FBI sending more agents to New Mexico to address violent crime in Indian Country
Two boys hold signs at an Albuquerque protest against the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous people on July 21, 2023. (Bella Davis/New Mexico In Depth)
This story was originally published by New Mexico In Depth
Neal, who is a member of the task force, told members it's his understanding that agents sent to New Mexico will be working primarily in Farmington and Gallup.
'We have been able to make some great progress,' Neal said about working with agents sent to the state in the past year or two as part of the operation. 'Unfortunately, because it's been a short period of time, I feel like we make progress, and then [the agents are] gone, right? So this is a great opportunity to have them around for a little bit longer.'
During the last phase of the operation, in 2024, 50 FBI personnel worked in 10 field offices for four months, according to the agency, instead of six as called for this year.
The FBI's Indian Country program had about 4,300 open investigations nationally at the start of fiscal year 2025, including over 900 death investigations, 1,000 child abuse investigations, and more than 500 domestic violence and adult sexual abuse investigations, according to the Justice Department.
The federal government has jurisdiction in prosecuting several types of violent crimes in Indian Country, including murder, kidnapping and sexual abuse.
Relatives of Indigenous people who have gone missing or been killed in the state spoke to the task force about their frustrations with a lack of law enforcement.
Becky Martinez, whose brother Calvin Martinez disappeared in 2019, told Neal that many Indigenous people go missing or are killed off reservations. That's part of why the Justice Department created a regional outreach program focused on the crisis, which is the program he was hired under, Neal responded.
'I have worked on cases that have happened off the reservations where we use FBI resources,' Neal said. 'The FBI has the cellular analysis survey team, for example. We've been able to help state and local law enforcement with cell site warrants, things like that, investigative techniques for cases where the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction. But in those instances, it's going to be an assist kind of situation.'
Since Julius Largo went missing near Morgan Lake in northwestern New Mexico in November, his family has organized searches for him, on their own and with help from a local nonprofit, his sister told the task force.
'We don't see any FBI or criminal investigators until there's a deceased body, and that's what sucks,' Danielle Werito said. 'With all these tips that we got, and I submitted to our detective, nothing is being done about it.'
Largo is a father and also has nieces and nephews who miss him, Werito said.
Mathilda Silago has been missing from Nageezi, also in northwestern New Mexico, since 2019. Her disappearance, Darrell Tsosie told task force members, has been 'very challenging' for his and Mathilda's daughter.
'I just want to tell every person out there online, those in attendance, again, you're in my thoughts. You're in my prayers. It is very challenging. Please don't give up,' Tsosie said. 'Let us keep each other in prayer and let us support one another. And for all of the law enforcement agencies out there, no more excuses. No more excuses. Please work together and let's get these relatives home. Please.'
Gary Mike, whose daughter Ashlynne Mike, an 11-year-old Diné girl, was kidnapped and murdered on the Navajo Nation in 2016, also spoke to task force members.
'Please listen to all of these passionate people who represent their loved ones,' Mike said. 'They are hurting. They're looking for justice. They're looking for their loved ones. Please understand, because I have been through that with my daughter Ashlynne.'
A 29-year-old man was sentenced to life imprisonment for her murder in 2017.
Also on Friday, New Mexico Department of Justice staffers shared updates to an online portal listing Indigenous people missing from New Mexico and the Navajo Nation. The portal now includes a tab displaying photos and stories of people who have been killed, submitted by their loved ones. There's also a tab listing relevant community events.
Below are flyers for missing people who were mentioned by loved ones during public comment at Friday's meeting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New possible sighting of ex-soldier Travis Decker
(NewsNation) — Police may have spotted ex-soldier Travis Decker, who is accused of killing his three young daughters. He may be hiking alone off-trail near Colchuck Lake in Washington State, the Chelan County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday. The Sheriff's Department says a tip came in from hikers who spotted a lone hiker who seemed to be very ill prepared for the trail. Authorities also said he was seen running from a helicopter. Decker's three daughters were found dead near his vehicle at a campground site. Their cause of death was suffocation. 'It sounds to me like his capture is imminent,' Chris Swecker, former assistant director of the FBI, told 'Banfield' on Tuesday. Swecker worked the manhunt for Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph. Authorities reveal cause of death for Washington sisters The forest where police are searching for Decker is remote, but there are structures in the area, and he could be hiding in caves, Swecker said. He thinks police will close in on him in the daytime Wednesday. 'He's been spotted. There's a perimeter set up around maybe a mile going in each direction, and I think very slowly, they'll tighten down that perimeter,' Swecker said. 'He is desperate, and he's obviously mentally disturbed. If he is armed, he's likely to shoot. He'll see them, the searchers, before they will see him. So they have to be very deliberate, very measured and very disciplined in how they close that perimeter.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
