Contact
DA wants Daniels to stay away from Murphy case
N.M. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels
A rumor that a campaign contribution from Daniels’ wife may have bought his appointment to the high court, along with Daniel’s actions and statements in the Murphy case, create a negative appearance, prosecutor Matt Chandler argues
Special prosecutor Matt Chandler has filed a motion seeking the recusal of N.M. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels from any matters related to the bribery case against Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy.
The motion also seeks Daniels’ recusal from any cases presented to the high court by the Judicial Standards Commission involving judges tied to the Murphy case.
Chandler filed the motion with the Supreme Court on Wednesday. He also filed a request that the court reinstate a misdemeanor charge of violating the state’s Governmental Conduct Act against Murphy – a charge the judge overseeing the case recently dismissed.
You can read the motion seeking Daniels’ recusal here.
A rumor that a campaign contribution from Daniels’ wife may have bought his appointment to the high court, along with Daniel’s actions and statements in the Murphy case, create a negative appearance, Chandler argues.
“If Chief Justice Daniels continues to rule in this matter, any such ruling could reasonably be questioned by members of the public based upon his prior involvement, public statements to the media about the credibility of the state’s witnesses and his statements made about the case in public settings,” Chandler wrote.
Daniels declined to comment.
Rumor about Daniels’ appointment to high court
Chandler asked the court to consider a statement Daniels made to NMPolitics.net in response to a claim in court records attributed to Murphy. As NMPolitics.net reported in May, Murphy was quoted as saying that, “if he was guilty of buying a judgeship, then what does that make Chief Justice (Charlie) Daniels.”
Daniels responded by telling NMPolitics.net he “did not buy this position. No one ever asked me to, and I never would have entertained the idea.”
“I don’t know who said what in all these multiple hearsay layers of he-said, she-said,” Daniels said. “But I do know if anybody claims I bought my position, they don’t know what they’re talking about, they don’t know my qualifications for this job, and they certainly don’t know my character.”
According to a journal kept by District Judge Lisa Schultz, who first brought the allegations against Murphy to prosecutors, Murphy wasn’t the only person to share that rumor about Daniels. Schultz wrote that then-Third Judicial District Court Chief Judge Robert E. Robles, who had applied for the Supreme Court spot Richardson gave to Daniels, told her he wasn’t going to get the job.
“Judge Robles explained that the governor was going to appoint Charles Daniels, because his wife (Randi McGinn) had recently given a one-million dollar contribution to the governor’s campaign fund,” Schultz’s journal states.
Robles told NMPolitics.net he doesn’t recall having a conversation with Schultz about the Supreme Court appointment. When he talked with others about his application for the job, Robles said his focus was on the fact that no member of the high court was from Southern New Mexico.
Robles said he was aware that McGinn was active in the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, which was “very supportive of the governor.” And he did say, in conversations about the appointment, “that it was not likely that I would be appointed.”
Regardless of whether Schultz might have interpreted that as McGinn buying the job for Daniels, Robles said he doesn’t know how Schultz came up with a figure of $1 million.
“I have no idea how much anybody contributes. I never looked that up. I don’t recall anybody telling me,” Robles told NMPolitics.net. “I have no idea what the trial lawyers gave.”
NMPolitics.net has searched for and found no evidence of a $1 million contribution from anyone. According to FollowTheMoney.org, Daniels gave $200 to Richardson’s gubernatorial re-election campaign in 2006. His wife gave $3,000 to Richardson in 2002 and $5,000 to Richardson in 2006. McGinn also gave $2,300 to Richardson’s presidential campaign in February 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org.
The trial lawyers association gave $25,000 to Richardson’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign, according to FollowTheMoney.org. It gave $52,500 to his 2006 re-election campaign.
No one has publicly accused Daniels, his wife, or the trial lawyers association of paying for Daniels’ appointment or claimed to have evidence that it happened.
