Recorded DA call · August 14
Listen to the call and compare what DA staff reported with the written status descriptions that followed.
District Attorney Referral / Status
WHAT WAS SENT, AND WHEN?
DA correspondence · September 22–24, 2026
The DA says the missing passage is not material.
On September 1, District Attorney John Bernitz wrote that he did not dispute the number of touches or where they occurred. After the passenger raised the continued-touching passage missing from the signed complaint, he said on September 23 that he was not concerned and did not consider the discrepancy material to the case. On September 24, he said he would not answer further inquiries until after the October 2 appearance.
His September 22 explanation was that testimony and video could address the account at trial. These emails document his position. They do not identify who changed the complaint, supply its editing history, or document a correction to the sworn narrative.
September 22 · Bernitz’s explanation
police reports are not evidence they are considered hearsay, live testimony is considered evidence so whatever you have to say will be considered not what is written in the police report. I'm not concerned about it, it can be addressed through the videos at trial, if it comes to that.
I realize that it is something that you are concerned about, but at this time I am not concerned that it affects your case.
September 23 · The discrepancy and the request to stop daily direction
I understand that you have concerns about the manner in which the investigation and the related reports have been transcribed. As I have previously explained to you, I am not concerned about the discrepancy you reference regarding the continued touching, and I do not believe that discrepancy is material to the issues involved in your case.
I also want to be clear that the McKinley County Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office are working to assist you in your case. The suggestion that these offices are engaged in a “mutual admiration society” or that our personnel will do “literally anything” only after being pressured is both unfair and counterproductive.
You have every right to raise legitimate concerns and to ask questions about your case. However, the continued sarcastic and accusatory tone of your communications is not productive and makes it more difficult to accomplish what I believe we both want is to have Mr. Shubham to be held accountable.
Please allow the Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office to perform our respective responsibilities without daily interference or direction regarding how those responsibilities should be carried out. We will determine what investigative and prosecutorial steps are necessary to move your case forward.
Everyone involved here is trying to help you in the underlying matter. I believe that keeping our communications professional and allowing the appropriate agencies to do their jobs will make that process work much more smoothly.
September 24 · Further inquiries deferred until after October 2
I asked you not to email us on a daily basis, of which you are ignoring. The next important date on your case is October 2, 2026, I will contact sometime after that date to let you know what is happing next. I will not be responding to any further of your inquires until that time.
Transcribed from the received emails and checked September 28, 2026. These are labeled text excerpts, not original email-file downloads.
Read the September 1 “no dispute” excerpt · Compare the report and sworn complaint · What remains unanswered
Record update · September 21, 2026
September 1–10: missing evidence, a narrative email, then filing
| Date | What the record establishes | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| September 1 | Bernitz said he had been unaware GPD responded, would request its information and did not have the female officer’s video. He also said he was willing to proceed with battery and described asking the deputy to file a summons. | When each outstanding recording and note arrived or was reviewed. |
| September 9 | Bittony’s email to Bernitz lists a Word narrative attachment. The reproduced narrative retains the continued-touching passage. | The first-ever transmission, all earlier correspondence, or the native file’s editing history. |
| September 10 | The complaint and summons were filed; Bittony signed the complaint. | Who changed its wording, how it was reviewed, or actual receipt of the mailed summons. |
Read selected email excerpts
I was unaware that Gallup Police also responded and will request that information.
I don't have any dispute on the number of touches and where they occurred, but could you please verify whether or not the area of the touching was clothed or unclothed at the time?
Read selected email excerpts
Yes I can help get you the balance of the Sherriff's data, I also don't have the female officer's video, but I'll look into it.
In review, of New Mexico law, I think Battery is the appropriate charge in this case and I am willing to proceed with that charge against Mr. Shubham.
In that process the Deputy (under my request) would file a summons in Magistrate Court for Mr. Shubham to appear in Court on a certain day on that charge, and if he does not appear then the Court would issue a warrant for his arrest.
Read selected September 10 filing-email text
I want to forward to you the Criminal Complaint and Summons filed by Deputy Bittony today
As soon as we hear of any developments in your case I will be getting in contact with you to discuss it.
Bernitz’s September 10 filing email also acknowledges uncertainty about the apartment unit and promises notice of developments. Recording an address and certifying mailing do not establish address verification or receipt.
The item-by-item transmission question → · Complaint and summons →
Record update · September 21, 2026
The intermediate narrative still contains the passage
MCSO’s September 17 response to request #10 supplied a two-page copy of the September 9 email and reproduced narrative. The first page shows Miguel Bittony writing to John Bernitz at 10:53 p.m. on September 9, as displayed in the copy; no time zone is supplied.
READ THE ORIGINAL TWO-PAGE PDF →
Agency-produced email and narrative, with victim and witness names permanently redacted. The original page layout is preserved.
- Email subject
- Narrative to incident MCSO INC#2026-10128
- Listed attachment
- On July 16 2026 BATTERY MALE VS FEMALE GREYHOUND BUS NARR.docx · 15 KB
Read selected text from the produced two-page copy
As requested Sir, the narrative to the incident.
However, she continued to feel Shubham’s hands and fingers where she immediately confronted Shubham.
The same continued-touching passage appears in the original report but is absent from the September 10 complaint. This identifies an intermediate version and a documented sender. It does not identify the editor or the reason for the complaint change.
Compare the report and signed complaint → · Who changed and reviewed the text? →
September 10: criminal complaint and summons filed
Shubham is charged with one count of battery in McKinley County Magistrate Court, case M-35-MR-2026-00188. The September 10, 2026 summons schedules an October 2 appearance at 8:30 a.m. Mountain / 9:30 a.m. Central. A charge is not a conviction.
The August referral correspondence below documents the earlier handling of the case. The September filing is the later court development.
Produced DA form / report log
MCSO-produced attachment responding to the request for the underlying referral/transmission record.
July–August referral chronology
August 14 referral challenge · August 14 MCSO intake reply · August 21 request for transmission records
The July 16 report says the incident “will be forwarded” to the District Attorney. On August 14 MCSO Records said the case “has been sent.” After a reported DA lookup problem was raised, MCSO later wrote that the DA was taking the matter in as intake, that it was under review, and that no attorney or prosecutor had been assigned. On August 21 MCSO produced the DA Case Review form and report log.