>> Jeff: ALEX, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME TODAY AND WELCOME BACK TO NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.

>> Uballez: THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> Jeff: I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH A PHRASE THAT I HAVE HEARD ENTIRELY TOO MANY TIMES IN THE COURSE OF DOING JOURNALISM FOR 20 YEARS.

THE PHRASE IS, WE CAN NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY THE EXISTENCE OF AN INVESTIGATION.

SO THAT IS SORT OF THE DEFAULT SETTING FOR THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WHY IS THAT?

>> Uballez: THERE IS A NUMBER OF EQUITIES THAT WE PROTECT, YOU KNOW, IN JUSTICE.

WE ARE ENTRUSTED AS PROSECUTORS BUT ESPECIALLY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROSECUTORS WITH THIS HUGE POWER, RIGHT?

EVEN TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE BEING ACCUSED OR SOMEBODY IS BEING ACCUSED OF A CRIME, RIGHT, HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON THEIR LIFE, ON THE PEOPLE AROUND THEM.

SO, TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE, WE HAVE TO ALWAYS BALANCE A NUMBER OF THINGS WHEN WE APPROACH ANY CASE, RIGHT.

SO THE ANSWER YOU HAVE RECEIVED, YOU HAVE DOUBTLESS RECEIVED IN YEARS OF SPEAKING WITH US ABOUT EITHER INVESTIGATIONS YOU EXPECT ARE ONGOING OR CASES EVEN THAT MIGHT BE PENDING, YET WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING ON IT UNTIL IT IS SENTENCED.

WE PROTECT A NUMBER OF EQUITIES HERE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THE FIRST, OF COURSE, IS A PERSON'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

RIGHT.

SO, IF WE START GETTING OUT IN THE PUBLIC AND TALKING ABOUT THINGS WE HAVEN'T PROVEN IN COURT THEN THAT PERSON'S JURY POOL IS HEARING THESE THINGS AND THAT ONLY MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO PICK THE JURY IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR PERSON TO HAVE A FAIR JURY, RIGHT, SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO HEAR THE FACTS FOR THE FIRST TIME, FROM THE PARTIES, IN A SITUATION WHERE A JUDGE IS OVERSEEING AND DETERMINING WHAT IS LEGAL TO COME IN AND WHAT IS WAS NOT.

WE WANT UNTAINTED JURIES.

THE SECOND PART IS PEOPLES' RIGHT TO PRIVACY, RIGHT.

SO IF YOU HAVE A TARGET OF A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION, I AM NOT GOING TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT COULD AFFECT YOUR JOB, YOUR MARRIAGE, IT COULD AFFECT YOUR FRIENDS.

AND SO THIS IS A THING THAT IF RELEASED PUBLICLY, HAS A HUGE AND DELETERIOUS EFFECT ON YOUR RIGHT AS A DEFENDANT.

YOU BALANCE THESE AGAINST A COUPLE OTHER INTERESTS INCLUDING OUR RIGHTS, YOU KNOW, OUR INTERESTS, OUR JOBS WHICH IS CHARGED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY.

SO WE HAVE TO BALANCE THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC IN SECURING THEIR SAFETY AGAINST WHATEVER CRIME OR ALLEGATION IT IS.

FINALLY, THERE IS THE INTERESTS THAT YOU PROTECT HERE, WHICH IS THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC TO KNOW, TO KNOW BROADLY WHAT THEIR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS DOING, KNOW THAT WE ARE DOING THE JOB AND NOT ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL AND KNOW THAT IT IS FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY.

AND SO WE HAVE THE FOUR AREAS THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT IN EVERY SINGLE CASE.

THE CLEAREST LINE THAT WE FOUND TO DRAW HERE IS THE ONE OF INDICTMENTS, RIGHT.

WHEN WE HAVE TAKEN IT TO A GRAND JURY OR WE HAVE TAKEN A COMPLAINT TO A JUDGE AND THAT PERSON OR THAT GRAND JURY HAS SAID, WE ARE FINDING BY PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THESE OFFENSES HAPPENED, THAT STOP GAP HAS BEEN CROSSED IN THE SYSTEM AND THEREFORE WE ARE FORMALLY ACCUSING PEOPLE.

WE TAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES IN ADVANCE OF THIS CHARGING DECISION VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.

