USA v. Jensen et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 5:25-cr-04750-MIS
MAXWELL STERLING JENSEN,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTIONS TO DETERMINE IF A
CONFLICT EXISTS AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CAN WAIVE A CONFLICT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motions to Determine if a
Conflict Exists and Whether Defendant Jensen can Waive Any Conflict with Informed Consent
(“Motion”), ECF No. 145, filed on March 17, 2026. Defendant Maxwell Sterling Jensen
(“Defendant”) filed a Response on March 26, 2026. ECF No. 155. The Government did not timely
file a reply. Upon review of the Parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, the Court
will deny the Government’s Motions.
On January 29, 2026, Defendant’s attorney, Benigno (Trey) Martinez, “went to the Otero
County Detention Cetner to conduct a joint defense visit with Attorney Jason Davis,” who is
counsel for Defendant’s father and co-defendant, James Jensen, in a separate case in the Southern
District of Texas. Mot. ¶ 4 & n.1 ECF No. 145. James Jensen and Defendant’s mother, Kelly
Jensen, were also present during the visit. Id. ¶ 4 & n.2. Neither James Jensen nor Kelly Jensen
are co-defendants in the instant District of New Mexico case.
When the party entered the jail, the Government asserts that Attorney Davis initially
represented that all members of the party were attorneys before then telling staff that both James
and Kelly Jensen were co-defendants in the SDTX case and, eventually, conceding that only James
Jensen was a co-defendant in the SDTX case. Id. ¶¶ 5-9.
Case 5:25-cr-04750-MIS Document 171 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
“In order to determine the extent of the misrepresentations, the United States asked jail
staff to write reports on the incident.” Id. ¶ 10. Attorneys Davis and Martinez retained Attorney
Johnny Sutton. Id. ¶ 12. The United States informed Attorney Sutton that “there was no criminal
investigation into his clients” and Attorney Sutton gave United States Attorneys Hehr and Dickens
“permission to discuss Defendant Jensen’s case with Attorney Martinez as needed.” Id.
The Government filed the instant Motions because
Given the above facts, the United States believes there may be a conflict of interest
between Attorney Martinez and Defendant Maxwell Jensen under Tex.
Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 1.06(b)(2) . . . [arising] from Attorney Martinez’s
awareness of a potential investigation into the misrepresentations made to jail staff
and his personal interest in that investigation, which necessarily involves Defense
Counsel Davis and James Jenson [sic] as witnesses.
Id. ¶ 13 (footnote omitted).
Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.06(b)(2) states
(b) In other situations and except to the extent permitted by paragraph (c), a lawyer
shall not represent a person if the representation of that person: . . . (2) reasonably
appears to be or become adversely limited by the lawyers or law firm’s
responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyers or law firm’s
own interests.
The Government believes that if the Court does find a conflict, “it may be waived with
informed consent from Defendant Jensen” under Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct
1.06(c) which permits a lawyer to
represent a client in the circumstances described in (b) if: (1) the lawyer reasonably
believes the representation of each client will not be materially affected; and (2)
each affected or potentially affected client consents to such representation after full
disclosure of the existence, nature, implications, and possible adverse consequences
of the common representation and the advantages involved, if any.
Defendant asserts that “James Jensen, [and] Kelly Jensen . . . deny ever representing
themselves as attorneys” and “what occurred was, at most, confusion over the scope and
Case 5:25-cr-04750-MIS Document 171 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
implementation of an already-authorized joint-defense visit, not any type of misconduct.” Resp. at
2, ECF No. 155. Defendant argues that the Government fails to identify the conflict “with the
specificity required for meaningful response or for a focused conflict/waiver inquiry.” Resp. at 2,
ECF No. 155. Defendant notes that Rule 1.06 cautions that conflicts raised by opposing counsel
“should be viewed with great caution.” Id. (quoting Comment 17 to Tex. R. Prof. Conduct Rule
1.06).
The Court can discern no conflict in this instance. There is no indication Attorney
Martinez’s representation of Defendant Jensen would be materially affected by the described
circumstances. Nor is there a requirement for Defendant Jensen to waive a potential conflict of
interest involving Attorney Martinez.
As the Court understands it, Attorney Davis may have misrepresented the status of
Defendant Jensen’s parents to jail staff. Mot. ¶¶ 4-9, ECF No. 145. Whether he did or not is the
subject of a Motion before the Southern District of Texas, where Maxwell and James Jensen are
co-defendants represented by Attorneys Davis and Martinez. Resp., Ex. A, ECF No. 155-1.
Defendant Maxwell Jensen did not witness the events described above and was not otherwise
involved. Mot. ¶¶ 4-9, ECF No. 155. Attorney Martinez witnessed the events described, see Mot.
¶¶ 4-8, ECF No. 145, and Attorneys Davis and Martinez retained the same counsel to address the
matter, but there is no criminal investigation. Id. ¶ 12. The Government is concerned because
Attorney Martinez is “aware[] of a potential investigation into the misrepresentations made to jail
staff” and has a “personal interest in that investigation, which necessarily involves Defense
Counsel Davis and James Jenson [sic] as witnesses.” Mot. ¶ 13, ECF No. 145.
The Court does not opine on whether there may be a conflict in the SDTX case. But as
Defendant Maxwell Jensen was not involved, Attorney Davis is not a co-counsel here, and James
Case 5:25-cr-04750-MIS Document 171 Filed 04/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Jensen is not a co-defendant here, the Court cannot find a conflict resulting from these
circumstances that would impair Attorney Martinez’s representation of Defendant Maxwell Jensen
in the instant case. Waiver by Defendant Jensen is not required.
The Court is, however, baffled that Attorneys Martinez and Davis would permit
circumstances to reach a point at which jail staff questioned whether they misrepresented the
identities of Defendants’ parents. The Government was correct to bring the instant Motion.
Attorney Martinez is reminded that no rules change because co-defendants are related or because
family members face intertwining charges.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s Motions to Determine are
DENIED.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cr-04750-MIS Document 171 Filed 04/17/26 Page 4 of 4