Attorney John F. Moon Samore's Legal Cases

Criminal defense

STATE V. Mr A. [Unreasonable Search]

Jan 01, 2011

OUTCOME: Guilty, Under Appeal

Mr. A is a bright Nigerian, living in Dallas as a legal resident with his wife and children for six years. He was the passenger in a car stopped in Eastern New Mexico on April 6, 2011. The issue was ... whether the State Police had stopped and searched the rented car because Mr. A and his friend are black. We compiled significant documentation of the embarrassing racial bias of certain State Policemen. You can read the Motions we filed to support our arguments to exclude the evidence seized because of this bias. The US Attorney capably presented a vigorous arguments that the racial bias was not so severe as to require exclusion of evidence. The trial Judge listened patiently to two days of hearings and issued almost 300 pages in two rulings that denied the Motion. With no defenses remaining, Mr. A pled guilty and received a two-year sentence, reserving his right to appeal the Judge's rulings. We are working on that appeal right now. When a client gets convicted, good lawyers prepare what are called "Sentencing Memorandum" that inform the Judge of all the relevant good things about the client. You can read a few of those for folks who may have done something wrong but still have something good to give the world. We want the very best for each of them.

Violent crime

UNITED SATES V. MARK C. [Violent Crime - Assault with a weapon]

Jan 01, 2008

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

In 2008, a man driving a Ford F-250 ran into the rear of a Taurus sedan in rural New Mexico. Mark got out of the car with a shotgun, walked to the rear of the car, and shot the truck's driver through ... the windshield into his face, neck, shoulder and right torso. Mark was charged in federal court with three counts that, if convicted, would have resulted in a prison sentence of at least 18 years. Both sides worked very hard on the case for almost three years before it came to trial in 2011. Two very respected Assistant United States Attorneys and an accomplished FBI agent represented the prosecution at trial; only Mr. Samore represented the defendant, who claimed he discharged the gun in self-defense. As the trial extended into a second week, the independent evidence of the Alleged Victim's (AV's) history of violence and lying was excluded and only a single incident of the AV's prior threats to kill Mark was admitted. The defense case appeared to be in jeopardy. The Prosecution called a respected doctor to testify to the severity of the AV's injuries and an experienced Accident Reconstructionist to support its position. Both were embarrassed by cross-examination that forced them to admit errors in their position. The AV was caught in many inconsistencies and exaggerations. Mark and three of the other four passengers in the Taurus testified as best they could recall the hectic events of an evening almost three years ago. All three attorneys gave their final summation to the jury. Deliberations began the next day, and a common adage of experienced courtwatchers is that, the sooner the jury reaches a verdict, the more likely the verdict is "guilty." After barely two hours, the jury reached its verdict: "not guilty" on all counts. Mark went home with his family.

Violent crime

STATE V. MARK C. [Violent Crime]

Jan 01, 2008

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

Mark C is a native person who was one of many folks hated by another man named F in the same rural community who widely feared for his violent reputation and carrying guns and knives. On March 10, 200 ... 8, F was driving his loaded truck, saw Mark and his family driving their little Taurus sedan home in an isolated area of the reservation. F pursued them down the highway, and rammed them from behind, pushing them off the road. The taurus was stuck on the soft shoulder while the big truck backed up and revved its engine. Mark grabbed a shotgun from the floor, hopped out of the car, and, as the truck started toward the car, shot twice at the truck. Injured by the spray of pellets, F drove away. He told a very different story of the incident to the police and FBI. Serious charges were brought by the United States Attorney against Mark. These motions you can read show you how lawyers work intensely prior to trial, not just at the trial. Because Mark insisted he was only defending his family, he went to trial risking up to 24 years in prison. Three very capable attorneys represented the prosecution, and our office represented Mark. Six expert witnesses testified, as well as persons involved in the incident. After an exhausting week-long trial, the jury acquitted him of all charges in only one hour of deliberation.

