“You may feel overwhelmed, frightened, but criminal charges call for action, not feelings. Even before the lower court judge decides to release you from jail, the first logical step is to hire a criminal defence lawyer. You need to find an attorney who handles your type of criminal case and is familiar with the local prosecutors and judges”, says Stephen Aarons.
Stephen has worked on an impressive amount of criminal law cases; he is especially renowned for representing clients facing the death penalty and high-profile murder cases. Stephen has strong opposing opinions towards to death penalty as he proudly explains his relief to when his state New Mexico finally abolished capital punishment.
Those outside of the legal industry often have predisposed notions towards those who defend accused murderers. Speaking to Stephen this month, he reminds us that there are several factors involved to which motivates him in his role, from ensuring the evidence presents facts and remaining true to the fact that capital punishment will not necessarily prevent murder. In this insightful interview, we learn about how Stephen has worked through notable cases and successfully defended hundreds of people in all areas of criminal law throughout the United States.
What are the first three things you consider when you take on a case involving murder?
I ask myself these three questions:
- Are there questions of who committed the crime such as mistaken identity, alibi, causation, false accusations?
- Is self-defence an issue?
- Are there factors such as heat of passion, sudden outrage, fear, that could reduce a homicide from murder down to voluntary or even involuntary manslaughter?
What has been the biggest lesson you have learnt since being admitted to the bar of US Supreme Court? What took you by surprise the most when you took on your first case under the Supreme Court?
Something which took me by surprise is that often the issues discussed in oral argument turn out to be very different from the final decision of the Court.
What is your ‘go-to’ approach for when you are reaching close to a dead-end in a case?
I will say that if I don’t believe in the case, if I am not buying the defence theory, I suspect the jury will never buy it either and I strongly recommend that we try and reach some plea agreement to minimise the exposure in terms of the length of imprisonment. As trial approaches, like most trial lawyers, I get into a trial psychosis where I believe in my case but when the jury says otherwise, I remind myself afterwards that, before trial, I was not buying it either.
What was the most challenging aspect of being defence counsel for death penalty cases?
Finding prospective jurors who can keep an open mind both about issues at the innocence/guilty phase and at the sentence phases, jurors who can stand up against community prejudice.
Can you share with Lawyer Monthly your stance now on the death penalty?
I was glad to see the state where I practice, New Mexico, abolish the death penalty just as I was happy to assist Governor Toney Anaya commute the sentences to life in prison of the five defendants who were then on death row in our state. The ascent of DNA as a powerful forensic too uncovered so many cases of innocent defendants found guilty. But what DNA really exposes is the imperfection in the criminal justice system, not only in cases where DNA can determine the identity of a suspect, but in cases where DNA evidence cannot provide an answer. Even in a perfect system, killing convicted killers to deter others from killing simply is nonsense. Life in prison is in many respects as harsh a punishment without all of the ethical dilemmas.
After New Mexico abolished the capital punishment, how did you witness crimes to change? Do you think substitutes for the death penalty amount to the same level as capital punishment?
Many people assume that the death penalty deters others from committing murder. Unfortunately, the evidence is uncontradicted that the death penalty has zero effect on future crimes. Those who commit murder are not thinking of consequences. When a person decides to commit a crime, he or she simply does not think in a rational way. He does not factor in the risk of death or life in prison.
People often scrutinise public defenders by asking: “How do you go about defending someone you know is guilty?”; when dealing with murder trials when the defendant claims they are guilty, how do you ensure they are given the best outcome of punishment?
When someone admits guilt, the job of the criminal defence lawyer has just begun. You collect extenuating and mitigating facts that may help negotiate a reasonable plea agreement and present those factors to the sentencing judge to call for a more lenient punishment before the judge as the sentence hearing, distinguishing this client and this case from more aggravated situations.
From this, using a past case (such as Robert Fry’s* trial), can you expand on how you ensure you remain neutral and disallow your personal beliefs decide the fate of your client?
There were several Fry murder trials. In the first case, which was handled by a public defender, he was sentenced to death and in the two which I tried, he received life sentences without the jury knowing about the first case. The job, in his case or any, does not call for neutrality but zealous advocacy for your client. My personal beliefs never got in the way in defending him, first because there is some evidence suggesting that the police dumped several unsolved homicides on him and second because I oppose the death penalty in all cases.
What further strains are on you when the media get involved with a case? Are there any further considerations you must make in these instances?
In many cases, I won't shy away from the media. Usually you can talk about the process, or the rule of law, without getting into the specifics of your case. I do not want a hostile jury panel before the case has begun, so we may discuss whatever has been produced in court at pre-trial motion hearings. Well-read jurors tend to be our best jurors, if they read things critically and do not accept everything said in the media. With that in mind, it is important for the media to present both sides of the story when there are two sides to tell.
What has been one case which was equally rewarding, as it was challenging?
I would say the Torreon Cabin Murder** case. Two young adults were shot in their cabin and the killer locked the front door so that two young boys died of dehydration. The police tried to pin the murders on a charismatic gang leader, Shaun Wilkins, and interrogated “Woody” Nieto, a mentally challenged gang member, to admit he drove to the cabin with Wilkins. The police assumed that the murder took place a couple of weeks before the bodies were found, and so did Nieto's statement.
