Contact
Report is incorrect: Court hasn’t ruled on Daniels recusal
N.M. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels
NMPolitics.net incorrectly reported earlier today that the N.M. Supreme Court had rejected a motion to recuse Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels from any matters related to the bribery case against Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy.
NMPolitics.net was quoting the Las Cruces Sun-News, which reported earlier today that the court had denied prosecutor Matt Chandler’s motion to recuse Daniels.
NMPolitics.net has confirmed that the Sun-News report is incorrect. The motion seeking Daniels’ recusal is still pending. As a result, the incorrect article no longer appears on NMPolitics.net, which apologizes for the error. NMPolitics.net has also removed mentions of the inaccurate article from its Facebook and Twitter pages.
The Supreme Court has taken action on the other request Chandler made Wednesday. The court has denied a motion from Chandler seeking reinstatement of a misdemeanor charge against Murphy. Three justices ruled in favor of the order denying Chandler’s motion, while Justice Petra Maes, who is listed as a witness in the Murphy case, recused herself.
Daniels is listed on that order as not participating in the decision. That’s not the same as recusing himself.
Chandler filed the request to reinstate the misdemeanor charge and the request to have Daniels recused from any decisions related to the Murphy case together on Wednesday.
1 Comment
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Heath: Thank you with keeping us current with accurate information. As I have said earlier in a different posting the whole circumstance is really disgusting. Regardless of what I would like to see happen, I think that if Daniels is court ordered to recuse himself many in the public will take that as an assessment of guilt. If Daniels will agree to not participate in any decision regarding Murphy or any of the other judges that might be acccused by the Judical Standards Commission that would seem fair to all at this point. If later the allegations against Daniels are false he will not have so much of a scar on his reputation, however if some of the allegations are true and they are illegal then there needs to be a consequence. In what I read Daniels talking several times to Driggers seems inappropriate by both parties since Driggers is listed as an witness. To me that is an ethical issue bordering on obstruction of justice.