Per a new court filing, the trial of former Las Cruces police officer, Brad Lunsford, who was wrongfully charged for defending himself and his partner from an armed suspect, was poisoned by an anti-police activist who managed to get on the jury through perjury. The filing alleges that “Juror #8” concealed outrageous bias before and during the trial. Misconduct that would not only eliminate the fairness of the verdict but also violate the law. The filing states Juror #8 failed to disclose anti-police social media activity, anti-police protest participation, anti-police activist group membership, and past anti-police authorship all pointing to a clear and strong bias against police. The filing can be read here.
In voir dire (the jury selection process), the potential jurors were asked if they had strong feelings about a case involving a white police officer and a Black suspect – essentially probing for attitudes on police use of force and racial issues. Juror #8 stayed silent, implying they had no such bias. Per the filing, however, it was later discovered that this juror had a documented history of anti-police sentiment, which they did not reveal. For example, defense investigators found that Juror #8 had participated in protests over police shootings and even appeared on a podcast discussing racial injustice and police violence, where the juror stated that American society “is founded on racism” and continues to be racist (a viewpoint suggesting a predisposition against a police defendant). Additionally, Juror #8’s social media activity showed they had retweeted calls to cancel TV programs like “COPS” and “Live PD,” which indicates a clear negative view of law enforcement. All of these activities should have been disclosed during voir dire, especially when the court asked about any potential bias or familiarity with the case – but Juror #8 said nothing. By remaining silent, Juror #8 lied by omission to the court.
If a potential juror knows they have strong preconceived opinions that could favor one side, they must alert the court. Here, Juror #8’s purported bias was directly relevant: the case involved a police officer’s use of force on a person of color, exactly the kind of scenario about which the juror had strong feelings and opinions. By concealing this, Juror #8 unfairly got onto the jury and even became the foreperson (the juror who leads deliberations).
When a juror conceals bias or gives false answers during voir dire, the law provides a remedy: the verdict can be thrown out and a new trial granted. The right to an impartial jury is fundamental. Both the United States Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution guarantee criminal defendants a trial by an impartial jury.
And lying to get on a jury is a crime.
Prosecuting a dishonest juror would serve two main purposes. First, it holds the individual accountable for violating the law and violating the defendant’s rights. As alleged, this juror’s actions forced a defendant to face conviction without a fair jury – a very serious harm. Second, prosecution would send a message that juror misconduct has consequences, helping deter future jurors from similar deceit. In New Mexico, a conviction for perjury can result in prison time, reflecting how severe the offense is considered.
Under New Mexico law and precedent, the alleged misconduct demands a new trial for Brad Lunsford and a perjury trial for Juror #8.