Safe Steps, Bright Futures

As you read this, schools will have been back in session for a month with all the excitement of back-to-school shopping for notebooks and backpacks, new shoes and binders. However, we know that this time is not exciting for everyone. Families with limited resources are not always able to provide the necessary supplies for their children.  For years now our pre-prosecution program has worked to collect backpacks full of all the required supplies in addition to shoes, socks, and jackets which are then distributed across our district when school starts. I am happy to report that this year over 300 back packs and an equal number of shoes, socks and jackets have been distributed to children across the three counties of our district – Cibola, Sandoval and Valencia.

As students return to school it’s a good time to review and renew our efforts toward safety because keeping children safe is a community endeavor including but not limited to focusing on recognizing abuse, securing firearms, monitoring digital spaces, and watching out for traffic and bullying.

In terms of abuse, it’s generally well known that teachers and school staff are mandated to report if they suspect a child is being abused. However, the state of New Mexico is one of the states with a universal reporting requirement. Under New Mexico’s "Duty to Report Child Abuse and Child Neglect" law every person in the state—who knows or has a reasonable suspicion that a child is abused or neglected must report it immediately to the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) hotline, local law enforcement, or tribal authorities. And for the sake of clarity, one must only have actual knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect. Proof is not required to make a report.

The definition of abuse as provided by the New Mexico Reproductive Health National Training Center “includes physical, emotional or psychological abuse, sexual abuse/exploitation, abandonment or placing a child in a situation that endangers their life or health”.

Too often we hear about school shootings. The K-12 School Shooting Database keeps data on the number of school shootings per year, and all the circumstances surrounding each incident. Frequently, the school shooter was a young person who had access to an unsecured firearm at home. There are many preventative actions we can all take to help prevent these incidents before they happen. Work with other parents and caregivers to underline the importance of secure gun storage. Gun safety in the home is essential in preventing gun injuries and deaths before they happen. Find ways to communicate with your child about gun violence in an age-appropriate way. Community violence intervention takes a village, as in all of us.

Recent highly publicized cases in New Mexico have addressed the harm done to children by social media platforms with one recent ruling declaring one platform a “public nuisance” meaning that the platform causes real and ongoing harm to the public, especially to children. Of course, online platforms are also used by children and young people to bully and shame each other, sometimes resulting in tragic outcomes. Another online avenue is used for the recruitment and sexual exploitation of youth. This happens when offenders use social media, online video games and messaging apps to target, groom and coerce minors.

Keeping children safe on social media requires the implementation of strict privacy settings, open communication and active and engaged parents and caregivers. Some ideas for keeping kids safe online include setting up private accounts, eliminating secret passwords, creating tech free zones in the home i.e. no phones or tablets in the bedrooms. Monitor and discuss your child’s social media use, keep open lines of communication about anything that may be scary, harmful or concerning.  Unsupervised social media is more likely to expose children to potentially harmful content and features, be it from strangers or bullying from kids in the neighborhood.

Some of this may sound crazy or overwrought, but the online world is the wild west. In my line of work, I see more of the dark side of the online world than I would like. Let’s keep the children in our communities out of it.

And finally, please observe the school zone speed limits. When a school bus stops with flashing lights, no matter what kind of rush you are in please don’t swing around it. Children are crossing.

Whether you have a child who has just started kindergarten or one who just entered her senior year in high school, we wish everyone a happy, SAFE, and successful school year.

Competency vs. Incompetency

The recent special legislative session held interest for me and my office for its emphasis on public safety issues. Since the session only lasted five hours, in the end there was not much to see.

I did notice in much of the reporting the issue of competency/incompetency which my staff faces daily. It was stated repeatedly and incorrectly that if a defendant is found incompetent then the case is dismissed.

To be found incompetent to stand trial a defendant must not know right from wrong, not be able to contribute to his/her own defense by aiding his/her defense attorney, nor be able to understand the court process. In these situations, the case is stayed, and the defendant is sent for evaluation professionally by a psychologist or psychiatrist pending agreement by all parties- the Judge, the Defense Attorney and my office.  It is up to the judge to determine if the defendant is to be held in custody or not during this process.

If in this situation and after the evaluation a defendant is deemed not competent to proceed in a criminal trial, and the court finds that the defendant is not dangerous the “court may dismiss the case…in the interests of justice.” (NMSA Section 31-9-1.2, 1978)

If a defendant has been found incompetent but has been charged with a murder, rape, aggravated arson or a crime involving the use of a deadly weapon then my office will proceed with a “dangerousness hearing”.  If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did commit the crime charged (a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt) then the court will order the defendant be sent to the State Hospital in Las Vegas, NM to receive treatment to aid in returning to competency. If the defendant’s condition is such that s/he cannot be brought back to competency the court may order the defendant to remain in the State Hospital, a locked secured facility for as long as the crime charged allows.

Some people believe that a person who is mentally incompetent will always be and cannot be treated. There are occasions for example, when someone is found to be incompetent because of drug use, and/or because they are not taking the drugs for a mental illness which would facilitate their competency. Within 30 days the facility is required to submit an evaluation of an assessment and treatment plan and report on the cooperation of the defendant to receive and participate in treatment designed to return them to competency. The timeline for this is usually 9 months. If, however, after 30 days the facility (through the department of health) the defendant has been sent to says they don’t have the capacity to meet the medical needs of him/her they may refuse the defendant.  In these cases, then a motion is made for a hearing to determine dangerousness. If the defendant is determined not to be dangerous then it is likely the case will then be dismissed. If after 9 months the defendant is still not deemed competent but is making good progress, then it is possible to amend the treatment order for more time.

