At 11:00 that morning, a resident of an apartment complex in Santa Fe noticed a woman sitting inside a car who appeared frightened. Seconds later, she asked him for help. The man immediately called 911. 8 minutes later, police located a white Chevrolet Malibu and attempted to pull it over.
The driver hit the gas. The car sped through city streets, running red lights and weaving away from patrol vehicles. Then something happened that no one expected. The Malibu entered Interstate 25 and began driving against traffic, straight toward hundreds of oncoming vehicles. Drivers had only seconds to understand what was happening.
Dispatchers started receiving dozens of emergency calls. Officers continued the pursuit, believing there was a kidnapping victim inside whose life depended on every passing second. Then disaster struck. A head-on collision, twisted metal, debris scattered across the roadway. Two people were killed. When it was all over, the woman whom law enforcement believed to be the victim climbed out of the vehicle alive.
She told investigators a story about a kidnapper named Mark Lopez. A massive search for an armed man began. The interstate was shut down. Residents were urged to stay inside their homes. But before long, investigators uncovered a detail that made them question absolutely everything they had just been told. Hey guys, let me grab you for just a second.
I’m really curious where my audience is watching from. So, I’d love for you to drop a comment and tell me what city you’re in and what time it is for you right now. Thanks for taking a moment. Go ahead and share that in the comments. And now, let’s keep going. In the spring of 2022, a report of an active kidnapping set off a dangerous high-speed police chase that ended in a deadly crash on Interstate 25 near Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Two people were killed in the head-on collision. After the woman believed to have been kidnapped was safely taken into police protection, she shared her story and it was truly unbelievable. At around 11:00 that morning on March 2nd, 2022, Santa Fe resident Richard Muer was leaving his apartment at the Visaya Apartments near St.
Francis Drive to run some errands. In the parking lot, he noticed a woman who appeared to be under extreme stress. She was sitting inside a white Chevrolet Malibu that was parked perpendicular to his vehicle, blocking him from pulling out. Richard saw the woman arguing with a man inside the car. Moments later, she called out to him for help.
Richard immediately dialed 911 while the white Malibu pulled away from the building and drove off. Lady out my parking lot here at the Visaya Apartments. She asked me to call the police. Somebody’s in her car. Won’t get out. She says he has a knife held on her. She’s now leaving. She’s in a white Malibu.
8 minutes later, Officer Romero of the Santa Fe Police Department spotted the vehicle, and activated his emergency lights and siren in an attempt to pull it over. Instead of stopping, the driver accelerated, began weaving through traffic, ran several red lights, and made a series of U-turns. Female in a white Malibu. We’re currently traveling on the opposite lanes of uh St. Mike.
Swerving in and out of traffic. Ran, red light, will take us trail. A few minutes later, as additional patrol units joined the pursuit, the white Malibu entered the northbound lanes of Interstate 25 and began traveling southbound directly into oncoming traffic. Now he’s headed on to I25. Wrong direction. Speeds are at 87.
Light traffic speeds still at 90. The vehicle was literally forcing its way through oncoming traffic. As it continued down the interstate, emergency dispatchers began receiving a flood of calls from drivers reporting the terrifying situation unfolding before them. Roberts before a white car almost hit me.
And then 5 minutes later, he’s on the opposite side. Officer Robert Duran was driving directly behind Officer Norris, pursuing the vehicle at high speed against the flow of traffic. Meanwhile, Officer Romero was traveling parallel to them in the southbound lanes. The officers were hoping for an opportunity to bring the vehicle to a stop.
Um, they believed that if the driver made another Uturn on the interstate, they might be able to block the roadway and force the car to stop. As the white Malibu raced at high speed toward oncoming vehicles, the flashing lights and sirens of the patrol cars driven by Duran and Norris, which were following closely behind, served as the only warning for motorists traveling in the northbound lanes.
Many drivers heard the sirens and managed to pull onto the shoulder in time, but not everyone did. With only seconds to react, the driver of a black GMC pickup truck attempted to avoid a collision with the Malibu, but instead crashed head-on into Officer Duran’s patrol vehicle, which was traveling behind it. Following that horrific crash, another Santa Fe police officer, who had been following at a safer distance, collided with a different oncoming vehicle that had been forced off its path by the Malibu. The entire sequence of events
was captured on a truck’s dash cam. I coming from El Dorado head on. There are three car, maybe four cars involved. Well, I know they’re dead. It was later determined that the Malibu had also sideswiped two other vehicles. The second collision was so severe that the damaged vehicle was forced off the interstate.
In the aftermath of the crash, officers began assessing the extent of the destruction and providing aid to those who had been injured. Are you okay? I mean, uh I know you were involved in the crash, but is there any sort of like entrapment or anything like that? Yeah, 286 is entrapped in his vehicle right now. 286 is entrapped? Yes.
