Blog: Lawyer’s Insight on
Legal Matters:
- Recent Local/National Trials -
"Lawyer's Insight' is a periodic blog by Mr. Samore on
current legal issues that informs readers how current, legal
events influence Americans' lives. If you would like to ask
Mr. Samore to address a particular concern which you may
have, simply send an email to the address at left with
subject "Questions for Lawyer's Insight."
Click on the links below to quickly reach a particular topic,
or just scroll down to read what is of interest. Other
sources of information from Mr. Samore are on the
Common Questions and About Us pages of this website.
If you don’t see a link to a topic of interest, check the other Lawyer’s Insight pages.
Recent Local and National Trials
•
Many Lessons of the Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin) Verdict in Florida
•
What are the lessons of the Levi Chavez Trial?
Many Lessons of the Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin) Verdict in Florida
July 15, 2013
The trial of George Zimmerman was followed by millions on live television and newspapers, and many folks are quite stunned
by the "no guilty"verdict on July 13. The events
surrounding the trial contain many lessons that all of us,
who want to better understand how criminal procedure
works in real life, can consider.
Deciding What Crime to Charge
When an investigation comes to the Prosecutor, he or she
must make a very important decision at the very outset of
the case: what crime will the evidence support charging?
In Mr. Zimmerman's case, an unarmed teenager he did
not know was shot and killed at night with no real eyewitnesses. Many commentators (and the primary case investigator)
thought the most severe crime of which he could be found guilty was "voluntary manslaughter," which means Mr. Z thought he
was in danger but used more force than was really necessary to defend himself. The Prosecution here decided that it would
charge second-degree murder" which requires proof of an additional element called "premediation." (First degree murder
requires proof of "malice" and was never considered.)
What Role Did Race Play?
While we all would like to think we can put aside racial considerations, it would be very naive to think that race did not have a
significant role in many aspects of how this case proceeded through the system. Even before the charges were filed against Mr.
Z (many weeks after the incident), intense, nationwide attention had been focused on all the people involved. Many people
assumed that, because Mr. Z had continued to follow Mr. M after being told by a police dispatcher to let the police handle it, that
Mr. Z was a cold-blooded killer. Many other people assumed that Mr.Z was only defending himself when he felt his life
threatened by the taller, younger man.
Unfortunately, the decision to charge the more serious crime (also much more difficult to prove) may have also been influenced
by race. In the days before charges were filed , the mayor and City Manager (I am not kidding) met with Trayvon's parents and,
for the first time to the parents, played an audio recording of the two men fighting, only a few seconds before the fatal shot was
fired. The Prosecutors later met and prayed with Trayvon's parents and attorney and, promptly thereafter, announced they
were going to file the most serious charge of second-degree murder.
How Important was the Jury to the Acquittal?
Since the jury is supposed to be made up of people who know virtually nothing of the incident, it was challenging to find a jury.
Even more surprising, Florida permits a jury of only six people to decide a criminal trial as long as it does not involve a possible
death penalty. Based on conventional wisdom that the standard jury of twelve gives the Defense a greater prospect for a hung
("deadlocked") jury, this unique (no other state has it) provision seemed to favor the Prosecution.
The jury was made of of six women (five of them white), a
composition most commentators thought would favor the
Prosecution, because many assumed that women (five
mothers of the six) would identify more closely with the
slain young man and his family. The reaction across the
country, however, suggests that many people who were so
quick to criticize the verdict did not consider all the
difficult challenges the Prosecution faced in attempting to
prove guilt.
How Big a Role Did the Attorneys Play?
Choice of attorneys is always a critical element of the
results in any hotly-contested case, even if it does not go to trial. In this case, both sides had very capable attorneys, and, to the
impartial observer, it appeared the cases were effectively presented. Certainly, both sides made mistakes (the wholly
inappropriate knock-knock joke in the Defense opening statement will go down as one of the most monumentally stupid
statements ever made in a courtroom), but that is inevitable in any trial.
A real insight into the verdict is the fact neither side emphasized to the jury that they could acquit Mr. Z of the murder charge
but still find him guilty of felony "manslaughter" which was also an option the judge gave the jury. Both sides decided to gamble
by arguing only the murder charges and, from a question that the jurors interrupted their own deliberations to ask the judge, it
was clear the jurors had some unresolved concern themselves.
How Important is Florida Law to the Verdict?
