Politicking is part of the process for becoming a judge

Comments

  1. changodeoro says:

    Judge Dredd says, Murffy is innocent and the political system is guilty, case closed. Next.

  2. JusticeP says:

    A new report by iWatch claims the Obama administration gave 200 of its biggest campaign donors key assignments within the government or granted their business interests with federal contracts.

    Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity even if “flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors” and regardless of a judge’s “motive or good faith,” or whether “the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly.”

    That is alot of power without accountability.

  3. Michael L Hays says:

    I am sure that there are slam-dunk cases of pay-for-play political corruption. But the dividing line between a legitimate contribution and an illegal one seems blurred. It is made blurrier when, in trying to establish intend, it is easy to confuse quid pro quo with post hoc, propter hoc logic

    Moreover, depending on personnel, circumstances, and timing, the prosecution of possible cases can be, or appear to be, the persecution of political opponents (even within the same party). In short, either, neither, or both the front-end and the back-end of such cases can be involved. I cannot imagine how anyone can sort such issues out, but it weighs heavily in my mind that the back-end is likely to be playing politics when the secrecy of the investigation or the proceedings of the grand jury is violated. Were I a judge, I would throw out any case involving a leak as a lesson to prosecutors, whether or not they are playing politics, and I might seek professional sanctions against the prosecutor if I had the slightest suspicion of the involvement of his office or anyone working in it in such a leak. It is long since time that prosecutorial misconduct got treated like a serious crime, not given a slap on the wrist.

  4. source1 says:

    The dem party and a democrat and former federal prosecutor that worked with Judge Martin, claims this is a political prosecution with hidden agendas. Here are a few facts that keep jumping out that we should consider:

    * in 2010, Murphy is on tape talking about the bribe and how he cannot do it anymore because NM was getting a new governor. That was recorded, by the way, by a democrat.

    * A former democrat and court of appeals judge was the first to report the bribe.

    * Judge Bridgeforth, who reported that Murphy told him that he paid $4,000, is a democrat and long time, very respectable judge.

    * Norman Osborn, who reported that Murphy said he gave $$$$ to Edgar Lopez to get his appointment, is a democrat.

    * An independent citizens grand jury from Las Cruces (statistically, probably a few democrats on that grand jury) indicted Murphy on the charges.

    If the prosecution is for political gain, why was it not leaked last year when the prosecutors were both running for statewide offices on themes of corruption? They both knew about it at the time, but never said a word to the media. In the Peter O.’s perfect world, this case should have been ignored by any prosecutor with a “R” by their name along with the dozens of “D”s that decided to turn a blind eye to it.

    Regardless why this case was exposed, I thank Michael Murphy for exposing the process, whether he meant to expose it or not – he did. Nobody can deny a major problem has been uncovered and it needs to be fixed.