Okay. Are you out of your vehicle? I just got out of my vehicle now. From the southbound lanes, Officer Romero saw the woman believed to be the kidnapping victim climb out of the vehicle and run from the crash scene. GET OUT OF THE CAR. GET OUT OF THE CAR RIGHT NOW. LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS. WALK TO ME.
WHERE IS HE? WHERE is he? WALK BACK TO ME. WALK BACK TO ME NOW. I GOT THE FEMALE COMING BACK TO me right now. There’s probably one out standing in the car. Come back to me. Let me see your hands. Come back. Where is he? He went that way. Where is he? Is he in the car? No, he went that way. Come here. Get down.
Get down. Let me check you. Get in the car. Okay. Get in the car. Get in the car. Let me see. I need to check you. Let me take you for weapons. Okay. Where’s he at? Who is it? His name is Mark. Get the [ __ ] away from that. Does he have any weapons? Yes, he does. Where does he have? He has a gun. Where’s he at? He ran.
[laughter] Yes, he did. Okay, stand by. So, I have the victim right now in the back of my car. She’s saying it’s her boyfriend. Unknown the name yet. He’s got 1080 with a gun. Went into these bushes right here. Okay, let’s get some clarification on exactly where we’re at and we need to establish a perimeter on that.
What is his name? [laughter] His name is Mark. Mark, what? [laughter] What? He ran off or what? Yes, he did. Are you sure he’s not in the vehicle? I’m sure. I’m sure. Sir, you’re positive. I’m positive, sir. He hit me. He hit me and he and Okay, [laughter and gasps] we need to clear this vehicle as well.
I don’t know if there’s anybody else in here. probably like maybe Did he stab you at all? Did he hurt you at all? I don’t know. Okay. What kind of gun does he have? He had A KNIFE TO BEAT. He has a gun or no? A gun and a knife. Okay. What’s his last name? Lopez. Lopez.
What’s his date of birth? I’m not too sure cuz I haven’t been to him in very long. Okay, hold on. Let me see. He went this way or what? [laughter] I don’t know. He hit me. Okay. What I want you guys to do is start diverting 252 northbound traffic off of the highway. When did he get out of the car? Were you driving? Oh, no.
I know. It’s It’s Take a breath. We’re trying to help you get information. I was not driving. He was driving. He was going to kill me and light me on fire. There’s gas in the Mark Lopez. [sighs and gasps] Yes. Tell him, “Be careful. There’s gas in there.” Okay, so the victim is saying that the suspect is a Mark Lopez.
No date of birth. Um, apparently there’s gas and fire in the car. I didn’t see anybody exit besides her, so he he may still be in the vehicle. Okay, stay stay in the car. Okay, keep your head down. He has a gun. The woman who emerged from the vehicle was identified as 46-year-old Janine Hero.
She was immediately transported to a hospital for treatment of the injuries she said she had suffered during the kidnapping and the high-speed pursuit that followed. When emergency responders arrived at the scene, they discovered that 43-year-old officer Robert Duran, a father of two, had been killed in the crash. The driver of the GMC pickup truck, 62-year-old retired firefighter Frank Lovado of Las Vegas, also died from his injuries.
Frank was a husband, a father, and a grandfather. He began his career as a volunteer firefighter and worked his way up through the ranks to become an engineer with the Las Vegas Fire Department before retiring. Those who knew him described him as a caring and selfless friend, a devoted family man, and an active member of his church community.
Robert Duran was the father of two young boys and was deeply committed to both his family and the community he served. He also had a passion for the outdoors. At 43 years old, Robert was an avid hunter who enjoyed motocross riding and camping. His death was a devastating loss for the Santa Fe Police Department and the entire community.
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, additional resources were brought in. Law enforcement officers shut down Interstate 25 in both directions and launched an extensive search of the surrounding brush, hoping to locate the elusive Mark Lopez. Police sent alerts to local residents advising them to remain inside their homes and keep their doors locked.
Authorities also warned that an armed man was believed to be on foot somewhere in the area. One local school was placed on lockdown and community events were cancelled. One of the biggest challenges facing investigators during the first several hours was that they had very little information about the alleged kidnapper. In the aftermath of the incident, Janine was in shock and could provide only fragmented details about the man she claimed was responsible.
A male was armed with a knife and was taking a vehicle occupied by a woman. We’re still working on his involvement and the totality of the investigation. We do plan to release his information once we are once we get everything locked on his and his identity. She was transported to a local hospital.
Um, and she’s still being u investigated and interviewed by law enforcement. Later, Janine was taken to the police station for a more detailed interview with detectives. She told agent Wyatt Harwell of the New Mexico State Police everything she knew about her alleged kidnapper, a man named Mark Lopez. Janine said she knew that Mark had two sons.
