Ruling in a pre-trial matter in New Mexico...

Ruling in a pre-trial matter in New Mexico, Judge Timothy Garcia of Santa Fe County's First Judicial District Court held the state's death penalty law to be unconstitutional based on a study by the Capital Jury Project. The Project's research in 14 states had found that jurors often do not follow the law in making their sentencing decision. In particular, the judge found that many jurors have made up their minds on the penalty before they have decided whether someone is guilty, and this is "an arbitrary and capricious violation of the United States Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution."
The judge said that he would allow the death penalty trial to go ahead provided separate juries were selected for the guilt-innocence phase and for the sentencing phase, even though that change was not provided for under New Mexico law. The state elected to forgo seeking the death penalty entirely, thereby putting off a legal confrontation on this issue. The judge's ruling does not affect other death penalty cases in the state but could serve as an example. In New Mexico, the jury that finds someone guilty of a potential death penalty crime hears further testimony, then decides on the death penalty or life in prison. Garcia's opinion came in the murder case against Jesus Aviles-Dominguez, 29, and Daniel Good, 34, who are charged with the fatal beating of fellow Santa Fe County jail inmate Dickie Ortega, 32, in 2004. Although the defense had asked the judge to dismiss the death penalty, Garcia chose a different remedy — separate juries for the guilt/innocence and penalty phases. Garcia's opinion adopts findings of study conducted by the National Science Foundation-funded Capital Jury Project. The multiyear project in 14 states collected post-sentencing data from more than 1,200 jurors in death penalty trials. New Mexico wasn't one of the states studied, but the authors testified the results are applicable nationwide.