Officer fighting for his freedom may have been the victim of juror misconduct by an anti-police zealot

LAS CRUCES, NM - Law Enforcement Today (LET) recently reported about former Las Cruces police officer Brad Lunsford, who was found guilty of manslaughter when he shot and killed a suspect who gained control of his partner’s Taser. While Lunsford was initially cleared after the department conducted an internal review of the incident, New Mexico’s far-left, Soros-funded Attorney General Raul Torrez decided to make a name for himself by prosecuting Lunsford. 

Lunsford’s wife told LET about a number of irregularities in the case, including the refusal by the judge to allow exculpatory information into the trial. He also refused to allow the defense to cite case law, Lunsford’s training, Las Cruces department policy over the use of force, nor the state of New Mexico’s use of force standards into the record. Unbelievably, that isn’t the worst of it. 

On March 7, Lunsford’s attorney filed a supplemental motion for a new trial based on newly uncovered evidence of juror bias. 

According to the filing, a court-approved questionnaire was sent to all potential jurors, including specific questions about the case. The questionnaires were numbered sequentially. One, bearing number #597, was returned to the Court after being completed under oath and penalty of perjury by a prospective juror. 

The filing continues that on Feb. 3, 2025, approximately 146 jurors were summoned to the courthouse for jury selection, including Juror #597. The Juror was seated in the courtroom in seat #17 and was henceforth known as Juror #17. 

Voir dire, or jury selection, lasted all day. Jurors were questioned by the prosecution and the defense to “help make informed decisions in challenging jurors for cause and exercising their peremptory strikes,” or recusal of jurors for cause. The state used all five peremptory strikes, while the defense used three of its five. The defense attorney noted he had confidence in the remaining jurors based on their disclosures. Juror #17 was selected among the first twelve and was reseated in the jury box as Juror #8. 

After the trial was over, the jurors were excused to the jury room to begin deliberations after selecting a foreperson. Juror #8 was chosen for this role. For those unfamiliar with a foreperson’s duties, they act as a liaison between the Court and the jury. They are responsible for signing the verdict forms provided with the Court’s jury instructions. The foreperson leads discussions in deliberations and ensures the jury follows the instructions and rules of the Court. A foreperson is considered the jury leader and can persuade other jury members. 

After the guilty verdict was announced and jurors released, the Defense was notified that Juror #8 had an inherent bias in the case and had “failed to truthfully disclose this bias during voir dire, despite numerous questions asked by both” sides with jurors given a sufficient opportunity to discuss their bias and/or potential bias. 

It is alleged that Juror #8’s bias prevented Lunsford from receiving a fair trial and his right to a fair and impartial jury. By failing to answer questions honestly or by omitting information that both parties are trying to gather, the parties are deprived of that right, and therefore, a juror has committed juror misconduct. 

There is ample case law regarding this, both in New Mexico and on a federal basis (State v Mares, 83 N.M. 225, 490 P.2d 667); United States v. Scott, 854 F.2d 697, 698 [5th Cir. 1988]). There are many others. 

The filing read, “Losing the right to exercise a challenge for cause because of a juror’s failure to disclose material information violates a defendant’s substantial right to select a fair and impartial jury. Because challenges for cause are the mechanism through which the impartial jury right is ensured, removing the defendant’s ability to challenge a juror for cause directly infringes upon his Sixth Amendment rights and his rights under Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution.” The Defense alleges that Lunsford “was barred from his right to a fair and impartial jury of his peers,” and therefore “should be granted a new trial.” 

What is explicitly Juror #8 accused of doing? When answering the questionnaire, Juror #8 claimed under oath and penalty of perjury the following:

“I have not heard anything about this case. This seems like an important case. I have not discussed the case with anyone.” 

The questionnaire then asked if a prospective juror had “formed any opinions regarding the District Attorney’s Office, the Las Cruces Police Department, the New Mexico State Police, Defense Counsel, or the Court in relation to this case that would make it difficult for you to decide the case based only on the evidence that comes out of trial?” 

