SPECIAL PROSECUTORS EMASCULATED

A few years ago, an investigation was commenced in connection with the New Mexico Highway Department. Some questions were raised about transactions that occurred in Bernalillo County. District Attorney Robert Schwartz said he had a conflict, and asked the Attorney General to act. Attorney General Tom Udall had a conflict and issued a request for proposals (bids) for a special prosecutor to handle the investigation. The "low bidder" got the contract at $85.00 per hour. Things proceeded according to law, a grand jury was convened in Santa Fe County, and another in Bernalillo County. Witnesses were called. Indictments were imminent.

Officers of corporations were in jeopardy. The companies hired lawyers for the likely accused, and also hired lawyers for key employees (who were eye witnesses). A stone wall succeeded in delaying, but not thwarting the investigation.

Defense counsel for the officers then rooted out the illegal investigation and stripped the low-bidding ("crazy things going on")so-called special prosecutor. The defense counsel filed a motion with Bernalillo County District Judge Woodrow "Woody" Smith, seeking an order shutting down the Bernalillo County grand jury investigation (and preventing any indictments). The defense counsel claimed that the special prosecutor had no authority, because the Attorney General gave the special prosecutor too much authority. The Attorney General authorized the special prosecutor the authority to investigate and seek indictments and prosecute.

Judge Smith ruled that the defense counsel were right. The Attorney General gave too much authority to the special prosecutor; the Attorney General, who had a conflict that prevented him from handling the investigation, is required by law to retain authority to investigate and prosecute, and cannot delegate that authority to any private lawyer, however qualified.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed, with no published opinion.

In spite of his conflict, District Attorney Robert Schwartz announced for the newspapers that he had gone back and reviewed the evidence and that there was no basis for any criminal charges. He did not talk to the investigator for the special prosecution team, nor to the special prosecutor, nor did he review any transcript of the many days of grand jury proceedings in Bernalillo nor Santa Fe counties.

Not to worry. This ruling and outcome was unprecedented and is unlikely to be repeated. Mission accomplished. Disclaimer. We were the low-bidder. Over the 50 odd years since we got into criminal law in New Mexico, we have seen many instances of pure justice. This highway department investigation case was not justice; it was injustice. Figure for yourself.

"INVISIBLE IN WAR; INVINCIBLE IN PEACE"

Someone has said, "There is no fury like that of a non-combatant." And it was said of a veteran of the Civil War who spoke out like a war-hawk when international problems came along between 1865 and 1885, that the veteran was "invisible in war and invincible in peace." The basis or grain of truth was that the veteran, an officer for the Union at the beginning of the war, was captured early and paroled on the promise that he would not again take up arms against the South.

When we hear reports from some of the media commentators about violence breaking out in some part of the world, we often think of the Civil War officer, and the reference to the fury of non-combatants. We are presently listening to Rush Limbaugh discuss the violence in Gaza, Israel and Lebanon. Limbaugh is full of fury and follows the position of the administration that the international community should let Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah fight awhile. He also defends Israel from charges that the killing of U.N. observers "[the attack] appears to have been intentional." Kofi Anan's charge. We are not sure whether the deaths of the U.N. people are supposed to be considered "collateral damage." If so, is it possible that Anan is correct? If the blow to the compound was intentional, that in itself may not make it wrong under the circumstances. Let the U.N. investigate.

It is hard for us to understand why we send our Secretary of State overseas to discuss the conflict and to suggest a way to resolve it. Why has this small war not been brought before the general body of the United Nations? Why has no one insisted (or have they?) that representatives of the civilized nations of the world meet at the U.N. and let all blow off steam? It may very well be that Israel is entirely in the right in this matter. If so, and if the world community wrongfully votes against Israel, we have a veto.

It is ironic that Iran sends arms to Hezbollah; Syria sends arms to the terrorists; and the USA sends arms (ordered earlier)to Israel. If a Martian dropped in, would her or she think that Israel is a puppet of the USA? Hezbollah and Lebanon have failed to comply with a U.N. directive. How many U.N. directives is Israel violating with impunity? The policy of the administration in the USA is undermining the power of the United Nations. Shame on us.