THERE IS A LOT THAT WE DO IN ADVANCE OF CHARGES BEING BROUGHT AGAINST SOMEONE BECAUSE WE KNOW THE IMPACT IT HAS ON PEOPLES' LIVES.

BUT EVEN THEN YOU'LL SEE, IN OUR PRESS RELEASES AND IN OUR DISCUSSION AND ANSWERING OF QUESTIONS EVEN AFTER CHARGING, WE KEEP VERY CLOSELY TO JUST THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE SAID IN COURT AND ON THE RECORD, BECAUSE WHEN WE SAY THINGS IN COURT AND ON THE RECORD, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE, WE ARE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR THE VERACITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS IN FRONT OF A JUDGE.

THE SAME CAN'T BE SAID TO BE TRUE ABOUT STATEMENTS IN PUBLIC FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND POLITICIANS, FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT IT CAN BE SAID TO BE TRUE WHEN WE ARE OFFERING TESTIMONY IN COURTS.

WE ARE OFFERING EVIDENCE IN COURTS, WHEN A COURT HAS DEEMED IT ADMISSIBLE.

SO FOR THAT REASON, EVEN THEN AFTER WE CHARGED SOMEBODY, WE ARE STILL VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT COMMENTING ON A CASE UNTIL FINALLY WE HAVE CONVICTED, WE HAVE SENTENCED.

AND THAT IS WHEN WE GIVE THE PRESS CONFERENCE AND WE DO INTERVIEWS AND THAT IS WHEN THE PUBLIC GETS TO KNOW A WHOLE LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAN FROM THE INITIAL INDICTMENT OR COMPLAINT.

>> Jeff: I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION.

I THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE NEXT TIME I RECEIVE THAT RESPONSE FROM YOUR OFFICE, I WILL BE A TINY BIT LESS IRRITATED.

DOES THAT POLICY -- DOES THAT PRESENT ANY CHALLENGES FOR YOU AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR?

>> Uballez: SURE, IT DOES.

SO THERE IS -- WE ARE BALANCING THESE THINGS, RIGHT.

SO THE FACT THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT THE PERSON'S RIGHT TO A JURY, WE WANT TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY DOESN'T ERASE THE FACT THAT WE KNOW THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED, FIRST AND FOREMOST, AND THEY NEED TO BE INFORMED ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING, THAT THEY CAN TRUST THAT WE ARE DOING IT, THAT IT WILL COME TO A JUST RESULT AND SO IT IS A CONSTANT BALANCE.

>> Jeff: GOT YOU.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT BY ALBUQUERQUE POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHERS, YOU DECIDED TO GO A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ROUTE.

YOU WROTE LETTERS TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND TO THE POLICE CHIEF IN WHICH YOU DID CONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A LITTLE BEHIND THE SCENES ON WHAT LED YOU TO MAKE THAT DECISION, WHAT SORT OF FACTORS WENT INTO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF DETOURING FROM THE USUAL POLICY?

>> Uballez: ANY POLICY, OUR POLICY ON DISCUSSING CASES HAS EXCEPTIONS.

THIS IS HOW LAWYERS OPERATE WITHIN THE REALM OF EXEMPTIONS AND SO THERE IS A COUPLE THAT APPLY TO US WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH CASES OF THIS AMOUNT OF INTEREST FROM THE PUBLIC OR INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC.

THE U.S. ATTORNEY IN ANY GIVEN DISTRICT OR THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN MAIN JUSTICE HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIND EXCEPTIONS.

SO THEY CAN LOOK AT A CASE OR AN INVESTIGATION AND SAY, THERE ARE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD CONFIRM THAT FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DOING THEIR JOB HERE, OR THERE ARE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD RELEASE INFORMATION THAT HAS TO DO WITH PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY.

SO, IN A CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE PEOPLE SEE A BUNCH OF FOLKS WEARING FBI IN BRIGHT YELLOW ON THE BACK OF THEIR JACKETS GO INTO A HOUSE, BUT THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR WHY OR WHEN OR HOW, THERE IS OFTEN A PUBLIC INTEREST IN KNOWING THIS IS ACTUALLY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THEY ARE ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO THIS AND THIS IS PART OF SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING AND WE CAN TRUST THAT THERE IS A PROCESS HERE AND NOT JUST ROGUE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT JACKETS.

