| On the night of October 11, 2017, 45-year-old Rudolph P. Amador was accused of sexually abusing his friend's 11-year-old daughter, R.D., while spending the night at their apartment in Clayton, New Mexico.
R.D. claimed she woke up in the middle of the night and discovered Amador was touching her genitals. When she moved away, she said Amador left the room. As he was leaving, R.D. noted that Amador was wearing purple underwear.
R.D. then ran screaming to her father’s bedroom, where she told him what had happened. Her father confronted Amador, who denied the accusation. R.D. 's father then kicked Amador out of the apartment and called the police. After R.D. repeated her accusation to the police, officers began looking for Amador. They found Amador walking nearby and took him to the police station.
During questioning, Amador acknowledged that he was wearing “midnight blue” underwear. Police believed this statement was a form of confirmation of R.D.’s accusation since it was consistent with her description of Amador’s underwear.
On October 12, 2017, Amador was arrested and charged with two counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor, one count of child abuse, and one count of assault with intent to commit a violent felony.
On January 14, 2019, Amador went to trial in Union County District Court.
R.D. testified and repeated her account. She said that she was sleeping in her room and awoke to find Amador touching her “front and back private parts.”
R.D.’s father testified that he had been friends with Amador for more than 20 years, and that he had invited Amador to stay at his apartment for a couple of nights. R.D.’s father said he was awakened by R.D. during the second night of Amador’s stay.
Before the defense began presenting evidence, Union County prosecutor John Huntley said that if Amador took the witness stand, he planned to question Amador about a prior felony conviction for child abuse.
Amador’s attorney, Sarah Montoya, said that Amador had an “ancient prior” conviction, but was unsure whether it could be used as evidence to discredit Amador due to New Mexico rules regarding the period of time between a conviction and its use as evidence in court. According to these rules, a criminal conviction can only be deemed as admissible in a New Mexico court if less than 10 years has elapsed from the time of the conviction.
Based on Huntley’s assertion that Amador’s prior conviction was a felony and was less than 10 years old, Judge Sarah Backus granted Huntley permission to use this conviction in his cross-examination of Amador.
Amador took the stand and denied any improper conduct with R.D. He said that he had known her since she had been born, and that he “would never do anything like what he was accused of.”
During his testimony, Montoya opted to bring up the conviction during direct examination. Amador explained that he had been convicted of child abuse in May 2010 after a fight with his 17-year-old stepson. He said he had pled guilty and was sentenced to three years of probation. Amador also testified that he had three stepdaughters and that none of them had ever said he had molested them.
During closing arguments, Huntley referred to Amador as a pedophile at least five times. “Defendant says he didn’t do it,” Huntley told the jury. “Okay, and frankly, I think, you know, for someone who is not a pedophile, it’s hard to understand why any grown man would touch a child. Isn’t it?. . . why would any grown man have any sexual interest in a child? It seems incomprehensible, but we know it happens all the time, don’t we? I mean something we see a lot in the media, and even, I’m a lifelong Catholic, I love the Catholic Church, and even in an institution such as the Catholic Church, you know, as hard as it is to believe, as painful, I think as a Catholic to see, you know we have priests, even priests are now abusing these children. Sometimes, these priests go for years and years and years before they are caught.”
Judge Backus called a halt to the argument and summoned Huntley and Montoya to the bench. The judge told Huntley that his argument was improper and that allowing it to go further could result in reversible error.
When Huntley resumed, he said, “Defendant said he never, he didn’t do it, and then he cites, uh, then he says that he has three, three stepdaughters. We don’t know, that’s just what he says. And he did admit that he was a convicted, you know, felon. That’s just what he says.”
“[T]his guy here, he touched a little eleven-year-old [girl’s] vagina and buttocks, for whatever reason—because he’s a pedophile….Who knows what a pedophile looks like—we don’t know, as we all know, pedophiles come in all shapes and forms.” Huntley added, “I would ask you to consider whether you feel safe enough, based on what you heard today, to let this guy stay in a house with another child.”
Montoya did not object to the argument, but in her closing argument, she said that Huntley’s use of the word “pedophile” was “ugly” and inappropriate. She said Huntley’s reference to Catholic priests was an unfair attempt to get the jury to view Amador in a negative light.
On January 15, 2019, the jury convicted Amador of two counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor and one count of child abuse.
