Author: atum

  • Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award

     

    Marquis Who’s Who

    Dear Stephen D,

    We are pleased to announce that Marquis Who’s Who has selected you for our official 2018 Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. You have been selected to receive this prestigious award as a result of your hard work and dedication to your profession.

    Congratulations!

    The 2018 Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award Winners are featured on the Marquis Lifetime Achievement website at no cost. Award recipients are entitled to a professionally written personal narrative announcing this honor as well as your accomplishments. The narrative comes with online distribution to all the major search engines for higher visibility and each winner is given an expanded biography and exclusive access to Marquis Biographies Online (MBO), our database of more than 1.5 million of the most distinguished professionals from around the globe. Lastly, all narratives are also offered in a lovely custom framed display piece for the home or office.

    Please take the next step in distributing your official award announcement and reaping the benefits of this distinguished award.

    Sincerely,

    Selection Committee
    Marquis Who’s Who

     

  • One Decade on Superlawyers.com List

    Aarons profile in 2017 Superlawyers

    Congrats to Criminal Defense Lawyer Stephen D Aarons, who was included in the first New Mexico list for Superlawyers.com in 2007 and has been included every year since!

    Stephen D Aarons featured in SuperLawyers
    Stephen D Aarons featured in 2017 SuperLawyers Edition

    17 SuperLawyers Award

  • United States v. Munoz-Chavez (DNM 2012)

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    Mario Alberto Munoz-Chavez

    Case Number: 1:12CR01182-001JB
    USM Number: 66089-051

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New Mexico

    Date Signed: July 5, 2012

    Judgment in a Criminal Case

    (For Offenses Committed On or After November 1, 1987)
    Defense Attorney: Stephen D. Aarons, Appointed
            THE DEFENDANT:

    [×] pleaded guilty to count(s) Information

    [ ] pleaded nolo contendere to count(s) which was accepted by the court.

    [ ] after a plea of not guilty was found guilty on count(s)

    The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these offenses:

    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
    ¦Title and Section,    ¦Nature of Offense   ¦Offense Ended  ¦Count Number(s)  ¦
    +----------------------+--------------------+---------------+-----------------¦
    ¦8 U.S.C. Sec. 1   1326¦Reentry of a Removed¦03/28/2012     ¦                 ¦
    ¦(a)/(b)               ¦Alien               ¦               ¦                 ¦
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
    

    The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 4 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

    [ ] The defendant has been found not guilty on count .

    [ ] Count dismissed on the motion of the United States.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of material changes in economic circumstances.

    July 2, 2012
    Date of Imposition of Judgment

    James O. Browning
    Signature of Judge

    Honorable James O. Browning
    United States District Judge
    Name and Title of Judge

    Page 2

    IMPRISONMENT
            The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 97 days or time served, whichever is less .

    The Court recommends that Immigration and Customs Enforcement begin immediate removal proceedings.

    Pursuant to section 5D1.1(c), the court will not impose a term of supervised release.

    The Court has considered the Guidelines and, in arriving at its sentence, has taken account of the Guidelines with other sentencing goals. Specifically, the Court has considered the Guidelines’ sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of Defendant. The Court believes that the Guidelines’ punishment is appropriate for this sort of offense. Therefore, the sentence in this judgment is consistent with a guideline sentence. The Court has considered the kind of sentence and range established by the Guidelines. The Court believes that a sentence of 97 days reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, provides just punishment, affords adequate deterrence, protects the public, avoids unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants, effectively provides the Defendant with needed education or vocational training and medical care, and otherwise fully reflects each of the factors embodied in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a). The Court also believes the sentence is reasonable. The Court believes the sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in the Sentencing Reform Act.

    [ ] The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

    [×] The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

    [ ] The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

    [ ] at on
    [ ] as notified by the United States Marshal.

    [ ] The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:

    [ ] before 2 p.m. on
    [ ] as notified by the United States Marshal
    [ ] as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

    RETURN
            I have executed this judgment as follows:

    Defendant delivered on _________________________ to __________________________at _________________________ with a Certified copy of this judgment.

    _________________________
    UNITED STATES MARSHAL

    By

    Page 3

    _________________________
    DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

    Page 4

    CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES
            The defendant must pay the following total criminal monetary penalties in accordance with the schedule of payments.

    [×] The Court hereby remits the defendant’s Special Penalty Assessment; the fee is waived and no payment is required.

