Courthouse complex lockdown suspect has day in court
Wesley D. Winsor, a Taos man facing felony and misdemeanor charges for allegedly threatening a mass shooting at the Taos County Administrative Judicial Complex Jan. 27, was arraigned Jan. 31 before Chief Judge Ernest Ortega in Taos County Magistrate Court.
According to a statement of probable cause, Winsor, 31, had been facing prior charges and a hearing pending a mental health evaluation when he allegedly threatened to go to the courthouse complex “to kill everyone and kill himself.” Authorities said the threat was made by phone to Tri-County Community Services. That organization’s staff was to administer the evaluation.
The phone call precipitated a lockdown at the complex and prompted a law enforcement response that included members of the Taos Police Department, New Mexico State Police and Taos County Sheriff’s Department. The local sheriff’s department’s Special Response Team (SRT) arrested Winsor without incident later that day. The suspect was subsequently incarcerated in the Taos County Adult Detention Center.
This week’s arraignment – typically the straightforward and relatively brief opening of a criminal proceeding – took on the appearance of a preliminary hearing as public defender Alexander Kostich immediately attempted to have the defendant’s charges knocked down to a lesser offense, his bond amount lowered or an early release secured.
According to the criminal complaint prepared by the court and read during the arraignment, Winsor faces three charges in relation to the Jan. 27 incident: assault with intent to commit a violent felony (with intent to commit mayhem), a third-degree felony; use of a telephone to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, a misdemeanor; and interference with members of staff or the general public (impeding), a petty misdemeanor.
“The charges carry jail time,” Ortega said as he opened the arraignment. “In any case where there’s jail time connected with a charge, you have the right to an attorney. The public defender’s office in this case is gathering to represent and defend you. Judge [Jeff] Shannon did a probable cause determination and set a bond in this case of $20,000, cash only. The court will keep the bond as set.”
“We would actually like to be heard on that, your honor,” Kostich responded.
With the defendant sitting beside him, his hands clasped together as if in prayer, Kostich proceeded to argue that the statement of probable cause was erroneous in several ways: One, that it failed to show proper probable cause on the elements that constitute a violent felony – based on Winsor’s lack of a violent criminal record, apparent lack of access to weapons and because he had not specified an individual against whom the threat had been made; two, that there was no intent to carry out the crime that was allegedly threatened; and three, that the defendant was not armed when arrested and had fully cooperated with law enforcement.
In conclusion, the defense counsel argued that the felony assault charge ought to be reduced to a misdemeanor, the client’s bond lowered or Winsor released on conditions in spite of the court’s determination that he is a danger to the community.
“I think that it may have been a bit blown out of proportion in terms of ... what kind of crime was actually committed or what probable cause there is to believe a crime was committed,” Kostich said. “He’s got a local address, a stable residence that he can go to, so I don’t see the need for him to be in the jail, judge.”
The state atorney Ron Olsen countered: “Your honor, I agree with the court that the bond should remain as set. As to the efficacy of the felony charge, the state will address that as we receive further follow-up and the office [hears] what we have.”
After Olsen then recounted the incident, in which the alleged threat shut down operations at the government complex and forced courthouse staff to shelter in place, he reiterated that the charges and bond were appropriate. To reinforce his argument and clarify the criminal complaint’s foundation in the elements of the felony assault called into question, he approached the bench and retrieved the legal text that outlines the law.
The state and defense sparred over the basis of the criminal complaint, with the state looking to close out the proceeding by acknowledging that the arraignment was not the proper context in which to introduce arguments typically reserved for later hearings in a criminal case.
“Maybe these arguments would be more proper at a preliminary hearing, but in reviewing the document before the court, the state finds this to be a very serious threat, judge, and I think the bond is set appropriately at this stage,” Olsen stated.
Ortega ruled that the criminal complaint and bond would remain as set and added that, due to the fact the shooting threat had been made against the courthouse where he and Shannon preside and their staff, they would be recusing themselves from the case.
“I believe the district court judges will also recuse from this case,” Ortega said. “This case properly should be heard by an outside judge – outside the judicial district – to determine any other new conditions of release or bond of any kind that the judge decides to assign. In the meantime, the district court ordered a mental health evaluation that has not occurred to my knowledge, and it needs to happen. So, hopefully, it will happen while the defendant is in custody.”
Winsor will remain in custody until the state Supreme Court assigns another court to take on the case.
