Democratic First Judicial District Attorney candidates face off
For the June 3 New Mexico primary elections, SFR will call up candidates in the CONTESTED races to test their knowledge. The rules for Pop Quiz are as follows:
No research allowed and if they call back later with the right answer, too bad. To see who answered correctly (or came closest), check out our answer key below.
Questions:
1. Should John 'DJ Fido' Abraham receive a lighter sentence because he was 'polite' when he robbed Santa Fe store owners?
2. Only two people are currently on death row in New Mexico. As district attorney, under what circumstances would you pursue the death penalty?
3. How reliable are jailhouse snitches?
4. Under what circumstances should a journalist be compelled to testify in court?
5. What's your favorite Law & Order series: SVU, Criminal Intent or the original?
6. What is the statute of limitations on a second-degree felony?
7. Should cases of domestic violence between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples be handled differently?
8. Of the "Ten Most Wanted" criminals on Santa Fe County Sheriff Greg Solano's Web site, what is the most common offense for which they are wanted?
Answers:
Joseph Campbell, 42, First Judicial District Deputy District Attorney
***image1***
1. Absolutely not. Everybody should be treated the same under the law in regards to sentencing if they're convicted.
2. That's kind of a tough one. The applicable reasons for having the death penalty pursued in cases are listed by statute, but myself, personally, I think that any time there's a death of a child as the result of a kidnapping or rape, or of a police officer, that would pretty much be my standard. All the rest would be, you know, examined on a case-by-case basis. But those would be the givens, where if that happens in a case, that would look at the death penalty.
3. It depends on who the jailhouse snitch would happen to be. Some of them are very reliable and can make your case and some of them aren't. Let me clarify by saying exactly what do you mean by snitch? That's a bad term. You have to understand, I just got through prosecuting the murder of Dickie Ortega out in the jail by Jesus Dominguez and Daniel Good, and that was the term they used, the 'jailhouse snitch,' because he told the police, allegedly, that his cousin had ratted on him and that's why they were in jail. Then we had several witnesses that were inmates in the jail that came forth and gave testimony and they now are also considered snitches. I look at that in two different ways just because of my experience. Those inmates that are inside the jail that come and testify in the court, I think that they have the same credibility issues as anybody else. If it's somebody like Dickie Ortega that got labeled a snitch and really wasn't, that's just an unfortunate circumstance. That's a hard question for me because of the experiences I've had.
4. If they have direct personal knowledge of a crime or if they have information which could, if disclosed, could prevent a crime and save somebody from being injured or harmed.
5. I don't like any of them. Let's see how I can put this without getting myself in trouble for language. They're not realistic and so many times the things they show on there, if done in a real case at trial, would cause either serious damage to the prosecution's case or cause it to be thrown out completely. My wife loves them, and she'll watch them, but I can't because I'll say, 'Oh! If that happens I'd have to dismiss the case!' And she says, 'Shut up, and go to the other room!' She liked the old Law & Order, the original.
6. [Long pause] I know it. I know that it's four years, five years... I think it's six years, because a fourth degree is four and I think it goes up. It may be eight, but I think it's six. I could be wrong. I haven't really looked at the statute of limitations. I had a case where it was an issue and I looked at them all then, but that was about two years ago. I know it's at least six years.
7. Absolutely not. No. I have no problems with heterosexual and/or same-sex couples. My belief is that it's none of my business who you happen to be sleeping with as long as they're both over age, but the law is the law and regardless of whether it's a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple; they should be enforced the same.
8. Truthfully, I don't know. I have no clue. I don't know.
Angela "Spence" Pacheco, 58, Española City Attorney***image2***
1. No. The reason for that is armed robbery is a violent crime. As far as I understand, this guy would go into stores and he was targeting women. That to me is reprehensible because he was targeting people who he thought would be the most vulnerable.
2. I'm not certain I would pursue the death penalty.
3. It depends on what's in it for them, that's how reliable they are.
4. I'm a strong advocate for freedom of the press and I truly believe in the Open Records Act because, as the city attorney for the City of Española, I deal with open records and inspection records constantly. As far as I'm concerned, government should be completely open. I preface that remark because I truly respect the press. If I knew of a reporter that had information that somehow would be obstructing a criminal investigation, let's say for a homicide or for a serious, ugly crime, I would appeal to that person's sense of fairness. I would have a hard time prosecuting or pursuing criminal charges against a journalist for doing their job.
