John William Bernitz
District Attorney · Prosecutor in this case
Last heard from
Bernitz said he would contact the passenger sometime after October 2 about what happens next and would not respond to further inquiries until then. This records his stated communication cutoff; it does not establish that the missing-passage issue was resolved.
Read the September 24 reply excerpt
Latest direct email located in correspondence reviewed through October 13, 2026. No later direct reply was located after the October 2 date mentioned in that message.
Role in the prosecution
Bernitz is the district attorney corresponding with the female passenger about the July 16 incident and the resulting battery case, M-35-MR-2026-00188. His September 1 email says he does not dispute the reported number or location of touches, asks whether contact was over or under clothing, and discusses proceeding with battery and a summons.
September 1–24: the prosecution record
· Missing GPD evidence
Bernitz said he had been unaware that Gallup Police 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.
· Narrative sent to Bernitz
Bittony’s email to Bernitz lists a Word narrative attachment. The reproduced narrative still contains the continued-contact passage. This records a transmission; it does not establish when Bernitz read the attachment or what earlier material he received.
· Complaint and summons filed
Bernitz forwarded the complaint and summons and said Bittony had filed them that day. Bittony signed the complaint; the continued-contact passage is absent. The available copies do not identify who edited it.
· Testimony and video
Bernitz said the account could be addressed through testimony and video at trial and that he was not concerned that the discrepancy affected the case. This is his stated position, not a court ruling.
· Materiality disputed
Bernitz said he did not believe the continued-touching discrepancy was material to the issues in the case and asked that the agencies be allowed to perform their responsibilities without daily direction.
· Further replies deferred
Bernitz said he would contact the passenger after October 2 and would not respond to further inquiries until then. That message does not document a correction to the complaint.
His response to the missing passage
The dated replies above explain why Bernitz said he was not concerned about the missing passage. The unresolved question is how that position was reached and what preparation or review records support it.
These messages establish the prosecutor’s position. They do not identify who changed the complaint, document a comparison of the source versions, or establish a correction. The editor and preparation history remain unresolved.
Read his September 22–24 replies · Compare the source wording · The remaining review question
Victim impact statement acknowledged
On September 22, Bernitz acknowledges the passenger’s victim impact statement and says he will place it in the file and save it for the appropriate time. He also says the office does not assign victim advocates to simple battery cases. The acknowledgment does not confirm the passenger’s requested speaking arrangements or a sentencing date.
The records still needed
The October 1 supplement to IPRA #10 seeks the request preceding Bittony’s September 9 narrative email, the native Word attachment, drafts and metadata, and preparation, approval and filing records. It does not establish who edited the complaint or why.
Requested, supplied and still missing · The supplement’s scope