Showdown brewing after lawmakers' defunding of Gallup District Attorney's Office
Jun. 11—SANTA FE — The district attorney in McKinley County is facing the defunding of her office in just three weeks, after a simmering debate over prosecution rates prompted lawmakers to take the rare step of stripping state funds for an elected official.
District Attorney Bernadine Martin said Wednesday attempts to "remedy" the situation are in the works, including a possible working agreement with San Juan County District Attorney Jack Fortner. She also did not rule out filing a court challenge.
The showdown was set in motion when lawmakers approved a $10.8 billion state budget bill in March that does not include any base funding for employee salaries and benefits in Martin's office.
Instead, the bill that takes effect next month earmarks $1.9 million for the district attorney in neighboring San Juan County to prosecute cases in McKinley County. It also provides an additional $1.9 million for contract attorneys to be hired in the district.
Martin, who is the state's first female Navajo district attorney, was reelected last year as the top prosecutor for the second division of the 11th Judicial District. She said the defunding holds her "hostage" and prevents her from performing her elected duties.
"Because he got my money doesn't mean he runs my office," she said in a Wednesday interview, referring to the San Juan County district attorney.
Martin also said her office currently has 24 full-time employees, including investigators, victim advocates and administrative staff.
But Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he was approached by judges, other prosecutors and Chief Public Defender Ben Baur about an alarmingly low number of prosecutions in McKinley County and Martin's management of the District Attorney's Office.
He added Martin has not shown up for legislative budget hearings in several years, and said defunding her office was the only way to ensure cases move forward.
"If cases aren't getting prosecuted and judges are telling me we're in the worst shape in the state, my job as a legislator is to step up and do something," Muñoz told the Journal.
"This is the only place we can really handcuff her and make sure criminal cases get prosecuted," he added, saying some employees from Martin's office had also approached him with concerns about management practices involving the use of overtime.
Law enforcement awaiting resolution
While Albuquerque has primarily been the focus of legislative attempts to improve public safety in recent years, Gallup has also struggled with high crime and addiction rates.
The city's violent crime rate has actually decreased in recent years, but Gallup still had the state's highest violent crime rate as of 2022, with roughly 1,500 such incidents per 100,000 residents, according to legislative data.
McKinley County Sheriff James Maiorano said Wednesday the lack of attorneys in Martin's office prompted him to refer a vehicular homicide case to Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office several years ago.
He said the situation has somewhat improved since Martin hired two contract attorneys to handle cases, but said the set-up is still far from ideal.
"You may be the best attorney in the world, but when you get to 400 or 500 cases per attorney, things are going to fall through the cracks," Maiorano said.
Due to chronic staffing issues, the District Attorney's Office in Gallup has had by far the state's highest average caseload for attorneys in recent years. During the first quarter of the current budget year, the figure hit 2,822 cases per attorney, according to Legislative Finance Committee data.
In addition, only 18 cases went to trial in the judicial district last year, out of nearly 1,500 cases that were referred to the office, according to data compiled by Muñoz's office.
Martin acknowledged this week her largely rural District Attorney's Office has struggled to attract applicants for attorney positions.
But she said that problem is not unique to her office, citing similarly low staffing rates at the local public defender's office.
How the defunding vote played out
This year's budget bill initially included $3.3 million for the District Attorney's Office in McKinley County, along with additional funding for contract attorneys.
But after the bill was approved by the House, it was amended in the Senate Finance Committee.
One of those changes involved stripping the funding for the District Attorney's Office out of the bill, and adding budget language stipulating new cases in the county would be handled by Fortner, the newly-elected district attorney in San Juan County.
Though several senators expressed concern about the change, the bill passed the Senate on a 24-16 vote and was then ratified by the House.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the budget bill into law in April, leaving the altered funding plan intact.
A Lujan Grisham spokesman declined to comment on the situation Wednesday, while Fortner did not respond to a message seeking comment.
Maiorano, the local sheriff, described the situation as delicate, citing state law that empowers district attorneys to decide whether to move forward with cases or dismiss them.