SO, WHEN WE DISCUSS CASES AND THIS ONE WITH THE INVESTIGATION YOU ARE REFERRING TO, WE CONFIRMED EARLY ON FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS AS WE WERE ASKED BY THE PUBLIC BECAUSE WE FELT THAT IT MET THAT REQUIREMENT.

IT MET THAT NEED, WHICH IS PEOPLE ARE SEEING FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY HAPPEN AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING.

SO FOR US THAT SMALL BIT OF CONFIRMATION ALLOWS US TO TELL THE PUBLIC, DON'T WORRY, THIS IS AUTHORIZED.

WE PUT THOUGHT INTO IT AND WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

>> Jeff: SORT OF AN AUTHENTICITY STAND, IF YOU WILL.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT A WORD THAT YOU USED IN THOSE TWO LETTERS I JUST REFERENCED TO THE DA AND THE CHIEF.

YOU NODDED TOWARD THE TENSION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC'S UNDERSTANDABLE DESIRE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND THE SECRECY NEEDS THAT YOU JUST SORT OF DESCRIBED.

LET'S PULL OUT A LITTLE BIT FROM THIS INVESTIGATION AND TALK BROADLY HOW DO YOU BALANCE THOSE TWO PRINCIPLES?

WHAT GOES INTO THAT?

>> Uballez: A LOT GOES INTO IT.

EVERYTHING THAT WE DO IN OUR JOB IS A CAREFUL BALANCE OF THE VARIOUS NEEDS THAT WE PROTECT.

IT IS REALLY UNIQUE BEING ESPECIALLY A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR OR BEING A PROSECUTOR.

AMONG ALL LAWYERS, OUR JOB IS VERY DIFFERENT.

IT IS DISTINCT IN THAT MOST LAWYERS, THEY TAKE A CASE OR CLIENT AND THAT IS AN INTEREST THAT THEY REPRESENT.

THEY ARE BEING HIRED TO EXERCISE THAT PERSON'S INTEREST AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OTHERS.

THAT IS NEVER OURS.

IN EVERYTHING THAT WE DO, WE ARE THINKING ABOUT ALL OF OUR CLIENTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THAT IS THE UNITED STATES.

RIGHT.

FOR US WHAT THAT MEANS WHEN WE WALK INTO A COURTROOM, THE EQUITIES THAT WE PROTECT ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S AS OFTEN THE COURTS LIKE TO REFER TO US.

EQUITIES INCLUDES NOT JUST THE PEOPLE ON THE STREETS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITIES, BUT THE JURORS THEMSELVES, THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, HIS ATTORNEY, THE JUDGE, ALL OF THEIR INTERESTS AS MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY ARE BALANCED TOGETHER.

SO, AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WE DEAL DAILY WITH THE BALANCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT INTERESTS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE VERSUS WHAT IS BEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHAT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE TARGET OR DEFENDANT AS WELL?

RIGHT?

BECAUSE UNTIL A PERSON IS ACCUSED PUBLICLY, THE PERSON IS CONSIDERED INNOCENT.

RIGHT.

SHOULD WALK FREE FROM ANY PUBLIC ASPERSIONS OF WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE.

SO WHEN WE DO OUR JOB, WE TRY VERY, VERY HARD TO MAINTAIN THAT PROTECTION, NOT JUST OF THE PUBLIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS BUT OF THE DEFENDANT'S TOO, AND THEIR INTERESTS IN PRIVACY, THEIR INTEREST IN WALKING FREE, UNTIL A GRAND JURY OR A JUDGE HAS SAID THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO SAY YOU DID THIS THING.

>> Jeff: OF COURSE, THE INNOCENCE PRESUMPTION STILL ATTACHES AT THAT POINT EVEN AFTER INDICTMENT.

>> Uballez: ABSOLUTELY.

>> Jeff: SO, IT HAS BEEN SEVEN WEEKS NOW SINCE WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, SINCE YOU ALL KICKED SOME DOORS IN AND EXECUTED SOME SEARCH WARRANTS.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR YOU SAY WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS?

WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF WHAT YOU CAN SAY?

>> Uballez: WELL, JEFF, I CAN'T CONFIRM OR DENY -- WE OBVIOUSLY CONFIRMED THE INVESTIGATION IS UNDERWAY.

