Skip to main content
2026 General ElectionAll McKinley County voters can vote by mail
39days until early voting · Oct. 6
67days until Election Day · Nov. 3
GET YOUR MAIL-IN BALLOT NOW →
IF VICTIMS DESERVE BETTER THE RECORD · THE QUESTIONS · THE TRUTH
Independent accountability project. Not affiliated with MCSO, McKinley County, James Maiorano III, or any political campaign.
James Maiorano III wearing a cowboy hat, vest, badge, and holstered firearm
JM

PEOPLE · SHERIFF

JAMES
MAIORANO III

SHERIFF · McKINLEY COUNTY

August 19 public statement source previewAUG. 19 PUBLIC STANDARD August 21 command review previewAUG. 21 COMMAND REVIEW

Sheriff · McKinley County

Public-record timeline

2000Career began at Gallup Police Department.
2004Joined McKinley County Sheriff’s Office.
2004–2022Served in leadership roles including Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, and Undersheriff.
November 2022Elected Sheriff.
August 19, 2026Public statement on evidence preparation and case-development skills.
August 21, 2026Calls the investigation “sufficient.”

THE COMPARISON THAT MATTERS

Two days apart: his public case-development standard on August 19, then his command-review determination on August 21.

August 19 · Public standard

Prepare the case.

Maiorano publicly discussed officers needing to “prepare their evidence,” “provide discovery,” “present their own case,” and develop those abilities as being “at the top of our list.”

Official DPS source →

August 21 · This case

“I reviewed the report and video from Deputy Bittony.”

“SUFFICIENT.”

“Based on that information, the investigation conducted by Deputy Bittony and approved by Sgt. Benally is sufficient.”

The record he said he reviewed

Translator request

Requested before substantive questioning; limited-English statements and a documented misunderstanding follow.

6 / 10 / 9

Six generic touching formulations, ten alternative-explanation moments, and nine reassuring or minimizing statements.

Report comparison

The four-contact count and own-seat confirmation are identified as omissions in the project working record.

Identity / locating

The report records “SHUBHAM, NO GIVEN NAME” and a Georgia address; verification details remain unresolved in the available record.

Supervisory review

Benally is identified as the reviewer; what that review included remains unresolved.

Command conclusion

Maiorano said he personally reviewed the report and video and still called the investigation sufficient.

Questions for Sheriff Maiorano

VIEW AUG. 21 SOURCE →READ THE REPORT

THE RECEIPTS: 6 / 10 / 9

When these counts are used on this site, the timestamped record stays with them.

6 TIMES THE ALLEGATION BECAME JUST “TOUCHING”

Bittony already knew the female passenger had reported multiple instances of touching of her butt and private area.

20:12
“She said that you were touching her.”
20:18
“With your hand. Touching her?”
21:52
“Why would she say you were touching her?”
25:32
“You didn’t touch her? Maybe you were sleeping.”
27:20
“The female is saying that he was touching her.”
27:27
“Why does that lady say he’s touching her?”
28:31 — “But the girl was saying that he was touching her butt.”
This is the first identified buttocks-specific description. The full allegation involving both her butt and private area still is not clearly presented to Shubham on the available recording.

10 INNOCENT-EXPLANATION MOMENTS

1. 18:19
“You don’t know? You were sleeping, maybe?”
Sleep explanation supplied by Bittony.
2. 21:20
“She was moving all over the place?”
Movement explanation supplied by Bittony.
3. 21:38
“She’s just moving around all over?”
Movement explanation reinforced by Bittony.
4. 21:44
“Does she get in your space, in your seat?”
Shubham: “No. I’m sitting this in my area only.”
Seat-space explanation supplied by Bittony. Rejected by Shubham.
5. 22:14
“Maybe your bag?”
Shubham indicates his bag was positioned in front of his seat.
Bag explanation supplied by Bittony.
6. 25:32
“You didn’t touch her? Maybe you were sleeping.”
Sleep explanation reintroduced by Bittony.
7. 25:40
“Maybe you were sleeping and your hand like this?”
Bittony physically demonstrates the accidental hand movement he is suggesting.
Shubham: “No, no, no.”
Accidental-contact explanation supplied and demonstrated by Bittony. Rejected by Shubham.
8. 28:38
“She kept moving around.”
Movement explanation reintroduced by Bittony.
9. 29:10
“When she was moving around, did she move into his space?”
Seat-space explanation supplied by Bittony.
The civilian assisting with translation responds: “He just listen to music.”
That response does not support Bittony’s suggestion that she moved into Shubham’s space.
10. 29:31
Bittony asks again: “Did she move into his space?”
The civilian assisting with translation, not Shubham, initially answers: “Yeah.”
Bittony immediately repeats the proposition.
The subsequent response contains:
“No.”
“Only in her space.”
“her seat.”
The “Yeah” did not come from Shubham. The seat-space explanation originated with Bittony, not from an unsolicited account by Shubham.
WHY IT MATTERS
The issue is not that an investigator considered innocent possibilities. It is who supplied those possibilities, when they were supplied, and what happened when Shubham rejected or failed to support them.

9 REASSURANCES

22:43
“It doesn’t mean you’re going to jail with me.”
31:17
“So he’s not going to be arrested or anything like that.”
31:52
“He’s not going to be arrested. It’s just I’m going to do a report.”
34:47
“He’s not in trouble with me.”
34:47
“You’re not going to go to jail.”
36:34
“Then it’s nothing.”
36:46
“Just don’t think about it too much.”
41:01
“It’s okay, man. You’re going to be okay.”
41:12
“Yeah. It’s unfortunate, but you’ll be fine.”
FIVE SECONDS APART
34:47 — “You’re not going to go to jail.”
34:52 — “I have to gather all the evidence to put it together into a report.”
SEE THE SOURCE → WHAT CAN I DO? →