In a recent Bernalillo County District Court trial, my client was facing serious charges: harassment, aggravated stalking, criminal damage, and violation of a restraining order. Instead of accepting a “pretty good” misdemeanor plea that would have gotten him out of jail quickly—but left him with a lifelong domestic‑violence‑related conviction—he chose to take the risk and go to trial. The jury ultimately could not reach a unanimous verdict, the case ended in a hung jury, and after several more painful days in custody the State finally dismissed all charges. This case is a clear example of how the path to a real, meaningful victory in the criminal justice system is often long, uncertain, and far from immediate.

The Hardest Decision: Take the Plea or Fight?

Many people charged with domestic‑violence‑type crimes in Bernalillo County face the same gut‑wrenching choice my client did:
Do you take a plea that gets you out of jail now, or do you risk trial to protect your record and your future?

On paper, a misdemeanor plea can look attractive:

• It might mean you walk out of jail that day or soon after.

• It avoids the stress, publicity, and uncertainty of a jury trial.

• It feels “safer” than risking a felony conviction.

But in New Mexico, even a misdemeanor conviction for harassment, stalking, or criminal damage to the property of a household member can follow you for the rest of your life. It can affect:

• Employment and professional licensing

• Housing opportunities

• Gun rights

• Family‑law custody and visitation issues

• Immigration status for non‑citizens

My client believed the allegations were exaggerated and distorted, and he was not willing to permanently accept the label that comes with a domestic‑violence‑type conviction. He chose the harder road: insist on his rights, hold the State to its burden, and take the case to trial—knowing that meant staying in custody longer and facing the possibility of a worse outcome if the jury convicted him.

Jury Selection: Finding People Who Will Truly Follow the Law

When someone decides to go to trial, the process really begins during jury selection. The jurors you end up with can matter as much as the law and the facts.

In Bernalillo County District Court, we start with the standard jury questionnaire, but that is only the beginning. In this case, I spent significant time developing and asking targeted questions designed to get to the heart of the constitutional issues that come up in domestic‑violence‑type cases:

• Can you truly presume my client innocent, even when the accusations involve harassment, stalking, and restraining orders?

• Can you apply the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard, instead of convicting just because you feel uncomfortable with the allegations?

• Are you willing to admit if your own experiences with domestic violence or restraining orders would make it impossible for you to be fair?

These questions can be intrusive and personal. But without them, we risk seating jurors who, deep down, are not prepared to apply the law as written. The goal is to find people who are honest about their biases and willing to follow the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proof—even in emotionally charged cases.

Challenging the State’s Case: Incomplete Evidence and Thin Investigation

At trial, our defense centered on two main themes: the credibility of the complaining witness and the quality of the police investigation.

First, the evidence was incomplete and one‑sided:

• The messages and communications that supposedly proved harassment and stalking were plainly incomplete; key parts of conversations were missing.

• The alleged victim changed her story over time, adding and removing details as the case went on.

• There were clear signs that she had reasons to exaggerate or shade the truth, but those motives had not been fully explored in the original investigation.

Second, the investigation itself was cursory:

• Important digital evidence was never collected or preserved.

• Potential witnesses were not interviewed.

• Key physical or documentary evidence relating to the alleged property damage and restraining‑order violations was never meaningfully analyzed.

I argued to the jury that it is not fair—or constitutional—to ask them to convict someone and potentially send him to prison based on half an investigation. When the State carries the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, missing evidence and incomplete investigation are reasons to doubt, not reasons to guess against the accused.

Letting the Jury Hear the Client’s Story

A criminal defendant never has to present any evidence or testify. The law is clear: the burden is entirely on the State. But in some cases, especially those that grow out of complicated personal or romantic relationships, having the jury hear directly from the accused can be critical.

In this case, my client chose to testify. We prepared him carefully so that he could:

• Explain the history of the relationship and why certain communications looked the way they did.

• Address the complaining witness’s inconsistencies and omissions.

• Show the jury the difference between normal, messy human conflict and criminal behavior.

We also called defense witnesses who could corroborate parts of his story and demonstrate that the situation was far more complicated than the State’s version. That gave the jury a concrete alternative narrative to consider, instead of only the one presented in police reports and the prosecution’s opening statement.

The Hung Jury: When Twelve People Cannot Agree

After days of testimony and argument, the jury went out to deliberate. They had been instructed on the presumption of innocence and the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard. They were told they had to reach a unanimous verdict—either guilty or not guilty—on each charge.

They could not do it.

The jurors were deadlocked. Some could not be persuaded to vote guilty, and others were not willing to vote not guilty. The judge ultimately declared a mistrial because of a hung jury. Legally, that is not the same as a full acquittal, but it is also not a conviction. It is a signal that the State could not convince twelve people, unanimously, that my client was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

For my client, though, that did not mean walking out of the courtroom a free man that day.

After the Mistrial: Extra Days in Jail and a Hard Wait

A hung jury does not automatically end a case. After a mistrial, the prosecution has to decide what to do next:

• Retry the case with a new jury

• Offer a new plea agreement

• Or dismiss the case entirely

While the District Attorney’s office weighed those options, my client remained in jail. He had already gone through the stress and uncertainty of a full jury trial, watched the jury hang, and still had no clear answer about his future.

The prosecutor consulted with the complaining witness and reviewed the case in light of the jury’s inability to agree. Eventually, they reached a conclusion: if they could not convince twelve jurors to unanimously convict on this evidence the first time, there was little reason to believe a second jury would be any different.

They finally dismissed the charges. Only then was my client released.

The Real Meaning of “Winning” a Criminal Case

From a distance, this might look like a straightforward win: the client rejected a plea, the jury hung, and the State chose not to re‑try the case. But from the perspective of the person sitting in jail, it was anything but simple:

• He stayed in custody longer because he refused to plead to something he believed did not reflect the truth.

• He lived through the anxiety of trial, the suspense of deliberations, and the confusion of a hung jury.

• He then spent additional days in jail waiting for the State to decide whether to try again.

This is the reality most people do not see. A “victory” in the criminal justice system is often slow, stressful, and uncertain. It may involve extra time in custody, repeated court dates, and the constant fear that things could turn at any moment.

Yet, for many people, that hard road is worth it. In this case, my client walked away without a conviction for harassment, aggravated stalking, criminal damage, or violating a restraining order. He avoided the lifelong consequences of a domestic‑violence‑related record and the stigma that comes with it.

How This Applies to Your Case

Not every case should go to trial. Not every plea should be rejected. The decision to accept or reject an offer is highly personal and depends on:

• The strength of the State’s evidence

• The specific charges and potential penalties

• The client’s prior record

• Immigration, employment, and family‑law consequences

• The client’s tolerance for risk and time in custody

What this Bernalillo County case shows is that:

• Sometimes the safer choice on paper (a quick plea) is not the better choice for your future.

• Trials can expose weak investigations, incomplete evidence, and credibility problems that are not obvious from the police report.

• Real victories—like hung juries and dismissals—may come only after a long, difficult process.

If you or a loved one in New Mexico is facing charges involving harassment, stalking, criminal damage, or restraining‑order violations and you are struggling with the decision to accept a plea or take your case to trial, it is crucial to talk through all of your options with an experienced criminal defense attorney. A careful, honest assessment of the risks, the evidence, and the long‑term consequences can help you decide whether to resolve the case quickly or fight for a result that better protects your future—even if that fight is hard and uncertain.