Officer Involved Shooting Trial Review and Evaluation

State v. Keith Sandy, D-202-CR-2015-00104
State v. Dominque Perez, D-202-CR-2015-00105

Date of Incident: March 16, 2014

Announcement 

On Friday, February 24, 2017, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez announced he will not seek to retry two former Albuquerque police officers involved in the 2014 death of James Boyd.  The case involving Keith Sandy and Dominque Perez originally ended in a mistrial following a 9-3 deadlock by the jury, with 9 voting for acquittal.

“This decision comes following a review of the case by district attorneys from around the state,” District Attorney Torrez said. “Additionally, an independent review by two of my most experienced prosecutors ended with the same conclusion to not retry. For both teams, a key component of the analysis was grounded in the fact that the scope of the case is largely set and the remaining available charges are not likely to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The reports may be read, in full, below. 

2nd Judicial District's Officer Involved Shooting Trial Review and Evaluation 

Read the full report here. 

This review was conducted by two senior trial attorneys within the 2nd Judicial District Attorney's Office and did not consult with the Independent Review committee. 

Recommendation: 

"This conclusion is based on the criminal law standard of proof at trial - that a jury considering the facts and law would be unlikely to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by Officers Perez and Sandy in the discharge of their duties was unjustified."

Independent Review Committee Report 

Read the full report here

This committee was made up of senior prosecutors from District Attorneys' offices from around the State and did not consult or communicate with the 2nd Judicial District Attorney's office, District Attorney Torrez, or the Internal Review Committee about this case. 

Recommendation: 

"It is the opinion of this committee that a retrial would not likely result in any conviction. The primary reasons that the Committee believes this to be the case are: 1) that the previous trial was conducted effectively on behalf of the prosecution, 2) no additional evidence has been discovered and 3) the procedural posture and facts of the case preclude any charges other than those the jury already considered."