    +------------------------------------------+
    ¦Totals:¦Assessment  ¦Fine   ¦Restitution  ¦
    +-------+------------+-------+-------------¦
    ¦       ¦$waived     ¦$0.00  ¦$0.00        ¦
    +------------------------------------------+
    

    SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS
            Payments shall be applied in the following order (1) assessment; (2) restitution; (3) fine principal; (4) cost of prosecution; (5) interest; (6) penalties.

    Payment of the total fine and other criminal monetary penalties shall be due as follows:

    The defendant will receive credit for all payments previously made toward any criminal monetary penalties imposed.

    A [ ] In full immediately; or

    B [ ] $ immediately, balance due (see special instructions regarding payment of criminal monetary penalties).

    Special instructions regarding the payment of criminal monetary penalties:Criminal monetary penalties are to be made payable by cashier’s check, bank or postal money order to the U.S. District Court Clerk, 333 Lomas Blvd. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 unless otherwise noted by the court. Payments must include defendant’s name, current address, case number and type of payment.

    Unless the court has expressly ordered otherwise in the special instructions above, if this judgment imposes a period of imprisonment, payment of criminal monetary penalties shall be due during the period of imprisonment. All criminal monetary penalty payments, except those payments made through the Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, are to be made as directed by the court, the probation officer, or the United States attorney.

  • Nigerian Released from Federal Jail

    [column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

     

    • US v. Noah Kuranga 1:08-cr-02337-JAP-1

      Description:
      Truck driver stopped in Grants NM and large quantity of drugs found in his trailer. Able to show that loading dock workers may have done so without defendant’s knowledge

    Outcome: Misdemeanor probation (misprison of felon), no deportation – still driving his truck but more careful now

     

    [/column]

  • CBS Evening News – Jessica Quintana

    [column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

    “When Jessica Quintana wanted to sneak classified material out of the nation’s top nuclear weapons lab, the biggest outrage is how scandalously simple it was…cbs-evening-news-katie-couric

    Quintana has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and faces up to a year in jail. Her lawyer says Americans can thank her for one thing: exposing persistent gaps in security at a place guarding some of our most sensitive nuclear secrets.”

    Watch the video and full article at CBS News

    [/column]

    Exclusive: Los Alamos Breach Was Easy

    When Jessica Quintana wanted to sneak classified material out of the nation’s top nuclear weapons lab, the biggest outrage is how scandalously simple it was.
    “Where I was, It was easy,” she tells CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Last week Quintana, 23, plead guilty to the national security breach at Los Alamos. In an exclusive interview with CBS News, she tells how she did it.She was just 18, right out of high school, when the Lab hired her to archive documents. The job came with a security clearance that gave her access to highly sensitive weapons data.Last summer Quintana claims she wanted to take some work home, a major security violation. She walked unchallenged into a special work vault with a computer storage device called a flashdrive.

    “I had the flashdrive in my pocket when I entered the vault that day,” recalls Quintana. “And at some point in the day I knew I wasn’t being watched, the racks were open, simply inserted the flashdrive into my computer, took what I needed.”

    It was material related to underground nuclear weapons tests from the 70’s, and she printed more classified documents — 228 pages.

    “I printed out the pages I needed and put in my backpack with my school books and walked out like I did every day,” said Quintana.

    The materials were found accidentally months later by local police during a drug raid on Quintana’s roommate in their trailer home, reports Attkisson.

    It’s an understatement to say that walking out with national secrets shouldn’t have been so easy, especially in light of the rash of security scandals at Los Alamos: missing hard drives, even radioactive material smuggled out.

    Tens of millions of tax dollars have been spent to upgrade security. Quintana’s case raises the question. Have others, even spies, made off with top secret material?

    Quintana says in the years she worked at the lab, nobody ever questioned or searched her. Not once.

    “They were so lax about coming in and out,” said Quintana.

    Congress was so outraged that the Energy Department fired its top nuclear security official.

    Quintana has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and faces up to a year in jail. Her lawyer says Americans can thank her for one thing: exposing persistent gaps in security at a place guarding some of our most sensitive nuclear secrets.