WE HAVE CONFIRMED LOCATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA INQUIRIES WHERE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION OCCURRED.

AND FROM THE LETTERS THAT WE ISSUED TO BOTH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE, WE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION BUT WERE NOT READ INTO ITS FULL EXTENT.

RIGHT.

THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN WE ARE PROTECTING AN ONGOING HIGH LEVEL INVESTIGATION, THERE ARE OFTEN PARTNERS WE WORK WITH BUT WE DON'T SHARE EVERYTHING WITH THEM.

SO, AS YOU IDENTIFIED, WE ARE GOING TO LET THEM KNOW AS MUCH AS WE CAN FOR THEM TO FULFILL THEIR OWN DUTIES.

SO, IN THE LETTER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT EVERY PROSECUTOR HAS A RESPONSIBILITY, A CONSTITUTIONAL ONE, UNDER BRADY AND GIGLEO, TO PROTECT THE PROCESS BY IDENTIFYING CERTAIN WHAT WE CALL GIGOLO CONDUCT.

WHEN WE RUN UP AGAINST THESE OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES, WE SHARE WHAT JUSTICE DEMANDS.

BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT WE KEEP AS MUCH IN HOUSE AS WE CAN, UNTIL WE ARE READY TO LEVEL AN INDICTMENT.

>> Jeff: FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT GIGLEO MATERIAL IS, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT INFORMATION THAT COULD IMPACT A WITNESS' CREDIBILITY IN COURT, RIGHT?

>> Uballez: THAT IS CORRECT.

THERE IS A BROADER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION CALLED BRADY SO EXCULPATORY INFORMATION, A SUBSET OF WHAT BRADY -- THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR BRADY IS OBVIOUSLY IF WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT SAYS THE PERSON WE ARE THINKING DID SOMETHING DID NOT DO IT, THEN WE HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT EVIDENCE.

A SUBSET OF THAT IS GIGLEO, AS YOU IDENTIFIED, WHICH IS IF WE HAVE INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED TO CROSS-EXAMINE, TO IMPUGN THE CREDIBILITY OF ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, WE SHOULD DISCLOSE THAT TOO.

SO, WHEN WE RUN UP INTO THESE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR PROTECTIONS, AGAIN, WE PROTECT THE DEFENDANT TOO.

SO, THAT IS WHERE WE WORK WITH THE DA.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE SORT OF WORKING IN A SIMILAR BUT ALTERNATE TRACK WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE.

THE LETTERS SHOW THAT WHILE THEY WERE AWARE OF INVESTIGATIONS, THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF THE FULL SCALE.

>> Jeff: I WANT TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION SORT OF RELATED TO BALANCING.

THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY IN NEW MEXICO IS RELATIVELY SMALL, RELATIVELY TIGHT KNIT.

OBVIOUSLY YOUR OFFICE AND THE FBI CONDUCTS JOINT OPERATIONS WITH APD, THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ALL THE TIME.

HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ONE OF YOUR INVESTIGATIONS BEING CONTAMINATED OR COMPROMISED BECAUSE OF THESE RELATIONSHIPS THAT CAN DEVELOP?

>> Uballez: YEAH, THERE IS ALWAYS CONCERN.

INFORMATION CAN LEAK.

AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATOR, THERE IS ALWAYS A CONCERN THAT INFORMATION CAN LEAK BEFORE YOU WANT IT TO.

THIS IS WHY FOR STEP 1 WE WORK IN SORT OF INSULATED CIRCLES.

WHEN WE ARE WORKING CASES WE DECONFLICT, IT IS CALLED, WHICH MAKES SURE NO OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT IS WORKING ON A SIMILAR CASE AGAINST A SIMILAR PERSON.

BUT WE ALSO WALL OFF AS IS IDENTIFIED IN THESE LETTERS AND TO THE DA AND THE CHIEF, NONESSENTIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS FROM WHAT WE ARE DOING.

SO, WHILE THERE IS ALWAYS A WORRY THAT THINGS COULD BE LEAKED, WE ALSO OPERATE IN A WORLD WHERE WE HAVE TO TRUST EACH OTHER TO MOVE FORWARD.

RIGHT.