Judge selection ‘suggested the appearance of impropriety’
In his request for Daniels’ recusal, Chandler also cited the chief justice’s previous actions in the Murphy case and statements about it. In his role as chief justice, Daniels has twice appointed judges to oversee the Murphy case. The Supreme Court also ruled twice (here and here) on whether to suspend Murphy from the bench pending the outcome of the criminal case against him, and Daniels voted both times.
The Supreme Court will rule at least once more on a matter related to the Murphy case because Chandler is asking the high court to reinstate the misdemeanor charge. Chandler has said he may also ask the high court to reinstate felony charges contained in an indictment the judge assigned to the case recently dismissed. That indictment alleges 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 (read more details here).
Chandler took issue in his motion with a previous decision by Daniels. In March, during the appointment of a judge to oversee maters related to the Murphy grand jury, Chandler says Daniels appointed District Judge J.C. Robinson of Silver City a day after Murphy’s attorney suggested to Chandler that a judge from Silver City should preside over such matters.
Chandler states in his motion that he was “quite concerned about the ‘coincidence’” and submitted a motion to Daniels to withdraw the appointment of Robinson, saying the situation “at least suggested the appearance of impropriety.”
Daniels denied the motion.
Chandler ‘shocked’ to hear Daniels’ phone conversation
Chandler’s motion details another situation he says is concerning. The day Murphy was arrested on a new charge relating to his solicitation of Schultz’s vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief judge in Las Cruces, Chandler spotted Daniels talking on his cell phone at a coffee shop outside Santa Fe. Statements he overheard led Chandler to believe Daniels was talking about Murphy’s arrest – before information about the arrest had been released to the public.
Among the statements Chandler states he overheard was, “what’s next, I mean, are they going to go after us for putting on the left shoe before putting on the right one?”
Chandler wrote that he was “shocked to walk by and hear the chief justice giving his opinion of the case already.” Chandler stated that he sent an e-mail to Daniels and Murphy’s attorney asking whether Daniels would recuse himself from further matters related to the case as a “good faith effort to informally resolve this matter outside public channels,” but Daniels didn’t respond.
That led to the formal motion Chandler filed Wednesday.
A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.
13 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Justice P:
The rhetorical victory for the GOP would be, I think, obvious. As much as we like to claim that our system is based on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, the perception for the majority of Americans is that if you are being charged with a crime, you must be guilty of something. Ultimately, it doesn’t really damage the GOP politically if none of Mr. Chandler’s current causes result in convictions; anyone he can tie to “corruption” – even imagined corruption – is one fewer political opponent to worry about later on. Just look at the similar (but unrelated) case of Judge Murdoch, who was forced to resign for something that almost everyone involved agrees he not only didn’t do, but couldn’t have done, and for which he’s no longer even being charged for. That doesn’t change the fact that his career is over, as is Judge Murphy’s. The problem for Mr. Chandler – and really for the GOP – in the latter case is that now that he’s achieved the lesser goal of ending Murphy’s career, Mr. Chandler is now casting almost blindly in an attempt to hook the chief justice, the former governor, other judges, the attorney general, and anyone else he can get his hands on, regardless of actual evidence. The political battle is far easier to wage than the legal one, and far more difficult to defend against. The risk for the state GOP, of course, is that if Chandler’s eyes get too big for his stomach the public is going to start noticing that that he’s throwing stones from within a glass house, and the party would be wise to reign him in and narrow his focus before this happens.
I do apologize for the previous paragraph; in re-reading it, I appear to have taken a brief leave of my senses and spent several minutes performing spectacular feats of metaphor-mixing.
And yes, I do think we need to correct the law when it comes to political donations in all forms, but in particular (and relevant to this case) with regards to potential judicial candidates. While our judicial selection process is designed to be remarkably difficult to rig, that doesn’t change the fact that the end result involves a large number of individuals who are dependent on political monies, and the impartiality of the bench is something that we should strive to come as close to as possible.
This seems to echo my earlier statement about Attorney General King; he isn’t systematically corrupt. He’s just inept. Weren’t we given one hell of a choice in the last election?
IcarusPhoenix:
I understand you to say that the actions involved in this cause are legal but should be illegal, correct?
