Attorney General Gary King (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
The N.M. Court of Appeals has ruled that Attorney General Gary King can prosecute the defendants in a case involving the state’s housing authorities even though his office also represents the authorities in a civil capacity.
The ruling is significant because it’s the first time the appeals court has ruled on whether the attorney general can wear both civil and criminal hats when there’s a potential conflict between the two. The defendants in the housing authority case could still appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
An appeal to the state’s high court would further delay trial.
King’s spokesman, Phil Sisneros, confirmed the ruling from the appeals court, but he provided no additional details. One of the defendants, Robert Strumor, would say only that he has “been wrongfully accused of crimes that never occurred and I will continue to mount a vigorous defense.”
Former Region III Housing Authority Director Vincent “Smiley” Gallegos, former Region III accountant Dennis M. Kennedy, and Strumor, a bond attorney, are facing felony charges including fraud and money laundering. A fourth defendant, former Region III attorney David N. Hernandez, is charged with tampering with evidence.
Defendants in the housing authority case and another high-profile case against former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron have said King’s attorney/client relationship with state agencies creates a conflict when he has to investigate corruption allegations involving one of those agencies.
King defends his office by saying that a “Chinese wall” exists between his civil and criminal divisions. The civil divisions report to King, and the criminal investigations and prosecutions divisions report to Chief Deputy Attorney General Al Lama.
The AG told NMPolitics.net last year that his office is fighting the conflict-of-interest allegations in both cases because he believes it is “time to draw the line and say look, this is what has to be done to go after these cases.”
King pointed to the housing authority case and the case against Vigil-Giron as evidence that his office can bring forth public corruption indictments even when the office’s civil side is involved in attorney/client issues with the agencies the criminal side is investigating.