Um, she also recalled that he had been wearing a red shirt, a black jacket, and black pants that day. Beyond that, she did not know his date of birth and was unable to provide a detailed description of his appearance. For investigators trying to locate a suspect, it was very little information to work with. How long have you and Martin? Oh my god.
[gasps and sighs] I know there’s like two to maybe four months. That was all at all. That’s why I don’t even know what’s going on. Like I mean I this person I didn’t cry on you and then turned into an evil evil person and he was not like that. Where is he from? He said he was from Santa Bay.
He told me he told me he wanted to take me out here to stay with him for a little while. Um, I’m curious to know if you know Mark’s last name. Oh, Lopez. Lopez. Yeah. During the last two to four months, has Mark celebrated a birthday that you know about? trying to remember if he said he’s he’s younger than me because he doesn’t look older than me at all, but I think he likes to me about his age.
Janine then described how the incident had begun earlier that morning. Um, according to her account, everything started outside the home of one of Mark’s friends. She said the two of them got into an argument and during the confrontation he struck her. Janine explained that she was hit in the head and believed she may have lost consciousness for a period of time.
Only scattered fragments of what happened afterward remained in her memory. Most of the details were unclear and difficult for her to recall. You woke me up like in this so terrible terrible terrible way forming some gas on me. It melted and then I felt like the cold one in my clothes and everything. He told me he was going to burn me. Great.
She said he was going to set me on fire and I was going to die. But he was going to kill me. Great. He didn’t. And I’m glad for that. Yeah. I don’t know what happened. And I just I don’t understand all the I can’t understand everything. Like it’s hard. This hurt. Janine went on to describe the injuries she had suffered including a cut on her upper lip as well as injuries to her head, chest, and neck.
You want to go home still and he says, “You’re not leaving.” He begins striking you in your chest. Is that right? Yeah. And that was his with the hand with a a weapon. He punched me. He he was punching me with a his fist. He was so close like this. Yeah. Okay. And and I was trying to put my head down to just so he could stop hitting me.
And I seen him had his the knife in his hand and everything, but it was like closed. But I seen it. So when you say closed, was it a folding knife? Yeah. And then the blade was closed. Yeah. But you were still holding it against your neck and your chest. Yeah. And he was telling me that I’m not going to leave and he was going to kill me.
He said, “I’m not You’re not leaving. You’re I’m going to kill you.” And how did that make you feel when he said that? I was so scared. I was no. And I started crying and screaming. I was starting to screaming and he was punching me so hard in my head and I couldn’t even I didn’t know what was going on anymore.
Where at on your head? I had a on the side there. Yeah. Everything was very blurry because I think that the doctor said that I must have got gas in my eye because they had to flush my eyes out. Gasoline. Yeah. Do you remember going the wrong way on the highway? No. Do you remember getting out of the car? I remember a little bit.
Um cuz like after that I couldn’t I just could not see and I was so scared to even open my eyes. I was scared. As time went on, inconsistencies began to emerge in Janine’s account. She attributed the confusion to her head injury. According to her, she had lost consciousness and by the time she came to, the deadly pursuit had already unfolded and her attacker had fled from the vehicle into a nearby wooded area.
However, the officers involved in the chase stated that they never lost sight of the Chevrolet Malibu at any point. More importantly, those same officers saw Janine climb out of the vehicle. No one else exited the car. It also appeared that she got out from the driver’s side, even though she insisted that she had not been behind the wheel.
Janine told agent Harwell that she had no idea how her former boyfriend had managed to leave the vehicle. Everything had happened so fast and she had been so frightened that she could not make sense of what was taking place. After the incident, when Janine was placed inside a police vehicle, the keys to the Malibu were found in her pocket.
Notably, officers did not observe any obvious signs of the injuries that Janine claimed to have suffered. Cannot be explained is you getting hit in the head so hard by a man that he knocks you out and there’s not a proof. There’s not a How do they know? How do you know there’s no bird that’s on my head? Police obtained a search warrant for the Chevrolet Malibu.
During their examination, investigators found that the passenger seat, where Janine claimed she had been during the pursuit, was so cluttered with belongings that it seemed unlikely she could have been sitting there or even lying on the floor in front of it. In addition, only the driver’s side airbag deployed during the crash.
And of course, Janine was the only person anyone saw exiting the vehicle after the collision. No one other than Janine ever saw Mark Lopez. If any doubt remained that Janine Herro had been the driver and the sole occupant of the car, data recovered from the vehicle’s onboard computer provided further evidence. The weight sensors in the passenger seat did not detect the presence of anyone sitting there.
