Council approves additional funding to help with increasing number of migrants - By Carolyn Carlson, City Desk ABQ
This story was originally published by City Desk ABQ.
Helping asylum seekers and migrants and recognizing the impact of the atomic industry on downwinders topped the short Albuquerque City Council meeting held on March 18.
MIGRANT HELP
An increasing number of migrants arriving in Albuquerque — “due to unforeseen circumstances at the southern U.S. border” — since early fall has stretched thin the nonprofit tasked with providing services, according to a memo requesting emergency funding from the council.
With that in mind, councilors unanimously approved an interoffice memorandum modifying the contract with United Voices for Newcomer Rights to give the organization an additional $50,000 — bringing the total contract to $150,000 since April 2023.
The city administration said it will seek reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the funding it already spent, adding that this is common practice when dealing with federal government grants.
The modification to the contract was first introduced at the March 5 meeting, where some councilors questioned the expenditure and asked for a deferral until Monday’s meeting.
During questioning, Michelle Melendez, director of the Department of Equity and Inclusion, said the grant has helped 1,061 migrants. She said many of the migrants are traveling with small children which makes most homeless shelters unavailable to families and the funding is used to help pay for transportation and other costs for migrants to go on to their target destinations.
“It just seems like a very small price to pay to make sure that we are greeting people when they arrive in our country, helping them to their destination,” Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn said at the meeting.
If the funding was not provided, the city administration warned in its memo that there was “the potential of having hundreds of migrants sleeping outdoors or presenting at homeless shelters that are at or exceeding capacity.”
Fiebelkorn added that the money is necessary to help people get where they’re going.
“They will not get the assistance they need, and we might see more of them staying in Albuquerque because they literally might not be able to find their way beyond Albuquerque,” she said.
Public comment at Monday’s meeting was in favor of the funding. A representative from the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center said, “The City of Albuquerque must demonstrate solidarity and support for our immigration communities. We urge the city council to pass this request to humanize further and support the immigrant community that makes up a huge portion of our population.”
WE ARE ALL DOWNWINDERS
After the award-winning Oppenheimer movie thrust New Mexico into the atomic spotlight, City Councilors issued a proclamation in support of extending and expanding the nation’s Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). This act pays restitution and medical care to people who were exposed to radiation from the U.S. nuclear weapons testing program.
Councilor Fiebelkorn sponsored the proclamation in support of extending the act which is scheduled to expire this year on June 7. She said she believes that the compensation should be extended and should expand to cover New Mexicans. The U.S. Congress has approved budgeting $50 billion per year to compensate downwinders for the past 33 years under the act.
“It has been nearly 80 years since the first nuclear bomb was detonated in New Mexico and since then over one thousand atomic tests have been conducted in the southwest of the U.S.,” Councilor Fiebelkorn stated in a press release. “Hundreds of thousands of those exposed to nuclear radioactivity have received some form of compensation, and yet thousands of “Downwinders” in our own state have never been included in the RECA act compensation.”
“Everyone in New Mexico is a downwinder and many people in Albuquerque have been affected by New Mexico’s nuclear industry,” Tina Cordova, cancer survivor and co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium said.
Longtime state Senator sues over campaign reporting law - Albuquerque Journal, KUNM News
Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino has filed a federal lawsuit to prevent fellow Democrat Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver from enforcing part of the state’s Campaign Reporting Act.
The Albuquerque Journal reports the suit focuses on a provision that limits the charitable contributions candidates can make using campaign funds to tax-exempt organizations. Ortiz y Pino says it is unconstitutional.
The court challenge stems from a $200 donation the senator made to a high school student to help her attend a health career workshop.
Toulouse Oliver has referred the case to the State Ethics Commission and Attorney General after she says Ortiz y Pino failed to voluntarily comply.
A spokesperson for the secretary of state says her office will change its stance on the matter if a judge rules in the senator’s favor.
Ortiz y Pino is retiring from the Legislature, but says he’s seeking clarity through the courts on behalf of “the whole legislative body.”
Advocates travel to D.C. to push for additional protections for the Gila River - By Hannah Grover, New Mexico Political Report
New Mexico advocates seeking to have the Gila River designated as a Wild and Scenic River will travel to Washington D.C. this week to urge the U.S. Congress to pass the M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act.
This legislation is sponsored by U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich and U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez, both Democrats from New Mexico. The other members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation have signed on as co-sponsors.
Grant County Commissioner Harry Browne said he is hopeful that the fact that Vasquez, who represents the region that would be impacted by the designation, has signed onto the bill will encourage Congress to pass it.