    Los Alamos confirms data breach

     

     

    • US v. Jessica Quintana, 1:07-cr-00931-LFG-1

      Outcome:
      Misdemeanor probation
      Description:
      Los Alamos National Laboratory employee brought top secret documents home. ## http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/03/national/main2151021.shtml ## http://www.abqjournal.com/north/510427north_news11-09-06.htm

     

  • Serial Murderer Get Two Life Sentences

    [column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

    [c

    • State of New Mexico v. Robert Fry, D-1116-CR-200000542

      Practice Area:
      Violent crime
      Date:
      Dec 01, 2000
      Outcome:
      Life sentence
      Description:
      Fry II. Serial murderer’s life spared in second death penalty trial
    • State of New Mexico v. Robert Fry D-1116-CR-200001055

      Practice Area:
      Violent crime
      Date:
      Jan 01, 2000
      Outcome:
      Life sentence
      Description:
      Third jury trial of serial killer
    • Man Convicted of 2 Murders; Farmington Store Site of Killings

      The Associated Press
          Robert Fry was found guilty Thursday of first-degree murder in the 1996 slaying of two men inside a counterculture store in downtown Farmington.
      Jurors deliberated for 11 hours before reaching a verdict. Fry, who had been smiling earlier, put his hands on the table before him and hung his head after hearing the verdict.
      Fry, 31, was charged in the Nov. 29, 1996 slayings of Matthew Trecker, 18, and Joseph Fleming, 25. They were stabbed and their throats slashed in the now-defunct Eclectic store.
      Fry was also found guilty of larceny, tampering with evidence and intimidation of a witness.
      He was immediately sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, 41/2 years for tampering with evidence and 6 years for intimidation.
      “Matt and Joe are smiling today and I’m glad I was a part of it,” Assistant District Attorney Mitch Burns said.
      Defense Attorney Steve Aarons said he will appeal the convictions.
      Fry already is facing the death penalty for the 2000 murder of a Shiprock woman and is serving a life sentence for the 1998 murder of an Arizona man.
      In closing arguments Wednesday, prosecutors had asked the jury to piece together a puzzle of evidence linking Fry to the killings.
      The puzzle pieces consisted of testimony from witnesses and statements made by Fry during an inconclusive polygraph test. During the interview, Fry gave his “theory” of how the killings occurred, and prosecutors said the details were too close to reality to be overlooked.
      Fry had said that if he were the killer he would cut Fleming’s throat and lay him down. This happened, according to testimony from a crime scene investigator.
      “We have a braggart giving details,” Assistant District Attorney Brent Capshaw said Wednesday. “In the process of bragging, he can’t help disclosing facts only the killer would know.”
      But the defense argued that Fry was attempting to help solve the mystery of who killed the young men.

     

    [/column]

  • Albuquerque Journal – Outstanding Criminal Attorneys

    Lawyers Feel Duty to Make System Work

    Albuquerque-JournalOutstanding criminal attorneys also enjoy challenge and rewards

    Byline: Daniel J. Chacon Journal Staff Writer, Albuquerque Journal North 04/22/2001 Page: 1

    No one is supposed to be listening to their conversation, but Dan Marlowe’s husky voice echoes like thunder through the wooden frame of his downtown office door.
    Marlowe, a criminal defense lawyer in Santa Fe who has been practicing law for nearly three decades, is talking strategy with his client a young Eldorado man accused of molesting two boys he coached in soccer. Marlowe, 54 and a father of two who coaches soccer himself, believes his client is innocent, and he’s on a mission to prove it. Countless other defendants have relied on Marlowe to do the same for them; and more often than not, they leave a courtroom feeling emancipated. Marlowe often wins, and he gets a kick and a smile out of doing it, too. But Marlowe also is a man of principle. “In my business, people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt immediately,” he said. “I believe in the presumption of innocence. The fact is, (criminal defense lawyers) are defending everything everyone in this country holds dear, and that’s the Constitution.”

    Convincing yourself

    In a world with no shortage of attorneys there are 40 pages of attorney listings in the local Yellow Pages. Santa Fe is home to at least four lawyers who have built reputations of excelling in the art and science of criminal defense. Marlowe, one of the city’s most respected and sought-after defense attorneys who focuses strictly on criminal law, with his thunderous voice resembles a preacher reciting the Bible to his devoted congregation when he stands in front of a jury. He’s not alone.

    In the courtroom, attorney Stephen Aarons, 46, tries to break down barriers and transform himself into a juror’s best friend. Recently, Aarons represented a Santa Fe woman whom police arrested on allegations that she killed her infant and then tried to hide the crime by sticking her baby’s decaying body in a bloodied toilet. Aarons argued the baby was born dead, and jurors acquitted the woman of first-degree murder.
    If the practice of criminal defense was compared to boxing, Aarons would be the Mike Tyson of attorneys. Still, Aarons is soft-spoken and sympathetic. He is a husband and father who plays with his 5-year-old son, Ian, in their central Santa Fe townhouse on his days off. “You can’t be living in an ivory tower and be able to connect with jurors,” said Aarons, who drives a white, four-door Saturn with more than 100,000 miles on the odometer. “I think you gotta start out by convincing yourself,” he said. “Then, ‘How can I really show that to a jury?’ If we don’t pass the common-sense test, then we’re not going to succeed.”

