BY JP FARISH
Class of 2004
Los Alamos High School
I was saddened to learn of the passing of Dr. Brian Easton, a man I first met when I was a young teenager and whose influence left a lasting impression on me. Reading your June 8 article, “Los Alamos Police File Charges In Magistrate Court Against Driver In March 15 Death Of Pedestrian,” was difficult. https://losalamosreporter.com/2026/06/08/los-alamos-police-file-charges-in-magistrate-court-against-driver-in-march-15-death-of-pedestrian/
What struck me most, however, was not the filing of charges but the information presented to readers about why those charges were filed.
The article describes a reconstruction exercise in which detectives concluded that a pedestrian in the crosswalk could, under certain circumstances, disappear from a driver’s view while making the turn from North Road onto Urban Street. Whether that conclusion is ultimately significant is for the court to determine. Yet it is the most detailed investigative finding discussed in the article.
What is missing is a comparable explanation of the evidence that led investigators and prosecutors to conclude that criminal charges were warranted.
Was there evidence regarding speed? Driver attention? Visibility conditions? Witness statements? Physical evidence from the scene? If investigators concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr. Abeyta, then the public deserves to know more about that evidence than a reconstruction exercise showing how a pedestrian might disappear from view.
To be clear, I am not arguing that Mr. Abeyta is guilty, nor that he is innocent of the charges he faces. To his credit, he rendered aid to Dr. Easton after the collision. I am asking why readers were given a detailed explanation of a fact that appears favorable to the defense while receiving little explanation of the facts that led to the charges themselves.
The death of Dr. Easton was a significant loss for Los Alamos. Cases of this nature deserve careful reporting, and the public deserves enough information to understand not only what decisions were made, but why they were made.
Editor’s note: The Los Alamos Reporter spoke at length this evening with Mr. Farish about this article. Since changes in LAPD administration in July 2024, the Reporter has been required to submit an IPRA request for pretty much any information she requests from LAPD. An IPRA request was submitted May 14 for “the crash report and the officers’ incident reports” in this case. The incident reports were received but there was no crash report received. The article on the charges against Mr. Abeyta was written using the information received in the incident reports. On the New Mexico Courts system, a one page standard traffic citation form under “essential facts” states “Vehicle vs pedestrian crash determined through full crash investigation to have careless driving and failure to yield as contributing factors (3) Case #20260161.” There is no crash report attached. The Reporter has requested further documents in this case.
Letters to the editor represent the opinions of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or editorial stance of the Los Alamos Reporter. The Reporter assumes no responsibility or liability for the factual accuracy of statements made by contributors.