Browne described the Gila River as the cornerstone of the area.
“Families have fished and camped and hunted and just enjoyed the river,” he said.
The Gila River also draws people to the region. Browne said it was the reason he moved to Grant County.
“For the folks who’ve lived here for generations, it’s the lifeblood,” he said. “It supplies the water for 2,500 acres of farming.”
One message that Browne said he hopes to convey during their time in D.C. is that the advocates will keep showing up and that the Gila River is an amazing place that warrants additional protection.
The legislation would designate 450 miles of river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created in 1968 in an effort to preserve certain waterways in their free-flowing condition.
Some of the wild and scenic rivers in New Mexico include a 56- mile stretch of the Rio Grande in northern New Mexico and a section of the Pecos River in the Pecos Wilderness.
The advocates who are pushing to designate the Gila River say that it would prevent dams and diversions.
For many of them, the Gila River is a special place. It runs through the Gila Wilderness, which was the first wilderness area designated in the United States.
After he retired from the military, former Navy SEAL Brett Myrick, found himself frequently visiting the Gila River and its surrounding public lands.
“I love this wilderness, and I actually worked on wilderness trails running trail crews for the Forest Service here in the Gila as well,” he said.
The recreational opportunities in the Gila area are what draws Myrick back. He said he enjoys hiking, backpacking and fishing in the million acres of Gila Wilderness and national forest.
“It’s definitely special. Gila country is wild and rugged,” Myrick said. “So it’s an amazing place. You can just get lost out there and all the wilderness and I don’t mean lost in a bad way, but in a good way with all the tranquility and serenity.”
But threats keep emerging, such as proposals to dam or divert the river.
Browne said the river has been threatened with diversions or dams four different times.
Myrick said advocates so far have prevented those proposals from becoming reality, but that doesn’t mean other efforts to divert or dam the river won’t emerge in the future.
The most recent diversion project came to an end in 2020, but not before millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on the effort.
If the river is designated wild and scenic, Myrick said advocates won’t have to fight diversion proposals again.
“It benefits the whole valley as far as the farming and ranching and the acequias. The waterways that come off with the Gila River that have been supplying water to the farmland and the cattle and horses, all the livestock in the Gila River valley will still continue. Those acequias will still flow just as they have. And it will just prevent dams and pipelines that would just devastate this high desert environment.”
Browne said overall the people who live in his district in Grant County support the wild and scenic river designation, but he acknowledged that not everyone in the region does.
That is in part due to misinformation, he said.
Some of the concerns he has heard include that the designation would infringe on property rights.
“I think the folks who’ve drafted this bill have done a great job of ensuring that doesn’t happen,” Browne said.
Another concern is the impact that it might have on mining.
While it won’t impact existing mining operations, Browne said the designation could impact expanded mining. That is another reason why some advocates are pushing for the designation.
Browne acknowledged that if a company was looking to start a mining operation in the river corridor, the designation would make that very difficult to accomplish due to permitting.
“But as far as existing activities, this bill won’t compare anybody’s property rights,” he said.
Browne said the designation would help the economy.
“It will help attract tourists by getting the word out about what an amazing gem the river is,” he said. “And that in turn will help small businesses both providing direct outfitting and hunting sort of experiences and also providing lodging and hospitality services.”
And, ultimately, the designation would ensure that the river is thriving for future generations to enjoy, he said.
“We’ve got zillions of dams all over the country and pipelines providing water from the Colorado River to Arizona and California,” Myrick said. “This little itty bitty waterway definitely doesn’t need a pipeline on it.”
Supreme Court opens new frontier for insurrection claims that could target state and local officials - By Morgan Lee And Nicholas Riccardi Associated Press
Two recent U.S. Supreme Court actions have opened the door to a new legal frontier in which local and state officials can be disqualified from office for life for engaging in "insurrection" or providing "aid and comfort" to enemies of the Constitution, based on a post-Civil War era addition to the nation's foundational legal document and how the courts interpret it.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was kicked out of office after he was convicted of trespassing during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The state judge who barred him from office did so on the grounds that his actions violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868 to prevent Confederates from returning to government.
The move came on the heels of an expedited high-court ruling that Section 3 can't be used against federal officials or candidates until Congress writes a law outlining procedures to do so. That includes former President Donald Trump, the target of a national campaign to end his bid to return to the White House via the 14th Amendment.
But the court's ruling in the Trump case explicitly said the provision could still be used against state and local officials.