I understand you to believe that the actions in this cause are politically motivated, correct?
What is the political advantage that can be gained from this cause, by either party?
wedum59: Like I stated:
“Mr. Chandler would be committing political suicide if these statements have been altered and/or not verified as true.”
I would not say Mr. Chandler “is (1) irresponsible and (2) a mudslinger.”, I would say he is foolish!!
Considering that in order for Heath to “censor” a comment it has to be fairly personal or borderline libelous, I have to wonder what sort of childish – and frankly irrelevant – statements Mr. Olson, Mr. Magoo, and durablebrad are all making that they spend more time lately complaining about their injured pride than they do actually contributing to the debate.
Mr. Chandler has, as usual, demonstrated that he sees the law as a remarkable inconvenience in his quest for justification of his highly-misplaced self-righteousness. While any reasonable person agrees that potential candidates for judicial benches should not be giving campaign donations to people who have any say in the lengthy vetting process necessary for them to get that seat, the fact remains that there is absolutely nothing in New Mexico law that makes it illegal. Mr. Chandler is inventing laws in his head and grasping at straws in order to go after people who have committed that which he feels should be the ultimate sin: they’re registered Democrats.
“some” innappropriate comments
Wow David Olson, moderating comments on your own blog is hardly censorship. There was a time when that did not happen and there was no innappropriate comments posted. Moderating comments was a good compromise. Perhaps you should start your own blog.
JP, as I stated, we have (1) an unverifiable claim about an overheard cell phone conversation and (2) an unverified claim about a million dollar donation. If Chandler were a responsible person, he would verify his claims before broadcasting them. So he is (1) irresponsible and (2) a mudslinger.
Well Health, when you censor comments as heavily as you do, you render yourself irrelevent–and you have.
wedum59:
Mr. Chandlers restating the history of the events and supporting those statements by attaching documents detailing other party’s statements or transcripts of recordings can hardly be regarded as “mud slinging”. He presented facts provided by third parties that he relies on. The question to be determined here is: Who is honest?
Mr. Chandler would be committing political suicide if these statements have been altered and/or not verified as true.
“The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.” — John Locke
The prisons are full of people that could not afford to pay….for a connected attorney or at least a competent honest one.
Whether the actions of the judiciary players referred to in this commentary and the attached documents are legal or illegal is highly troublesome to me. However, the combined circumstances underlying this entire situation is enough to make a maggot puke. It could be said all of this occurred on state time, but since judges are on call 24 hours a day that assertion could be questioned, but still on time that was not productive to their job description.
The facts are that everyday we are being made aware of the activities of the governor’s office, the attorney general’s office, the judiciary, law enforcement, the department of correction, workplace solutions, the legislature etc. What we are being made aware of is the manipulation for power and greed at the expense of tax payer and political contributors.
Now it is up to the citizens to demand accountability. I suggest, that if you feel you can not make a difference consider donating to sites like NMPolitics, Watchdog, NM Capitol Report and/or the other reliable sites of unbiased reporting, allowing them to expand their making the public aware. This may be the best deterrent against the manipulation for power and greed other than the voter’s box. But remember, we do not get to vote on the appointment of the judiciary or other governor appointees.
We only have Chandler’s word about the cell phone conversation, and no verification of any large contribution to Richardson by Daniels’ wife. Seems that Chandler’s primary talent is mud slinging. If Chandler were to be honest, he would admit that he won’t be happy with any judge who is a Democrat.
Hemingway: Tu quoque?
(Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge.)
Bravo Mr. Chandler, speaking truth to power is what needs to be done to start to drain the swamp we have in the NM judiciary. Another embarrassing segment of our banana republic.
Republican special prosecutor Matt Chandler gave campaign money to former Democratic Governor Richardson in 2005. Why did he give Governor Richardson. Maybe he thought 50 bucks could buy a judgeship! Maybe we need Mr. Chandler’s recusal too. Maybe Matt Chandler needs to be replaced as a special prosecutor. So may maybes!!!!!!!!!!!!