Cowboys for Trump Founder Couy Griffin Not Guilty at 12-19-23 Jury Trial Otero County New Mexico

Cowboys for Trump Founder Couy Griffin Found NOT Guilty in Otero County NM Trial 12-19-23 of 5 Counts of Harrassment and TrespassPhoto byAlamogordoTownNews.com

On Tuesday, 12-19-23, New Mexico witnessed another jury trail involving Cowboys for Trump founder, Couy Griffin in Otero Country, New Mexico. This case was again defended by attorney Johnathan C Miller for Couy Griffin.

Readers and listeners may recall attorney Jonathan C Miller is the attorney that represented Mr. Griffin in his winning case against the New Mexico Secretary of State in another case that was held in the Otero County Courthouse in April of 2023. Mr. Griffin won the case related to Cowboys for Trump with the representation of Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller and Couy Griffin secured another win tonight with a jury verdict that was finalized around 8 pm Monday night, favoring Mr. Griffin.

The 11-02-23 written edition and streaming of KALH Radio AlamogordoTownNews.com reported that the New Mexico courts dismissed the various cases or the saga around Couy Griffin on 10-31-23 of harassment and criminal trespass. The series of cases brought forth around Couy Griffin, Susan Griffin, Chris Lord, and DeWayne M Braithwaite resulted in Griffins arrest in May. The cases were consolidated and explored via the New Mexico Courts System with victory at the time to Couy Griffin due to no appearance by the prosecution according to court documents obtained on 11-2-23.

The prosecutor failed the appear and the case was dismissed.

The case was then reposted and Defendant Couy Griffin was notified of the new trial date by jury to occur on 12-19-23 while appealing his DC Case in Washington DC for a similar charge of criminal trespass at the Capitol.

Today’s case before a Otero County Jury involved 5 counts alleging illegal trespassing and harassment of DeWayne M Braithwaite.

After jury selection of 8 jurors which consisted of 7 women and 1 man the case began. The jury had 2 alternates and was decided by 5 women and 1 man. The case was facilitated in Otero County by visiting judge Republican, Christopher Mitchell of the 9th Judicial Division. All local members of the Otero County judiciary recused themselves of the case.

The prosecution alleged that between 3-6 to 3-10, 2023 the defendants Couy Griffin and Chris Lord entered into a verbal agreement that the plaintiff Dewayne Braithwaite would paint the interior of a double wide trailer, with an addition that was ready to paint and hang dry walk and do upgrades. The case involved Braithwaite considered a tenant, occupant or squatter depending upon one’s point of view.

He was provided occupancy in lieu of the labor to upgrade and repair the property per arguments in the case. The prosecution attempted to present Braithwaite as an individual that was enticed to come to Alamogordo to perform work for the Griffin family and Chris Lorde and became a victim of harassment.

There were a series of multiple videos that had been posted online via social media filmed by Dewayne Braithwaite that made it appear he was subjected to harassment by Griffin

However the prosecution only presented a single video and narrowed the scope of the case to events surrounding May 18th, 2023 when Griffin was arrested.

The prosecution presented a weak case putting Braithwaite on the stand where he stumbled in testimony, appearing confused by questioning and admitting a past criminal history of 14 years in prison for dishonesty and breaking into peoples homes.

The defense argued exhaustively of the credibility of statements by Mr. Braithwaite. The prosecution attempted to portray Mr. Braithwaite as a victim of harassment and that Griffin had enticed him to Alamogordo for a fresh start offering his boarding, food and financial support and help getting a drivers license in return for working on two properties of which Griffin was affiliated.

Two Sheriffs Deputies were presented to the jury who testified their perspectives in the case and admitted they had not done the due diligence in determining if Braithwaite actually held a lease on the property in question and rather there was an employment contract in place with Griffin.

Neither deputy could affirm who actually owned the property in question and rather Braithwaite was legitimately entitled to be on the property.

They did testify that Braithwaite had contacted the sheriffs offices on multiple occasions, (at least 13) complaining of harassment and trespassing by Griffin

Testimony was presented that a Deputy met with Griffin and claimed to have explained he was not to step foot again on the property at 44 Dusty Road and that Griffin should file eviction proceedings against Braithwaite and stay off the property.

