Lundsford mistrial averted after Chevron clerk’s testimony

Before former Las Cruces Police Officer Brad Lundsford and Presley Eze began their life-altering and life-ending altercation, there was a fateful encounter with the Chevron clerk first. 

Leonel Ramos recounted his involvement with Eze before his death. Ramos was staffing the front desk at the former Chevron when Eze came in. Ramos also watched as Eze struggled with the two police officers before his death. 

Ramos’ testimony could prove pivotal. He told the jury that Eze seemed to be holding his own against two police officers, even choking one as Lundsford tried and failed to separate them. 

“I saw him get on top of a cop,” Ramos said, even as prosecutors pointed out that neither Lundsford nor the second officer, Keegan Arbogast, reported any injuries after the shooting. 

Leonel Ramos, the clerk who encountered Presley Eze at the Chevron, testifies in the Brad Lundsford trial on Feb. 5, 2025

But Ramos' testimony away from the jury also led to prosecutors suggesting the jury might be tainted. At the behest of Lundsford's lawyer, Jose Coronado, Ramos told the jury he believed Eze was high or drunk when he came into the store initially. 

Eze wanted to buy a pack of cigarettes but had no driver’s license. When Ramos told him no, Eze left and returned, telling off Ramos and grabbing a beer. 

“He wasn’t sharing it with his buddies,” Ramos said, referring to Eze. “He was standing near a trash can, just kind of chugging it.”

Ramos said he’d seen this kind of thing before. Most often, we people who came to the gas station stoned or drunk. The jury heard just a bit of that. But as they did, Judge Jim Foy received a juror question asking if there was forensic evidence showing Eze was high or drunk. 

Such evidence does exist. A toxicology report as part of Eze’s autopsy showed at the time he was killed, his blood contained 200 ng/ml of amphetamine and 600 ng/ml of methamphetamine.

But the judge made that evidence inadmissible a month before the trial. 

New Mexico case law takes special care to prevent biasing the jury when it comes to drugs in a person's system. Foy’s order kicking the evidence out of the trial details this. He pointed out that this evidence is not admissible unless “the evidence is relevant to a material issue other than the defendant's character or propensity to commit a crime.”

"While evidence of the Decedent's blood toxicology is minimally relevant, the probative value of this evidence is severely outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” Foy said in his order. 

But when Coronado asked Ramos if he thought Eze was high, prosecutors felt this was grounds for a mistrial. 

“This is character assassination,” said John Duran, an assistant attorney general, adding that Coronado had “shucked the rules,” Foy established. He also asked Foy to declare a mistrial and sanction Coronado for bringing it up. 

Coronado pointed out that Foy’s order was about the toxicology report—not a witness’ observations. Besides, Ramos is well-versed in spotting people who might be high or drunk when entering the store, Coronado said.  

“It’s so tangential, there’s so little of it,” Coronado said. “I don’t see how it can prejudice the jury.”

Duran wasn’t having it. 

“That is the most disingenuous argument I’ve ever heard,” Duran responded, garring a chuckle from the gallery. “If this were a fight, judge, we just got hit below the belt.”

Duran added that the juror’s question about Eze’s potential drug use was proof that at least one juror had been swayed.

Foy was unmoved and untimely rejected Duran’s call for a mistrial. He said that the drug use question may have come in before Ramos’ statements. He also said that he’s gotten over a dozen questions from the jury. 

“This is an inquisitive bunch,” he said. 

But he did admonish Coronado. He said that if Coronado tried to bring up the toxicology report again or reference that Eze may have had drugs in his system, he’d order Coronado to make a $1,000 donation to the local food bank.