Law&Crime Sidebar - Teen Accused of Dumping Baby in Trash Faces Major Issue Ahead of Trial

Episode Date: July 10, 2024

Alexee Trevizo allegedly dumped her newborn in the trash after giving birth in the bathroom of a New Mexico hospital in January 2023. Trevizo is charged with first-degree murder, or alternatively abusing a child resulting in death and tampering with evidence. Her defense won a legal battle to prevent some of the evidence from being presented to a jury in her trial. Prosecutors are now fighting back, claiming the evidence is key and should not be suppressed based on patient-physician privilege. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down what this means for Trevizo.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. We discovered a dead baby in the bathroom. Oh my gosh. I'm sorry. He came out and me and I didn't know what to do it. Lexie, I told you about this. Questions are arising over what jurors will and won't be allowed to hear next month at the trial of a New Mexico teenager facing serious charges of killing her baby. We break down what we could expect the court to do in the case of Alexi Treviso with Professor of Law, Jules Epstein. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

The state Supreme Court out in New Mexico could decide a very important legal issue in a national recognized case. This is the case of now 20-year-old Alexei Treviso, who's been charged with first-degree murder and tampering with evidence in connection with the death of her newborn. Yeah. So hospital workers, they found a newborn baby dead in an Artesia General Hospital bathroom last January, and Treviso claimed she didn't even know she was pregnant. I've never, I've never seen anything on. I pray to God, I never see it again. And the legal issue we're talking about right now, all surrounding. rounds what Treviso allegedly said at the hospital and whether it can come into evidence during

her trial. It's actually a really fascinating legal issue as well as an incredibly important piece of evidence in this case. So I'm going to give you a little bit of backstory here. January 27th, 2023, the then 19 year old high school student sought medical attention for what she thought was lower back pain. And while at the hospital later around 1.30 in the morning, she unexpectedly went into labor. We did a pregnancy test on her. Show positive. She had nine.

She had sex. Then she said she had to go to the bathroom. She went to the bathroom. She was in there for quite a while. We kept knocking on the door. Finally we got her to open the door and there was blood and shit everywhere. She was cleaning it up. So we took her back to the room.

And I was afraid that she knew she was pregnant. She had done something to herself. So the doctor started doing a vaginal exam on her. We had the lady come to clean the bathroom. clean the bathroom, she put the baby in the trash can and then she put another clean liner over the top of it. So when they looked in there, there was no trash in there, but it's underneath the clean bag. The baby's dead. Okay, we have them in trauma too, but she killed the kid. Yeah, how old was the baby? I don't know, it's full term. She just had it, she had it in the

bathroom was what happened. And then she, whatever she did, I don't know, she's going to lie. She wouldn't told she's pregnant. And as hospital staff went about their regular duties, this is when a harrowing discovery was made. The lifeless body of a newborn baby shoved to the bottom of the trash can. No one around Treviso knew what was going on, not even her own mother, apparently. Now, I want you to listen very carefully to what Treviso allegedly says here. We discovered a dead baby in the bathroom. Oh, my gosh. I'm sorry. He came out of I mean I didn't know what to do. Lexi, I told you about this.

I just asked you baby to tell me the truth. It was not crying or nothing. What did you do to it? Okay, stop, stop. Number one priority, guys. Number one priority. Is she just had a baby? I don't know if she's delivered the placenta.

She's bleeding significantly. Yeah. Like how big is the baby is all? It's full-term. What? Nine months? Nothing was crying. Let's see.

Have you watched the news of the girls that what they do to their babies and what they go to jail? Look, I was crying. I'm sorry about this, but in terms of delivering a baby and it looked like you tried to hide it, we do have to have the police involved. And that thing was crying. It came out with nothing. I know, I know. But the baby's going to have to be taken for autopsy and... and there'll be an investigator and everything. And it's been reported that it was determined via autopsy.

The baby died of asphyxiation and was not a stillborn. And speaking with several witnesses, including hospital staff and Treviso's boyfriend at the time, she was charged with first-degree murder and tampering with evidence. Her defense attorneys, though, later made the arguments that her statements at the hospital shouldn't be allowed in at her upcoming trial saying, Dr. Patient Privilege was violated, her Miranda rights were violated, and guess what? The district court sided with her, sided with Treviso's defense, and now prosecutors are appealing the decision to the state Supreme Court. According to KRQE News, district attorney Diana

Lucey says in part, quote, all I can say is that obviously it was evidence that we believe was proper, evidence that we believe that we should be allowed to use, and we respectfully disagree. She continues on to say, quote, Is this really just a medical issue that is private and confidential, or were there some type of actions that rise to the level of criminal intent? We believe that it rises to the level of criminal intent. Our job is to protect children, especially any infant who cannot protect themselves. And the DA's office says that they're committed to prosecuting this case.