    Doug Couleur, 43, is much more forceful with a jury even with a judge. He’s the type of lawyer who doesn’t waste time.
    Don’t ask Couleur, a physically fit Chicago native who started out in Santa Fe as a prosecutor in the District Attorney’s Office under the leadership of Chet Walter, for a wordy, colorful analogy that relates to his work. He won’t provide one. His comments are brief and to the point. “I like being the underdog, the black sheep,” said Couleur, whose clientele includes a large pool of people from rural northern New Mexico and police officers accused of wrongdoing. “Of course, there are no guarantees in this business, for either side.” Couleur, who also practices in federal court, said he represents a broad range of people. One of Couleur’s latest clients is a 29-year-old Capshaw Middle School teacher charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor after one of her teen-age students was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving without a driver’s license. According to police she rode as his lone passenger late at night in her car. Couleur said the first cases he tried as a prosecutor taught him the responsibilities of a defense attorney. “As a prosecutor, you have an awesome power, and you need to exercise it with restraint and discretion, with the ultimate overriding philosophy that a prosecutor’s role is to seek justice, not to seek convictions,” he said.

    Val Whitley, a Spanish-speaking 47-year-old graduate of the University of New Mexico’s Law School, tried to start off his law career in 1989 locking up the type of clients he now defends. “(Then-District Attorney) Chet Walter wouldn’t hire me,” Whitley said. The Public Defender’s Office quickly hired Whitley, and then he went into private practice five years ago.
    The youngest among the four big-gun defense attorneys, Whitley might appear to be the most friendly and compassionate and the one you least want to cross. He is a vocal critic of the District Attorney’s Office, the treatment of inmates by Cornell Companies at the Santa Fe County Detention Center and reporters with poisonous pens.
    Whitley is passionate about his beliefs, and defending the accused is his strongest conviction.

    “Most of the people I deal with are ordinary people who get into a little bit of trouble,” Whitley said. Criminal defense lawyers “seem to catch the wrath of a lot of people. (But) I think people look to us for their last line of help.” Marlowe, whose father, Benjamin Fazio Marlowe, was a well-known criminal defense lawyer in Oakland, Calif., agrees. “A lot of people hire you to do the worrying for them,” Marlowe said. “They’re just people that are getting accused of crimes. Sometimes they’re guilty; sometimes they’re not. People who are charged with crimes, there’s a lot of them out there who are innocent.” And they pay the price emotionally and financially to prove it.

    Foot soldiers

    While none of the four attorneys interviewed would discuss their fees specifically, all of them said their services are worth the cost. Their fees are not set in stone either, they said. All four do pro bono work under contract with the Public Defender’s Office. Some of them, like Aarons, said they charge a flat fee in the neighborhood of $5,000. Marlowe said a defendant charged with first-degree murder might have to spend up to $65,000 if the case goes to trial (find cases at https://smithjonessolicitors.co.uk/road-traffic-accidents/motorcycle-accident-claims/).

    Marlowe, Aarons, Couleur and Whitley said they aren’t in the business of representing alleged criminals to get rich. Most of my clients are unable to afford an attorney,” Aarons said. “I’m not doing this for the money. If I were, I’d be an estate lawyer. I don’t really focus on the business of law.” None of them do.

    Being a lawyer is exciting and rewarding. It’s a challenge. Not only that, they like to argue. And they like to win. They also like helping people. But most of all, they believe they have a duty to make sure the criminal justice system works. “The stakes are high,” Couleur said. “Somebody’s liberty is at stake. I can never put it out of my mind that this person’s liberty is at stake.” While their work can be overwhelming at times, each of the four attorneys said they have learned to cope with the stress, whether it be through family or exercise.
    “I’ve seen the gamut of humanity, a broader gamut than you would see in most work places,” Aarons said. “The way I deal with it is I recognize that all I really am is a foot soldier,” he added. “I trust God in a lot of this stuff. He put me into this job. I’m just this foot soldier doing my best.”