Despite this, in the days that followed, Janine continued sharing her version of events with local reporters. She thanked law enforcement officers for what she believed was the saving of her life, even though one officer had lost his own life while trying to protect her from the man she claimed had attacked and kidnapped her.
Come home and he did not want to bring me and it started a big old argument and um I had uh talked to one I was yelling uh for help to this one man that lived in those apartments and he did help me. He called the police. Did he have that knife to you or could you see that knife? Yes. and he also had a gun.
I fell to the ground and I seen the police. I looked up and there was the police and I just ran for my life and I was screaming, “Help me.” Like, you know, um, I’m crying. I’m hysterical and I’m in shock. Janine’s DNA was found on the steering wheel of the vehicle. Fibers recovered from the driver’s seat matched the sweater she was wearing that day.
Investigators also noted that the sweater showed no traces of gasoline despite Janine’s claim that she had been doused with the liquid during the alleged kidnapping. As the evidence continued to raise questions about her account, Janine was brought back in for a second interview with investigators. Now listen, I saw Mark, me, myself, everything’s blurry, okay? I see him breaking into this vehicle and it’s was like a truck.
I mean, I could barely see it. So, you saw that vehicle? I saw a little bit of it. Like, I mean, I could barely see. I had gasoline in my eyes. How did you see the vehicle? Like, what were you doing? Where were you at when you saw this vehicle? I’m moving around all over the car because he’s all driving crazy. I mean, I’m all over.
Come on. Call Prayer. You said you were on the floorboard. How did you see this vehicle? Because I want to know what’s going on. I want to get out of there. I’m moving around. I’m trying to see figure out what to do. I don’t I’m going crazy. All right. I’m scared for my life. I want to get the moving around. You saw his vehicle.
No, I’m really just moving cuz I want to. I mean, I’m moving because he’s all over the road and I’m getting pushed around, thrown around in the car. She continued to stand by her version of events, even when she was left alone in the interview room. Investigators intentionally left a bodywn camera recording in place to document Janine’s behavior while she was by herself.
I want to see him again. God, help him understand. Mark did so much wrong to me. It appeared that the Chevrolet Malibu had been stolen in Las Vegas 2 days before the crash. And this was far from the first vehicle theft connected to Janine’s history. Her criminal record was extensive, particularly when it came to stolen vehicles and high-speed police pursuits.
The previous October, Janine had stolen a work truck and once again led officers on a police chase. Later, she claimed that it was actually her boyfriend who had stolen the vehicle and that she had merely been an unwilling participant in the situation. There had also been an incident in September of 2021 when she became involved in another police pursuit in neighboring Sibola County.
Video footage captured part of that event showing a stolen vehicle crashing into a fence before returning to the roadway. In that case as well, Janine told sheriff’s deputies that she had been held against her will. Okay. My boyfriend kept me here. Where’s here? Uh Grant. Uhhuh. dress and uh for like two days he didn’t let me go.
I don’t know what the hell. He didn’t give me no water. He didn’t give me nothing. That’s why when I came to this man’s house here, I asked him for a water. I was I was so deh I’m so dehydrated, sir. He just like kidnapped me and didn’t let me do anything. While reviewing that earlier incident, investigators noticed that the description of the alleged kidnapper Janine had provided at the time was strikingly similar.
Okay. What’s he wearing? He’s wearing the red shirt also with black jeans. They’re like the they hang off. He you know um where they show their where it shows his ass. Yeah. Where was he sitting in the car? He was down on the ground more on the ground. What seat? Kind of like down on the middle part.
Uh on the He was on the passenger side. He was on the passenger side down. So how could he be holding a knife to your neck keeping you from stopping if he’s down on the floorboard of the vehicle? He has the knife in his hand, sir. But they didn’t. But how is he holding? And then he got And then he got up and he put it to my neck and he told me to Where at on your neck? Over here.
He told me that he is going to kill me if I try to stop again because I was I was trying to stop. Sir, I was trying to stop and then he he punched me right here and he was choking me. He was choking me most of the time. He was choking me. It hurts me. I can’t even He was choking you while you [snorts] were driving from us. No, he was bunched in my stomach.
He punched me a lot of times in my stomach and he told me not to stop cuz I was pushing the brake. I was trying to stop. In that case, investigators ultimately concluded that no one other than Janine had been inside the vehicle. After reviewing the available evidence and analyzing the materials collected during the investigation, they found no indication that any other person had been present in the car.
Despite the initial reports and the confusion created by conflicting statements, the investigation gradually revealed a much clearer picture of what had happened. In the end, law enforcement determined that Janine was the sole occupant of the vehicle. State police also tracked down a man named Mark Lopez, whose photograph and personal information had begun circulating across social media after the alert was issued and officially cleared him as a suspect.
