opinion

Another stumble in the legal case against Tai Chan

An alleged procedural failure by former District Court Judge Fernando Macias is the latest stumble in the court case against a Santa Fe County sheriff’s deputy who admits to firing the shots that killed his partner in a Las Cruces motel room four years ago.

Tai Chan has been tried twice on charges of first-degree murder in the shooting death of his former partner, Jeremy Martin. He argued at both trials that the shooting was done in self-defense, and both trials ended in a hung jury.

A third trial has been scheduled for Aug. 27. But this time, Chan will only face the lesser charges of voluntary manslaughter. Last week, Third Judicial District Judge Conrad Perea dismissed the more serious charges of murder on the grounds of double jeopardy.

Attorneys for both the prosecutors and defense agreed that Perea had to dismiss the charges based on a state Supreme Court ruling days before the case was judged to be a mistrial. That ruling added a new requirement that judges in cases that end in a mistrial poll the jury on each degree of the offense.

Failure to do so means that all but the lowest level offenses must be dismissed. In this case, Macias did not poll the jury as required, something the new prosecutor in the case has referred to as a “travesty.”

Macias, who is now the county manager, presided over both of the first two trials. He said he believed it was clear that everyone was aware of the votes of the jurors on each charge.

This is just the latest turn in a case that has often not shown our courts or law enforcement in the best light.

Earlier, the lead detective on the case, Irma Polis, filed a lawsuit against the Las Cruces Police Department alleging that her fellow officers intentionally hampered her investigation into the Chan case. They did so to retaliate against Polis for her role in reporting rape accusations against a fellow detective and exposing pervasive sexism within the detectives’ unit at LCPD, she alleged.

Polis said that her request for an officer-involved shooting team to be called to the scene was denied, as was her request for a forensic investigator. Defense attorneys have criticized the processing of evidence at both trials

After the two mistrials, District Attorney Mark D’Antonio turned over control of the case to the state Office of the Superintendent, bringing new prosecutors in to handle the third trial

It is estimated that both of the first two trials cost taxpayers about $30,000. While cost is a secondary consideration to the need for justice, it didn’t make sense to go forward with a third trial without making significant changes.

We had been hopeful that this third attempt would bring resolution after the disappointment of two hung juries. But now it is clear that will not happen.

There has never been any question as to who killed Jeremy Martin. But, attorneys for Chan have been able to raise numerous questions about what happened in the moments leading up to the shots being fired. And they have raised numerous questions about the professionalism and competency of the investigation that followed.

Those doubts have clearly resonated in the mind of jurors who have been unable to reach a unanimous verdict.