A lot Florida has a unique, rather extreme law, commonly called "Stand Your Ground" which permits any citizen who feels
someone is threatening, to use deadly force against that person, even if that person has actually stopped threatening and even
started to back away. Long before this trial, quite a number of persons who had killed under every bit as extreme circumstances
as this incident, had been acquitted by Florida juries or, more often, not even charged with any crime. The judges, attorneys,
and investigators cannot change the law themselves; this is the exclusive responsibility of the legislature and governor.
In order to use "stand your ground" as a defense, a preliminary hearing where the Defense has to justify the basis for this claim
would have been conducted before the trial even began. The Defense attorneys decided that they did not want to risk Mr. Z
probably having to testify at this hearing and themselves have to put on other evidence before the Prosecution put on its
evidence at trial. They decided, instead, to just assert a standard claim of self-defense, which still requires the Prosecution to
prove that the actions Mr. Z took were not simply because he felt he was being threatened with physical injury and needed to
defend himself. If the jury believed that Mr. Z's fear was "reasonable," then actual injury inflicted by Trayvon was not even
required to be shown in order to justify Mr. Z pulling the trigger.
The verdict shows that the jury concluded Mr. Z's fear was reasonable and his use of force appropriate. Because the Prosecution
did not really argue to the jury that the use of deadly force was excessive (often called "imperfect self-defense"), the jury did not
seriously consider the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter (which was, on the available evidence, a much stronger
allegation).
Was the verdict the correct result?
No one will ever know, any more than anyone will really know was happened that dark, damp night between these two people.
Only Mr. Z lives, and his memory may very clouded by the excitement (and perhaps fear) of that fateful night. His story was told
to the jury through the replaying of his several post-incident statement , so he never had to actually testify under oath and be
subject to cross-examination over his many inconsistencies.
It is an unfortunate reality that courts of law, no matter how hard we all try, can never really determine what is "the truth."
Courts can only reach a verdict on what is "provable."
Do we need a "National Dialogue" on Race, as some of the people are requesting?
Sure. Talking about any of this country's many serious problems might help. The problem here is that too many people are
screaming that this case was decided solely on a racial basis when it is far more likely that it is a clear example of how criminal
trials work in the real world.
For example, a black woman, who is a third-year law student (after verifying to her satisfaction that Mr. Z was not a "racist"),
volunteered her services to Mr. Z as a legal assistant throughout the trial. She was vigorously criticized throughout the trial by
many black folks who claimed "she is on the wrong side of the courtroom and the wrong side of history." Let us all hope that, to
the contrary, by not being blinded herself to a the limitations of racial expectation, she is on the "right side of history." Let us
hope we are all closer to a day when difficult cases such as this do not become a racial flashpoint and all people can make
personal decisions that are not defined by the color of their skin.
more about violent crimes
What are the lessons of the Levi Chavez Trial?
July 15, 2013
If it were not for the Zimmerman-Martin trial in Florida the prior month, the nation's (legal-oriented) television cameras may
have been focused this past month just to the north of Albuquerque in the murder trial in Bernalillo of former Albuquerque
Police officer Levi Chavez. The allegations arising from the 2007 homicide death of his wife Tera are really quite spectacular
and the lead up to the trial and the five-week trial itself has riveted the attention of many folks. As this column is written, the
evidence has been presented, the jury is deliberating toward a verdict. Even now, we can also learn from this trial important
lessons as to how our system works (and doesn't work).
Can front-page newspaper and television coverage effect the result?
The huge play given this case certainly encourages us to
develop opinions, but none of us know what the jury finds
impressive. The jury could have been "sequestered,"
which means that, from the time the trial began, the
jurors would have been living in a local hotel (at
Government expense) at all times that court was not in
session. Except for limited contact, they would have been
isolated from their families. The jurors have, instead,
been permitted to go home each night and risk being
exposed to television and newspaper coverage or being
influenced by comments from their family and friends.
The judge has properly reminded them every night not to look at TV, read articles, or even get on the internet to find
information on things that might help them better understand the evidence presented. This is a tall order; no one can really
guarantee that they are really respecting his directions. They could even accidentally be exposed to a stray comment from
someone who does not even know who they are that could (regrettably) influence their thinking. We can only hope that the final
verdict -- either way -- is based on the evidence and not prejudice.
How does a jury avoid personal feelings when weighing the evidence?