5. Ah, the original recipe.
6. [Sigh] Second-degree felony…let me starting counting back…within six years from the time it was committed.
7. No. Domestic violence is domestic violence.
8. I didn't even know that existed on his Web site. I have two thoughts in my head. One thought would probably be sex offenders and the other would be individuals who don't pay their child support.
AJ Salazar, 41, First Judicial District Chief Deputy District Attorney***image3***
1. Well, manners don't have anything to do with how crimes are committed. When somebody commits a crime of violence or a crime of theft, whether they're polite about it at all does not matter. I understand from some of the accounts that I read is that I think he was even apologetic to a couple of the victims. Really, that doesn't matter. Robbery is robbery, crime is crime. Certainly, what would work in anyone's favor similarly situated is if they hadn't been in trouble before, didn't have a long a track record. I understand he had some community involvement and was a DJ, and that he had a lot of friends and stuff. That can be important when it comes to sentencing. What would be extremely important is if he didn't hurt anyone during the commission of the robberies. I believe that would be something that I, as a prosecutor, would look at, versus somebody who was going around hurting victims. I'm not going to say that manners would be taken into consideration, but if he did not hurt people as he victimized them by stealing from them, that would work in his favor.
2. Under New Mexico law there are, I believe, five aggravating circumstances which would warrant the death penalty. That would be: a murder in the commission of a sexual offense or a rape; the murder of a police officer; the murder of a correctional officer in a prison during an escape; first-degree murder where there were aggravating circumstances and then kidnapping. The district attorney is legally bound to consider pursuing the death penalty in those cases. That doesn't mean it has to be pursued in each of those cases, but it is allowed as an aggravating circumstance, statutorily under New Mexico law.
3. Anytime you're dealing with anyone who is a 'snitch,' you also have to take their veracity with a grain of salt. In the jailhouse in particular. Well, you have somebody who's incarcerated, either pre-trial or post-trial. They're not there for being law-abiding citizens, so they can be reliable, but you have to corroborate their reliability or their version of events because certainly they have something to lose or gain by coming forward with information or by not coming forward with information. So, in my experience, they can be reliable, but it's best as a prosecutor, in light of fairness and openness to the defense and to the case and to the public, to corroborate the information that they would provide.
4. I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment, which guarantees a free press in the United States, and I fully respect a journalist's privilege to not wish to give up sources and to not wish to jeopardize their sources or jeopardize their profession. I believe when the information that they would have would present a clear and present danger to the public or members of the public-for example if a journalist had information that a bomb was planted in a public building and they received this information from a source-I believe that would be in the public interest in terms of preserving life and saving lives and keeping innocent people from getting hurt. It should be something that journalists should be required to testify about in court, or compelled to testify about in court.
5. I've never watched it, to tell you the truth.
6. I believe that's 10 years...I'm just thinking. Hold on. I'm looking at the clock for help for some reason...No, I'm going to say it's six years.
7. I don't believe so. I think they should be handled the same. The laws should be color-blind, they should be sex-blind; it should be regardless of the sex of the offender or the victim. The laws are there to protect everyone. I believe that what we need to do is we need to increase training for our law enforcement agencies, especially here in the Santa Fe area. We're a very accepting community. Alternative lifestyles flourish and they're present all over our jurisdiction. I believe we have to have a compassionate law enforcement force in general encompassing all of them, that are able and ready to investigate each of them equally. Certainly, we need to be sensitive to needs of all of the populace in order to do so. So I think they should be handled the same in light of the different circumstances which they may encounter during the investigations and prosecutions.
8. I'm going to say burglary.
ANSWER KEY (for non-opinion questions)
3. This question is subjective, but research by newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune have found about one-third of 150 capital cases in Illinois that were reversed involved jailhouse informants.
4. This question is subjective, however all three candidates' answers reflect the spirit of the proposed Free Flow of Information Act, a federal "shield law" supported by many media organizations, including the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, of which SFR is a member.
6. Six years.
8. Failure to appear.