Once his name became associated with the investigation and information about him spread rapidly online, investigators conducted a thorough review, they verified his whereabouts, examined the available evidence, and confirmed that he had no connection to the events under investigation. After that, any suspicion of his involvement was formally dismissed.
Mark Thomas Lopez had absolutely nothing to do with the incident. Investigators found no evidence and no circumstances linking him to the crash or to the events leading up to it. It became clear to law enforcement that his name had been drawn into the case without any factual basis. He had never met Janine Hero and became a suspect only because she provided his name to police.
That alone was the reason he was initially considered a possible person of interest. However, the investigation quickly established that no connection existed between him and Janine. He did not know her and had no involvement in the events at the center of the case. Even so, because of the initial information provided, his name remained in the spotlight of both investigators and the public for a period of time.
3 days after the horrific crash that claimed the lives of two public servants, husbands and fathers, the Santa Fe Police Department announced criminal charges against Janine Hero. The investigation moved quickly and within just a few days of the tragedy, authorities revealed their decision. During that time, investigators gathered a substantial amount of evidence, interviewed witnesses, and carefully examined the circumstances surrounding the incident.
The deaths of two public servants, both of whom were also family men, made the case especially significant and deeply painful for the local community. Janine was charged with two counts of firstdegree murder. These charges represented the most serious part of the case. Prosecutors concluded that the circumstances surrounding the deaths justified pursuing the highest level of criminal homicide charges.
From that point forward, the investigation entered a new phase, and Janine Hero faced the possibility of an extremely severe sentence if she were ultimately convicted. New Mexico State Police have now concluded through our detailed investigation that there was never a kidnapping or a male suspect involved. We believe led officers on a chase, driving the suspect car, and causing the fatal crash that killed officer Duran and Mr.
Lovato Pomino’s actions put the entire public in danger and took the lives of two dedicated public servants. She caused a senseless tragedy that has impacted the community of Santa Fe, Las Vegas, and all of New Mexico. And the pain her actions have caused will not be alleviated by the rest. By this arrest alone, there will be lasting consequences.
In 2024, after a proposed plea agreement fell through, Janine Hero went to trial. As a result, the case moved into a full courtroom proceeding where jurors were tasked with hearing testimony, reviewing evidence, and reaching their own conclusions about the events that led to the tragic outcome.
Once the opportunity to resolve the case through an agreement between the parties was no longer available, Janine’s fate would be decided in court. In addition to the murder charges, she was also charged with aggravated fleeing from law enforcement, causing great bodily harm with a motor vehicle, vehicle theft, filing a false report, and reckless driving.
The list of charges covered virtually every major event the prosecutors alleged was part of the chain of circumstances that unfolded that day. The prosecution argued that each of those offenses played a role in creating the situation that ultimately ended in a deadly crash. For that reason, the case focused not only on the tragic outcome itself, but also on the series of actions that prosecutors believed led directly to the disaster.
The state pursued the two first-degree murder charges under two separate legal theories, neither of which required proof of premeditation. This became one of the most significant aspects of the case. Prosecutors did not need to convince jurors that the deaths resulted from a carefully planned intention to kill.
Instead, they relied on alternative legal grounds that they argued supported first-degree murder charges under the circumstances. The first was the felony murder doctrine, which applies when a death occurs during the commission of another serious felony, such as vehicle theft or fleeing from law enforcement. Under this legal theory, a person may be held responsible for murder, even without evidence of a direct intent to take someone’s life.
The central issue is that the death occurred as a consequence of events unfolding during the commission of another serious crime. This formed one of the prosecution’s primary arguments. The second theory was known as depraved mind murder, sometimes described as murder committed with extreme disregard for human life. Under this theory, the focus is not on a pre-planned intent to kill, but on the nature of the defendant’s conduct and the level of danger that conduct created for others.
Prosecutors sought to prove that Janine’s actions went far beyond ordinary negligence and created an extraordinary risk to human life. The prosecution argued that Janine displayed complete indifference to the value of human life and should have understood that her actions could result in severe injury or death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors emphasized that the consequences of such conduct were entirely foreseeable.
In their view, any reasonable person would have recognized the danger of the situation and the risk that it could end in tragedy. For that reason, the state maintained that Janine’s behavior satisfied the requirements of the second first-degree murder theory and demonstrated an exceptionally dangerous disregard for the lives and safety of others.
Neither Norris or Romero ever had eyes off this vehicle. Both Officer Norris and Officer Romero see one person crawl out of the driver’s side window. That person at [clears throat] that moment in time they believed was the female captive. The female captive runs to Officer Norris. She’s distraught. She’s scared. She’s frantic.