In the case of Senate Bill 10 relating to competency proceedings which in the end was not taken up by the legislature in the special session, the bill was intended to fill some of the gaps in the current law. For example, to provide the opportunity for a defendant to opt for treatment voluntarily in which case all the parties must agree. For non-violent cases that would ordinarily result in a dismissal if the defendant was found incompetent. One of the missing links in this case would be the question of capacity. Do we have the facilities necessary to provide such treatment?  The other question has to do with the ethical responsibility of a defense lawyer. They cannot agree to their defendant opting voluntarily for treatment if they have already been deemed incompetent which means they do not have the capacity to voluntarily agree.

Perhaps, as has been stated, the bills weren’t quite ready, I am not the qualified judge of that. I just know that there is an entire world that needs to be considered in order to meet the intended goals of what on the surface is a good idea to increase the safety of our communities.  On more than one occasion a piece of legislation that looks good on paper has come down to the District Attorneys to execute without consideration for our budgets and staff capacity. We step up to the challenge always understanding that nothing is ever going to be perfect, and we have to start the necessary change somewhere.

Criminal Justice in the Age of Sharing

Over the years I’ve been a lawyer, much has changed, affecting the practice of law. Social media, YouTube, and the rise of true crime shows have had a profound impact on the criminal justice system, influencing how crimes are investigated, prosecuted, and perceived by the public. These platforms have transformed not only the accessibility of information but also the dynamics between justice, media, and public opinion. While they have promoted awareness and transparency, they have blurred the line between factual reporting and entertainment, often complicating legal processes and public understanding, often leading to inaccurate public perception.

Anyone with a phone can share updates, videos, or theories about ongoing investigations. This free access had led to greater scrutiny of police practices, judicial procedures, and sentencing outcomes. Similarly, citizen journalism and videos have played roles in holding law enforcement accountable, as seen in high-profile cases where video footage obtained by bystanders was crucial to obtaining justice.

However, this digital transparency can come with significant drawbacks. Public commentary and speculation can interfere with the integrity of investigations and trials. Potential jurors may be exposed to biased, incomplete or inaccurate information online, making it more difficult to ensure impartiality. The phenomenon of “trial by social media” allows the public to form judgments long before evidence is presented in court, potentially prejudicing outcomes. Additionally, misinformation spreads quickly online; amateur investigators sometimes wrongly name suspects, leading to defamation, harassment and even vigilante behavior where innocent people are misidentified by online users. This gives rise to vigilante behavior which is illegal, in which individuals or groups lacking formal legal authority employ social media to publicly shame, dox or bait those they suspect of wrongdoing. Perpetrators of vigilante justice often view themselves as heroes or as morally superior but in fact often their actions often have adverse impact on the prosecution of cases. Acts of perceived justice by vigilantes can be viewed as crimes themselves. Another impact felt in our office and reported by other agencies is the 100% increase in IPRA requests.

YouTube and true crime shows have further shaped criminal justice through dramatization. Crime shows and true crime media are immensely popular. Researchers from Edison Research, Pew Research and others have found that 85% of the U.S. Population over the age of 13 consume true crime in the form of podcasts, television, and YouTube channel programs. The popularization of crime shows has led to a greater demand for content. Consequently, the use IPRA laws are stretching beyond their original intent. IPRA is one of the core Sunshine laws, the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) enables access to public records of governmental entities in New Mexico. As outlined by the NMDOJ, “IPRA enables access to public records of governmental entities in New Mexico recognizing that the public is entitled to information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employee’s.” (NMDOJ) This transparency is valuable, but what is happening in large measure are requests from television shows, production companies and vloggers with crime shows increasing 100% requesting entire case files, to construct crime shows, for profit, and there is no basis in the IPRA law to protect against this. Recently two D.A. staff members have spent two months reviewing and redacting a high-profile case requested by a production company with offices in Los Angeles and London for a documentary in production. I’ve no objection to making what may end up being and insightful documentary, but the fact that the staff of a state agency worked full time for two months with their salaries paid by the tax payers of New Mexico, to provide material for the for  a for-profit company, is not what IPRA was intended for. This is just one example of those we see weekly.

Often these shows highlight flaws in policing or prosecution. These productions can promote critical discussion about wrongful convictions and the fallibility of forensic evidence, leading to policy reform or retrials. They may also make complex legal topics more understandable to the public, increasing interest in justice and law. However, their entertainment driven framing can lead to oversimplification or sensationalism which distorts public perception of the legal process. Viewers may come to see justice as a story of heroes and villains rather than a nuanced system of laws and evidence.

True crime’s popularity has also sparked debates about victim exploitation and desensitization to violence. Families of victims sometimes object to the retelling of traumatic events for entertainment value. Meanwhile, platforms that commercialize crime stories through ads, merchandise or commentary raise deeper questions about empathy, consent, and profit within the context of criminal justice.

Social media, YouTube, and true crime shows have created a complex ecosystem around the criminal justice system. They empower citizens to engage and question authority but also risk spreading misinformation and sensationalism. The challenge moving forward is to balance public involvement and transparency with fairness, accuracy, and respect for due process.