SO, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IS A TIGHT KNIT COMMUNITY HERE.

WE WORK ALL THE TIME AND CONSTANTLY AND ALSO WITH LOCAL PARTNERS TO FACE THE MANY CHALLENGES WE HAVE HERE IN NEW MEXICO.

AND SO IT IS A TIGHT ROPE TO WALK BUT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE GOT TO TAKE SOME RISKS IF YOU WANT TO GET THE RIGHT CASES AND THE RIGHT PEOPLE.

SO, WE BALANCE THOSE RISKS.

WE MANAGE AND MITIGATE POSSIBILITY OF DISCLOSURE BEFORE WE WANT A THING TO BE DISCLOSED.

AND WE TRUST.

WE RELY ON EACH OTHER DAY IN AND DATE OUR.

OUR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS, YOU KNOW, PUT THEIR LIVES IN EACH OTHER'S HANDS AND SO IT IS WITH THIS TRUST THAT WE GO FORWARD ON THESE KIND OF INVESTIGATIONS.

>> Jeff: THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A NEEDLE TO THREAD IN A CASE LIKE THIS.

OBVIOUSLY THE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL INQUIRY HERE IS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WHOSE STAKES, OF COURSE, ARE SOMEONE'S FREEDOM AT THE END OF THE DAY.

ON A PARALLEL TRACK YOU HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ITSELF IS CONDUCTING, THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH COULD BE SOMEONE'S JOB.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A POLICE OFFICER IS INTERVIEWED IN AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION HE IS READ WHAT IS CALLED A GARRITY WARNING WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY HIM SAYING, I AM GIVING UP MY FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HERE.

I AM GOING TO TALK TO YOU AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE ANY OF THAT IN YOUR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE, BROADLY SPEAKING AGAIN, NOT JUST IN THIS INVESTIGATION, HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THOSE TWO THINGS STAY SEPARATE?

>> Uballez: SO, WE HAVE A LOT OF -- WE INVEST A LOT INTO PROTECTING OUR INVESTIGATIONS BOTH FROM BEING LEAKED OR PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, BUT ALSO LEGALLY, RIGHT?

SO LIKE IT IS OUR JOB TO PRESENT THE CASE AND WIN IT.

SO, IF WE PRESENT A CASE BUT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH IT, WE HAVE NOT DONE OUR JOB, WHICH MEANS THERE ARE MANY STOP GAPS THAT WE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ADVANCING A LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE CASE.

IN SOME CASES THAT WILL MEAN WE HAVE FILTER TEAMS WHO ARE ENTIRELY A SEPARATE TEAM OF BOTH AGENTS AND AOSA'S.

A FILTER TEAM WORKS IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THE PROSECUTING TEAM SHOULDN'T HAVE.

RIGHT, SO, WE WILL OFTEN USE FILTER TEAMS TO TAKE A FIRST READ OF WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

AND THE FILTER TEAM CAN PASS ON NON-TAINTED EVIDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION TEAM TO GO FORWARD WITH.

SO IT IS ESSENTIALLY DOUBLING THE RESOURCES WE INVEST IN ANY CASE BUT WE DO IT, AGAIN, TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THAT CASE AND ITS PRESENTATION TO THE JURY.

>> Jeff: I WANT TO COMPLETELY SHIFT GEARS AND TALKS ABOUT THE CONSENT DEGREE FOR JUST A MOMENT.

THE MESSAGE FROM YOUR OFFICE AND FROM THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE HAS BEEN THAT WE ARE THIS CLOSE TO ENDING A DECADE OF FEDERAL OVERSIGHT FOR THE ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT OF SPECULATION IN THE VACUUM OF SILENCE SINCE NEWS OF THIS INVESTIGATION BROKE ABOUT WHETHER THIS COULD IMPACT THE CONSENT DECREE.

OF COURSE, ONE OF THE THINGS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOUND WHEN THEY LOOKED INTO APD WAS A TOTAL LACK OF INTERNAL CONTROLS.

THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION WAS NOT FUNCTIONING.

IT COULDN'T POLICE THEMSELVES.

WE ARE NOW READING STORIES IN THE NEWSPAPER THAT YOU HAVE GOT A COUPLE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS SUPERVISORS ON LEAVE NOW IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION.

MY FIRST QUESTION IS THIS.