Her arms in the air. She’s screaming. He tried to kill me. He has a knife. He poured gasoline all over me. He has a gun. He beat my head. But now she was safe. Officers believed they had just saved her life. The officers were convinced they had just saved her life. At that moment, they had no reason to doubt the information they had received.
Based on the reports coming into dispatch and the information being shared among responding units, law enforcement believed they were dealing with a woman who was in immediate danger. As a result, their actions were driven by the belief that they were trying to stop a serious crime and protect someone from a potentially life-threatening situation.
The defense argued that the Santa Fe Police Department violated its own pursuit policies by continuing to chase the Malibu at dangerous speeds on the interstate. Throughout the trial, defense attorneys repeatedly focused on the decision to continue the pursuit. In their view, the chase had reached a point where the risks to everyone on the roadway had become extraordinarily high.
That argument became one of the central pillars of the defense strategy. Attorney David Silva questioned why the pursuit had not been terminated given the danger it posed to officers and the public. In addressing witnesses and jurors, he emphasized that law enforcement should have considered not only the potential threat they were responding to, but also the danger created by the pursuit itself.
The defense sought to draw attention to the decision to continue chasing the vehicle even as the speed and circumstances made the situation increasingly hazardous. The implication was clear. The defense was attempting to argue that Janine should not be held responsible for the fatal crash and that responsibility instead rested with one of the deceased officers, Robert Duran, who continued the pursuit.
A significant portion of the defense case was built around that argument. Defense attorneys sought to persuade jurors that the decisive factor in the tragedy was the conduct of law enforcement during the chase rather than the events that triggered it in the first place. It became one of the key themes of their case.
However, Robert Duran had every reason to believe he was rushing to save the life of a frightened woman who was allegedly being held at knife point by a dangerous driver. That was the information available to law enforcement in real time. From their perspective, this was not a routine traffic violation, but a possible act of kidnapping that appeared to be unfolding at that very moment.
Under those circumstances, officers believe that hesitation could cost someone their life. Sergeant John Debbaka explained that a report of an ongoing kidnapping is considered one of the most serious calls law enforcement can receive. During his testimony, he emphasized that such reports are automatically treated as the highest level emergencies.
Calls of that nature require an immediate response because officers cannot know in advance how severe the danger is to the potential victim or how much time remains to save that person’s life. For that reason, law enforcement believed their response matched the level of the threat. According to prosecutors and police representatives, the officer’s actions were directly tied to the information available to them as events unfolded.
Every decision was made under intense pressure and with very little time to assess the situation. Their belief that a person’s life was in immediate danger shaped both the nature and the scale of the police response during those critical moments. There was limited information because this was a third party caller who just said, “Hey, woman shouting.
There’s a guy with a knife in the car.” Car takes off as that’s happening. She’s shouting, “Call them. Call the police.” We’re talking about a circumstance where the ultimate threshold would be death. Uh and what you have to understand in this circumstance is the death being the threshold is is equal to not only everyone that is on the highway but it is equal to the person who is potentially being kidnapped.
Can any officer involved in the pursuit at any time make a decision to terminate? Yes. Did any officer terminate? No. Which shows which shows that we were equally on the same page. All of us felt the exact same way about that circumstance and that there was no other alternative but to continue. One Santa Fe police officer acknowledged that certain provisions of the department’s pursuit policy may have been violated, including the rule limiting the number of patrol units allowed to participate in a chase.
During the trial, that issue became a topic of discussion as well. It was noted that some aspects of the police response may not have fully complied with established internal procedures. Particular attention was given to the policy that restricts the number of law enforcement vehicles involved in a pursuit at the same time.
Such limitations are typically intended to reduce the risks associated with dangerous chases and minimize additional hazards to the public. However, at the time, officers believed that a larger police presence was necessary for the safety of Janine and her alleged kidnapper. Law enforcement acted based on the information available to them in real time.
Given the reports of a possible kidnapping, the situation was viewed as extremely serious and potentially life-threatening. For that reason, the decision was made to deploy more patrol units than would normally be permitted under department guidelines because the primary concern was the safety of the people believed to be inside the vehicle.
Although the original 911 call came from a civilian witness, Richard Muer, the information received by dispatchers and responding officers was clear. There was a man inside the vehicle with the woman. The reports reaching emergency services painted the picture of a situation requiring immediate intervention for dispatchers and officers receiving that information.
The critical fact was that a man was in the car with a woman who based on everything they knew at the time appeared to be in danger. As it turned out, there really was a man inside the stolen Malibu at that point. He was Janine’s actual boyfriend, a man named Jerry Chavez. That fact was later confirmed during the investigation.
Jerry had indeed been in the vehicle with Janine before events took their tragic turn. His presence became one of the details that helped investigators reconstruct the sequence of what had happened. That is also why the witness who called police acted in good faith. He genuinely saw a man sitting next to Janine in the vehicle.
