In regards to the inquiry by Robert J. Morris in the letter to the editor on Nov. 15, the Lykins family can only relay the information that was provided to them, though we see no harm in relating our opinions in how we view the handling of this matter. Assistant District Attorney Mr. Michael Thomas informed us the evidence had been “routinely destroyed.” No other explanation was given about how or why this error occurred.
From our inquiry of gathering information online, we can conclude that the New Mexico laws of evidence preservation is clarified as “There is no general duty to preserve evidence before litigation is filed and unless through a voluntary duty or an imposed statue.” If there is no notice of pending litigation within two years by the parties privileged to retaining the evidence, then the company has the right to dispose of the evidence, without liability.
Charges were not filed approximately two months after the two-year period had expired.
We will be blunt in revealing our opinions of the situation. We feel the defendant was given preferential treatment and prejudices tainted the case due to the defendant’s reputation and social standings in the community.
The nonchalant attitude exhibited toward the seriousness of the preservation of evidence and the inept view of filing charges in a timelier fashion in lieu of a pending litigation would have been more favorable if the true intent of prosecuting the defendant existed.
Remarks concerning the levels of Ambien prescription in the defendant’s system were of ill repute. The search warrant reveled no physician administered a prescription to the defendant himself but to the wife of the defendant.
Although, remarks that were inferred to Zora Lykins in not wearing a seatbelt seemed more pertinent to the case.
Since the vehicle’s and event data recorder evidence had been routinely disposed of, a traffic citation could not even be administered.
So we will leave the community with its own interpretation of what information we were privy to, as well as our personal reflections in whether justice was served.
For if the evidence was “routinely destroyed,” then there is no proof of whether a crime was committed. The judge that presided over the case was justified in his ruling in discharging the case because the prosecution presented him with nothing.
We hope this sheds some light to the community in how precarious our lives become when they are “routinely destroyed.”