Juror #8 answered:

“In general, I trust local and state police. I am also aware of the charge for less deadly policing.” 

It is alleged that Juror #8 lied when they said they were unfamiliar with the case. The Defense became aware, after the verdict, that before jury selection, Juror #8 hosted a birthday celebration, where they told guests that they were “selected” to appear in a case involving “excessive force of a police officer” and how “exciting” it was. That was, the Defense states, a predetermination by the Juror that Lunsford had used excessive force in the case. 

Juror #8 is also being accused by the Defense of not being forthcoming about bias during the voir dire. In Audio Log Notes of jury selection, Defense Counsel asked prospective jurors if a case involving a white police officer and the death of a person of color stirred emotions for any jurors. The specific question asked:

“In this case, Mr. Eze was a black gentleman, and Mr. Lunsford was a white gentleman. There’s been a lot of media attention the last few years about allegations of police brutality and if people of color are being treated fairly. Does anyone have strong feelings about a case with a white police officer and a black gentleman that was killed…does that stir up any emotions that you think it’s just wrong, and because of that, I think people of color are being treated badly? To the point that I can’t be fair because this is not right.” 

Juror #8 said nothing. However, Juror #3 answered truthfully and explained their feelings, which led to them being removed for cause. The Court asked Juror #3 if they could be fair based on their statement, to which Juror #3 replied, “I’m not sure.” 

Had Juror #8 been truthful, they would have told the attorneys during voir dire that they did have a documented history of anti-police bias and believed that police discriminate against people of color. After the verdict, information revealed that Juror #8 had a long history of strong emotions on the subject, having participated in protests over the same issues expressed by Juror #3. 

Defense Counsel discovered post-verdict that Juror #8 participated in protests in Kansas City, Missouri, and podcasts that claimed racial injustice in America and police use of force. Juror #8 claimed in a podcast that the United States is “clearly a society that, um, is founded on racism and continues to be a racist society.” 

“White people have a privilege. Um, they’re much less likely, um, to encounter violence by the police. And that, um, we can use that privilege to support movements for racial justice.” 

[...]

“One exciting thing that I have seen happen since, um, Black Lives Matter uprising, and, um, the uprising after the murder of George Floyd is so many more, um, white moms who I know are, are reading and trying to understand, and they’re doing that identity work, and they’re starting to have more conversations with their children…” 

[...]

“My daughter, when she was younger, um, I think it was second or third grade, she created a sign about police brutality, and, in the little zine that she created at zine con, so another one of those community events that we went that gave them opportunities to think about, you know, to interact with people and to, to see how different, racialized current events affected different people and they make something. So she created a zine about police brutality and drew pictures of white officers shooting a black person.” 

During jury selection, prospective jurors were asked if they belonged to any type of professional group that supports law enforcement or, conversely, supports changes to law enforcement. Two jurors admitted they did, however, Juror #8 said nothing, hiding the fact that they were a member of Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Kansas City, a subchapter of SURJ National, a group that, according to their website, advocates defunding the police and ending “police murders.” 

Juror #8 also endorsed by retweeting efforts to cancel A&E television shows, “COPS” and “LivePD.” They also wrote multiple academic works regarding race, policing, and “anti-Blackness,” including a 441-pate dissertation. 

It is apparent to any right-thinking person that Officer Brad Lunsford did not receive a fair trial or verdict. At least one of the jurors purposefully tried to hide their anti-police bias and committed perjury when they lied under oath during the voir dire process. Meanwhile, Lunsford still sits in jail with no bond. 

Hopefully, Attorney General Torrez is as anxious to prosecute someone who lied to convict a man who served his country in the Army, including two deployments, and who served the city of Las Cruces for eleven years without a blemish on his record as he was to persecute Brad Lunsford. With an April 4 sentencing date quickly approaching, there is no time to lose.