Judge Quashes Timothy Busfield Indictment After Finding Prosecutor Failed to Act Fairly and Impartially
On October 16, 2026, Second Judicial District Judge Joseph Montano granted Fayerberg Dodd client Timothy Busfield’s motion to quash his grand jury indictment, finding that the prosecutor failed to act in a fair and impartial manner and improperly prevented the grand jury from hearing testimony from witnesses it had requested. The ruling is a significant victory for Mr. Busfield and an important affirmation of the legal safeguards designed to preserve the independence and integrity of New Mexico’s grand jury process.
The Grand Jury Was Asking to Hear from Witnesses
Mr. Busfield was indicted on four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in connection with allegations involving The Cleaning Lady. He has maintained his innocence from the beginning. When he exercised his right to testify before the grand jury, he told jurors that multiple witnesses were present and willing to testify, including individuals with firsthand knowledge of the production and the polygraph examiner.
The grand jurors asked at least three times to hear from those witnesses, specifically naming Alan Caudillo at one point. Yet those witnesses were never called to testify.
Instead, the prosecutor told the grand jurors that bringing in the witnesses would require at least eight jurors to agree that a witness was necessary and all 12 jurors to agree to return the following week so that subpoenas could be issued and provide each witness 26 hours notice. The prosecutor said this, even as the witnesses stood in the hallway. After that explanation, the grand jurors made no further requests for witnesses.
At a later hearing on Busfield’s motion, the court heard testimony from eight witnesses who had been present and available on the day of the grand jury proceeding and were willing to testify. The prosecutor had seen them waiting in the hallway.
The Court Found That the Prosecutor Improperly Withheld Witnesses
Judge Montano found that the prosecutor’s explanation of the process for obtaining witness testimony was incomplete and included requirements that had no basis in the applicable rules or statutes. The court noted that the 36-hour subpoena notice period could be shortened by a judge and that subpoenas were not necessary for witnesses who were willing to appear voluntarily.
The court rejected the State’s argument that Busfield’s failure to use a separate procedure for bringing exculpatory evidence to the grand jury excused what happened. The issue, the court explained, was not whether Busfield had used that procedure. It was that the grand jurors themselves had asked to hear from additional witnesses, and the prosecutor’s explanation effectively prevented those witnesses from appearing.
As the court stated:
“The actions by the State did not facilitate the grand jury’s inquiry and its citation to an unknown procedure had the practical effect of unilaterally withholding witnesses requested by the grand jurors.”
The court further concluded that the prosecutor’s actions were inconsistent with the law governing grand jury proceedings, explaining: “These actions are not in line with either the letter or the spirit of the grand jury laws.”
Protecting the Integrity of the Grand Jury Process
New Mexico law requires prosecutors to act fairly and impartially in grand jury proceedings. The court found that the prosecutor failed to meet that obligation by improperly instructing the grand jury about the process for obtaining witness testimony and effectively withholding witnesses the jurors had requested.
The court concluded that these actions violated the structural integrity of the grand jury process. Because the violation was structural, the court applied the presumption of prejudice and granted Busfield’s motion to quash the indictment.
The ruling does not prevent the State from initiating new criminal proceedings. It addresses the integrity of the grand jury process that resulted in the indictment—not the ultimate truth or falsity of the underlying allegations.
For Mr. Busfield, the decision represents a significant legal victory. It also underscores a fundamental principle: the integrity of the criminal justice process matters, and the State must follow the rules designed to ensure that grand jury proceedings are fair and impartial.
If the District Attorney chooses to pursue the case again, Mr. Busfield is ready to fight and remains steadfast in his innocence.
Comments