Taken together, the actions herald a new legal landscape as the liberal groups that pushed the issue of Trump's disqualification to the Supreme Court reboot efforts to target state and local officials linked to Jan. 6.
"This is a bit of returning to the course we expected to be following, which was holding individuals accountable, who are low-level officials, who still broke their oath by coming to D.C., engaging in insurrection," said Stuart McPhail, an attorney with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group whose lawsuit against Trump ended up at the Supreme Court.
Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech For People, which brought several other actions seeking to disqualify Trump and Republican members of Congress for their role in the Capitol attack, wouldn't comment on his group's plans. But, he said, one legal fact remains clear.
"Section 3 continues to be a viable way of protecting against insurrectionists in state and local government," Fein said.
CREW, which brought the lawsuit against Trump's candidacy that landed at the Supreme Court, has identified state lawmakers it believes might be vulnerable to challenges under Section 3. It already has succeeded in one case, brought against the local official in New Mexico.
Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, a founder of the promotional group Cowboys for Trump, is the only elected official thus far to be banned from office in connection with the Capitol attack, which disrupted Congress as it was trying to certify Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory over Trump.
The lawsuit against him cited his violation of Section 3, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against it or gave "aid and comfort" to its enemies, from holding future office.
McPhail says there is a new sense of urgency to take action under that clause against state or local officials linked to Jan. 6 — before they run for federal office and can't be sidelined.
"It does create this incentive to bring cases from low-level officials now because then you can actually win them and get some kind of relief in judgments, whereas if you wait, you may have lost the opportunity," he said.
Based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Trump disqualification case, a state or local official removed under Section 3 could still hold federal office, all the way up to president, unless Congress acted.
Griffin said his disqualification was politically motivated. He and his defense attorney said Monday's dismissal by the Supreme Court holds ominous implications, creating a pathway for partisan actors to harness Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in unpredictable ways in the future.
"All you have to do is go to a really friendly county, with a good friendly judge that's politically on your side, and then you get rid of your opposition," said Peter Ticktin, Griffin's attorney in the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, said he wouldn't be surprised if Section 3 litigation eventually targets people for reasons well beyond Jan. 6.
"I don't know how widespread it's going to be," he said. "I'm sure people are going to start thinking creatively about what it means — if you're supporting, Hamas, the Taliban, (Black Lives Matter)."
Muller added that the court system is well-equipped to sort out frivolous uses of Section 3, just as it does in other cases of ballot challenges: "In most of these cases, I think it won't pass the initial motion to dismiss."
The bigger question, he said, is how do courts address issues that the Supreme Court dodged in its ruling on the Trump case: What constitutes an insurrection under Section 3? How do First Amendment rights and other constitutional guarantees interact with its provisions?
In Griffin's case, New Mexico Judge Francis Mathew found that Griffin aided an insurrection without engaging in violence, contributing to a delay in Congress' certification of the presidential election.
He ruled that Griffin spread lies about the 2020 election being stolen from Trump in a series of speeches during rallies held across the country, calling on crowds to go with him to Washington on Jan. 6 and join the "war" over the presidential election results.
"Knowledgeable 19th century Americans including Section 3's framers would have regarded the events of Jan. 6, and the surrounding planning, mobilization and incitement, as an insurrection," Mathew ruled. "Mr. Griffin also incited, encouraged, and helped normalize the violence on January 6."
Griffin, a Republican, was convicted separately in federal court of entering a restricted area on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 and received a 14-day prison sentence. The sentence was offset by time served after his arrest in Washington, where he had returned to protest Biden's 2021 inauguration. That conviction is under appeal, but is unlikely to influence enforcement of Griffin's ban from office.
"Neither the courts nor Congress have ever required a criminal conviction for a person to be disqualified under Section 3," Judge Mathew wrote.
CREW brought the case against Griffin partly because New Mexico is one of several states that allow any citizen to bring a private right of action to establish that an elected official is not qualified to hold office. In states that lack such provisions, attorneys note, those who want to remove people under Section 3 may have other paths, such as ballot challenges filed with the secretary of state or an election board.
"There is no one-size-fits-all solution for enforcing Section 3 in states," McPhail said.
___
Associated Press Supreme Court reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.
How Texas' plans to arrest migrants for illegal entry will work - By Valerie Gonzalez Associated Press
The U.S. Supreme Court will allow Texas to start arresting migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border and ordering them to leave, while the legal battle over Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's latest immigration move plays out.