Violent crime

UNITED STATES V. JOE B. [Violent Crime - Armed robbery]

Jan 01, 2007

OUTCOME: Convicted

The federal charges against Joe B were armed robbery of a pizza parlor and related firearms charges. Because Mr. B had five prior violent convictions, including murder, the Prosecution knew that any c ... onviction would result in a life sentence. The charges seemed pretty solid, since witnesses had generally described a man similar physically to the defendant, at least two witnesses had gotten a license plate that traced to Mr. B's car, and Mr. B had apparently left the monitor on his ankle bracelet for the four hours over a Sunday afternoon when the crime occurred. When he returned home, the police SWAT team was waiting. In a four-day trial in 2007, the defense rigorously cross-examined the witnesses to inconsistencies in their recollections and, with the assistance of a computer monitoring expert, undermined any certainty that the defendant was off the monitor. Unfortunately for Mr. B, his admission at the time of his arrest when he told a police sergeant where a small handgun could be found (under his bed) proved too much to overcome. After almost seven hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty to all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison, and his appeal was denied.

Sex crime

UNITED STATES V. Mr. F. [Sex Offense]

Jan 01, 2006

OUTCOME: Not Guilty on Appeal

In 2006, Mr. F a simple, native gentleman who lived in a very isolated rural area near Gallup. He had no criminal record but was accused by his teenage daughter of improper sexual contact. We strongl ... y believed that the daughter only made the complaint because she had just been expelled from school a second time for bringing marijuana to school and knew she would be punished by her dad. The key evidence was Mr. F's alleged (unrecorded) statements to two FBI agents when Mr. F went to their office to report his daughter for not coming home for two days. These agents were conspicuously wearing their loaded sidearms and took Mr. F to a small, closed room, then wrote out a statement admitting guilt and had Mr. F sign it. Mr. F hardly understood enough English to realize what the FBI agent wrote down, was never told his Constitutional rights, and would have done anything to find out where his daughter was. The Judge at the trial, who is very respected by our office and almost all attorneys, let that statement come into evidence, and Mr. F was convicted at trial. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. We thought the Judge had made a serious mistake in his ruling and mounted a vigorous appeal, for which you can read these "Briefs" that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver considered. After hearing Mr. Samore and another fine US Attorney argue the issues, the conviction was reversed, and Mr. F was releases from 31 months in prison. A new trial was ordered, but, before another trial could be conducted, the daughter (who had been living in Phoenix) herself contacted the prosecutor and told him that "everything Mr. Samore said was true," and that she had made up the allegations because she feared her dad would be so angry at her for getting expelled a second time. The Prosecutor, being an honorable man, dismissed the charges, and Mr. F is quietly living out his life. The smooth-talking FBI agent, who had been so convincing to the jury, was quietly transferred out of New Mexico across the country. We can only hope that he has learned his lesson and is not still doing his best to convict innocent people like Mr. F. Sometimes, although it may take longer than we would like, the system works out for the best.

DUI and DWI

UNITED STATES V. RYAN B. [DWI, Reckless Driving, and Manslaughter]

Jan 01, 2005

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

A 20-year-old Window Rock man was charged with manslaughter after an early morning collision between his Toyota and a SUV resulted in the death of a very prominent elderly lady. Young Ryan was passing ... the Navajo Transport Services van with a driver and three passengers when he apparently cut back into his lane too quickly and clipped the front end of the van, which ran off the highway. The lady was crushed as the vehicle rolled over. Ryan stopped his car near the fatality scene and apologized to the first patrolmen to arrive. He was suspected of DWI but refused the breath test and was arrested for DWI, Reckless Driving, and Manslaughter. Since the victim was related closely to the President of Navajo Nation, the trial in August of 2005 drew a lot of attention. An unprecedented pre-trial legal struggle over the contested admissibility of HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) testimony through an officer set the federal standard for many courts around the country. After winning an order excluding this testimony, Mr. Samore daringly introduced it himself to cross-examine the officers at trial when he realized how it might show their bias against young Ryan. The Prosecution's two fine attorneys thought Ryan was guilty because he had allegedly failed the field sobriety tests, but Mr. Samore showed through effective cross-examination of the arresting officers that they had not clearly explained how to perform the tests and conducted them on a sloping part of the road to make it more difficult. The Prosecution's Accident Reconstructionist was exposed as a lapdog for any prosecutor that would pay his fee, and the jury came to understand that a little Toyota that tapped the bumper of a large SUV at a low speed could not have forced the SUV off the roadway. Closer attention to the skid marks revealed that the van driver had locked his brakes and overcorrected, causing the rollover and the death. The jury made quick work of its decision, although one never knows which way a jury will conclude. In Ryan's trial, it was "not guilty" of all charges.

