Contact
Subscribe
Judges should have reported Murphy’s claims
Heath Haussamen
The bribery case against Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy has created a scandal that rivals any other the New Mexico judiciary has seen in recent times. With more than 100 judges joining Murphy in being appointed by former Gov. Bill Richardson, the public has reason to question the integrity of the entire judiciary.
And if witness statements released by prosecutors are to be believed, a number of judges share the blame for that.
The state’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge who “receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation” of the code to “take appropriate action.” If the offending judge’s “fitness for office” is in question, the judge who learns of it is required to “inform the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission.”
Similarly, the code of conduct for all attorneys in New Mexico – which includes judges – requires any who “knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office” to report it to the commission.
Judicial Standards is the body that investigates claims of ethical violations against judges and asks the Supreme Court to take action when warranted. The intent of the rules on reporting judges is that the judiciary police itself, so the public can have confidence in the integrity of its judges.
And yet, according to witness statements, Murphy told several other judges and lawyers that he made some sort of payment – possibly a campaign contribution – in exchange for his appointment to the bench, and that other judicial applicants had to do the same to get appointed.
That’s outrageous. We have a judge saying he did something unethical and possibly illegal in order to get a job that allows him to judge the conduct of others.
Regardless of whether Murphy actually paid a bribe – and to be clear, I’m making no judgment on whether that allegation is true, though I would note that Murphy isn’t charged with paying a bribe – Murphy’s statements cast a cloud of suspicion over the judiciary, may violate ethical rules, and raise questions about his “fitness for office.”
According to an incident report released by the case’s special prosecutor, I count at least 12 judges and two other attorneys who knew about the claims Murphy was making, some as early as 2007. But no one notified the Judicial Standards Commission until several weeks ago.
A big mouth
I remember when a judicial nominating commission interviewed Murphy in 2006 for the appointment he eventually received. Members of that commission asked Murphy about his reputation for having a big mouth – for what Murphy himself called his tendency to make “locker-room jokes.”
Murphy told that commission he recognized the difference between what is appropriate “in the private setting” and what is appropriate in court, and promised that his mouth wouldn’t be an issue.
It appears that his mouth was an issue. It’s been suggested to me that the judges who knew about the statements that have led to Murphy’s indictment ignored them because they knew he was full of it.
But the veracity of Murphy’s claims should have been irrelevant. The very fact that Murphy was making such statements had the potential to taint the entire state’s judiciary. In fact, his statements have ended up doing exactly that.
No one filed a complaint. The Judicial Standards Commission didn’t investigate. The Supreme Court never took action against Murphy.
And now the public is wondering whether all judges appointed by Richardson paid bribes to get their jobs.
Blowing Murphy off or hiding something?
We know that Judge Lisa Schultz took Murphy’s claims seriously. According to her statement to investigators, she spent two years seeking help from colleagues including her court’s chief judge, a Supreme Court justice, a Court of Appeals judge who heads the state’s Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Conduct, and a district judge who is a member of the Judicial Standards Commission – all judges who know well their duty to report misconduct by colleagues.
Schultz was apparently afraid to go to the commission because the governor appoints the majority of its members. She believed there was a criminal conspiracy that went all the way to Richardson. Schultz, like the others who knew about Murphy’s claims, probably should have reported the situation to Judicial Standards, but at least she made other efforts to address the situation.
In addition to asking colleagues for advice, she claims she confronted Murphy and another judge, demanding that the behavior stop; when she later decided the behavior had not stopped, Schultz went to law enforcement.
Now-retired Judge Stephen Bridgforth, attorney Beverly Singleman (a former Court of Appeals judge), and court staff attorney Norm Osborn all say Murphy made claims to them about how he got his job and/or what others had to do to get an appointment from Richardson. And yet we have no evidence that any of them went to Judicial Standards. Neither did at least 10 other judges Schultz says she asked for help.
