir dire and was selected to serve on the jury under false pretenses. Torrez stated that by relying on the juror’s deceptive answers during jury selection, the defense is precluded from challenging that juror’s impartiality post-conviction. This is an absurd argument, with Torrez making the case that dishonesty during jury selection is just hunky dory with the State of New Mexico.
One can imagine that if the shoe were on the other foot, that a former police officer were summoned to jury service, concealed the fact they were a police officer during jury selection, that they had expressed an opinion on the case beforehand, and that they were a card-carrying member of the KKK, you can damn well bet that Torrez would be the first one in line looking to send that cop to jail for perjury.
Torrez's stance is sending a dangerous message. He is essentially saying that the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office is okay with someone committing perjury as long as the end justifies the means. This should raise serious concerns about the integrity of New Mexico’s justice system.
The National Police Association wrote, “By suggesting that potential jurors may withhold or misrepresent critical information without consequence, A.G. Torrez effectively endorses a ‘right to perjury,’ a concept antithetical to the very essence of justice.” It also likely violates at least the Sixth Amendment.
[...]
“To permit deception by omission in this process is to invite partiality into the jury box, thereby jeopardizing the fairness of trials and the legitimacy of their outcomes.”
Torrez was clearly caught with his pants down around his ankles by the discovery that one of the jurors–the jury foreman no less–had committed perjury during jury selection and participated in a jury that wrongly convicted Brad Lunsford. Now, to cover his ass, he is making a bizarre, absurd, and unconstitutional argument before the New Mexico Supreme Court.
If Torrez's argument is accepted and the New Mexico Supreme Court upholds it, Lunsford’s defense team should appeal to the Supreme Court. If Lunsford had lied under oath, Torrez would have been quick to condemn him and charge him with perjury. A juror who lies under oath during jury selection should face the same consequences. Anything less is a mockery of justice.
Anything less is a travesty of justice.
2 comments:
I wonder how the judge feels about being lied to by jurors?
N.M., Another Democrat stronghold.
Post a Comment