Staying objective is a real challenge to any jury, especially when the Prosecution and Defense have unavoidably discussed the
defendant's long history of marital infidelities. Mr. Chavez has claimed that he was with a fellow officer and also with one of his
many girlfriends at the time critical events occurred, while the Prosecution understandably considers his behaviors to be one of
several reasons he wanted to kill Tera.
Since most of us have, directly or through family or friends, had experience with marital infidelity, it may prove difficult for a
juror not to let personal feelings effect objectivity. it is very important to remember that Mr. Chavez is not being prosecuted for
a being poor husband but for being a murderer.
Were there problems with the evidence?
It was the State's sole responsibility to prove guilt; the Defense simply insisted that the evidence did not prove guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt." As they often do, the State admitted their case was not perfect but asked jurors to use their common sense
and not overreach to find "doubt." The Defense usually counters that "common sense" is not evidence.
One of the more unsettling Prosecution problems was the experienced pathologist who performed the autopsy concluded in her
original report that the cause of death was "suicide." She later changed her conclusion, without any further physical
examination or diagnostic evidence, that the cause of death was "undetermined." When asked by Defense counsel to explain the
reason she changed her conclusion, all she could offer was that she was told by investigators that it was not a suicide. To make
such a significant change in a report for no more reason than being told to do so is simply a violation of medical standards.
Another problem was that the chief investigator who really pushed building a case for a murder prosecution was a gentleman
who has had many other problems on other cases and lost jobs, which permitted the Defense to claim he was a "dirty" (as in
"corrupt") cop and should not be believed. Whether this investigator's problems on other jobs causes the jury to discount some
of his very critical testimony that could help convict Mr. Chavez will be resolved by the jury.
A third problem was that, because the initial investigation was undeniably sloppy, Tera's fingernails were not checked for Levi's
DNA, which might have indicated if any physical contact had occurred before the fatal shot was fired.
Facing some solid ballistics forensic, the Defense had to claim that Tera must have held the gun upside down when she shot
herself and had no real explanation as to how the discharged Glock could have re-seated itself (when Tera would have been dead
instantly), other than to assert that the cop who noticed this was in error, corrupt, or both. While calling the defendant to testify
may have been a stroke of genius, Mr. Chavez again appeared to cry before the jury in the same artificial way that he was
remembered by other officers doing during the investigation in the weeks after Tera's death. Whether his frequent, volunteered
references to his Catholic faith and steadily squeezing rosary beads impressed the jury favorably remains to be seen.
Can attorney behavior effect the result?
No matter how much we would like to pretend otherwise, of course it can. Many attorneys believe a verdict is largely settled just
by who has been chosen for the jury and what the jury's first impression is of the case, once they have heard the Opening
Statements of each side. If true, this would be very unfortunate, because only AFTER Opening Statement, does the presentation
of any evidence even begin.
One particular incident has stuck with many courtroom observers and whether it effects the result may only be known by the
verdict: During the defendant's testimony, the two prosecutors were twice admonished by the Judge not to snicker or laugh
during his testimony. If true, this conduct is truly shocking, because these are experienced prosecutors who had done a
commendable job of presenting their case. Such unprofessional behavior could only diminish their image, insult the jury, and
benefit the Defense. No matter how preposterous any witness' testimony may be, no attorney should ever be seen by the jury
mocking any witness. Let the jury decide whether the witness should be believed.
Does the verdict end the controversy?
Whether the jury returns "guilty," "not guilty," or cannot reach a verdict, this case is one which will be vigorously discussed in
New Mexico for fifty years.
Does this case undermine our confidence in APD?
The local police are now under federal investigation for alleged civil rights violations that have occurred over more than a
decade, and this case has certainly done its tarnished image no favors. Many of Mr. Chavez's female lovers were also APD
officers, several of whom struggled in trial testimony to explain their conduct. We all should have long ago recognized, however,
that being a cop anywhere is one of the more daunting challenges to any marriage.
Samore Law • 505-244-0450
Practicing in Albuquerque and across the State of New Mexico
Mailing address: PO Box 1993, Albuquerque, NM 87103
Street address: 300 Central Ave SW, Suite 2500W, Albuquerque
John Samore
Blog: Lawyer’s Insight on
Legal Matters:
- Recent Local/National Trials -
"Lawyer's Insight' is a periodic blog by Mr. Samore
on current legal issues that
informs readers how current,
legal events influence
Americans' lives. If you would
like to ask Mr. Samore to
address a particular concern
which you may have, simply
send an email to the address at
left with subject "Questions for
Lawyer's Insight."