Singleman did go to Schultz for help, which is how Schultz started down a road that eventually led her to report the situation to law enforcement. Bridgforth and Osborn are cooperating with prosecutors, and Osborn also encouraged Schultz to report Murphy’s statements to Judicial Standards or the district’s chief judge.
It’s possible, as has been suggested to me, that the other judges ignored Murphy and Schultz because they know Murphy is a talker and blew him off. Of course, many will suspect those judges did nothing because they’re in on a larger criminal conspiracy.
That is exactly why the entire judiciary is tainted by this situation. And it’s exactly why the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to report other judges’ misconduct.
Maybe there is a larger criminal conspiracy here, and that’s why most judges who allegedly knew about Murphy’s claims did nothing. But if there isn’t; if the judges did nothing because they simply didn’t believe Murphy, let’s hope they learn from this situation and take more seriously their duty to police their own in the future.
This article has been updated for clarity.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
16 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What makes everyone so sure that Gov. Martinez DID NOT report the incident to the JSC? Anything reported to the JSC is non-public, and only becomes public when something is filed with the Supreme Court.
SouthValley: Why would Governor martinez be stupid enough to report this to the Judicial standards commission at a time when there were more Richardson appointees on the committee??? Even Judge Schultz, a Democrat knew better than to file a complaint with them. Nothing would have been done about it. The fact is, this whole thing needed to be exposed to the public. Governor Martinez did the right thing!
As far as the article goes, it sounds like this is a desparate attempt by these corrupt people to try to minimize everything that has been happening with these judges. Trying to say that it was just a bunch of non-sense coming from “Motormouth Mike” is just a terrible excuse for the fact that all of these judges stood back and never said a word about anything to the Judicial standards commission. I have a few questions:
1. What about what judge Apodaca said to judge Schultz about letting it go because this is the way it is done?????
2. What about what Judge Weschler said, especially when you have 5 years to report something to the Judicial standards commission?????
3. What about what the Judge from the Luncheon said to Judge Schultz about the possibility of her family being hurt or her career being over if she reported this????
None of these statements suggest that they just figured it was Murphy just spouting off at the mouth and instead suggest that they were much more aware of what has been happening with Judicial appointments..
Thank you, Heath, for approving Mr. Olsen’s entire descent into impatience simultaneously; seriously, I do love watching the ever-growing and self-deluding paranoia of the right.
And let’s not forget that Judge Schultz reported the incident to then District Attorney Susana Martinez, why didn’t she report this matter to the Judicial Standards Commission. Did Susana forget about her ethical duty to report the alleged misconduct? Or was she more interested in a criminal prosecution in order to remove a sitting Democratic Judge?
Ched your right. But corruption does exist and flurish in an environment that punishes those that attempt to expose it …or even worse those that choose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore it. Doesn’t this sound much like a number of Administrators, Politicians and yes even Judges that we all have heard of.
Four comments censored, and counting.
And you did, censor my comments, when I did tell you how it is!
I guess I can’t share any facts of substance here either.
Right-on Ched!
Regarding gm’s comment: He is correct! You are dominated by a cartel here in New Mexico–and you will censor my comments if I start to tell you how it is!
Cons don’t rat on cons. Doctors don’t report doctors. Cops don’t tell on cops. And judges don’t judge the failings of other judges lest their own failing be exposed. As for politicians and their penchant for hypocrisy, they make pathological liars seem honorable in comparison.
Heath says: “Judges should have reported Murphy’s claims”. Indeed they should have, but in case you haven’t noticed, the whole group is a close-knit club who take care of their own. This is evidenced by the huge volume of out-of-the-woodwork comments that follow any questioning of their members on blogs such as this.
Even tho I’m a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, I seriously doubt these judges actually “bribed” per se to get their appointments. The requirement for Richardson was that they be active members of the Dem/liberal party. Contributions to the party are proof positive you are an activist. The larger the contribution(s), of course, the higher the activity. As to the failure of judges to take action, I suspect they’ve become inured to the system and/or they simply didn’t care to make waves. Who would ever know?