WHEN I READ THAT EIGHTH SECTION OF THE CONSENT DECREE THAT TALKS ABOUT COMPLAINT INTAKE, COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS NOT DIRECTLY JUST CONNECTED TO USE OF FORCE.

DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT?

>> Uballez: I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL CHARGING INVESTIGATION OR CONSENT AGREEMENT BUT MY READ OF IT IS THAT IT WENT FAR BEYOND, IN A GOOD AND ASPIRATIONAL WAY, THE ACTUAL INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS DURING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

IN DOING SO, THE ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ALBUQUERQUE CITY CRAFTED THIS REALLY TRULY ASPIRATIONAL CONSENT AGREEMENTS THEY HOPED THEIR DEPARTMENT WOULD LIVE UP TO AND INVOLVED MANY THINGS THAT WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION OR FINDINGS.

I DO THINK, I WILL SAY, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN COURT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PARTIES ARE GOING TO MOVE FOR.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COURT IS GOING TO FIND.

BUT I DO THINK THAT FOR ANY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ESPECIALLY OURS, A FUNCTIONING INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT IS CRITICAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT DEPARTMENT.

AND SO, I WOULD GUESS THAT A FUNCTIONING INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT IS WHAT THE CITY WILL RECEIVE AFTER THIS INVESTIGATION PLAYS OUT.

>> Jeff: IS YOUR OFFICE REVIEWING -- GOSH, HOW TO ASK THIS.

IS YOUR OFFICE REVIEWING ANYTHING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION THAT COULD IMPACT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONSENT DECREE?

>> Uballez: I DON'T THINK I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

>> Jeff: OKAY.

YEAH, OKAY.

MOVING AWAY FROM THE IMPACT THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE ON THE CONSENT DECREE, IN HIGH PROFILE INVESTIGATIONS LIKE THIS ONE, WHO MAKES THE ULTIMATE DECISION ON WHETHER TO CHARGE?

>> Uballez: IT DEPENDS.

MOST DECISIONS, MOST CRIMINAL CHARGING DECISIONS, IN FACT ALL CRIMINAL CHARGING DECISIONS, ARE APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR A GIVEN DISTRICT.

EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL INDICTMENT, AND WE ISSUE MANY EVERY WEEK, EVERY MONTH, WE HOLD A SCREENING COMMITTEE WHERE ALL OF MY MANAGEMENT AND MYSELF READ EVERY SINGLE INDICTMENT, EVERY SINGLE PROSECUTION MEMORANDUM WHICH DETAILS THE CASE, ITS ELEMENTS, THE FACTS AND WITNESSES, ITS WEAKNESSES AND CONSTITUTIONALITY.

AND IN DOING THAT, WE APPROVE OR WE DON'T EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL INDICTMENT THAT COMES IN THIS DISTRICT.

FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CASES, THE FINAL AUTHORITY LIES WITH ME.

THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS.

EXCEPTIONS ARE WHAT WE DO AS LAWYERS.

THROUGHOUT THE JUSTICE MANUAL, WHICH IS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS CREATED, HAS BEEN CREATED OVER THE YEARS FOR PROCEDURES FOR FEDERAL PROSECUTORS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROSECUTORS TO FOLLOW, IT OUTLINES -- THERE ARE SEVERAL CARVE OUTS THERE FOR WHERE RESPONSIBILITIES COULD LIE.

IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE, THAT MAY HAVE MORE NATIONAL INTEREST, AREAS THAT MAY BE A SPECIFICALLY TRICKY STATUTE, THERE ARE OTHER AUTHORITIES THAT GO TO MAIN JUSTICE IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION UP THERE, FOR THEM TO HAVE A SAY OR THE FINAL SAY.

THIS HAPPENS BOTH IN THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL SIDE.

SOMETIMES I'LL HAVE AUTHORITY AND SOMETIMES THE AUTHORITY GETS BOOSTED UP THERE AND, OF COURSE, THE FINAL AUTHORITY IS ALWAYS THE BOSS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

BUT THERE ARE SOME CASES -- I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN WE USE RICO OR VICAR TYPE CRIMINAL CHARGES THERE ARE CASES THERE WHERE WE HAVE TO GO TO MAIN JUSTICE, CRIMINAL DIVISION, CONSULT WITH THEM AND GET APPROVAL ON USING CHARGES HERE IN THE STATE.

