Contact
Murphy suspended without pay
Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
The N.M. Supreme Court has suspended Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy, who was indicted last week on bribery charges.
The Associated Press was the first to report on the court’s order that suspends Murphy immediately and without pay. The order remains in effect until the court takes further action, the news service reported.
Barry Massey, a co-author of the AP report, tweeted that the court’s ruling was 4-1, with Justice Petra Maes recusing herself.
Murphy’s attorney could not immediately be reached for comment.
A grand jury indicted Murphy Friday on third-degree felony charges of demanding or receiving a bribe by a public employee; bribery of a public officer or employee; and bribery, intimidation, or retaliation against a witness, in addition to a fourth-degree felony charge of criminal solicitation.
Prosecutors allege that Murphy solicited a bribe from potential judicial applicant Beverly Singleman, told District Judge Lisa Schultz to tell Singleman she needed to pay the bribe, and threatened to destroy Singleman’s reputation for telling others that he solicited a bribe from her.
Law enforcement was made aware of the situation by Schultz, who had sought advice from Maes about what to do before taking the allegations to then-District Attorney Susana Martinez in 2009. That prior knowledge of the case is apparently why Maes recused herself today.
Interestingly, Maes didn’t recuse herself last month when she and the other justices opted against suspending Murphy. The Judicial Standards Commission sought Murphy’s suspension in early April after NMPolitics.net and others reported on the allegations against Murphy. The court gave no reason then for denying the request to suspend Murphy.
Apparently, a formal indictment makes all the difference.
Update, 6:35 p.m.
You can read the court’s order suspending Murphy by clicking here. Thanks to Massey for providing a copy.
Update, 7:15 p.m.
Matt Chandler, who is prosecuting the case against Murphy, said this about the court’s ruling:
“It’s the right thing to do under these allegations, and I commend the Supreme Court for issuing this ruling.”
Update, 8:10 p.m.
Murphy’s attorney, Michael Stout, had this to say:
“Judge Murphy believes that public confidence in the judiciary is of extreme importance. So he understands temporarily not hearing cases.
“He also believes strongly in the rule of law – including the presumption of innocence. The judge is innocent. He only prays that others will afford him his presumption of innocence as he moves toward his return.”
A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.
5 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mike Murphy, judge in the Third Judicial District, in Las Cruces, may have paid to play. Susana Martinez was the District Attorney in town. It is a small town, and the members of the legal profession know one another. My questions: what did she know, when did she know it, and what did she do about it?
“Interestingly, Maes didn’t recuse herself last month when she and the other justices opted against suspending Murphy. The Judicial Standards Commission sought Murphy’s suspension in early April after NMPolitics.net and others reported on the allegations against Murphy. The court gave no reason then for denying the request to suspend Murphy.
Apparently, a formal indictment makes all the difference.”
I think Judge Maes actions speak for themselves!
When Judge Schultz approached Judge Maes with this information, Judge maes, a gutless wonder, passed the buck to all of the other women judges at the luncheon/dinner. I’m not convinced it was the indictment as much as it is the fact that now the judges know that they are being looked at because of all of this. I am disgusted with how the supreme court didn’t take any action until after the indictment hearing, but then again Judge Charles Daniels was appointed the same way, according to Murphy.
I think Mr. Chandler needs to question all the judges appointed from Dona Ana County. From Judge Larry Ramirez all the way to Judge Conrad Perea Edgar Lopez supported all of them and I doubt he did it for nothing. Heck, Edgar even had a candidate lined up to replace retiring Judge Stephen Bridgforth (Larry Pickett). I’m guessing another $4000 payment was made accordingly.
I think as a State we need to seriously consider removing the political process from selecting our Judges. Why not just have a nominating commission select the applicant, instead of just recommending names to the Governor. Pick the most qualified person. The commission members are picked a few weeks prior to the interview process, so there is little to no time to bribe or influence them with money.
At the same time, remove the need for judges to run in one contested election, this again opens up the possibility of judges having to campaign and seek financial contributions. Let them serve the public and make sure that justice is served.
Heath – you have done a great job. Steve Terrill of Santa Fe New Mexican gave you a nice compliment on your coverage.
http://roundhouseroundup.blogspot.com/
WOW!! I am once again amazed at the decisions of our Supreme Court!!
Here we have Judge Murphy who has been indicted on felony charges including bribery and he is merely suspended. Why now after opting against the Judicial Standards Commission recomendation for suspension last month??
Is it that he was finally Indicted?? Why then is he still allowed to remain on the bench with only a suspension??
Last month we had Taos Judge Sanchez who was forced to retire after charging some people with contempt of court for rioting and threatening him as well as the victim while in his courtroom. The Judicial Standards Commission found that he was within his right to find these people in contempt and recommended only a suspension, yet he was forced to retire against the recomendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. No indictment here!!
Where is the justice here?? And what in the world was our Supreme Court thinking with these two cases??
Starting to look a lot like they got rid of the wrong Judge!!