Contact
Judiciary will handle Murphy case responsibly, Daniels says
N.M. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels
While others ‘pontificate and speculate and engage in innuendo,’ Daniels tells fellow judges that the judiciary must ‘make sure the processes of the law continue’
The chief justice of the N.M. Supreme Court says that, at the conclusion of the bribery case involving District Judge Mike Murphy, the state’s judges will be able to hold their heads high because the judiciary will have handled the case responsibly.
“I think when this is all over with there won’t be any comment about a dark cloud over the entire judiciary, because I think we will respond to this in a responsible way,” Charles W. Daniels recently told state judges as a meeting in Albuquerque.
Daniels was responding, during opening remarks at a judicial conclave, to an Albuquerque Journal editorial that asked the question on the minds of many: “Did the ugly pay-to-play tentacles of the Bill Richardson machine reach into the state’s judicial appointment process?”
“It is unfortunate, but the indictment casts a cloud on the judiciary…” the editorial states. “It is now up to the justice system, the bench and the Judicial Standards Commission to dispel it with a good dose of sunshine.”
Daniels told judges that the judiciary’s applying of the rule of law in the case will remove the dark cloud.
“We all know that we will apply the rule of law at every level throughout our courts,” he said. “We all know that the rule of law means that no person, no public official, no citizen, is above the requirement of obedience to the law, and that no person, no public official, no private citizen, is beneath the protections of the law.”
“We will stand by that and we will apply it, and we will come through this and I think we will be able to hold our heads high,” Daniels said.
You can watch Daniels’ speech here, thanks to video sent to NMPolitics.net by the UNM Judicial Education Center:
‘Widespread innuendo’
Daniels also referred to an ethical requirement that prohibits judges from commenting on cases that are or might come before them. He said some have been discouraged by “the widespread innuendo far beyond the allegations in the particular case involving one defendant that’s now pending in one of the districts in the state.”
The special prosecutor has said his investigation has expanded beyond Murphy, but no one else has been charged with a crime or received notice that they may be indicted. There is certainly an implication in the case that could cast suspicion on any judge appointed by Richardson.
Daniels, himself a Richardson appointee, is one of two judges besides Murphy who have faced the most scrutiny. A statement attributed to Murphy in a law enforcement report seems to imply that Daniels might have paid a bribe in exchange for his judgeship:
“Judge Murphy also stated that if he was guilty of buying a judgeship, then what does that make Chief Justice (Charlie) Daniels.”
When asked by NMPolitics.net about that statement in May, Daniels opted to confront it head-on.
“I did not buy this position,” Daniels said at the time. “No one ever asked me to, and I never would have entertained the idea.”
Investigators have also made clear that they have their eyes on District Judge Jim T. Martin, who witnesses say attended some meetings with Murphy that are related to the charges against Murphy.
Martin has retained a criminal defense attorney and is not hearing criminal cases for the time being to avoid a conflict.
Daniels said at the recent meeting in Albuquerque that, even though judges “have to keep quiet while all the controversy swirls around us and other people pontificate and speculate and engage in innuendo,” judges must “make sure the processes of the law continue.”
The case against Murphy
Murphy is facing felony bribery charges and a misdemeanor charge of violating the state’s Governmental Conduct Act.
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.
Murphy has pleaded not guilty. His trial is scheduled for November.
A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.
7 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
cardjrb:
Your Honor: Yes, Respect was directed at yourself as I do respect you and I know many others that do also. I also extend that to the other Judges that I know or have had experience with or know someone that has. The phrase I used “Respect where Respect is due” in actually applies to everyone. I view that Respect is earned–not labeled by position–in all walks of like.
I appreciate the compliment about being reasonable. When I post on this blog my opinion is either from experience or from what I believe is well researched facts or I have a question as to why someone states a point without stating any basis of reasoning.
While I do not know Charlie Daniels personally, I know one of his ex-law partners quite well and had experience with the firm for about eight years. In that time I found the integrity of the firm, his ex-law partner and his partner’s very good opinion of Mr. Daniels satisfying. In my personal view Mr. Daniels legal views as a defense attorney vs. Chief Daniels legal views as Chief Justice are not consistent. Just my view.