"We are all holding our breath for July 1," he said, referring to the date the new state budget takes effect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Durbin launches investigation into Ed Martin
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has launched an investigation into Ed Martin, who serves as both the pardon attorney and head of the new Weaponization Working Group. Durbin cited Martin's 'disgraceful tenure' in a prior role as well as his 'stated threats to abuse his positions at DOJ' as the rationale behind igniting the probe. The letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asks for all Martin's communications relating both to pardons and any work undertaken for the new working group. 'Following his disgraceful tenure as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Martin apparently plans to continue his misconduct in his new roles at DOJ,' he wrote. Durbin pointed to a May 13 press conference Martin held before heading to his new role, saying he plans to 'shame those [who the] DOJ does not have the evidence to charge.' 'If they can't be charged, we will name them … and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are shamed,'' Martin said. Durbin said the statement was an 'admission' he plans to abuse his power. 'These statements are a brazen admission that Mr. Martin plans to systematically violate the Justice Manual's prohibition on extrajudicial statements by shaming uncharged parties for nakedly partisan reasons,' Durbin wrote. 'This plan clearly violates Mr. Martin's obligations under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit prosecutors from '[making] extrajudicial comments which serve to heighten condemnation of the accused.' Weaponizing DOJ in this manner will further undermine the public's trust in the department in irreparable ways.' Durbin also questioned Martin's oversight of a series of pardons given by Trump that benefited his political allies. The senator noted the recent pardon for nursing home executive Paul Walczak for tax fraud just three weeks after Walczak's mother paid $1 million to attend a Trump fundraiser. Trump also pardoned Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola Corporation, after Milton donated nearly $2 million to the Trump campaign last year, among others. 'Mr. Martin's bald-faced 'pay to play' strategy is abusing the Office of the Pardon Attorney in multiple ways to benefit President Trump and his political allies,' Durbin wrote. Martin is also planning a review of former President Biden's pardon's, included those given to his family members. DOJ did not respond to request for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trinity man convicted of rape, sodomy
Jun. 12—A Trinity man was convicted of first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy Wednesday by a Morgan County jury, according to the Morgan County District Attorney's Office. Cody Wayne Terry, 30, will be sentenced Aug. 26. He had a prior felony conviction for a violation of the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act. The case was prosecuted by Assistant District Attorney Joe Lewis, with Circuit Judge Stephen Brown presiding. Officers with the Decatur Police Department were dispatched to a residence on 20th Avenue Southwest in reference to a rape in April 2021. There they met with the victim, "who had two swollen black eyes, bruising to her face and neck, and injuries to her lips. The victim advised she had been raped and beaten by an acquaintance, who threatened to kill her if she screamed," according to the District Attorney's Office. Terry was confirmed as the assailant through DNA analysis. "We certainly appreciate the jury's service in this case. This was a particularly brutal crime, and we are grateful that the victim got justice," Lewis said in a statement. Terry faces a maximum of life in prison. — eric@ or 256-340-2435
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit.
