“Per-Jury” And Deceptive Justice In New Mexico

“Voir dire” literally means “to speak the truth” in Old French. In a legal context, it refers to the process of questioning prospective jurors to determine their suitability and impartiality for jury service. 

Lying during voir dire can be considered perjury, particularly if the falsehood pertains to a material matter. Voir dire, the process of questioning potential jurors, is essential for ensuring a fair trial. Providing false information during this process can undermine its integrity. For instance, falsely claiming to be impartial or hiding personal biases may be viewed as perjury since it violates the oath potential jurors take to answer truthfully.

New Mexico police officer Brad Lunsford has become the latest victim of excessive prosecution by political figures seeking notoriety, particularly radical New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, who is associated with and funded by George Soros. Torrez is attempting to justify perjury committed by a juror in a case before the New Mexico Supreme Court, aiming to undermine Lunsford for what appears to be a justified police shooting.

On August 2, 2022, Officer Lunsford responded to a call at a Chevron gas station on Valley Drive, where 36-year-old Presley Eze was reported to be stealing a beer. Body camera footage shows Lunsford approaching Eze and attempting to engage him in conversation. However, Eze repeatedly avoids providing his identity. After several requests for Eze to exit the vehicle go unanswered, Lunsford’s partner, Officer Arbogast, intervenes.

The officers warned Eze not to reach for anything. However, video footage shows his left hand positioned behind his back.

Lunsford and Arbogast removed Eze from the vehicle, leading to a struggle on the ground. A bystander’s cellphone video and body camera footage captured the altercation. Lunsford’s defense argued that Eze took over Arbogast’s taser during the incident. However, newly obtained cellphone images from the bystander’s video show Eze disarming Officer Arbogast of his taser, who sustained a concussion during the struggle. Faced with a suspect who was armed with a taser and in control of the situation, Lunsford drew his firearm and shot Eze in the back of the head.

Before the life-altering and life-ending altercation between former Las Cruces Police Officer Brad Lundsford and Presley Eze began, there was a significant encounter with a Chevron clerk.

Leonel Ramos recounted his involvement with Eze before his death. Ramos was working at the front desk of the former Chevron when Eze came in. He also observed Eze struggling with the two police officers before the incident ended fatally.

Ramos’s testimony should have been crucial. He told the jury that Eze appeared to be holding his own against both officers, even managing to choke one while Lundsford attempted unsuccessfully to intervene.

“I saw him get on top of a cop,” Ramos stated, while prosecutors noted that neither Lundsford nor the second officer, Keegan Arbogast, reported any injuries after the shooting.

Ramos’s testimony outside the jury led prosecutors to suggest that the jury might be biased. At the request of Lundsford’s lawyer, Jose Coronado, Ramos told the jury that he believed Eze was either high or drunk when he initially entered the store.

Eze wanted to buy a pack of cigarettes, but did not have a driver’s license. When Ramos informed him that he could not sell him the cigarettes, Eze left the store but then returned, verbally confronting Ramos and grabbing a beer.

“He wasn’t sharing it with his buddies. He was standing near a trash can, just kind of chugging it.”

Ramos mentioned that he had encountered situations like this before, noting that many people who came to the gas station were often stoned or drunk. The jury only heard a fraction of this information. During the proceedings, Judge Jim Foy received a question from a juror asking if there was any forensic evidence indicating that Eze was high or drunk.

Such evidence does exist; a toxicology report from Eze’s autopsy revealed that at the time of his death, his blood contained 200 ng/ml of amphetamine and 600 ng/ml of methamphetamine.

However, the judge had deemed that evidence inadmissible a month before the trial began.

New Mexico case law is particularly cautious about preventing bias in jury cases involving drugs in a person’s system. Foy’s ruling on excluding the evidence outlined this principle, stating that such evidence is only admissible if “the evidence is relevant to a material issue other than the defendant’s character or propensity to commit a crime.”

“While evidence regarding the decedent’s blood toxicology is minimally relevant, the probative value of this evidence is severely outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” Foy stated in his ruling.

Minimally relevant?

Here is a suspect who is obviously on drugs who confronted and harassed a convenience store clerk, then stole a beer that he chugged. He then refused to cooperate with the police and violently resisted arrest. While the suspect and both officers were on the ground, the suspect obtained one of the officers’ tasers, which then posed a threat that one or both officers could be incapacitated.

What followed was a preposterous trial. Judge James Foy, who was appointed to the bench by left-wing Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, refused to allow exculpatory testimony into evidence. This included Lunsford’s training records, the Las Cruces Police Department’s use of force policy, and New Mexico’s use of force standards. Furthermore, after Lunsford was convicted, Judge Foy incarcerated him without bond while awaiting sentencing, a punishment that even some of the most heinous offenders in the country do not receive.

Law Enforcement Today has reported that Lunsford’s attorney has filed a supplemental motion for a new trial. This request is based on evidence indicating that one of the jurors, who was chosen as the jury foreman, lied during the voir dire process when she was selected to serve. The juror’s dishonesty and failure to disclose crucial information deprived Lunsford of a fair trial. This conduct violated several federal court decisions, including some made by the United States Supreme Court, as well as the constitution of New Mexico.

The juror’s misconduct included lying about her knowledge of the case, expressing preconceived notions regarding the accused’s guilt, and having a documented history of anti-police bias, along with the belief that police officers discriminate against people of color. In Lunsford’s case, he is white, while the person on whom he used deadly force was black. The juror’s comment in a podcast, stating that the United States “is founded on racism and continues to be a racist society,” is just one of many examples of her anti-police bias.

After Lunsford’s attorney filed the motion for a new trial, the George Soros puppet, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, decided to go before New Mexico’s highest court. According to the National Police Association, Torrez intends to argue in support of citizens committing perjury to get on a jury, as long as that jury is intended to hang a cop. 

In an unbelievably biased act, Torrez filed a motion with the Court arguing that examining a juror’s political beliefs amounts to harassment and violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. This claim comes even though the juror lied during the voir dire process and was selected to serve on the jury under false pretenses. Torrez contended that relying on the jurors’ deceptive answers during jury selection prevents the defense from questioning the juror’s impartiality after a conviction. This argument seems unreasonable, as Torrez implies that dishonesty during jury selection is acceptable to the State of New Mexico.

Wow. With that one statement, Torrez proves that he is unworthy to hold any political office. For an Attorney General to condone that a prejudiced juror can lie to poison a trial is an abomination of justice. If this ruling is allowed to stand and the juror in question is not punished to the full extent of the law, a fair criminal justice system in New Mexico ceases to exist.

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 blindsided by the discovery that one of the jurors—specifically, the jury foreman—committed perjury during jury selection. That compromised jury then oversaw a sham trial in which Brad Lunsford was wrongfully convicted. Now, to cover his ass he is presenting a bizarre, absurd, and unconstitutional argument before the New Mexico Supreme Court.

If the New Mexico Supreme Court accepts Torrez’s argument, Lunsford’s defense must appeal to the Supreme Court. If Lunsford had lied under oath, Torrez would have been foaming at the mouth, condemning him and pressing perjury charges.

A juror who lies during jury selection is a time bomb waiting to explode. Many people lie to avoid jury duty, but someone who lies to get on one has a definite agenda. In this case, a policeman’s life and reputation are at stake, and this juror wanted him to be unfairly punished.