Violent crime

STATE V. JEREMIAH G [Violent Crime - Murder]

Jan 01, 2004

OUTCOME: Dismissed

In June, 2004, a 23-year-old man was chatting on his cell phone in front of his Highland area house one early evening when someone shot him in the back and he died within minutes. The next day, Albuqu ... erque police arrested Jeremiah, the best friend of another young man who had been in a fight with the victim a few weeks before the shooting. Both teenagers were charged with first degree murder. The key witness was a young man who said he saw the two defendants park an SUV near the victim's house, get out, and one of the two walking close to the victim and shooting him. When he make this observation, the witness was sitting with a friend in a playground over 100 yards away. Mr. Samore and counsel for Jeremiah's co-defendant worked closely together to develop a defense of mis-identification. The trial was delayed several times due to a temporary disappearance of the witness and time conflicts of the chief prosecutor. By the time it got to trial, over a year had passed since charges were filed, a technical violation of state law. Before the evidence presentation began, both defendants jointly moved to dismiss the charge with prejudice, meaning the defendants could never be prosecuted because the State had taken too long to bring the case to trial. After patiently listening to vigorous arguments from both sides, the trial judge reluctantly agreed with Mr. Samore and his co-defendant's attorney and dismissed the charges with prejudice. Jeremiah went free.

Sex crime

UNITED STATES V. DION L. [Sexual Assault]

Dec 02, 2002

OUTCOME: Convicted

In May of 2002, a group of teenagers drank way too much at a graduation party sponsored by one of the parents, and, in the early hours of the following morning, took advantage of one of the most intoxi ... cated young women at another rural home. Five young men were involved in one way or another, and, because the ugly incident occurred in Indian country, a federal prosecution ensued. Three of the young men pled guilty and promised to testify against the remaining two, who claimed to have been less involved than the three who rushed to plead. Mr. Samore was appointed to defend one of these remaining young men, and Dion L rejected a negotiated plea agreement that would have resulted in a sentence of less than four years. The case came to trial in December, 2005. After a hotly-contested week-long trial, both young men were found guilty and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

Violent crime

UNITED STATES V. DAVID S. [Violent Crime - Murder]

Jan 01, 2002

OUTCOME: Convited

When a 27-year-old man pointed a rifle at three teenage boys after an insignificant dispute, a fight occurred, and the older man was found in his car the next morning dead from a series of blows to the ... head. The three young men readily admitted their involvement, and a second degree murder prosecution proceeded through federal court. Mr. Samore's client stuck with his buddies who appeared to be more culpable, and all refused a plea proposal for less than four years imprisonment. At trial in 2002, the responsibility and roles of each youth were argued, and the jury eventually returned a verdict of guilty as to all three. David S received a sentence of less than seven years, over two years less than each of the other co-defendants.

White collar crime

STATE V. CINDY H. [White Collar Crime - Embezzlement]

N/A

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

A nice lady went to work part-time for a busy family business in western New Mexico. Unfortunately, after two years, the wealthy woman who owned the business with her husband, found many discrepancies ... in the financial records and became convinced that Cindy was embezzling a lot of money. As a result, the State investigated and filed multiple felony charges against Ms. H for embezzling over $25,000, but Cindy insisted she was innocent. She had no explanation for all the bookkeeping discrepancies, so she hired Mr Samore, who prepared for trial but also negotiated a plea agreement in case Cindy wanted to avoid going to jail. Cindy insisted on going to trial. At trial against the District Attorney and an Special Assistant Attorney General, the defense showed convincingly that the state auditors had overlooked constant daily bookkeeping errors (even when Cindy was on vacation), and the explanation was, not stealing, but simply a lack of training and proper accounting controls. No one had really taken anything. The jury returned in barely an hour of deliberation with a "not guilty" verdict to all charges.

John F. Moon Samore's Legal Cases (12)

STATE V. Mr A. [Unreasonable Search]

UNITED SATES V. MARK C. [Violent Crime - Assault with a weapon]

STATE V. MARK C. [Violent Crime]

UNITED STATES V. JOE B. [Violent Crime - Armed robbery]

UNITED STATES V. Mr. F. [Sex Offense]

UNITED STATES V. RYAN B. [DWI, Reckless Driving, and Manslaughter]

STATE V. JEREMIAH G [Violent Crime - Murder]

UNITED STATES V. DION L. [Sexual Assault]

UNITED STATES V. DAVID S. [Violent Crime - Murder]

STATE V. CINDY H. [White Collar Crime - Embezzlement]