The court issued a divided decision Tuesday that allows Texas to enforce its immigration law for now. The high court declined to intervene on an administrative stay placed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Justice Department is challenging the law, saying Texas is overstepping the federal government's immigration authority. Texas argues it has a right to take action over what Abbott has described as an "invasion" of migrants on the border.
The 5th Circuit is set to hear arguments in April. A federal judge in Texas issued a sweeping rejection of the law last month, calling it a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Here's what to know:
WHO CAN BE ARRESTED?
The law allows any Texas law enforcement officer to arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. Once in custody, migrants could either agree to a Texas judge's order to leave the U.S. or be prosecuted on misdemeanor charges of illegal entry. Migrants who don't leave could face arrest again under more serious felony charges.
Arresting officers must have probable cause, which could include witnessing the illegal entry or seeing it on video.
The law cannot be enforced against people lawfully present in the U.S., including those who were granted asylum or who are enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Critics, including Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, fear the law could lead to racial profiling and family separation. American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in Texas and some neighboring states issued a travel advisory a day after Abbott signed the law. The advisory warns of a possible threat to civil and constitutional rights when passing through Texas.
Abbott has rejected concerns over profiling. While signing the bill, he said troopers and National Guard members at the border can see migrants crossing illegally "with their own eyes."
WHERE WILL THE LAW BE ENFORCED?
The law can be enforced in any of Texas' 254 counties, including those hundreds of miles from the border.
But Republican state Rep. David Spiller, the law's author, has said he expects the vast majority of arrests will occur within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the U.S.-Mexico border. Texas' state police chief has expressed similar expectations.
Some places are off-limits. Arrests cannot be made in public and private schools; places of worship; or hospitals and other health care facilities, including those where sexual assault forensic examinations are conducted.
Migrants ordered to leave would be sent to ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, even if they are not Mexican citizens.
IS THE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL?
The Supreme Court's decision did not address the constitutionality of the law.
The Justice Department, legal experts and immigrant rights groups have said it is a clear conflict with the U.S. government's authority to regulate immigration.
U.S. District Judge David Ezra, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, agreed in a 114-page order. He added that the law could hamper U.S. foreign relations and treaty obligations.
Opponents have called the measure the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since a 2010 Arizona law — denounced by critics as the "Show Me Your Papers" bill — that was largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ezra cited the Supreme Court's 2012 Arizona ruling in his decision.
Texas has argued that the law mirrors federal law instead of conflicting with it.
WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE BORDER?
Arrests for illegal crossings along the southern border fell by half in January from record highs in December. Border Patrol officials attributed the shift to seasonal declines and heightened enforcement by the U.S. and its allies. The federal government has not yet released numbers for February.
Texas has charged thousands of migrants with trespassing on private property under a more limited operation that began in 2021.
Tensions remain between Texas and the Biden administration. In the border city of Eagle Pass, Texas, National Guard members have prevented Border Patrol agents from accessing a riverfront park.
Other Republican governors have expressed support for Abbott, who has said the federal government is not doing enough to enforce immigration laws. Other measures implemented by Texas include a floating barrier in the Rio Grande and razor wire along the border.
___
Associated Press writers Acacia Coronado and Paul Weber in Austin, Texas, contributed to this report.
Supreme Court rejects appeal by former New Mexico county commissioner banned for Jan. 6 insurrection — Morgan Lee, Nicholas Riccardi, Mark Sherman, Associated Press
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was kicked out of office over his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Former Otero County commissioner Couy Griffin, a cowboy pastor who rode to national political fame by embracing then-President Donald Trump with a series of horseback caravans, is the only elected official thus far to be banned from office in connection with the Capitol attack, which disrupted Congress as it was trying to certify Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory over Trump.
At a 2022 trial in state district court, Griffin received the first disqualification from office in over a century under a provision of the 14th Amendment written to prevent former Confederates from serving in government after the Civil War.
Though the Supreme Court ruled this month that states don't have the ability to bar Trump or other candidates for federal offices from the ballot, the justices said different rules apply to state and local candidates.
"We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion.
The outcome of Griffin's case could bolster efforts to hold other state and local elected officials accountable for their involvement in the Jan. 6 attack.
Griffin, a Republican, was convicted separately in federal court of entering a restricted area on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 and received a 14-day prison sentence. The sentence was offset by time served after his arrest in Washington, where he had returned to protest Biden's 2021 inauguration. That conviction is under appeal.
Griffin contends that he entered the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 without recognizing that it had been designated as a restricted area and that he attempted to lead a crowd in prayer using a bullhorn, without engaging in violence.
