July 16, 2026 · Gallup, New Mexico
The Case
A Greyhound passenger reported sexual assault. The driver called 911 three times and removed the man she identified. This site follows the investigation and Sheriff James Maiorano III’s conclusion that it was “sufficient.”
Court status · September 10 filing
Battery charge filed. Appearance scheduled October 2.
State of New Mexico v. No Name Given Shubham
McKinley County Magistrate Court · M-35-MR-2026-00188
The summons schedules a remote appearance to enter a plea on Friday, October 2, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Mountain / 9:30 a.m. Central. This is the date stated in the summons.
Read the complaint and summons. A charge is not a conviction; the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Latest update · September 18, 2026
Continued-contact passage missing from Bittony’s signed complaint
The original MCSO report says the female passenger “continued to feel Shubham’s hands and fingers” and “immediately confronted Shubham.” The September 10 criminal complaint omits that passage, moving directly from “However, she” to “told Shubham to stop.” Bittony signed beneath an oath under penalty of perjury.
On the bodycam at approximately 02:14, she says “Four times” and indicates four with her fingers; the surrounding exchange also records her physical demonstration. The driver’s private-area description remains in the written records, but the summary of the passenger’s own account does not preserve the full recorded allegation.
Read the exact paragraphs and oath · Read the new open-letter section
The case timeline
Jump to the latest timeline entry ↓Travel disrupted before the incident
Greyhound sends delay and trip-change notices. In her later account, the passenger describes an approximately 15-hour disruption.
A passenger reports sexual assault; police respond
Early that morning, a female passenger reports that the man seated beside her repeatedly touched her buttocks and private area without consent while she was resting. She alerts the driver, who calls 911 three times, removes Shubham, and refuses to let him reboard. Gallup Police responds first; MCSO takes over the investigation.
Report produced; DA referral status disputed
MCSO supplies the report and says the case was sent to the District Attorney. The passenger reports that DA staff could not locate it using the available identifiers. Later MCSO correspondence describes intake review with no assigned prosecutor.
Maiorano describes his standard for case preparation
In published remarks, the Sheriff discusses deputies developing skills in evidence preparation, discovery, presenting cases, testimony, and potentially questioning witnesses.
Sheriff calls the investigation “sufficient”
Maiorano says he reviewed Bittony’s report and video and calls the investigation conducted by Bittony and approved by Sgt. Benally “sufficient.” He conditions further conversation on the passenger no longer using AI-generated language.
Sheriff directs staff not to respond
Maiorano directs department staff to forward the passenger’s emails to Chief Deputy Jim rather than respond. The passenger disputes the email’s account that she would not take or return calls.
Gallup Police produces three recordings
GPD supplies recordings and companion metadata from the July 16 response. The recordings provide another view of the scene, including exchanges about the ticket photograph and continued travel.
MCSO closes three records requests
Jim supplies the command-review email, internal directive, and case-detail export. Multiple requested categories are marked “no responsive records.” Those responses do not by themselves establish that no review or investigative activity occurred.
Criminal complaint and summons filed
Bittony’s complaint and a summons are filed in McKinley County Magistrate Court, charging Shubham with one count of battery in case M-35-MR-2026-00188. The summons schedules an October 2 appearance to enter a plea.
Complaint and summons · Compare the complaint with the recordings
NMDOJ refers the complaint to MCSO and closes its matter
NMDOJ says MCSO is better suited to address the issues raised. The passenger replies that her complaint concerns MCSO’s own conduct and leadership, and asks about the referral, review, and reconsideration process.
MCSO produces policies and recording audit logs
Jim closes requests #4, #5, and #6. The production includes policy attachments and four recording audit logs. The logs identify viewing and export actions; they do not record a substantive review conclusion.
Victim impact statement sent to the DA
The passenger sends her statement to District Attorney John Bernitz and requests preservation, personal participation at sentencing, and notice before a negotiated disposition. The email documents her requests; it does not establish that they have been granted or that sentencing has been scheduled.
Comparison identifies words missing from the signed complaint
A new published comparison shows the continued-contact and immediate-confrontation passage in the original report is absent from the September 10 complaint. The open letter asks who changed and reviewed the narrative and how the missing account will be addressed. September 18 is the date of this comparison, not a new court filing.
Original report, complaint, oath, and bodycam comparison · Open-letter update