SO, THE ANSWER IS SOMETIMES IT IS HERE, MOST OF THE TIME IT IS HERE.

SOMETIMES THERE IS AUTHORITIES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. >> Jeff: GOT YOU.

I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE DECADES THAT I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS AND I HAVE SEEN EXAMPLES OF CASES WHERE I WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT AN INVESTIGATION DID EXIST.

IT DID NOT END IN INDICTMENT.

THERE WERE NO HANDCUFFS.

THERE WERE NO PERP WALKS, BUT NOTHING WAS EVER SAID AGAIN ABOUT THE CONCLUSION OF A COUPLE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.

I AM THINKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ALLEGATIONS THAT OFFICERS WERE TAMPERING WITH BODY CAMERA VIDEO IN SHOOTINGS.

I KNOW THERE WERE INVESTIGATIONS BUT THERE WAS NEVER ANY SORT OF ANNOUNCEMENT AT THE END THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAS CONCLUDED.

YOU AND I SPOKE SOME BEFORE WE SAT DOWN TODAY ABOUT AN OP ED THAT PREET BHARARA, THE FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WROTE, SORT OF PUSHING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TRANSPARENCY ON THE BACK END OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT DON'T END IN INDICTMENT OR CHARGES.

I AM CURIOUS HOW THAT OP ED STRUCK YOU AND WHETHER THERE IS A CONVERSATION AMONG U.S.

ATTORNEYS IN THIS COUNTRY TO MAYBE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSURE AT THE END OF THESE.

>> Uballez: SO, THERE IS INITIALLY A DISTINCTION I WANT TO DRAW AT THE TOP WHICH IS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, I THINK, BETWEEN -- IT GETS A LITTLE CONFLATED IN THIS DISCUSSION -- NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC, RIGHT, AND NOTICE TO A POTENTIAL TARGET, RIGHT.

SO, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN PREET, IN HIS OP ED, TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ANXIETY THAT A POTENTIAL TARGET MIGHT BE FEELING, BUT I THINK THAT IT IS A SEPARATE EQUITY THAN THAT OF THE PUBLIC OF KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING OR NOT HAPPENING, RIGHT.

SO, I THINK, IN THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR PRACTICE HERE, I DON'T HAVE AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE RUN SOME NUMBERS, BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE THIS PLAYS OUT IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MIND WAS THIS, WE HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY HERE WHEN WE SERVE INDIAN COUNTRY, RIGHT.

WE HAVE 22 TRIBES AND PUEBLOS HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO.

WE HAVE A SPECIAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THEM.

AS A COMPONENT OF THAT WE, ISSUE DECLINATION LETTERS, WHICH IS A LETTER THAT STATES, WE HAVE REVIEWED THE CASE AND WE ARE NOT CHARGING.

THIS GOES TO FINALITY TO THE TRIBE WHEN WE ISSUE NOTICES ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH A CASE OR NOT HAPPENED.

SO IT SERVES SOME OF THOSE EQUITIES IN A REALLY DIRECT WAY AND UNIQUE WAY FOR THOSE WHO SERVE TRIBAL TERRITORIES.

BUT YOU LOOK AT THE JUSTICE MANUAL WHICH I REFERRED TO EARLIER, THERE IS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE THAT DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE TALK ABOUT A DECISION NOT TO GO FORWARD AGAINST THE TARGETS WITH THE TARGETS THEMSELVES.

I THINK, AGAIN, THIS WILL HIGHLIGHT THE EQUITY AS I DISCUSSED AT THE BEGINNING.

SO IN SOME CRIMINAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATIONS, WE ARE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED TO GIVE THE PUBLIC NOTICE ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

THE EQUITY WITH IT THERE IS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF POLICE OFFICERS, THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND THE REASON THEY ARE TO STEP BACK IS THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC IN THEIR INSTITUTIONS THAT THE PEOPLE POLICING THE STREETS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP THEM SAFE ARE DOING THEIR JOB AND DOING IT CONSTITUTIONALLY.

AND SO THE JUSTICE MANUAL AND GENERATIONS OF U.S.

ATTORNEYS HAVE IDENTIFIED THE NEED IN THOSE CASES SPECIFICALLY FOR US TO INTERFACE WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT.