There's no timeline of when exactly the state Supreme Court could decide to take up this issue. However, it's now unlikely, it seems, that the case will go to trial as planned in August. because the DA's office is awaiting an answer for their request on reversing that decision. And in this case marks the third time in two years. Something like this has happened with a New Mexico teenager, allegedly putting their baby in the trash, which is just kind of unbelievable to think about. Hey, we'll get right back to this story in just a minute. But I want to thank our incredible sponsor here on Sidebar, Morgan and Morgan,

America's largest injury law firm. Look, if you should find yourself in a position where you're hurt and you need legal representation, Morgan and Morgan may be who you want in your corner because they are specialists in this area. And you know why they're so big? Because they win a lot. Verdicts and settlements in the multi-millions. They also make the process super easy for their clients because from starting your claim to uploading documents, to signing contracts, talking to your legal team can all be done from your smartphone.

Also, this is a firm where there's no upfront fee. You only pay them if you win. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash LC sidebar. Let's get into the law of this, what could happen, and I am joined by one of our favorites here on sidebar, evidence expert, Edward D. Allbound, Professor of Law, Director of Advocacy Programs at Temple University Beasley School of Law, Professor Jules Epstein. So good to see you again, sir. Likewise, honored to be here. So one of the first things that the defense argued, and it seems that the district court agreed, was that there are issues of doctor-patient privilege. and that that was violated when those conversations were handed over to authorities. Would you agree with that? That's an issue.

I'll agree with that. So New Mexico has a doctor-patient privilege, just like we talk about an attorney-client privilege or what you say to your priest or your imam or your rabbi, that certain discussions are meant to be private and to stay private. it because otherwise people won't talk to their doctor or talk to their lawyer. There was certainly a medical person in the room in that conversation where the mother was also sort of interrogating her daughter. The appropriateness of that we can leave for another time. New Mexico law has been interpreted by New Mexico courts to say that if this

is truly a doctor-patient interaction and not willfully disclose to third parties, and those words are as private as if you said them in a confessional or in a lawyer's office. The comment you played before from the district attorney, which was something like, well, there may be there's supposedly a medical thing here, but we think this. this is important criminal evidence, that doesn't mesh. It doesn't matter if it's discussing a crime. If you're saying it to the doctor as part of your care, it's protected.

What I think is going to have to happen is that the court is going to have to say, with her mom in the room, is that part of the privilege, because sometimes when the third party is present, that takes the person, privilege away. They're going to have to say, are you really talking towards your medical care? Reasonable minds might be able to differ on the answer to that, but it is indeed a legitimate claim that the defense raised. Her attorney, Trevisor's attorney, Gary Mitchell, said the

privilege applies from the time she went to the hospital, and it applies to everybody there. Everything that takes place from the time she first went to the hospital, everything the doctor and the nurses said, they could not give that out without a waiver from my client, and we didn't waive it. Now, the state argues that this was not a HIPAA violation, that she waived her rights because she started talking to doctors and her mother, and police happened to be in the room. So giving those statements, what's your take on that, Professor? So the doctor-patient privilege that New Mexico has is independent of HIPAA. HIPA is a federal law about sharing information, and I'm no HIPA expert. But you could certainly, you could certainly pretend to be, and we wouldn't know the difference. That's how good Zepstein is.

I'm not going to try that. But I'm not sure everything you say. physically in a hospital pertains to the treatment and it may be with you're in a room with another patient and their families there and everybody can hear right right so there may be limitations on that rather broad claim of what the lawyer said but look at what's going on in the moment there this young woman is bleeding. They're trying to figure out how do we treat the bleeding? How do we stanch it? How do we protect her life? And this discussion is going on in that context. That's a stronger argument

that this is medically related. Again, I don't think that having my mom in the room ends the doctor-patient privilege. I'm not a judge in New Mexico. I can't say what they would. Do you think it's also because of the age of Alexei Treviso that having her mom there, does that change the analysis? I think it could cut both ways. I was with my dad when he was in his late 80s

and we were talking to the doctors together and I think it was kind of important that I was there. Sure, sure. She was 18. She's not full. five if that's what you mean right but she's a young person brought with she's there with her mother at one of the most emotional and physically potentially dangerous events in her life of a pregnancy that reaches birth so i would like to think that the mere presence of a parent would not

automatically right eliminate doctor patient privilege let me have you about this issue. So again, it seems the district court decided that way. We'll see which way the highest court, if they decide to take this case up. We'll decide it. Now, what about this issue? The idea that she was in custody, that she was detained, that her Miranda rights were violated. Her attorney, again, Gary Mitchell said, she didn't agree to have the doctor act as a police officer and help interrogate her with police officers in the room. At the time, they already had her in custody. She was not free to go. And apparently, the doctor waited until police arrived to ask what had happened with the baby.