I still blame the voters for 90% of the problems in government. New Mexicans insist on unchallenged Dems. We deserve what we get. A local district judge was appointed as a Republican, twice, by an R guv and was defeated each time when he had to stand for re….He changed registration to D for some phoney reason and he got elected in another try. Go figure…
There’s a very thin line between these alleged actions and the rewarding of campaign contributors with appointments. How about looking into the campaign contributions of Governor Martinez’ EIB appointees: James Casciano, Capulin rancher Timothy Morrow, Deborah Peacock and Elizabeth Ryan?
It is an accepted practice for presidents to award campaign contributors with appointments as ambassadors to minor countries, and undoubtedly other cases (isn’t that how we ended up with “Brownie” as FEMA Director?). The main difference seems to be the timing. Before the appointment is fine, but not after the appointment. Hmmmm…
It does seem to me that Murphy is guilty of stupidity, for shooting his mouth off. Once you are a public official, seems there is no such thing as a ‘private’ conversation.
It reminds me of former state auditor candidate Jeff Armijo, who was accused of sexual harassment of a campaign volunteer. He was dropped from the ticket. The charges were eventually dropped too, but it was certainly stupid of him to have a young woman come to his house when no one else was there (including his WIFE) and to work with her alone. See http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2006/08/embattled-auditor-candidate-gets-cold.html
Favor and Motive…I do not believe substantial dispute will occur that favor is obtained in nearly all walks of life from compensation. This compensation may come in many various methods. (i.e. working extra unpaid hours, bringing a new client without commission, designing a patentable item for the company, become intimately involved with a person of authority, paying someone to promote your position, paying to obtain the position you desire or providing an enjoyable event or item to another to gain their favor.) Either of these could include a sales person buying a client lunch, a lobbyist buying a legislator dinner or a business person buying a governmental agent tickets to a sporting event. All of these are the desire of the purchaser to gain favor with the other person. However the acceptable moral and ethical standard that is acceptable turns when the other person demands compensation to obtain their favor.
Likewise I do not believe substantial dispute will occur in discussions that to obtain favor with the Richardson administration that compensation was suggested to nearly all seekers, if they were not already in a favorable standing with the administration.
While I strongly agree that all persons aware of the allegations of Mr. Murphy should have taken responsibility to expose the assertions to the proper authorities, and while I believe that the witnesses did not lie to the grand jury and while I believe the code of judicial ethics was trampled in this circumstance, I believe the real travesty in this circumstance was “Judge Schultz was apparently afraid to go to the commission because the governor appoints the majority of its members”.
We need to look at the judiciary policing the judiciary, the bar of attorneys policing the attorneys, the CPA bar policing the CPA, the police policing the police, the district attorneys being the ones deciding who they want to prosecute or not prosecute.
I find it totally amazing of those that have written in support of Judge Murphy in light of his comments to many of how he got appointed and what you needed to do to get appointed by the Richardson administration. These people’s ethics can come into question if they support this kind of stated behavior and support it.
I really do not think the judges are on a larger criminal conspiracy (there are some really good judges in this state, but not enough) but politics between the judiciary and executive branches have become commingled instead of separated as constitutionally required. The fault may lay with us the voters for allowing this type of conduct to continue. At the least, Mr. Chandler is allowing the public to make the decision, not internal judiciary. Further, Heath has been diligent in presenting to the public the known facts, allowing a perspective to the inside workings of our government.
And what was the motive of Mr. Murphy for wanting to become a judge?
One of the hallmarks of cultures of corruption, is the number of people’
with guilty knowledge of corruption; those who know or knew, who should
have taken some action and did not. Cultures of corruption do not exist where those
who are not corrupt actually do something to fight the corruption around them.
It is not enough to avoid personal corruption if you permit either tacitly or overtly,
the corruption around you.