THERE IS ANOTHER SECTION THAT GIVES US AUTHORIZATION TO DO SO.

I THINK PREET MAY HAVE REFERRED TO IT OBLIQUELY IN HIS PIECE AND IT SAYS THAT WE HAVE THE DISCRETION, WE, THE U.S.

ATTORNEYS, HAVE THE DISCRETION TO LET A TARGET KNOW THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER A TARGET AND IT GIVES A COUPLE OF STEPS OF ANALYSIS.

THE FIRST ONE OBVIOUSLY IS A CASE WHERE THE PERSON BEING INVESTIGATED KNOWS THEY ARE BEING INVESTIGATED.

RIGHT.

YOU DON'T WANT TO GO OUT AND KNOCK ON SOMEBODY'S DOOR, HEY, WE INVESTIGATED YOU FOR TWO YEARS BUT YOU'RE GOOD.

THE PERSON HAS TO KNOW THEY ARE BEING INVESTIGATED AND SECOND WE HAVE TO KNOW THAT WE ARE DISCONTINUING THE INVESTIGATION OF THEM WITHOUT AN INDICTMENT OR CHARGE OR THAT THEY ARE BEING EXONERATED.

THAT WE HAVE DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT SAYS THEY ARE NOT GUILTY OR THEY ARE INNOCENT OF THE CRIME.

SO, LOOKING AT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I'LL THROW IN ONE FINAL CAVEAT BEFORE I TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT.

FINAL CAVEAT IS THIS.

AS FEDERAL PROSECUTORS WE ARE DISTINCT FROM STATE PROSECUTORS.

WE ARE DISTINCT FROM THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM.

A STATE PROSECUTOR OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THEY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHARGE THE CRIMES IN THEIR JURISDICTION.

THERE IS NOBODY ELSE CHARGING THE CRIMES, RIGHT?

EVERY CRIME THAT WE CHARGE AS FEDERAL PROSECUTORS AS OUTLINED BY THE JUSTICE MANUAL IS A POLICY DECISION, RIGHT?

EVERY TIME WE BRING AN INDICTMENT, A CRIMINAL CHARGE, WE, OF COURSE, BEGIN SAYING DID A CRIME OCCUR, WAS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?

CAN WE PROVE THIS TO A JURY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

THOSE ARE BASELINES.

BUT AFTER THAT, THE ANALYSIS WE DO IN EVERY SINGLE CASE IS AS A POLICY MATTER.

IS THIS BEST CHARGED FEDERALLY?

WHICH MEANS ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO CRIMINAL CHARGES?

ARE THERE OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHO COULD HANDLE THIS?

IS THERE A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL INTEREST IN DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING.

SO, NOT BRINGING A FEDERAL INDICTMENT ISN'T NECESSARILY A CLEARING OF A PERSON'S NAME.

AND I THINK FINALLY AND MOST INTERESTINGLY FOR ME IS, YOU KNOW, PREET PUTS IN AND ACKNOWLEDGES AN EXCEPTION BUT I FEEL LIKE ALMOST BEATS THE RULE HERE, WHICH IS, WE CAN ALWAYS SAY IN A LETTER, EXONERATING SOMEONE, SAYING WE ARE NOT GOING FORWARD ON THIS INVESTIGATION THAT YOU KNOW IS HAPPENING OF YOU, BUT WE COULD ALWAYS GO FORWARD LATER.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHILE I UNDERSTAND IT, RIGHT, AND WHILE IT IS PERSUASIVE TO ME THAT PEOPLE WANT FINALITY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS LETTER AS PROPOSED SAYING WE ARE NOT DOING IT NOW BUT WE COULD DO IT ANY OTHER TIME UP AND TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WHICH IS GOING TO RUN IN ANY CASE, RIGHT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

>> Jeff: INTERESTING.

MY LAST QUESTION IS THIS.

SHOULD FOLKS HERE EXPECT SOME PUBLIC CLOSURE IN THIS CASE REGARDLESS OF ITS OUTCOME?

>> Uballez: FOLKS SHOULD EXPECT PUBLIC CLOSURE.

>> Jeff: ALEX, THANKS SO MUCH FOR COMING DOWN TODAY.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CHAT.

>> Uballez: THANK YOU.