    PHOTO: JOURNAL FILE
    PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: Defense attorney Dan Marlowe, shown here with client Steve Ulibarri in 1999, says he is a strong believer in the presumption of innocence. Ulibarri made an Alford plea meaning there was no admission of guilt in 1999 to involuntary manslaughter in a fatal shooting.
    BREAKS DOWN BARRIERS: Defense attorney Stephen Aarons believes to make a successful argument he must first convince himself then figure out how to convince a jury. His client shown in this 1997 photo, Arthur “Bozo” Lopez, right, was convicted of murder in the stabbing death of a teacher.
    RELISHES BEING UNDERDOG: Defense attorney Douglas Couleur likes the role of the underdog. He’s shown here in 1999 with client Dolores Vigil, a former Espanola municipal judge who pleaded no contest to tampering with public records.
    PHOTO: JOURNAL FILE
    BEGAN AS PUBLIC DEFENDER: Defense attorney Val Whitley, shown here with client Manuela Arreola, wanted to begin his career as a prosecutor but instead took a job with the local Public Defender’s Office.

    Albuquerque Journal, 22 April 2001, page 1
    Copyright Albuquerque Journal. Reprinted with permission.

  • Wilkins Set Free

    [column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

    Wilkins Set Free

    Publication: Albuquerque Journal
    Date: 03/03/2001 Page: A1
    Headline: Last Defendant Goes Free
    Byline: Guillermo Contreras And Lloyd Jojola Journal Staff Writers
    TORREON CABIN KILLINGS
    Charges Dropped in Deaths of Boys, Couple

    Charges were dismissed Friday against the last of the four defendants charged in the deaths of a couple and two children at a remote cabin near Torreon in 1995.
    At a news conference Friday at the Albuquerque office of one of his attorneys, Shaun Wilkins, 23, expressed relief that 7th Judicial District Attorney Clint Wellborn had decided to dismiss all charges against him, including four counts of first-degree murder.
    “I still don’t believe it,” Wilkins said. “I’m sitting here like ‘phew, it’s been a long time of my life.’ ”
    His sister said Wilkins’ family planned a barbecue to celebrate. Wilkins said he is now out of gangs and working.
    Wilkins was tried in 1997 in Socorro in connection with the killings of Cassandra Sedillo, 23, her sons, Johnny Ray, 4, and Matthew Garcia, 3, and Sedillo’s boyfriend, Ben Anaya Jr., 17. It resulted in a mistrial.
    Sedillo and Anaya had been shot in the head. The boys were left inside the locked cabin and died later of thirst and hunger, investigators said.
    Relatives of Sedillo and Anaya expressed outrage at the decision to dismiss Wilkins’ case.
    “I don’t agree with it,” said Porfie Sedillo, the mother of Cassandra Sedillo and the grandmother to her two sons. “They’ve victimized us since the whole thing happened. We’ve had to go through misery for the past five years.”
    Shortly after Sedillo received the news, she called and told Emily Archuleta, the mother of Ben Anaya Jr.
    Archuleta was shaken by the news.
    “It messed up my whole life and look now, they’re letting him go,” Archuleta said as she sobbed during a telephone conversation.
    District Attorney Wellborn did not return phone calls seeking comment Friday.
    Deputy District Attorney Mark Pickering, who filed the dismissal paperwork Friday afternoon, also did not return a phone call seeking comment.
    The dismissal cites insufficient evidence, a lack of reliable witness statements and interviews with jurors in Wilkins’ first trial who believed the state’s case was weak against Wilkins.
    The document said the case was based largely on the statements of two of Wilkins’ now former co-defendants, Lawrence “Woody” Nieto and Shawn “Popcorn” Popeleski. Both men were convicted in separate trials.
    The motion, signed by Pickering, noted that the courts did not allow prosecutors to use Nieto’s videotaped statement to police implicating Wilkins and Roy “Eazy” Buchner in the slayings.
    That, Pickering pointed out, is the most incriminating statement.
    The motion also said a statement taken from Popeleski lacks credibility because he was convicted of murders he denied being involved in. Popeleski was convicted of second-degree murder in the deaths of Sedillo’s two young boys but was acquitted in the killings of Sedillo and Anaya.
    “In addition, the statement is vague and full of major inconsistencies,” Pickering’s motion said.
    The motion also pointed out that there is no physical evidence linking Wilkins to the commission of the crimes, and that jurors who were interviewed after Wilkins’ first trial “indicated that the state’s case was very weak ”
    Former 7th Judicial District Attorney Ron Lopez said he was not surprised Wilkins’ case was dismissed in light of Wellborn’s decision in January to dismiss charges against then co-defendant Buchner.
    But Lopez said he believed winning the Wilkins case was probable because the state Supreme Court’s refusal in October to overturn the convictions of Nieto also resulted in Nieto’s inability to plead his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
    “I think it’s disappointing, especially given the fact that we had fought so hard over the last four years,” Lopez said in a telephone interview. “When Mr. Nieto’s conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court, I think that gave us a much stronger case. At this point Mr. Nieto could not have used the 5th amendment as he had before.”
    Sedillo said she wanted to emphasize that the charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence and not because of a not guilty verdict.
    “It’s been hell,” Sedillo said. “People say you get over it, but you don’t get over it. It’s always with you. It’s there every day.”
    It wasn’t until late Friday afternoon that Sedillo said she received a call from a victim’s advocate from the District Attorney’s Office telling her of the decision.
    Wilkins and his attorneys, Stephen Aarons of Santa Fe and Kari Converse of Albuquerque, contended the prosecution was a personal vendetta by Juan DeReyes, a former gang detective with the Albuquerque Police Department. They also accused prosecutors under Lopez’s administration of withholding exculpatory evidence.
    They said DeReyes’ gang unit car was shot up by an Albuquerque gang and he assumed Wilkins was responsible. They said DeReyes took it personally, forcing Nieto and Popeleski to implicate Wilkins.
    “Woody and Popcorn’s statements changed what, eight times?” Wilkins said at the news conference.
    “In our society, intense pressure to solve horrible crimes sometimes leads to improper police work,” Aarons said. “We are seeing the results of that throughout the country as DNA evidence proves how many innocent people have been convicted of heinous crimes.”
    DeReyes and prosecutors under Lopez’s administration have denied that the case against Wilkins resulted from a personal vendetta. DeReyes could not be reached for comment Friday.
    Wilkins is scheduled for trial on charges of aggravated assault for an incident in December in which he allegedly attacked his father, Tim Jaquez, at his Albuquerque home.
    Attorney Converse said that should be taken care of soon. She did not elaborate.
    Archuleta said the long, drawn-out prosecution of the men charged in the cabin slayings took its toll on her.
    She was forced to leave her job after attending day after day of trial proceedings. She suffered from anxiety to the point that she was placed under the care of a doctor, she said.
    “How can you live with that, knowing that your son died,” she said.
    Both women criticized prosecutors for not keeping them informed about the case. Both felt the justice system let them down.
    “We can’t turn anywhere. The only place left to turn to is God, I guess,” Archuleta said. “He’s the only one who helps us.”
    Added Sedillo: “There is no justice in this world. But there is a higher power, and they will pay.”