The investigation later found no indication that Richard had intentionally misled anyone. On the contrary, his report was based on what he actually observed at the scene. He relayed the information exactly as he understood it, believing he was reporting a possible emergency situation. Other parts of Janine’s story also contained elements of truth.
That fact initially made it more difficult for investigators to piece together the complete picture. Some aspects of her account did correspond to real events, which made it necessary to carefully compare each statement against the evidence and witness testimony. There really had been an argument between Janine and Jerry, just as she told police.
Investigators confirmed that the two had gotten into a dispute that day. That portion of her account was not fabricated and was supported by evidence gathered during the investigation. However, the argument was not violent and Jerry was not attempting to kidnap her. Investigators found no evidence that a kidnapping or physical assault had taken place.
Instead, the facts pointed to a very different type of conflict than the one initially described to law enforcement. According to the findings of the investigation, Janine had become angry with Jerry and wanted him out of the vehicle. The disagreement escalated to the point where she wanted to end the trip and insisted that he leave the car.
When he refused, she sought help from Richard and told him that Jerry had a knife. That statement became one of the pivotal moments in everything that followed. Hearing that, the witness perceived the situation as potentially dangerous and contacted law enforcement believing immediate intervention was necessary.
Later, however, Jerry disappeared entirely from Janine’s version of events. As her account evolved, his role was gradually removed from the story she told investigators. That change became one of many inconsistencies that prosecutors later highlighted as they compared her statements with the evidence collected during the investigation.
I didn’t want to get out of the car cuz I didn’t want to get stranded here. Okay. She kept asking me to get out. I I kept telling her no. [snorts] And then she pulled up to some guy that was standing there and asked him to call the police. Later, investigators discovered a blurry surveillance video that appeared to show a person getting out of the vehicle before the police pursuit ever began.
The quality of the footage was far from ideal, but it nevertheless became an important piece of evidence. Despite the unclear image, investigators focused on the moment when an individual exited the vehicle well before the situation escalated into a dangerous chase. The footage helped reconstruct the sequence of events leading up to the pursuit.
The recording also supported Jerry’s account. He had told investigators that after his girlfriend began calling for help, he got out of the car and walked away. According to Jerry, that was exactly how the events unfolded that day. The video was consistent with his version of events and provided additional support for his statements.
For investigators, that was significant because it allowed them to compare witness accounts with an independent source of evidence. Janine did not testify during the trial. Throughout the proceedings, she chose not to take the stand, and personally present her version of events to the jury.
As a result, jurors evaluated her position based on the evidence presented in court, her prior statements, and the arguments made by the defense. Her account, which prosecutors argued was filled with inconsistencies and unsupported by either physical evidence or witness testimony, was challenged in detail by the state. Prosecutors repeatedly directed the jury’s attention to contradictions in her explanations and emphasized the lack of evidence supporting her claims.
Throughout the trial, they carefully reviewed the facts, witness testimony, and available evidence, arguing that Janine’s version of events did not align with the established circumstances of the case. That argument formed a major part of the prosecution’s presentation during the final stages of the trial. Defense attorney David Silva’s final argument was that the first-degree murder charges did not fit the facts of the case.
During his closing statement, he maintained that the evidence presented did not justify the most serious level of criminal liability. He urged jurors to carefully examine all of the circumstances and consider the possibility that the first-degree murder charges did not accurately reflect what had actually occurred.
that became his central argument before the case was handed over to the jury for deliberation and a final verdict. But there’s no evidence that she had an evil mind, a perverted mind, a corrupt mind. There’s no evidence that she knew that her driving was going to result in the deaths of those two men. During her closing argument, prosecutor Cara Rackstraw Alcon told the jury that the pursuit was necessary.
Addressing the jurors, she emphasized the circumstances of the case and explained the prosecution’s position regarding the events that led to the tragic outcome. Her remarks became one of the most important moments of the trial, as closing arguments are when both sides summarize the evidence and attempt to persuade the jury that their interpretation of the facts is the correct one.
According to the prosecutor, the decision to pursue the vehicle was neither arbitrary nor unjustified. She argued that the officer’s actions were driven by the circumstances they faced in real time and were consistent with their duty to respond to what appeared to be a potentially dangerous situation. Her argument was intended to highlight the reasoning behind the decisions made by law enforcement as the events unfolded.
She said, “If a firefighter runs into a burning building to save an innocent person and loses his life in the process, who do we blame, the firefighter or the arsonist?” Prosecutor Cara Rackstraw Alcon told the jury. Janine Hero is the arsonist. After several hours of deliberation, the jury returned with a verdict.
