Dec. 26 -- Proposed new rules aimed at increasing the speed with which criminal cases move through the First Judicial District's courts are creeping toward implementation, the slow speed due in part to a chilly reception from prosecutors, police and public defenders.
First Judicial District Court Chief Judge Bryan Biedscheid proposed the rules -- known collectively as a case management order or CMO for short -- to the Supreme Court for consideration in December 2023 with a proposed start date of no earlier than 2025.
However, Biedscheid said in a phone interview Tuesday the new rules won't take effect in January and likely won't be implemented until July or later if the state Supreme Court approves them.
In early 2024, Biedscheid said he wanted to start a conversation regarding the proposed rules well in advance of their implementation to give stakeholders plenty of time to weigh in and prepare before roll out in hopes of avoiding some of the negative consequences -- such as a mass dismissal of cases -- that have cropped up in other places where similar rules have been adopted.
If the high court approves Biedscheid's proposal, the judicial district, which covers Santa Fe, Rio Arriba and Los Alamos counties, would become the fourth of 13 in New Mexico to operate under such rules, which impose strict procedural deadlines that, if not met, result in cases being dismissed.
The 2nd, 3rd and 8th judicial districts are already under the rules.
Prosecutors, public defenders oppose rule
One thing that appears to be giving the Supreme Court pause is pushback from the public agencies involved in the administration of the cases. During a public comment period earlier this year, nearly every agency and individual that submitted written feedback on the proposed rules opposed the case management order.
"This proposed [case management order] is merely one more rule, one more burden, one more unfunded mandate that will clog rather than clear caseloads and dockets," the First Judicial District Attorney's Office wrote.
Cases take longer in the First District than in all but one other jurisdiction, according to the New Mexico Courts Annual Report statistical addendum for fiscal year 2023.
The average length of time it took for a criminal case to be resolved in the First Judicial District in the 2023 fiscal year was 295.7 days, according to the addendum. Only the 8th Judicial District, which serves Taos, Colfax and Union counties, took longer, at 297.5 days. A case management order was imposed there in 2022.
The average time to disposition in the Albuquerque-dominated 2nd Judicial District was about 224 days, according to the addendum. Cases moved through the courts most quickly in the 10th Judicial District in lightly populated Quay County, where cases took an average of 189.7 days to be resolved.
However, comments from impacted agencies indicate they don't agree the order is the way to fix the problem.
"There aren't sufficient resources to carry out this proposed rule," attorney Jennifer Burrill, who works as a public defender and is a former president of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said in written comments she submitted in March.
"Making the system more complex strains the available resources, it doesn't fix them," Burrill added.
The three criminal judges in the district are already doing "triple duty" in some cases, Burrill wrote, pointing to a trial during which the presiding judge was presiding over a grand jury proceeding and conducting other hearings "in the morning, over lunch, and at the end of the day."
The District Attorney's Office and individual prosecutors also submitted comments opposing the order, saying it was "unnecessary" and none of the agencies "implicated by the drastic procedural change are prepared with proper staffing, budget or processes" to handle the proposed changes.
"The public safety consequences of implementing this measure via court rule and without proper stakeholder involvement and preparation are dire," the District Attorney's Office wrote in an 18-page comment submitted in April.
A proposed new rule that would require plea agreements be struck no later than 10 days before trial is one of many the District Attorney's Office took issue with in its comments.
"This measure would essentially punish prosecutorial discretion and undermine this important autonomy," the prosecutor's office argued.
The office also takes issue with a proposed rule that would require prosecutors to provide physical copies of discovery to defense counsel, arguing it would conflict with the statewide practice of using computer systems, accessible in some cases by multiple parties, to share evidence in a case, saying it would undo progress and "digital innovations" implemented by the office in favor of reverting to sharing information in an "antiquated manner."
The District Attorney's Office asserts in its feedback several of the proposed rules would put the office at risk of sanctions. For example, a proposed rule that would require the state to submit evidence requiring testing to the state forensic laboratory within 15 days of arraignment fails to account for the lab's own standards, polices and staffing capabilities and is "naive to and lacks understanding of the complexities" of the lab's processes, the comment says.
"The State could run afoul of the rule on a regular basis and be at constant risk of sanctions through no fault of its own," the DA's office wrote in the comments. "The Court would be encouraged to punish the [First Judicial District Attorney] for matters outside the [office's] control."
Police also concerned
Santa Fe Police Chief Paul Joye also submitted comments on behalf of the department objecting to the proposed new rules, including the proposed deadlines for pleas and production of physical copies of discovery, arguing the timelines would not allow flexibility in unique cases and would reverse efforts the department has made to modernize its processes.
If the rules are approved, Joye said in his comments, it should be implemented no sooner than Jan. 1, 2026, to allow the department to request additional funding it would need hire and train new staff to comply.
Julie Ball, who heads the public defender's office in the First Judicial District, also submitted comments opposing the proposed order, saying deadlines already exist to accomplish its goals and her office "lacks the necessary resources and personnel to ensure the rights of defendants under the strict deadlines and complicated procedures laid out in the proposed rule."
The goal of the proposed rule -- speedy resolutions of cases -- is already being addressed in the district "without arbitrary case labels, fixed deadlines or confusing dogma," Ball wrote.
Biedscheid said Tuesday the state Supreme Court has since held several meetings with stakeholders, but he hasn't attended in the interest of encouraging the parties to be candid in their remarks.