Click on the links below to quickly reach a particular
topic, or just scroll down to read what is of interest.
Other sources of information from Mr. Samore are on
the Common Questions and About Us pages of this
website.
Samore Law
505-244-0450
Practicing in Albuquerque and
across the state of New Mexico
Mailing address: PO Box 1993, Albuquerque, NM 87103
Street address: 300 Central Ave SW, Suite 2500W, Albuquerque
If you don’t see a link to a topic of interest, check the
other Lawyer’s Insight pages.
Recent Local and National Trials
•
Many Lessons of the Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin)
Verdict in Florida
•
What are the lessons of the Levi Chavez Trial?
Many Lessons of the Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin)
Verdict in Florida
July 15, 2013
The trial of George Zimmerman was followed by
millions on live television and newspapers, and
many folks are quite
stunned by the "no
guilty"verdict on July
13. The events
surrounding the trial
contain many lessons
that all of us, who want to better understand how
criminal procedure works in real life, can consider.
Deciding What Crime to Charge
When an investigation comes to the Prosecutor, he
or she must make a very important decision at the
very outset of the case: what crime will the evidence
support charging? In Mr. Zimmerman's case, an
unarmed teenager he did not know was shot and
killed at night with no real eyewitnesses. Many
commentators (and the primary case investigator)
thought the most severe crime of which he could be
found guilty was "voluntary manslaughter," which
means Mr. Z thought he was in danger but used
more force than was really necessary to defend
himself. The Prosecution here decided that it would
charge second-degree murder" which requires proof
of an additional element called "premediation."
(First degree murder requires proof of "malice" and
was never considered.)
What Role Did Race Play?
While we all would like to think we can put aside
racial considerations, it would be very naive to think
that race did not have a significant role in many
aspects of how this case proceeded through the
system. Even before the charges were filed against
Mr. Z (many weeks after the incident), intense,
nationwide attention had been focused on all the
people involved. Many people assumed that,
because Mr. Z had continued to follow Mr. M after
being told by a police dispatcher to let the police
handle it, that Mr. Z was a cold-blooded killer. Many
other people assumed that Mr.Z was only defending
himself when he felt his life threatened by the taller,
younger man.
Unfortunately, the decision to charge the more
serious crime (also much more difficult to prove)
may have also been influenced by race. In the days
before charges were filed , the mayor and City
Manager (I am not kidding) met with Trayvon's
parents and, for the first time to the parents, played
an audio recording of the two men fighting, only a
few seconds before the fatal shot was fired. The
Prosecutors later met and prayed with Trayvon's
parents and attorney and, promptly thereafter,
announced they were going to file the most serious
charge of second-degree murder.
How Important was the Jury to the
Acquittal?
Since the jury is supposed to be made up of people
who know virtually nothing of the incident, it was
challenging to find a jury. Even more surprising,
Florida permits a jury of only six people to decide a
criminal trial as long as it does not involve a possible
death penalty. Based on conventional wisdom that
the standard jury of twelve gives the Defense a
greater prospect for a hung ("deadlocked") jury, this
unique (no other state has it) provision seemed to
favor the Prosecution.
The jury was made of
of six women (five of
them white), a
composition most
commentators thought
would favor the Prosecution, because many assumed
that women (five mothers of the six) would identify
more closely with the slain young man and his
family. The reaction across the country, however,
suggests that many people who were so quick to
criticize the verdict did not consider all the difficult
challenges the Prosecution faced in attempting to
prove guilt.
How Big a Role Did the Attorneys Play?
Choice of attorneys is always a critical element of the
results in any hotly-contested case, even if it does
not go to trial. In this case, both sides had very
capable attorneys, and, to the impartial observer, it
appeared the cases were effectively presented.
Certainly, both sides made mistakes (the wholly
inappropriate knock-knock joke in the Defense
opening statement will go down as one of the most
monumentally stupid statements ever made in a
courtroom), but that is inevitable in any trial.
A real insight into the verdict is the fact neither side
emphasized to the jury that they could acquit Mr. Z
of the murder charge but still find him guilty of
felony "manslaughter" which was also an option the
judge gave the jury. Both sides decided to gamble by
arguing only the murder charges and, from a
question that the jurors interrupted their own
deliberations to ask the judge, it was clear the jurors
had some unresolved concern themselves.