Throughout that time, a sense of tense anticipation filled the courtroom. While the jurors remained behind closed doors, the attorneys, family members, and everyone in attendance waited for the decision that would determine the outcome of the case. Each passing minute seemed longer than the last given the seriousness of the charges and the tragic consequences at the center of the trial.
When the jurors finally reentered the courtroom, the tension grew even stronger. Every eye in the room was fixed on the men and women who had spent hours reviewing the evidence, weighing the testimony, and considering the arguments presented by both sides. The case had been building toward this moment for a long time, and now its climax had arrived.
The verdict would answer the central questions that had defined the entire trial. State of New Mexico versus Jean Janine Amo. We find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in count one state of New Mexico versus Janine Hario. We find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in count two.
During the sentencing hearing, Janine addressed the families of Robert Duran and Frank Lovado and apologized for what she described as her bad decisions. In her statement, uh, she expressed regret for the consequences of the events that led to the tragedy and spoke directly to the loved ones of the two men who had lost their lives.
In a courtroom that had already heard powerful and emotional testimony from family members, her remarks became another tense and emotional moment in the proceedings. For those who had lost husbands, fathers, relatives, and friends, the apology came against the backdrop of years of grief and irreversible loss.
However, she never fully expressed a willingness to accept responsibility for the punishment that had been imposed. Despite her statements of regret and her apology, Janine did not clearly indicate that she was prepared to unconditionally accept the court’s judgment and its consequences. That fact did not go unnoticed during the hearing.
Against the backdrop of a severe sentence and the emotional statements delivered by the victim’s families, her position only added to the mixed impression left by her remarks. The atmosphere in the courtroom remained heavy and tense as the question of accountability for what had happened continued to be one of the central issues in the case.
I’m sorry you have found me with all my heart. If I could take back that day, I would. But [gasps] I made bad choices. I was I was on drugs and I was drinking. But I also have my family that I’m hurting. [snorts] Putting me away many years is not going to bring them back. God knows I deserve a a second judge, your honor.
Please, for my family and myself, I would never do that. I would never cause harm. [laughter] [gasps] I’m sorry. The statements delivered by the families of the victims about the impact of the crime on their lives were deeply painful and emotional. Their words echoed through the courtroom as a reminder of a profound human tragedy that had permanently changed the lives of so many people.
In every statement, there was a sense of grief, heartbreak, and emptiness left behind by the loss of loved ones. At the same time, their testimony highlighted the dedication with which both men had served their communities. Family members remembered them not only as skilled professionals but also as people who accepted responsibility for the safety of others every single day.
They spoke about their selflessness, their sense of duty, and their willingness to help even in the most difficult and dangerous situations. Their remarks served as a powerful reminder that behind the legal arguments and facts of the criminal case were real human lives that had been cut short under tragic circumstances. The words of the victim’s families created a heavy atmosphere in the courtroom and once again underscored the enormous loss endured by those who loved these men and by everyone whose lives they had touched. He cared more for her
life that day than she did. My brother died trying to save her life. Her sorry but not sorry letter. It was also very hurtful and upsetting to hear the details of her accounts when my brother gave the ultimate sacrifice. Two beautiful lives were lost. Two families that will never be the same. Judge Mary Marlo Summer showed no sympathy for Janine’s requests for leniency during sentencing.
She made it clear that she saw no basis for reducing the punishment. The judge carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides, but ultimately concluded that the circumstances of the case and its devastating consequences left no room for leniency. She was also unimpressed by Janine’s behavior during the sentencing hearing.
The way Janine conducted herself in the courtroom at that pivotal moment left a negative impression on the judge. In her remarks, Mary Marlo Summer made it clear that she had paid attention not only to the facts of the case, but also to the defendant’s conduct throughout the proceedings and during the announcement of the final sentence.
The atmosphere in the courtroom remained tense as it was at that moment that Janine’s future was ultimately determined by a lengthy prison sentence. I’m not a murderer. I’m not I am going to stop talking. Please let my judge finish. What did you say after you’ve been found out? I’m sorry for my reckless driving, but I didn’t crash.
I didn’t cause the crash between Officer Durant and Frank Lovato. What’s that implication? I was not in that crash. After 5 days of evidence and testimony, the jury said you did. Janine Hero, who was 49 years old at the time of sentencing, received a punishment that effectively meant spending decades behind bars.
Under the court’s ruling, she must serve at least 60 years in prison for the murders before she can become eligible to apply for parole. The sentence brought a final conclusion to a high-profile criminal case whose consequences proved devastating for many people. The court determined that the severity of the crimes warranted an exceptionally harsh punishment.
For Janine Hero, that meant she would spend most of the remainder of her life in prison, with any possibility of early release remaining a distant prospect that could not even be considered until six decades had passed.