The recent ruling in the Trump case shut down a push in dozens of states to end Trump's Republican candidacy for president over claims he helped instigate the insurrection to try to prevent Biden, a Democrat, from replacing him in the White House in 2020.
The accusations of insurrection against Griffin were filed on behalf of three New Mexico residents by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group that also brought the lawsuit in Colorado to disqualify Trump.
CREW has outlined the case for investigating several current state legislators who went to Washington on Jan. 6.
In Griffin's 2022 trial in state district court, New Mexico Judge Francis Mathew recognized the Jan. 6 attack as an insurrection and ruled that Griffin aided that insurrection, without engaging in violence, contributing to a delay in Congress' election certification proceedings.
Griffin's appeal of the disqualification asserted that only Congress, and not a state court, has the power to enforce the anti-insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment by legislation, and it urged the Supreme Court to rule on whether the events on Jan. 6 constituted an "insurrection" as defined in the Constitution.
It also invoked Griffin's rights to free speech protections.
"If the decision ... is to stand, at least in New Mexico, it is now the crime of insurrection to gather people to pray together for the United States of America on the unmarked restricted grounds of the Capitol building," Florida-based defense attorney Peter Ticktin argued on behalf of Griffin in court filings.
At trial, Mathew, the judge, called Griffin's free-speech arguments self-serving and not credible, noting that the then-commissioner spread lies about the 2020 election being stolen from Trump in a series of speeches at rallies during a cross-country journey starting in New Mexico, calling on crowds to go with him to Washington on Jan. 6 and join the "war" over the presidential election results.
Mathew said recordings by a videographer accompanying Griffin outside the U.S. Capitol showed that the county commissioner "incited the mob, even after seeing members of the mob a short distance away attack police officers and violently try to break into the Capitol building."
The New Mexico Supreme Court later refused to hear the case after Griffin missed procedural deadlines.
Griffin on Monday said the Supreme Court took "the coward's way out" in dismissing his appeal without comment, calling it "the greatest attack on our democracy to date."
"When civil courtrooms can remove elected officials, it sets a very dangerous precedent," Griffin said. "Personally, I'm very disappointed and equally concerned about the future of our political system."
On the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack this year, Griffin cast himself as the victim of political persecution as he spoke to a gathering in the rural community of Gillette, Wyoming, at the invitation of a county Republican Party.
"God is really allowing me to experience some amazing days," Griffin said. "Jan. 6 was a day like no other. It was a day where a type of patriotism was expressed that I'd never seen before, and I was honored to be there."
In 2019, Griffin forged a group of rodeo acquaintances into the promotional group called Cowboys for Trump, which staged horseback parades to support Trump's conservative message about gun rights, immigration controls and abortion restrictions.
While still a county commissioner, Griffin joined with Republican colleagues in refusing to certify results of the June 2022 primary election based on distrust of the voting systems used to tally the vote, even though the county's election official said there were no problems. The board ultimately certified the election on a 2-1 vote with Griffin still voting no based on a "gut feeling."
Griffin withstood a recall petition drive in 2021. After his disqualification from office, Griffin was tried and acquitted by a jury in his home county in March 2023 of allegations that he declined to register and disclose donors to Cowboys for Trump.
___
Lee reported from Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Riccardi reported from Denver.
An Afghan refugee has been convicted of murder in a case that shocked Albuquerque's Muslim community — Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press
An Afghan refugee was found guilty Monday of first-degree murder in one of three fatal shootings that shook Albuquerque's Muslim community during the summer of 2022.
Muhammad Syed faces life in prison for killing 41-year-old Aftab Hussein on July 26, 2022. He also will stand trial in the coming months in the other two slayings.
During the trial, prosecutors presented cellphone data that showed his phone was in the area when the shooting occurred, and a ballistics expert testified that casings and projectiles recovered from the scene had been fired from a rifle that was found hidden under Syed's bed.
Defense attorneys argued that prosecutors had no evidence that Syed was the one who pulled the trigger. They said others who lived in his home could also access his phone, the vehicle and the rifle.
The defense called no witnesses; Syed tearfullydeclined to testify in his own defense.
Prosecutors on Monday said they were pleased that jurors agreed it was a deliberate killing. However, they acknowledged that no testimony during the weeklong trial nor any court filings addressed a possible motive or detailed any interactions that Syed might have had with Hussein before the killing.