What's your take on that one? So I didn't realize till now that the police were already in the room. Okay. If police are in the room and say, missed, you're under arrest, she's in custody. If police are in the room and they're standing with their arms right like this, right like this, barring the door, they're creating a custodial environment. If a police officer is in the room,

sitting there quietly respectfully, I'm not sure a court would call that custody. So we would really need to know the dynamics of what's going on in that room because Miranda warnings are about custody. custody and the coercion, the pressure that custody would put on any of us. The second thing is, was this police directed, requested interrogation? If the police are sitting there and the doctor or the medical person is independently

doing their job, I'm not sure that's interrogation. I haven't researched that in depth. So whether a court would say, well, the police took advantage of the doctor's inquiry, and that somehow makes it an interrogation, I don't know. The more that the doctor deferred the questioning until the police were there, And if there's any police request, hey, doc, wait till we show up, then I think they have a claim. So I guess I just want to add, I'm sorry, I think we need to know some more of the real fine details of what was going on and how we got to that place. That's totally fair.

And I know this might be a difficult question, but generally speaking, so we have the government. who is appealing this decision to a higher court because it's about, again, evidence potentially not being allowed into a trial. Very important evidence, because these statements, you know, saying, I didn't know what to do. I'll read you the actual statement that she made. I'm sorry it came out of me and I didn't know what to do. You could see why prosecutors want a statement like that in a murder case. But typically speaking, do you think, A, this is a case that a higher court would take up and b when would they ultimately decide it so i'm going to give you a lousy answer here because there's no there's no like formula oh they will or they're 60 percent likely

it depends on that state it depends on how engaged that court is in criminal law there are a million policy things. It's also going to depend on each state can have its own rules for what's called an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory means before the trial is over or actually sometimes before it's begun. So it's going to depend. They may have standards for that. I've seen these things happen in Pennsylvania, and it takes months and months or years to get the appeal decided. But you would, but real quick, Professor, you would agree that it seems unlikely that this trial is going to happen now sooner rather than later while this issue is being litigated. It puts it on hold. Yeah, yeah, which by the way, I wanted, before I let you go,

I wanted your take on something else. So apparently, Treviso's defense attorneys filed a lawsuit, against the hospital and they have claimed wrongful death of the baby saying it was the hospital's negligence and medication which was administered to Ms. Treviso that's actually to blame for what happened. And there was an interview with Long Crime Network Sierra Gillespie where Treviso's attorney said she's not the one responsible for her baby's death. Now I'm not going to play you the clip but I'll just tell you what he says. He goes, Treviso, she's shocked whenever she delivers a baby and then the issue of what caused the baby's death is going to be one that's going to be litigated. I already have a real good idea of what caused the baby's

death. It had nothing to do with my client. She was not at fault. Professor, I know we still, there's a lot of details we need to know more about this, but that is very interesting, A, in terms of a defense for murder, I would imagine that would be used at a criminal trial, but also for a piece of litigation that it was the hospital to blame and not Alexei Treviso. Your initial thoughts about that? So I've got two, at least. Thought number one was when you first said the hospital is to blame, I was trying to figure out if the lawyer was saying they gave her medication, the medication affected her mind, the medication affected her judgment, she was not totally responsible. That's one meaning of those words. The other is,

No, the medical care. No one strangled this child. It was the medicine or something. Obviously, I haven't seen the autopsy, but what you've described of it is the child was asphyxiated, which makes it sound like post-birth. So I think it's a really interesting legal approach. it certainly makes the hospital give up a lot of extra information that you might not get in the criminal process because in the civil lawsuit, you get a lot of information. I'm curious as to whether, I should say this way, I'm curious as to what medical experts the defense has and what they might be saying about this. Yeah, they basically said that, if I'm understanding this correctly, that they're accusing

the medical staff at that hospital of injecting her with a cocktail of drugs, including morphine, and that is what killed the baby. So, interesting that that's the avenue that might be going. So in other words, the morphine caused the baby to be unable to breathe. Right. That's my understanding. If that's what it is. And there's some medical evidence to support that.

That's really important. And let me add this then. First of all, this is tremendous lawyering by that lawyer. Okay. And I looked him up and he has quite a reputation as an excellent attorney in New Mexico, tremendous experience. It makes it all the more reasonable, it would be reasonable, begin with, but all the more reasonable for him to try and get those words out of the trial.

Sure. Think of what's going on here. Here is a young woman who obviously has had some medication, who's had one of the most traumatic events in her life. And I'm not sure she's thinking super clearly when she says this, I didn't know what to do. What the hell does that even mean? Does that mean I didn't know what to do so I strangled it? I didn't know what to do.

I have a baby here. And I'm thinking, oh, my God. I didn't know what to do. I have a dead baby here. Those words are the height of ambiguity. That's really really. But obviously, they have at least one criminal interpretation. So you want to get the ambiguity stuff out of there,

especially when you have competing theories on the medical issue. Absolutely. I'm curious to see where this is going to go. This is clearly not a slam dunk case for the prosecution, even putting aside the legal issue of whether this can come into evidence. Now the idea of a cause of death or a different interpretation? Very interesting. Professor of Law, Jules Epstein. So good to see you. Thanks so much for coming on. Thank you. everybody, that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.

Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.