It's been almost eight years since an FBI SWAT team arrived at Curtrina Martin and Toi Cliatt's home, detonated a flash grenade inside, ripped the door off, and stormed into the couple's bedroom with guns drawn. Agents handcuffed Cliatt at gunpoint, and Martin, who had tried to barricade herself inside of her closet, says she fell on a rack amid the mayhem. But law enforcement would not find who they were looking for there, because that suspect, Joseph Riley, lived in a nearby house on a different street. The issue is still a relevant one for Martin and Cliatt, along with Martin's son, Gabe—who was 7 years old at the time of the raid—as the group has fought for years, unsuccessfully, for the right to sue the government over the break-in. The Supreme Court on Thursday resurrected that lawsuit, unanimously ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had settled on a faulty analysis when it barred Martin and Cliatt from suing in April 2024. But the plaintiffs' legal battle is still far from over. "If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?" wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. "The answer is not as obvious as it might be." The issue before the Court did not pertain to immunity for any individual law enforcement agent, whom the 11th Circuit shielded from liability in its decision last year. The justices instead considered if the lower court had erred when it also blocked the lawsuit from proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law that allows individuals to bring certain state-law tort claims against the federal government for damages caused by federal workers acting within the scope of their employment. There are many exceptions to the FTCA, however, that allow the feds to evade such claims—a microcosm of the convoluted maze plaintiffs must navigate to sue the government. One of those, the intentional tort exception, dooms suits that allege intentional wrongdoing, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, among several others. Yet the FTCA also contains a law enforcement proviso—essentially an exception to the exception—that permits claims to get around that carve-out when the misconduct in question is committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers." Notably here, Congress passed that addition in the 1970s in response to two highly publicized wrong-house raids. The 11th Circuit accordingly observed that the proviso would allow Martin and Cliatt's intentional tort claims to survive the exception. The court killed those claims anyway. It cited the Supremacy Clause, which the judges said protected the government from liability if its employees' actions had "some nexus with furthering federal policy and [could] reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law." Not so, said the Supreme Court. Somewhat surprisingly, that put it in agreement with the government—which, prior to oral arguments, conceded the 11th Circuit's conclusion there was incorrect, and that it did not care to defend it. "We find the government's concession commendable and correct," writes Gorsuch. "The FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit's Supremacy Clause defense." Arguably the bigger question before the Court pertained to a different FTCA carve-out: the discretionary function exception, which, true to its name, precludes claims from proceeding if the alleged misconduct came from a duty that involves discretion. The 11th Circuit dismissed Martin and Cliatt's claims alleging negligent wrongdoing—distinctive under the law from intentional torts—writing that "the FBI did not have stringent policies or procedures in place that dictate how agents are to prepare for warrant executions." Lawrence Guerra, a former FBI special agent and the leader of the raid, thus had discretion, the judges said. But the 11th Circuit took its discretionary analysis a step further, ruling that, for acts of wrongdoing that have intentionality, the law enforcement proviso trumps the discretionary exception outright. The justices rejected that. "The law enforcement proviso…overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection," the Court said, "not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions." So where does that leave Martin and Cliatt? "On remand, the 11th Circuit will need to decide whether raiding the wrong house is a 'discretionary function,'" says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented the pair. Jaicomo was hoping the Court would address that very confusion. The plaintiffs "call on us to determine whether and under what circumstances the discretionary-function exception bars suits for wrong-house raids and similar misconduct," writes Gorsuch. "Unless we take up that further question, they worry, the Eleventh Circuit on remand may take too broad a view of the exception and dismiss their claims again. After all, the plaintiffs observe, in the past that court has suggested that the discretionary-function exception bars any claim 'unless a source of federal law "specifically prescribes" a course of conduct' and thus deprives an official of all discretion." The Supreme Court, however, ultimately opted for a narrow approach, though the justices acknowledged "that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said there are no such circumstances when considering the fact pattern presented in Martin and Cliatt's suit. "Like driving, executing a warrant always involves some measure of discretion," she wrote. "Yet it is hard to see how Guerra's conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin's door and terrorizing the home's occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments that the discretionary-function exception was designed to protect." That would seem like the right conclusion, particularly when considering the genesis of that law enforcement proviso, which Congress enacted to give recourse to victims who suffered at the hands of near-identical misconduct. Those lawmakers clearly did not think the discretionary exception would doom their claims. That the law was meant to protect people like Martin, Cliatt, and Martin's son is why a bipartisan group of lawmakers—including Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), and Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), along with Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Nikema Williams (D–Ga.), and Harriet Hageman (R–Wyo.)—had urged the Court to take up their case. Sotomayor's description of Guerra's negligence is also salient and was the subject of one of the more interesting exchanges when the Supreme Court heard the case. Arguing for the Justice Department, Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, said it was too much for Martin and Cliatt to expect "that the officer should have checked the house number on the mailbox." "Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door," Gorsuch responded. Liu countered that such a decision "is filled with policy tradeoffs." "Really?" Gorsuch replied. The post The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit. appeared first on
