What is your acquittal rate?  How often are your clients found "Not guilty" - 70% versus average of 10% 

Where do you practice most?

How do you get clients?

What is this "free consultation" we sometimes hear about?

I am ready to hire you, but I do not want to incur any unnecessary costs.  How can you protect me?

He/She really hurt me.  I want you to go for their throat.  Don't let them get anything.  Can you do that?

Lynne (divorce client with children)

Louise (mother of son, accused of murder, charges dismissed on eve of trial)

Gina (divorce client with vicious ex-husband) 

Michelle (divorce client with two children)

Melvin (pled guilty to reduced charge, served time, and got his life together)

Ryan (acquitted of manslaughter)

Barbara (Husband convicted of sex crime and serving 25-year sentence, conviction reversed on appeal, husband released from federal prison, and charges dismissed)

Doris (couple falsely suspected of tax fraud)

Sandra (divorce and child custody with Ex who periodically stirs conflict) 

John F.M. Samore

1. UNITED SATES V. MARK C.  [Violent Crime - Assault with a weapon] [Not Guilty]

 In 2008, a man driving a Ford F-250 ran into the rear of a Taurus sedan in rural New Mexico.  Mark got out of the car with a shotgun, walked to the rear of the car, and shot the truck's driver through the windshield into his face, neck, shoulder and right torso.  Mark was charged in federal court with three counts that, if convicted, would have resulted in a prison sentence of at least 18 years.

Both sides worked very hard on the case for almost three years before it came to trial in 2011.  Two very respected Assistant United States Attorneys and an accomplished FBI agent represented the prosecution at trial;  only Mr. Samore represented the defendant, who claimed he discharged the gun in self-defense. As the trial extended into a second week, the independent evidence of the Alleged Victim's (AV's) history of violence and lying was excluded and only a single incident of the AV's prior threats to kill Mark was admitted.  The defense case appeared to be in jeopardy.

The Prosecution called a respected doctor to testify to the severity of the AV's injuries and an experienced Accident Reconstructionist to support its position.  Both were embarrassed by cross-examination that forced them to admit errors in their position.  The AV was caught in many inconsistencies and exaggerations.  Mark and three of the other four passengers in the Taurus testified as best they could recall the hectic events of an evening almost three years ago.

All three attorneys gave their final summation to the jury.  Deliberations began the next day, and a common adage of experienced courtwatchers is that, the sooner the jury reaches a verdict, the more likely the verdict is "guilty."  After barely two hours, the jury reached its verdict:  "not guilty" on all counts.  Mark went home with his family.

2. UNITED STATES V. ERNEST F.  [Sex Offense] [Not Guilty]

In 2006, Mr. F was tried in federal court for three times touching his daughter sexually.  The critical evidence against him was testimony that Mr. F had made damning admissions in an interview at the FBI office.  Mr. Samore vigorously argued in pre-trial motions that the alleged confession should not be admitted for several reasons:  it was not recorded, Mr. F (a rural Indian person) had very limited comprehension of English was not read his Constitutional rights (including the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent), the two participating FBI agents displayed their weapons to him, deceived him regarding the purpose of the interview, and never told him he was free to leave.  In other words, if a suspect is not free to leave an interview, he deserves to be read his precious rights.  The statement was too unreliable and too prejudicial to be presented to a jury.

The learned Judge denied the Motion, the FBI agents testified at trial about their version of what Mr. F said.  The defense asserted that the daughter had been caught a third time with drugs at school and was so afraid to tell her father that she had again been expelled that she made up a story about being touched sexually.  The jury found Mr. F guilty , and he was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Mr. Samore believed so in Mr. F's innocence that he could not give up.  He appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court in Denver and, after extensive briefing (written legal arguments) and oral argument, the Appellate Court sustained the appeal in April 2009, reversed the conviction, and sent the case back for re-trial.  Mr. F was released from prison
.
Before the re-trial could be set, the Alleged Victim stepped forward and admitted that, just as the defense had contended from the beginning, she made up the story because she had been expelled.  To his credit, upon verifying this recanting, the prosecuting attorney dismissed the case, and Mr. F returned to his family.

The federal charges against Joe B were armed robbery of a pizza parlor and related firearms charges.  Because Mr. B had five prior violent convictions, including murder, the Prosecution knew that any conviction would result in a life sentence.  The charges seemed pretty solid, since witnesses had generally described a man similar physically to the defendant, at least two witnesses had gotten a license plate that traced to Mr. B's car, and Mr. B had apparently left the monitor on his ankle bracelet for the four hours over a Sunday afternoon when the crime occurred.  When he returned home, the police SWAT team was waiting.

