Former sheriff’s deputy accused of killing partner wants DA disqualified

Tai Chan, the former Santa Fe County sheriff’s deputy accused of killing his partner in Las Cruces, has filed a motion asking the Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office to disqualify itself from prosecuting his retrial.

Chan, charged with First Degree Murder, is accused of killing his colleague, Jeremy Martin, at the Hotel Encanto in 2014. The deputies planned to spend the night in Las Cruces after dropping off a prisoner in Arizona. Chan claims he killed Martin in self-defense after the two got into a fight inside their hotel room.

In September 2016, Judge Fernando Macias declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. The retrial is scheduled to begin May 8, 2017.

Chan’s motion states, “On April 4, 2017, the District Attorney prosecuting this case sent a scathing letter to the Las Cruces Police Department Chief of Police, that made numerous statements about the mismanagement of this case by LCPD.”

In the letter, District Attorney Mark D’Antonio claims poor relationships between assistant district attorneys and police officers led to “unproductive and ineffective law enforcement” that later “culminated in the failure of LCPD to notify (the district attorney) of crucial information in the prosecution involving a murdered police officer.”

Wednesday, Chan’s defense attorney, John Day, called the allegations of possible corruption in the investigation “stunning.” The comments come after D’Antonio called out the Las Cruces Police Department for not notifying him about a lawsuit filed by Detective Irma Palos, who worked closely on the Chan case.

Palos’ lawsuit alleges her investigation into the 2014 fatal shooting was obstructed by her supervisors. In a letter, D’Antonio states that in the complaint, Palos was “denied resources to aid in (the) investigation, including the assistance of a forensic investigator.”

D’Antonio goes on to state, “the facts of the suit suggest possible police corruption, obstruction of justice and the mishandling of a major case involving the alleged cold-blooded assassination of a police officer.”

D’Antonio said the department’s inability to share this with him is “outrageous and an affront to justice in our community.”

Chan’s motion states the “Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office now has a conflict of interest and must be disqualified from prosecuting this case.”

In a response letter, City Manager Stuart Ed said he will do everything he can to bridge the gap in communication, stating “let us begin with open and honest dialogue at the top between you, myself and the chief of police.”

When asked if he believed the retrial would still happen as planned a month from now, defense attorney John Day said he had no idea. “I don’t look at it as whether we will win or lose, I look at it as can they even go forward given the prosecutors raising questions of police corruption,” Day said.

LCPD Chief Jaime Montoya says the allegations are unfounded. “Come on in, DOJ, you can take a look at our cases, you can take a look at this case in particular, if you really want to, and you’ll see there’s no police corruption or obstruction of justice in this case,” Montoya said.

District Attorney Mark D’Antonio sent ABC-7 the following statement:

“This is clearly a cheap media ploy designed to drive a wedge between my office and the Las Cruces Police Department. That is made evident by defense counsel’s releasing of unfiled copies of these motions to media outlets around the state before disclosing them to my office – a clear breach of the ethics to which every attorney is bound. My office takes this trial very seriously, and we will not participate in their despicable and unethical games. Let me make one thing clear: While I may disagree, sometimes vehemently, with the Las Cruces Police Department, there is one thing that will never change. We will always stand together, unwavering in our commitment to the pursuit of justice and the eradication of crime. My office will respond to the specific defense motions in the proper way – through formal, written responses filed with the court. That is what justice demands, and what the family of Jeremy Martin deserves.”