New Mexico Supreme Court has granted a stay to consider Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s petition for writ of superintending control or mandamus, ensuring the protection of a juror facing public harassment while the Court considers whether the proceedings below threaten the safety and privacy of a juror performing their civic duty. The ruling comes after the New Mexico Department of Justice filed an amended petition on April 1, 2025, updating the Court on ongoing proceedings and continuing to seek emergency relief to prevent further juror intimidation and safeguard the integrity of the judicial process.
“America’s jury system demands that officers of the court maintain their commitment to a fair and equal application of the law, without regard to a citizen’s political beliefs,” said Attorney General Torrez. “Parties to a criminal case are afforded, as they were in this case, the opportunity to probe potential jurors for any potential bias and to strike a juror for cause based upon the record. What is not allowed is an ideological witch hunt to discredit a juror’s service because a party does not like a verdict. That’s what’s happening in this case, and we appreciate the Supreme Court’s order to stay the underlying proceeding in order to protect the rule of law and ensure that no citizen who has fulfilled their civic responsibility is unfairly smeared because of their constitutionally protected beliefs.”
The amended petition focuses on the protection of the juror’s personal interests and states: “Although the district court took some temporary protective steps, Juror 8 will still have to testify under oath without limitation because of [their] perceived political beliefs. The justice system must protect those who serve their communities as jurors. If it fails to do so, jurors will not be free to return verdicts based solely on the evidence before them, without fear of public retribution.”
The Supreme Court’s order halts further district court proceedings related to a juror who served in the high-profile criminal trial of Defendant Brad Lunsford. The legal dispute arose after Lunsford, who was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and his defense team filed post-trial motions alleging juror bias. Their efforts exposed the juror to a wave of targeted online harassment and public scrutiny. Since then, coordinated social media campaigns have sought to discredit the juror and the legitimacy of the trial’s outcome.
The NMDOJ has maintained that the compelled testimony of the juror poses a significant risk to both their safety and the impartiality of future jurors. The Supreme Court’s ruling protects this juror from the ongoing attack and reinforces the legal safeguards afforded to all jurors who serve in the interest of justice.
The NMDOJ will continue in its efforts to protect this juror and take any necessary action to uphold the rights and protections of jurors across the state.
See attached for the court’s order granting the stay and the amended writ.
Original source can be found here.