As you have read, more than likely more than once in my blog comments, “immunity” is a big issue for me. For those of you that do not need or utilize the immunity standard I wonder if it is realized how the application or effect of the standard when it is used creates any unbalanced playing field. When the actions of a person are erroneous is one thing—intentionally erroneous, intentionally injurious and/or malicious—that is another thing. It is the later that I feel should not lack of accountability. I know that it can be said the later does not bar criminal prosecution, but trying to get a local district attorney to prosecute someone that effects their standing usually is not the case. As my mother always told me, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
While my experience with the Judicial Standard Commission was when James Noel was the director and in two of my three complaints sanctions were issued to a judge. However at that time I was told sanctions had been issued but I was not allowed to know anything other than they were issued. I was also told that I could not refer to the sanctions as they were confidential. Whether that is the same standard now, I do not have knowledge. It appears to be more open. However, it was clear to me there was much tension between the commission and the Supreme Court.
I am sure it seems unbalanced and unreasonable to have to take the time and expense of providing show cause responses to every allegation by a litigant before your court to the judicial standards commission, in light of no other agency has the same type of oversight (and I would agree this is not in balance).
While I personally have taken your postings as your personal opinion and not speaking for the judiciary or any individual case—I want to express my appreciation that you do comment and state you are a district judge—if makes me feel that you are one of us trying to obtain an overall better environment of all. For that I also extend Respect. Blessings.
JusticeP,
you are a reasonable person; I have read many of your posts and while I don’t always agree with your position I cannot argue with your attempt at even-handed discussion. My previous post was directed at some of the criticisms of Chief Daniels’s remarks to the Judicial Conclave. I understand that a “conclave” sounds very medieval and mysterious but it is nothing more than an annual training conference for justices, appellate judges, district court judges, metro court judges, staff attorneys, and hearing officers. My only point was that many (not you) on this board have made unfounded, spurious comments about the Chief. Charlie Daniels was my friend before either one of us joined the judiciary and he became my “boss” as head of the judiciary.
One comment that I find utterly amazing was by Justin below:
“Why would the Chief Judge feel the need to address the group? Was he trying to send a message to stick together? This is mob 101 if you ask me, if nothing else extremely bad judgment and unprofessional.”
In my previous post, I tried (perhaps inartfully) to point out that to reach such conclusions from a brief video (when the poster clearly indicated he did not know it’s context) is a bit of a stretch. I was not whining about uncomfortable shoes. If I wanted to walk in comfortable shoes I would not have chosen to be a judge–probably not even a lawyer.
But your information about judicial discipline is a bit misdirected. I do not dispute the “50 published judicial sanctions” that you cite. However, if you look at each of the cases–going all the way back to 1972–there are only about a dozen that involve appellate or district judges. Now any discipline of a judge is sad but would you not feel worse if there had been no disciplinary action at all or at least if it was at a lower rate? New Mexico’s Judicial Standards Commission is very active and is respected nationally–it is the model for states currently reforming their judicial disciplinary methods. Doesn’t the very fact that the JSC is so aggressive indicate that our system is working?
I would also ask that you analyze the circumstances of the dozen or so appellate and district court judges that were disciplined since 1972. You can see the entire list at
http://nmjsc.org/supremecourtdisciplinaryactions.php
Only a couple of cases involved actual misuse of position or otherwise suggest an abuse of power by the judge. Many of this dozen were–sadly–disciplined for DWI. Still others were disciplined for purely administrative issues: not conducting the business of the court efficiently, personnel disputes, and the like. Clearly disciplining a sitting judge is never a good thing but most of the dozen or so appellate and district judges who have been disciplined since 1972 succumbed to human frailties that can afflict us all, not for the outrageous complaints that you list in your post.
