Home » In Focus » USA v Hicks – Prosecutors Tell the Truth. Persecutors Don’t.

USA v Hicks – Prosecutors Tell the Truth. Persecutors Don’t.

Michael Morris – In Focus

That title came to me from the lips of my 9 year old son who attended the last 2 days of the latest trial. Even he gets it. Oh yeah, so did the jury. I want to apologize to my readers for an error. In the last installment of this drama I surmised the reason for the split verdict. As it turns out it seems the jury did not buy the stein attack at all and was actually confused by the testimony of two German military personnel who witnessed another event 5 hours earlier. Assistant US Attorneys Jack Burkhead and Jennifer Rozzoni used this testimony in an attempt to make their case seem more plausible to the jury. The problem is Burkhead and US Air Force Detective Richard Schnell both knew they were offering fraud to the court. As jury deliberations ran for more than 12 hours notes from the jury to the judge show just what the jury was thinking.

Reading the first jury note it is clear that the jury decided that the defendant, Jade Hicks, had been assaulted by the mob the prosecution termed victims:


As you can see the split is solely a matter of the level of force necessary for the defendant to defend herself. In their second note the jury reports it is hopelessly deadlocked and that the issue is still level of force.


In their third note from the jury they ask for the transcript of the testimony of the two German personnel, Schmidt and Mertin. The jury says their timeline is the primary subject of deliberations. This makes sense since the three timelines from their testimony do not match even the government side of the events. The first was the time of day. That was pegged by both sides at between 11:30pm and midnight though Schmidt and Mertin were clear that they witnessed an event at 7pm. The second was the description of an argument that lasted around 3 minutes. The other prosecution witnesses testified to a few words and a few seconds, not minutes. The last discrepancy concerns what happened after the altercation was broken up. The Germans testified Air Force Police, SF, took custody of the stein swinging suspect. All of the other prosecution testimony on the matter centers around the complex and confused search by the accusing parties and SF for the defendant who was located at the bus stop to leave Holloman AFB later.


The jury drove home the point in its final note that concludes that without being able to review the testimony of the German personnel, denied by the judge, they were unable to resolve the matter of self defense and were hung on one count as a result.


It seems more than a little clear that Jack Burkhead and Jennifer Rozzoni used these witnesses in an attempt to secure a conviction by unscrupulous means. They knew the Germans witnessed another event. They withheld the time of the event witnessed from the defense. Why? Most people seem to just believe that people convicted by a jury were proven so by the evidence. The evidence here shows that the office of the US Attorney in New Mexico will engage in any criminal and/or unethical conduct in order to secure a conviction. Is that what you seek as a citizen? Prosecutors who will bring false testimony in order to make a victim fighting for her life a criminal and the attacking gang victims?

Another interesting point brings us to the end. At the first trial and in the second under direct examination Adrian Guerra claimed he was 15 feet from the melee. Under cross examination in the second trial Guerra recanted the 15 feet story placing himself “2 feet” from the attack. That makes him the fourth member of the attacking gang. That was a material fact and he lied. That is perjury, but the US Attorney has given Adrian Guerra immunity from prosecution for that felony in exchange for his version of the events in the third trial. This continual use of lies is why my son made the observation that became the title of this story.