How Important is Florida Law to the Verdict?
A lot Florida has a unique, rather extreme law,
commonly called "Stand Your Ground" which
permits any citizen who feels someone is
threatening, to use deadly force against that person,
even if that person has actually stopped threatening
and even started to back away. Long before this
trial, quite a number of persons who had killed
under every bit as extreme circumstances as this
incident, had been acquitted by Florida juries or,
more often, not even charged with any crime. The
judges, attorneys, and investigators cannot change
the law themselves; this is the exclusive
responsibility of the legislature and governor.
In order to use "stand your ground" as a defense, a
preliminary hearing where the Defense has to justify
the basis for this claim would have been conducted
before the trial even began. The Defense attorneys
decided that they did not want to risk Mr. Z probably
having to testify at this hearing and themselves have
to put on other evidence before the Prosecution put
on its evidence at trial. They decided, instead, to just
assert a standard claim of self-defense, which still
requires the Prosecution to prove that the actions
Mr. Z took were not simply because he felt he was
being threatened with physical injury and needed to
defend himself. If the jury believed that Mr. Z's fear
was "reasonable," then actual injury inflicted by
Trayvon was not even required to be shown in order
to justify Mr. Z pulling the trigger.
The verdict shows that the jury concluded Mr. Z's
fear was reasonable and his use of force appropriate.
Because the Prosecution did not really argue to the
jury that the use of deadly force was excessive (often
called "imperfect self-defense"), the jury did not
seriously consider the lesser-included offense of
voluntary manslaughter (which was, on the available
evidence, a much stronger allegation).
Was the verdict the correct result?
No one will ever know, any more than anyone will
really know was happened that dark, damp night
between these two people. Only Mr. Z lives, and his
memory may very clouded by the excitement (and
perhaps fear) of that fateful night. His story was told
to the jury through the replaying of his several post-
incident statement , so he never had to actually
testify under oath and be subject to cross-
examination over his many inconsistencies.
It is an unfortunate reality that courts of law, no
matter how hard we all try, can never really
determine what is "the truth." Courts can only reach
a verdict on what is "provable."
Do we need a "National Dialogue" on Race, as some
of the people are requesting?
Sure. Talking about any of this country's many
serious problems might help. The problem here is
that too many people are screaming that this case
was decided solely on a racial basis when it is far
more likely that it is a clear example of how criminal
trials work in the real world.
For example, a black woman, who is a third-year law
student (after verifying to her satisfaction that Mr. Z
was not a "racist"), volunteered her services to Mr. Z
as a legal assistant throughout the trial. She was
vigorously criticized throughout the trial by many
black folks who claimed "she is on the wrong side of
the courtroom and the wrong side of history." Let us
all hope that, to the contrary, by not being blinded
herself to a the limitations of racial expectation, she
is on the "right side of history." Let us hope we are
all closer to a day when difficult cases such as this do
not become a racial flashpoint and all people can
make personal decisions that are not defined by the
color of their skin.
more about violent crimes
What are the lessons of the Levi Chavez Trial?
July 15, 2013
If it were not for the Zimmerman-Martin trial in
Florida the prior month, the nation's (legal-oriented)
television cameras may have been focused this past
month just to the north of Albuquerque in the
murder trial in Bernalillo of former Albuquerque
Police officer Levi Chavez. The allegations arising
from the 2007 homicide death of his wife Tera are
really quite spectacular and the lead up to the trial
and the five-week trial itself has riveted the attention
of many folks. As this column is written, the
evidence has been presented, the jury is deliberating
toward a verdict. Even now, we can also learn from
this trial important lessons as to how our system
works (and doesn't work).
Can front-page newspaper and television
coverage effect the result?
The huge play given
this case certainly
encourages us to
develop opinions, but
none of us know what
the jury finds impressive. The jury could have been
"sequestered," which means that, from the time the
trial began, the jurors would have been living in a
local hotel (at Government expense) at all times that
court was not in session. Except for limited contact,
they would have been isolated from their families.
The jurors have, instead, been permitted to go home
each night and risk being exposed to television and
newspaper coverage or being influenced by
comments from their family and friends.
The judge has properly reminded them every night
not to look at TV, read articles, or even get on the
internet to find information on things that might
help them better understand the evidence presented.