"We were not able to uncover anything that we would indicate would be a motive that would explain this," Deputy District Attorney David Waymire said outside the courthouse. "As best we can tell, this could be a case of a serial killer where there's a motive known only to them and not something that we can really understand."
Defense attorneys said the conviction would be appealed once the other two trials are complete. They too said a motive has yet to be uncovered.
The three ambush-style killings happened over the course of several days, leaving authorities scrambling to determine if race or religion might have been behind the crimes. It was not long before the investigation shifted away from possible hate crimes to what prosecutors described to jurors as the "willful and very deliberate" actions of another member of the Muslim community.
Syed, who speaks Pashto and required the help of translators throughout the trial, settled in the U.S. with his family several years before the killings. Prosecutors described him during previous court hearings as having a violent history. His public defenders argued that previous allegations of domestic violence never resulted in convictions.
Syed also is accused of killing Muhammad Afzaal Hussain, a 27-year-old urban planner who was gunned down Aug. 1, 2022, while taking his evening walk, and Naeem Hussain, who was shot four days later as he sat in his vehicle outside a refugee resettlement agency on the city's south side.
Muhammad Afzaal Hussain's older brother, Muhammad Imtiaz Hussain, was there Monday to hear the verdict. He has been following the cases closely and like others in the community is troubled that there's still no answer as to why his brother and the others were targeted.
A student leader at the University of New Mexico who was active in politics and later worked for the city of Española, Muhammad Afzaal Hussain had a bright future, his brother said. They had come to the United States from Pakistan for educational and economic opportunities.
He said the life they had planned was just starting to come to fruition when his brother was killed.
"It was a big loss," he said.
Police also identified Syed as the suspect in the killing of another Muslim man in 2021, but no charges have been filed in that case.
Authorities issued a public plea for help following the third killing in the summer of 2022. They shared photographs of a vehicle believed to be involved in the crimes, resulting in tips that led to Syed.
Syed denied involvement in the killings after being stopped more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) from Albuquerque. He told authorities he was on his way to Texas to find a new home for his family, saying he was concerned about the killings in Albuquerque.
The judge prohibited prosecutors from directly introducing as evidence statements Syed made to a detective while being questioned. Defense attorneys argued that Syed's rights were violated because the detective, through an interpreter, did not adequately inform Syed of his right to a court-appointed attorney.
During the trial, prosecutors gave jurors a rundown of what happened the night of the first killing: Hussein parked at his apartment complex at around 10 p.m. and had just stepped out of his vehicle with his keys still in his hand when gunfire erupted.
"He stood no chance," prosecutor Jordan Machin said during closing arguments. Machin said Syed had been lying in wait and that he continued to shoot even as Hussein lay on the ground.
Officers found Hussein with multiple wounds that stretched from his neck down to his feet. Investigators testified that some of the high-caliber rounds went through his body and pierced the car.
Prosecutors showed photos of Hussein's bullet-riddled car and said the victim was killed nearly instantly.
Movie armorer challenges conviction in fatal shooting of cinematographer by Alec Baldwin — Associated Press
A movie set armorer is challenging her conviction on an involuntary manslaughter charge in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer by Alec Baldwin on the set of the Western film "Rust," court records released Monday show.
Defense attorneys for "Rust" armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed filed a request for a new trial and urged a judge to release the defendant from jail as deliberations proceed.
Gutierrez-Reed was convicted by a jury this month in the shooting on the outskirts of Santa Fe, New Mexico, during a rehearsal in October 2021. Baldwin was indicted by a grand jury in January and has pleaded not guilty to an involuntary manslaughter charge, with trial set for July.
In an emergency court motion, defense attorneys Jason Bowles and Monnica Barreras asserted that the jury instructions in the case "could confuse the jury and lead to a nonunanimous verdict." Similar objections to the jury instructions were rejected at trial.
Gutierrez-Reed could be sentenced as soon as April 15 under the current scheduling orders from Santa Fe-based Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer.
Involuntary manslaughter carries a felony sentence of up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine. Gutierrez-Reed is being held pending sentencing at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility.
Baldwin was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins when the revolver went off, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza. Baldwin has maintained that he pulled back the gun's hammer, but not the trigger.
Prosecutors blamed Gutierrez-Reed at a two-week trial for unwittingly bringing live ammunition onto the set of "Rust" where it was expressly prohibited. They also said she failed to follow basic gun safety protocols.
"Rust" assistant director and safety coordinator Dave Halls last year pleaded no contest to negligent handling of a firearm and completed a sentence of six months unsupervised probation.