    PHOTO: Color
    Shaun “Sagger” Wilkins, now 23, was accused of being the person who shot Cassandra Sedillo and Ben “Deuce” Anaya Jr. Jurors in Wilkins’ first trial in October 1997 deadlocked. On Friday, all charges against Wilkins were dismissed.

    PHOTO: Color
    Shawn “Popcorn” Popeleski, now 23, was convicted in September 1999 of two counts of second-degree murder for the deaths of Sedillo’s sons. He was acquitted of murder charges in the slayings of Anaya and Sedillo. Popeleski was sentenced last year to 16 1/2 years in prison.

    PHOTO: Color
    Lawrence “Woody” Nieto, now 23, was convicted by a Torrance County jury in 1997 of four counts of first-degree murder and other charges. He was sentenced to more than 130 years in prison. The state Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in October 2000.

    PHOTO: Color
    Roy “Eazy” Buchner, now 23, was accused of locking the cabin and sealing the fate of Sedillo’s two young boys, Johnny Ray and Matthew, who died of thirst and hunger. Jurors in Buchner’s first trial in 1997 deadlocked. In January, all charges against him were dismissed.

    PHOTOS: b/w
    The victims
    Ben “Deuce” Anaya Jr., 17, his girlfriend, Cassandra Sedillo, 23, and her sons, Johnny Ray Garcia, 4, and Matthew Garcia, 3, were found dead in April 1996 by Anaya’s father inside his cabin near Torreon, on the east face of the Manzano Mountains. Investigators later determined Anaya and Sedillo were shot to death in mid-December 1995 and the children died a few weeks later of thirst and hunger because they were locked inside the cabin without food or water.
    Horizontal Divider 25
    Add your logo here

    05/30/2011

    [/column]