close
close

Jury trial of former NMSU basketball players postponed until February 2025

Jury trial of former NMSU basketball players postponed until February 2025


The trial, originally scheduled for October, has been postponed to February 10-21

play

The trial of three former New Mexico State University basketball players accused of sexually harassing teammates has been postponed until early 2025.

Third Judicial District Judge Conrad Perea recently granted a request from the state to postpone the 10-day jury trial of former NMSU athletes Kim Aiken Aiken Jr., Deshawndre Washington and Dr. Bradley, who have pleaded not guilty to multiple sexual assault charges filed by the New Mexico Attorney General in 2023.

The ten-day jury trial was scheduled for October 21 to November 1, but will now take place from February 10 to 21.

The new trial date is still within the Track 3 trial schedule that Perea ordered when the three men were arraigned in December 2023. In the order, Perea said the trial would be postponed until May 30, 2024, due to the complexity of the case and the addition of 13 witnesses to the state's witness list.

The deadline for the start of the trial is February 19, 2025.

Judge rejects Aiken's request for separation

Perea also denied two motions filed by Aiken's attorney this week.

At a hearing on September 9, 2024, Perea considered two motions filed by attorney Lara Smalls – one to separate Aiken's trial from the other two defendants and one to separate the charges.

According to Smalls, the allegations against Washington and Bradley relate to four alleged victims, while the allegations against Aiken relate to three of the same victims. Smalls argued that the three men should be tried separately because if Aiken's co-defendants decided to testify during the trial, they would not have the opportunity to conduct pre-trial interviews. In addition, Smalls argued that if any of Aiken's co-defendants testified, her client would be disadvantaged because there would be no pre-trial interviews of Washington and Bradley.

According to Perea's denial of the motion to separate the defendants, “no confrontation is imminent at this time because the court does not currently expect the defendants to testify against any of their co-conspirators.”

The order also suggests limiting jury instructions during the trial as a possible solution, an idea raised at this week's hearing by John Duran, the assistant attorney general who is prosecuting the case for the New Mexico Department of Justice.

Smalls also argued that if the charges against the three different victims were not separated, the jury would hear inappropriate character traits and irrelevant evidence against her client.

According to Perea's dismissal, the charges against the three men “are substantially similar and appear to be part of a common plot or plan and appear so closely related in time, place and occasion that it would be difficult to separate the evidence for one charge from the evidence for others.”

Related Post