In a four-day trial in 2007, the defense rigorously cross-examined the witnesses to inconsistencies in their recollections and, with the assistance of a computer monitoring expert, undermined any certainty that the defendant was off the monitor.  Unfortunately for Mr. B, his admission at the time of his arrest when he told a police sergeant where a small handgun could be found (under his bed) proved too much to overcome.  After almost seven hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty to all counts.  He was sentenced to life in prison, and his appeal was denied.

The week after Mr. B's conviction, Mr. Samore had to defend a murder trial in state court.  Two cars with three rival gang members in each car, were cautiously eyed one another on a warm 2006 night on Albuquerque's Westside. After the usual display of mad-dog looks and signing, the defendant shot one of the passengers in the other car.  He claimed self-defense and that the first shot came from the other car.

Three determined Assistant District Attorneys handled the trial and maintained no evidence could be found that the rival car even had a weapon, let alone fired first.    The driver of Mr. Z's car was shot in  the hand, but the ballistics tests on a cartridge found on the car's floor confirmed that he was shot from the same gun that killed the Alleged Victim.  The trial judge allowed the Prosecution to put a "gang expert" on the stand to frighten the jury about the dangers of gangs, although it had no real relevance to the actual charges.

The judge also let the prosecution call the driver of Mr. Z's car regarding statements he made the night of the shooting, even though he had previously told (through his own lawyer) the court he would not incriminate himself by testifying at this trial.  Mr. Samore vigorously reminded the court that, to permit such evidence which the defense could not cross examine, would result in an unjust conviction and be error.  The Judge rejected Mr. Samore's arguments, let the unchallengeable statements be heard, and Mr. Z was convicted.

Another fine attorney was appointed to handle the appeal and skillfully presented Mr. Samore's same arguments.  As it turned out, the Supreme Court agreed.  In a landmark decision in this area (known as Crawford) that stands today,  the Supreme Court reversed Mr. Z's conviction and sent the case back for re-trial.  Another attorney was appointed for the re-trial, and Mr. Z chose to enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge.

5. UNITED STATES V.  RYAN  B. [DWI, Reckless Driving, and Manslaughter] [Not Guilty]

A 20-year-old Window Rock man was charged with manslaughter after an early morning collision between his Toyota and a SUV resulted in the death of a very prominent elderly lady.  Young Ryan was passing the Navajo Transport Services van with a driver and three passengers when he apparently cut back into his lane too quickly and clipped the front end of the van, which ran off the highway.  The lady was crushed as the vehicle rolled over.   Ryan stopped his car near the fatality scene and apologized to the first patrolmen to arrive.  He was suspected of DWI but refused the breath test and was arrested for DWI, Reckless Driving, and Manslaughter.  Since the victim was related closely to the President of Navajo Nation, the trial in August of 2005 drew a lot of attention.

An unprecedented pre-trial legal struggle over the contested admissibility of HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) testimony through an officer set the federal standard for many courts around the country.  After winning an order excluding this testimony, Mr. Samore daringly introduced it himself to cross-examine the officers at trial when he realized how it might show their bias against young Ryan.

The Prosecution's two fine attorneys thought Ryan was guilty because he had allegedly failed the field sobriety tests, but Mr. Samore showed through effective cross-examination of the arresting officers that they had not clearly explained how to perform the tests and conducted them on a sloping part of the road to make it more difficult.  The Prosecution's Accident Reconstructionist was exposed as a lapdog for any prosecutor that would pay his fee, and the jury came to understand that a little Toyota that tapped the bumper of a large SUV at a low speed could not have forced the SUV off the roadway.  Closer attention to the skid marks revealed that the van driver had locked his brakes and overcorrected, causing the rollover and the death.

The jury made quick work of its decision, although one never knows which way a jury will conclude.  In Ryan's trial, it was "not guilty" of all charges.