During cross examination questions were raised by the defense if there was video footage from the sheriff’s office of the dialog with Griffin. No video was produced and the trail boiled down to he said, he said leaving lots of doubt among those listening as to the credibility of the allegations of harassment and rather a real agreement was in place concerning the scope of work and method of pay or boarding in lieu of pay agreed upon by all parties.

The prosecution rested by 3:30. Before the defense began its case the judge ordered some housekeeping and the defense began arguments that the prosecution failed to properly address 3 counts and that counts 2, 3 and 5 should be dismissed.

The prosecution agreed they had not presented a strong case on the 3 counts in question and agreed to drop 3 of the 5 counts and only focus on the events of May 18th, 2023 and only move forward with two counts: one of harassment and one of trespassing. Thus the judge so ordered dismissal of 3 counts.

The defense then placed Mr. Griffin on the stand at 4:05 pm in a gutsy move, that at first appeared shaky at best. Mr. Griffin was reprimanded by the judge on a few occasions for engaging in diatribes that were off subject to the specific questions asked. At one point, Judge Mitchell appeared exasperated by the dialog and threatened a potential contempt charge. Mr. Griffin testified, at times appearing frustrated with both the judge and his own defense attorney. Mr. Griffin at one point directed his attorneys questioning from the testimony stand. A move that appeared to stun the judge based upon his facial expression. Griffin though shaken at times in his testimony was convincing enough to place some doubt in the minds of jurors and thus questioned his innocence instead of guilt

Mr. Griffin presented that Braithwaite was offered a place to sleep on “a day to day basis” and “no long term arrangement had ever been agreed upon.” Mr. Griffin explained that the day in question (May 18th) he was on the property briefly just to “gather parts for a water line repair” that he and Chris Lorde were working on.

He claimed he did not engage with Braithwaite and that Braithwaite actually was yelling at him to get off the property, filming and attempting to instigate a scene. Griffin testified he felt the whole trial was a “political game being played against him and the implications were bigger than this case.”

The defense called Chris Lorde to the stand to testify as to how Braithwaite came to Alamogordo and to confirm there was no written or formal contract nor lease agreement for the exchange of service’s. Lorde’s testimony explained how they met via TikTok and the events of January 6th in DC. That they felt sorry for Braithwaite who was living in a camper and on the verge of homelessness and the whole situation was an effort to “help a fellow patriot,” which “turned south.”

The defense then called Sharon Griffin to the stand. Mrs. Griffin is Couy’s mother and the actual title holder to the property. Griffin has purchased the property but transferred title to his mother in 2020 as a result of the Jan 6th DC Federal Case. Mrs. Griffin confirmed that she filed eviction proceedings against Braithwaite and that there was no formal agreement with her as the property owner and Braithwaite to be there. She explained she had not engaged with Braithwaite except as a result of the lawsuits filed by the various parties.

The present tenant of the property was considered for testimony but was not feeling well and the defense attorney advised that the testimony may be redundant to what had already been brought forward. Mr Griffin asked that he not be forced to testify since he was not feeling well.

Closing arguments were presented and the case went to deliberations by the jury at 6:10 pm.

At 7 pm sheriff’s deputies announced that the jury had asked for dinner and it appeared it would be a long night of deliberations.

By 8 pm the ruling had come in and Couy Griffin was found NOT guilty of harassment and a hung jury of 5 to 1 on the charge of trespass on a property his family owns.

An interview post trial with Couy Griffin can be heard streaming with Anthony Lucero on behalf of AlamogordoTownNews.com on streaming KRAZY KALH Radio on the air and at your leisure as a podcast on YouTube at https://youtu.be/TJAeeTX3yo8

In other proceedings involving Couy Griffin the New Mexico Supreme Court was to have responded to the US Supreme Court on Mr. Griffins 14th Amendment removal appeal by December 14th, 2023. The response to date was a request for more time and thus the New Mexico Supreme Court will have a response to the US Supreme Court in mid January, 2024.

Stay tuned to AlamogordoTownNews.com, Alamogordo Conservative News on Newsbreak and KALH Radio for the latest updates and information around the multiple judicial proceedings involving Mr. Griffin and the January 6th US Capital appeals.