A New Mexico District Court jury found Francisco Javier Grado-Flores not guilty of murder in the death of his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend, bringing an end to a case that kept him behind bars for two years. The verdict on May 13 answered the question of whether Grado-Flores was justified in shooting and killing Raul Rene Montejano Jr. in self-defense.
The prosecution maintained he committed a cold-blooded murder and delayed his right to a speedy trial.
Details surrounding the case
In 2023, a confrontation at a mobile home in Santa Fe, New Mexico, turned violent when Grado-Flores and Montejano Jr. got into a physical dispute. Montejano Jr. was the ex-boyfriend of Grado-Flores’ girlfriend and the father of one of her children.
According to Grado-Flores, Montejano Jr. was armed with a baseball bat and struck him in the head during the altercation. Grado-Flores said he feared for his life and responded by shooting Montejano Jr. in what he described as self-defense.
During the incident, one of Grado-Flores’ shots hit the girlfriend’s mother. The 31-year-old fled the scene and was arrested by police in Kansas the next day.
Court documents and the arrest affidavit outlined a history of alleged violence involving Montejano Jr., including incidents from 2019 and 2022 in which he reportedly broke windows and physically abused Grado-Flores’ girlfriend. Although Montejano Jr. faced several domestic violence charges during that period, records show he was convicted in only one case.
Unbiased. Straight Facts.TM
The Santa Fe Police Department has been audited internally and externally over apparent issues, especially concerning the handling of evidence.
Jury found Grado-Flores ‘not guilty’
The jury had several options in weighing the charges against Grado-Flores. They could have found him guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. Weapons charges were also on the table. Instead, jurors cleared him of all charges after a week of testimony, siding with his claim of self-defense.
Why was trial delayed for two years?
Santa Fe Police officers and the state’s prosecution delayed Grado-Flores’ trial over evidence issues. According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, cell phone evidence needed for the case wasn’t sent for forensic evaluation until eight months following the incident.
In 2023, Grado-Flores’ public defender, Jennifer Burrill, said, “Santa Fe Police have a pattern of failing to follow through on major investigations.” She said the officers and the entire department are long overdue for consequences.
According to Burrill, police delayed sending key evidence for processing and then withheld the results after it was returned. She said the data was not turned over to the defense until just 12 days before the trial was scheduled to begin.
In recent years, the Santa Fe Police Department has faced multiple internal and external investigations. These inquiries have focused on alleged violations of arrest procedures, improper evidence handling and breaches of the department’s code of conduct by individual officers.
An internal audit in 2021 reviewed the police department’s evidence unit for compliance. Auditors found that the “absence of updated policies and procedures over evidence collection, processing, and destruction escalates the risk that SFPD employees may not be process evidence in compliance with state and local statutes or accreditation standards.”
When it came to how evidence was packaged and stored, they found the lack of procedure in place could lead to an increased risk of exposure to hazardous drugs, posing a safety risk. The report points to an example where auditors observed that an envelope containing bullets was not adequately secured. When it was removed from the box, “the bullets fell out of the packaging.”
What about the constitutional right to a speedy trial?
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every defendant the right to a speedy trial, a protection designed to prevent prolonged detention without resolution.
In the landmark 1972 case Barker v. Wingo, the Supreme Court clarified how courts should evaluate whether that right has been violated. The ruling established four key factors to consider: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the defendant asserted their right and the potential prejudice caused by the delay.
While the Constitution doesn’t set strict deadlines, the federal Speedy Trial Act does. Under this law, prosecutors must file an indictment within 30 days of an arrest and the trial is generally required to begin within 70 days of either the indictment or the defendant’s arraignment.
contributed to this report.