Now before you reply that I am naive if I believe that all misconduct is found out, let me assure you that I do not so believe. However, the level of scrutiny applied to appellate and district court judges is intense, such that if there were a smoking gun it would take a miracle to stash it out of sight. The other branches of government do not have the equivalent of the Judicial Standards Commission. Sure the State Auditor and the Attorney General investigate government misconduct but no there is no other agency so focused on misconduct like the JSC. The JSC only looks at complaints concerning about 300 judges statewide–nothing else.
I feel I should point out that the opinions expressed here are my own. I should have made that same disclosure in my previous post. I also want to be clear that nothing in my posts should be construed as an expression of opinions about any ongoing court cases.
Thank you for your “Respect” if it was intended for me.
cardjrb: Your Honor: At all times wearing a shoe that does not fit is painful. In all walks of life it occurs. I believe it correct to say that from 2003 to 2010 approximately 50 published judicial sanctions have occurred in New Mexico—notwithstanding the unpublished reprimands for questionable or illegal actions. When you look at the total evidence: a recent United States Supreme Court reversal on a Sixth Amendment issue and the chastisement of its handling, another USSC on the campaign finance issue, the Gary King issues, inappropriate handling of funds and legal issues by state actors, the great loss of permanent funds and the implications by Judge Murphy—the loss of confidence by many of the citizens of New Mexico—have created a sense of anger. If that anger is misplaced, I for one am sorry, especially am I sorry that the judges that I know that are very upright, honest and doing a job that in no way is there enough money to pay me to take the job—even if I were qualified. You must not forget there are laws that are pasted to protect just a few that put severe limitations on many. With Respect where Respect is due.
I am a district court judge in Carlsbad. The Chief addressed the judiciary (appellate, district, and metro court judges) at the judicial conclave (for annual training) because he is the head of the Judiciary of New Mexico. His words delivered in the video were extremely neutral. He laid down the principle that our law protects and attacks without regard to station or position. Anyone who reads a sinister meaning in that statement is stretching. You must realize that the general sentiment expressed in the traditional media as well as the blogosphere concerning the judiciary is extremely derogatory. Is not the role of a leader to offer words of encouragement to his troops? Chief Justice Daniels was telling us that the “cloud” would pass. Do you find that egregious? Is every nuance of a reasonable man to be second-guessed?
I guess we’ll see how the judiciary handles the Murphy case; mostly, I see them as politicians in robes.
“I think when this is all over with there won’t be any comment about a dark cloud over the entire judiciary, because I think we will respond to this in a responsible way,” Charles W. Daniels recently told state judges as a meeting in Albuquerque.
Heath, not knowing a thing about a judicial conclave, can you tell us if all judges attended? Were the judges that are going to be called as witnesses in attendance? Was Judge Schultz, already deemed a victim of retaliation by the grand jurors as reflected in their indictment, was she there too?
Why would the Chief Judge feel the need to address the group? Was he trying to send a message to stick together? This is mob 101 if you ask me, if nothing else extremely bad judgment and unprofessional.
It sends one message to the public, the fox is watching the hen house.
“We all know that we will apply the rule of law at every level throughout our courts,” he [Daniels] said. “We all know that the rule of law means that no person, no public official, no citizen, is above the requirement of obedience to the law, and that no person, no public official, no private citizen, is beneath the protections of the law.”
The rule of law is a legal maxim that provides that no person is above the law.
In my opinion “the requirement of obedience to the law” is a correct statement. However when you balance the below rules of law…
(1) American prosecutors have almost unfettered authority to decide whom to charge, what crimes to identify, what penalties to seek, what bail to urge, what witnesses to call, what evidence to present, what persons to give immunity from prosecution, what plea bargains to make and what sentences to negotiate., and
(2) Judicial immunity is an absolute form of absolute immunity; it applies “no matter how erroneous the act may have been, how injurious its consequences, how informal the proceeding, or how malicious the motive”.
…these rules of law allow the prosecutor to not prosecute a person leaving that person above the requirement of obedience to the law and judicial related erroneous act(s), injurious consequences, and/or malicious motives leaving a person beneath the protections of the law.
While the intent of the above quote by Daniels sounds very good, in actually the realism of the application of the above rules of law may leave the protections imbalanced.