The prosecution case imploded when an expert demonstrated that the bodies had been decomposing for five months, not two or three weeks. Wilkins had been sitting in a county jail when the murders actually took place. After a hung jury in the death penalty, the prosecution decided not to retry Wilkins and another defendant, and both were set free. Eventually the real killer was convicted on two counts of second degree murder.
What motivates you about your role?
I enjoy helping people in times of trouble. Many people are intrinsically good but committed a crime because of human frailty. A few, like Wilkins, are wrongfully accused. Whatever the situation, they need someone to help them walk through the legal process and reach the best possible result.
Notable Cases
In 2002, Aarons accepted a special NM Public Defender contract to represent Robert Fry, who had already been convicted in the death of Betty Lee, 36 from Shiprock, NM. Fry had received a death sentence for the Lee murder but was also facing first degree murder counts involving the 1996 fatal stabbings of 18-year-old Matthew Trecker and 25-year-old Joseph Fleming at a counter culture store in Farmington, NM, and throwing 40-year-old Donald Tsosie off a cliff in Navajo country. During a police interview, Fry implicated himself in the earlier crimes and gave detailed "theories" of how the crimes were carried out. Robert Fry was found guilty again in the Tsosie trial, and a third time in the Trecker and Fleming trial. Unlike the death sentence in Lee, the juries in Tsosia and Trecker/Fleming did not impose the death penalty. Despite New Mexico's abolition of capital punishment, Robert Fry and another man were grandfathered and, as a result, Fry remains on death row awaiting execution for the murder of Betty Lee.
In 1997 Aarons was hired to represent Shaun Wilkins, who was accused with three others in the 1995 murders of Ben Anaya Jr., 17, his girlfriend, Cassandra Sedillo, 23, and her two sons, Matthew Garcia, 3, and Johnny Ray Garcia, 4. The four were found dead in a cabin in April of 1996 in the Manzano Mountains near Torreon, New Mexico. The case against Wilkins was weak, the trial ended with a hung jury, and the district attorney eventually declined to retry the case. In 2002 Wilkins and co-defendant Roy Buchner hired civil rights attorney Ray Twohig to file a lawsuit against police for malicious prosecution in the Torreon case. In January 2011 a federal jury declined to award damages to them. Two other defendants were found guilty; Lawrence Nieto was convicted before the Wilkins trial and was originally sentenced to 130 years in prison. Errors in the prosecution caused Nieto's conviction to be overturned, and before Nieto's retrial he brokered a plea agreement involving a 39-year sentence. NM Corrections officials have twice mistakenly released Nieto.
LANL Security Breach
The family of Jessica Quintana hired Aarons in 2006 to represent her for sneaking classified documents out of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Hired right out of high school, Quintana could not finish her work before the contract deadline and decided to take some of the classified work home; she walked unchallenged into her top-secret vault and downloaded information onto a computer flash drive. She also removed 228 pages of classified documents about underground nuclear weapons tests in the 1970s, and took the material home. The case received international attention from the media including a special report by CBS Evening News, a front-page article in Newsweek, and articles in the London Times and the Washington Post. As soon as Aarons brokered a plea bargain with the Department of Justice, Quintana pled guilty to one misdemeanour, received one year of supervised release, and cooperated fully with FBI investigators.
Stephen D Aarons
Aarons Law Firm PC
311 Montezuma Ave
Santa Fé NM 87501-3603
(505) 984-1100; (fax) 984-1110
www.aarons.org
Since 1980, Stephen Aarons has successfully defended hundreds of people in all areas of criminal law throughout the United States and on active military duty in Europe. He started his New Mexico practice in 1985 and has represented countless defendants accused of assault and battery, domestic violence, driving while intoxicated (DUI), drug trafficking, murder, to name the more common charges, in both state and Federal court. Aarons is an active member in good standing of the New Mexico and Missouri State bar associations, and has been a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court since 1983. In 1993, Aarons received an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and holds the highest possible ratings from Avvo, Superlawyers, and the National Trial Lawyers Association (USA).
Contact my office if you or someone you know needs a criminal defence lawyer from New Mexico. For cases outside the Santa Fe Espanola Los Alamos region, I limit my cases to federal and state cases involving serious felony charges. After hours, our 24-hour answering service will text my cellphone and I will return your call at my earliest opportunity. Like many criminal defence lawyers, I offer a free consultation either by phone or, preferably, in person. We will discuss the facts of your case, your background and my impression of how your case might go. I will tell you how much I would charge if you hired me, and we will discuss how much time you will need to pay in full. As for the outcome, no lawyer can guarantee a result. There are many others involved in your criminal case: judges, prosecutors, alleged victims, and police officers. Each can influence how the case proceeds. Your criminal history has a bearing too. I have been practicing criminal law since 1980, and criminal defence throughout New Mexico since 1985, so I bring decades of experience to our discussion. Experience is not the same as having a crystal ball to tell the future, but perhaps it is the next best thing. I am happy to consult with you and, if you decided to hire me, I would be honoured.
The best criminal defence lawyer for your case is the one who will work hard, applying his experience and skills toward the best possible result. Nobody can guarantee a result, but I offer all my efforts to achieve the best result possible in your case. You should expect no less.