Following the verdict, Judge Backus asked the lawyers if they wanted to move directly to sentencing. At that point, Montoya requested clarification of Amador’s prior conviction. She contended that Amador had received a conditional discharge after completing his probation, which removed the conviction from his record.
The judge chastised Huntley for falsely representing Amador’s record. “You represented to the court that it was a prior conviction, and for that reason, I allowed you to [use it].”
Huntley hemmed and hawed. He said he wasn’t sure, then that he didn’t remember.
“Well, what you represented to the court was that he had a prior conviction that you were going to impeach him with,” Judge Backus said. “And it’s not a conviction if it is a completed conditional discharge. When they plead guilty, they are told if you successfully complete this, it does not count as a conviction. And you represented to the court, you stand up here and told me as an officer of the court that he had a prior conviction and now you are telling me two hours later you’re not really sure?”
Huntley replied, “I apologize. I guess I didn’t think.”
“Apologize?” the judge declared. “You just got a conviction, so you used something improperly to obtain a conviction.”
“Okay,” Huntley said. “And I guess…that was my mistake.”
When Montoya said she was now “tempted” to ask for a mistrial, Judge Backus chastised her as well. “But you conceded that he had a prior conviction,” the judge said. “We stood up here and talked, and had a conference, and you conceded he had a prior conviction, and now…all of a sudden, oh well, it wasn’t really a conviction.”
Huntley then interjected that he “thought a conditional discharge would count as a prior conviction” for impeachment purposes.
“No, it’s not,” Judge Backus said. “It’s not a conviction for anything. It’s considered not a conviction if it’s successfully completed.”
The judge then vacated Amador’s convictions and ordered a new trial based on Huntley’s prosecutorial misconduct and Montoya’s inadequate legal defense.
A month later, Judge Backus retired and Judge Melissa Kennelly was assigned to the case.
Prior to the retrial, Montoya moved for a mistrial and to bar the new trial under the double jeopardy clause, which prohibits a defendant from being prosecuted twice for the same crime. The defense argued that Huntly’s misconduct was so egregious that a retrial should be barred. The prosecution disagreed.
After reviewing audio recordings of both the trial and the hearing, Judge Kennelly denied Amador’s motion to bar the retrial, stating that any “prejudice to [Amador] could be rectified by a new trial.”
Amador was retried and on August 6, 2019, he was re-convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison with all but the first three years suspended.
In November 2019, Amador, represented by Allison Jaramillo, appealed. Jaramillo argued that double jeopardy barred the retrial and that Amador received ineffective assistance of counsel from Montoya during his first trial.
On July 19, 2021, the New Mexico Court of Appeals rejected Amador’s arguments and affirmed his convictions. The court ruled that there was no proof that Huntly acted “in willful disregard,” a requirement for double jeopardy protection.
Chief Appeals Court Judge J. Miles Hanisee said in the ruling that “because [Amador] had provided no new facts or authority to support his position, [the Court was] unpersuaded [that Amador] had demonstrated error.”
On August 16, 2021, Jaramillo filed a request for permission to appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court, arguing the appeals court was wrong.
The New Mexico Supreme Court granted the petition on January 11, 2022. More than two years later, on February 19, 2024, the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The court ordered the district court to vacate Amador’s convictions and that the case against Amador be dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled that Huntley, as the lead prosecutor, was expected to be fully aware of New Mexico laws concerning the conviction status of a conditional discharge. Because he was not, the Supreme Court ruled that Huntley had acted with willful disregard.
In the unanimous opinion, Justice Michael Vigil noted, “If those responsible for enforcing the law do not understand the basic evidentiary rules while wielding the considerable power of the State, it undermines the public’s confidence in the justice system.”
Vigil said Huntley’s behavior during the trial–– specifically during closing arguments–– was “sufficiently egregious,” “extremely prejudicial,” and “improper.” The court ruled that Huntley’s misconduct, in combination with his misrepresentation of Amador’s conviction, demonstrated his willful disregard.
Amador had surrendered to prison in November 2019. On May 27, 2022, he was released to a halfway house. However, in October 2023, he was found to have violated his parole and was sent back to prison where he remained until the Supreme Court decision dismissed the case and he was released.
– Valeri Arvizo, Vivianna Curiel, Ashlynn Desco, Andrew Ochoa, & Armando Villa Jr.
|