This is a tall order; no one can really guarantee that
they are really respecting his directions. They could
even accidentally be exposed to a stray comment
from someone who does not even know who they are
that could (regrettably) influence their thinking. We
can only hope that the final verdict -- either way -- is
based on the evidence and not prejudice.
How does a jury avoid personal feelings
when weighing the evidence?
Staying objective is a real challenge to any jury,
especially when the Prosecution and Defense have
unavoidably discussed the defendant's long history
of marital infidelities. Mr. Chavez has claimed that
he was with a fellow officer and also with one of his
many girlfriends at the time critical events occurred,
while the Prosecution understandably considers his
behaviors to be one of several reasons he wanted to
kill Tera.
Since most of us have, directly or through family or
friends, had experience with marital infidelity, it
may prove difficult for a juror not to let personal
feelings effect objectivity. it is very important to
remember that Mr. Chavez is not being prosecuted
for a being poor husband but for being a murderer.
Were there problems with the evidence?
It was the State's sole responsibility to prove guilt;
the Defense simply insisted that the evidence did not
prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." As they
often do, the State admitted their case was not
perfect but asked jurors to use their common sense
and not overreach to find "doubt." The Defense
usually counters that "common sense" is not
evidence.
One of the more unsettling Prosecution problems
was the experienced pathologist who performed the
autopsy concluded in her original report that the
cause of death was "suicide." She later changed her
conclusion, without any further physical
examination or diagnostic evidence, that the cause of
death was "undetermined." When asked by Defense
counsel to explain the reason she changed her
conclusion, all she could offer was that she was told
by investigators that it was not a suicide. To make
such a significant change in a report for no more
reason than being told to do so is simply a violation
of medical standards.
Another problem was that the chief investigator who
really pushed building a case for a murder
prosecution was a gentleman who has had many
other problems on other cases and lost jobs, which
permitted the Defense to claim he was a "dirty" (as
in "corrupt") cop and should not be believed.
Whether this investigator's problems on other jobs
causes the jury to discount some of his very critical
testimony that could help convict Mr. Chavez will be
resolved by the jury.
A third problem was that, because the initial
investigation was undeniably sloppy, Tera's
fingernails were not checked for Levi's DNA, which
might have indicated if any physical contact had
occurred before the fatal shot was fired.
Facing some solid ballistics forensic, the Defense
had to claim that Tera must have held the gun
upside down when she shot herself and had no real
explanation as to how the discharged Glock could
have re-seated itself (when Tera would have been
dead instantly), other than to assert that the cop who
noticed this was in error, corrupt, or both. While
calling the defendant to testify may have been a
stroke of genius, Mr. Chavez again appeared to cry
before the jury in the same artificial way that he was
remembered by other officers doing during the
investigation in the weeks after Tera's death.
Whether his frequent, volunteered references to his
Catholic faith and steadily squeezing rosary beads
impressed the jury favorably remains to be seen.
Can attorney behavior effect the result?
No matter how much we would like to pretend
otherwise, of course it can. Many attorneys believe a
verdict is largely settled just by who has been chosen
for the jury and what the jury's first impression is of
the case, once they have heard the Opening
Statements of each side. If true, this would be very
unfortunate, because only AFTER Opening
Statement, does the presentation of any evidence
even begin.
One particular incident has stuck with many
courtroom observers and whether it effects the result
may only be known by the verdict: During the
defendant's testimony, the two prosecutors were
twice admonished by the Judge not to snicker or
laugh during his testimony. If true, this conduct is
truly shocking, because these are experienced
prosecutors who had done a commendable job of
presenting their case. Such unprofessional behavior
could only diminish their image, insult the jury, and
benefit the Defense. No matter how preposterous
any witness' testimony may be, no attorney should
ever be seen by the jury mocking any witness. Let
the jury decide whether the witness should be
believed.
Does the verdict end the controversy?
Whether the jury returns "guilty," "not guilty," or
cannot reach a verdict, this case is one which will be
vigorously discussed in New Mexico for fifty years.
Does this case undermine our confidence in
APD?
The local police are now under federal investigation
for alleged civil rights violations that have occurred
over more than a decade, and this case has certainly
done its tarnished image no favors. Many of Mr.
Chavez's female lovers were also APD officers,
several of whom struggled in trial testimony to
explain their conduct. We all should have long ago
recognized, however, that being a cop anywhere is
one of the more daunting challenges to any
marriage.