6. UNITED STATES V. DION  L. [Sexual Assault] [Convicted]

In May of 2002, a group of teenagers drank way too much at a graduation party sponsored by one of the parents, and, in the early hours of the following morning, took advantage of one of the most intoxicated young women at another rural home.  Five young men were involved in one way or another, and, because the ugly incident occurred in Indian country, a federal prosecution ensued.  Three of the young men pled guilty and promised to testify against the remaining two, who claimed to have been less involved than the three who rushed to plead.  Mr. Samore was appointed to defend one of these remaining young men, and Dion L rejected a negotiated plea agreement that would have resulted in a sentence of less than four years.   The case came to trial in December, 2005.  After a hotly-contested week-long trial, both young men were found guilty and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

7. UNITED STATES V. DAVID  S.  [Violent Crime - Murder] [Convicted]

When a 27-year-old man pointed a rifle at three teenage boys after an insignificant dispute, a fight occurred, and the older man was found in his car the next morning dead from a series of blows to the head.  The three young men readily admitted their involvement, and a second degree murder prosecution proceeded through federal court.   Mr. Samore's client stuck with his buddies who appeared to be more culpable, and all refused a plea proposal for less than four years imprisonment.  At trial in 2002, the responsibility and roles of each youth were argued, and the jury eventually returned a verdict of guilty as to all three.  David S received a sentence of less than seven years, over two years less than each of the other co-defendants.

8. STATE V. LEE  P.  [Sexual Assault] [Not Guilty]

An 83-year-old farmer was accused by a granddaughter of sexual abuse, and she easily convinced her therapist and the examining physician that the allegations were true.  Conviction would have virtually guaranteed a prison sentence for the rest of Lee's life.  Mr. Samore perceptively recognized that, if the little girl was touched, there were other culprits responsible, and he was representing a truly innocent man.  Against all odds, Mr. Samore won a hung jury at the trial, and, before any re-trial could be conducted, the Prosecution correctly agreed to dismiss the charges, and Mr. P went home.

9. STATE V. CINDY  H.  [White Collar Crime - Embezzlement] [Not Guilty]

A nice lady went to work part-time for a busy family business in western New Mexico.  Unfortunately, after two years, the wealthy woman who owned the business with her husband, found many discrepancies in the financial records and became convinced that Cindy was embezzling a lot of money.  As a result, the State investigated and filed multiple felony charges against Ms. H for embezzling over $25,000, but Cindy insisted she was innocent.  She had no explanation for all the bookkeeping discrepancies, so she hired Mr Samore, who prepared for trial but also negotiated a plea agreement in case Cindy wanted to avoid going to jail.  Cindy insisted on going to trial.

At trial against the District Attorney and an Special Assistant Attorney General, the defense showed convincingly that the state auditors had overlooked constant daily bookkeeping errors (even when Cindy was on vacation), and the explanation was, not stealing, but simply a lack of training and proper accounting controls.  No one had really taken anything.  The jury returned in barely an hour of deliberation with a "not guilty" verdict to all charges.

10. STATE V.  CHERI  S.  [White Collar Crime - Embezzlement] [Not Guilty]

This time, it was a female insurance agent from a northern Mew Mexico city who was accused of stealing premium payments intended for her senior agent.  She hired Mr. Samore to defend her and her good reputation.  Again, this defendant refused to accept a plea proposal that would have guaranteed her no jail time but cost her the insurance license that was her livelihood. The trial prospects looked bleak for the defense until some gaping holes in the prosecution were exposed on the last day of a week-long trial.

It took this jury less than two hours to return with a verdict that so stunned the prosecutor she fled from the courtroom even before the trial judge discharged the jurors: "not guilty" on each felony count.  With that result, Cheri S. also went home and back to her life as an insurance salesperson.

In June, 2004, a 23-year-old man was chatting on his cell phone in front of his Highland area house one early evening when someone shot him in the back and he died within minutes.  The next day, Albuquerque police arrested Jeremiah, the best friend of another young man who had been in a fight with the victim a few weeks before the shooting.  Both teenagers were charged with first degree murder.  The key witness was a young man who said he saw the two defendants park an SUV near the victim's house, get out, and one of the two walking close to the victim and shooting him.  When he make this observation, the witness was sitting with a friend in a playground over 100 yards away.

Mr. Samore and counsel for Jeremiah's co-defendant worked closely together to develop a defense of mis-identification.  The trial was delayed several times due to a temporary disappearance of the witness and time conflicts of the chief prosecutor.  By the time it got to trial, over a year had passed since charges were filed, a technical violation of state law.

Before the evidence presentation began, both defendants jointly moved to dismiss the charge with prejudice, meaning the defendants could never be prosecuted because the State had taken too long to bring the case to trial.  After patiently listening to vigorous arguments from both sides, the trial judge reluctantly agreed with Mr. Samore and his co-defendant's attorney and dismissed the charges with prejudice.  Jeremiah went free.