From the newspaper:

“Las Cruces Magistrate Court Judge Olivia Nevarez Garcia, the wife of New Mexico higher education secretary Jose Z. Garcia, agreed to accept permanent retirement effective at 5 p.m. on Dec. 31, according to an order unsealed Monday by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

“A petition detailing the allegations against Garcia, 68, was not immediately available Monday.

“However, the Supreme Court’s order says the first of three inquiries began in September, 2010 and that the Judicial Standards Commission voted unanimously Nov. 4 to accept her retirement ‘in lieu of further disciplinary proceedings.’”

The Sun-News doesn’t yet have a copy of the Judicial Standards Commission’s petition for discipline, which details the allegations against Garcia, and the newspaper reported no details about the allegations. I called the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office to ask for a faxed copy of the petition – which is how I normally obtain such documents from that office – and was told this one is “too lengthy” to fax.

As part of her agreement with the commission, Garcia, a Democrat who was first appointed to the bench in 2005, won’t be able to hold judicial office in New Mexico again, the Sun-News reported.

Read the full Sun-News article here.

Update, 6:45 p.m.

The Sun-News has updated its article with details about the allegations:

“Las Cruces Magistrate Court Judge Olivia Nevarez Garcia, 68, is alleged to have prevented a defendant in one case from having the help of attorney, advised another defendant during plea negotiations, and misapplied landlord-tenant law and disparaged a hard-of-hearing litigant in that case.

“While she did not admit wrongdoing in any of the three cases in question, Garcia, the wife of New Mexico Higher Education Secretary Jose Z. Garcia, agreed to accept permanent retirement effective at 5 p.m. on Dec. 31, according to an order unsealed Monday by the New Mexico Supreme Court.”

Updated, 7:10 p.m.

You can read the agreement between Garcia and the Judicial Standards Commission, which includes details about the allegations, here.

Heath Haussamen

Sunland Park Mayor Martin Resendiz says now isn’t the “proper time” for him to run for Congress because of the “bad publicity” he and the city have received recently.

I have news for the mayor: It’s not the bad publicity that makes this not the “proper time.” It’s the fact that he was signing city contracts while drunk at a restaurant in 2008. He admitted to being so drunk he didn’t know what he was signing.

It’s the fact that the city is flippantly threatening growth in the area by wavering on an agreement with Doña Ana County to form a joint regional utility that has been in place for six years.

It’s the fact that the Resendiz got into a physical or nearly physical altercation with the mayor pro tem during a recent public meeting that had to be broken up by the cops.

It’s the fact that Resendiz is the mayor of a city that has long been plagued by corruption, political pettiness and infighting, and financial mismanagement, and there’s no indication that the situation is improving under his watch.

All of that leads to a point Resendiz doesn’t seem to understand: The “proper time” for him to run for Congress is never going to come.

New Mexico deserves better

It’s no surprise that Resendiz doesn’t understand. He doesn’t seem to recognize when the “proper time” is to sign city contracts. He doesn’t seem to understand the proper way to hash out differences with the mayor pro tem.

He doesn’t seem to understand the sacred nature of the public trust placed in him.

Resendiz should understand. He’s a former El Paso police officer and Sunland Park municipal judge. He’s been paid to take the public trust seriously for a long time.

The reality is that New Mexico doesn’t need another Jerome Block Jr. We need leaders who understand that they shouldn’t be getting drunk with people who are doing business with their government agencies, let alone conducting business with such people while they’re drunk. We need people who not only act their age, but also act with the maturity being an elected official requires.

The problem in Sunland Park isn’t just Resendiz. It’s a culture that plagues the various political factions and the entire government. But Resendiz has appropriately become the poster boy for the problems.

New Mexico deserves better than a congressman who acts this way.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Sunland Park’s government is volatile. Its word isn’t worth a penny. There’s reason to suspect widespread corruption. In short, the government is standing in the way of the bettering of people’s lives in Southern Doña Ana County. That needs to stop.

In conversations with several people earlier this year, I suggested that lawmakers should create a state House district during the redistricting session that would be exclusive to the south valley of Doña Ana County.

After all, doing so made sense, at least in theory. Lots of people live south of Las Cruces. Many communities are primarily Spanish-speaking. It’s a different world, in many ways, than Las Cruces. And yet, all south-county legislative districts in the House and Senate reach up into Las Cruces and are represented by people who live in or near the state’s second-largest city.

That means rural farmers and people who live in suburbs of El Paso are represented primarily by Las Crucens in the Legislature.

The new district I was suggesting would center in Sunland Park and include areas in and around that city, perhaps stretching as far north as Anthony and Chaparral. Giving a legislative district to people with greater ties to El Paso than Santa Fe could help pull them into state government.

However, some will view the recent shenanigans in Sunland Park as proof that it doesn’t deserve to be the population center in a legislative district.

The most recent incident came during a meeting of the city council last week. Councilors started insulting each other, and, according to the Las Cruces Sun-News, pretty soon the arguing included people in the audience. Allegations of corruption flew back and forth, and police had to stop a physical altercation between Mayor Martin Resendiz and Mayor Pro-Tem Daniel Salinas.

That prompted state Rep. Mary Helen Garcia to ask the state to abolish the city and take over management.

In another recent sign of political immaturity and irresponsible behavior, Resendiz admitted in court documents to being drunk when he signed nine city contracts at a local restaurant. He said he was so inebriated that he didn’t understand what he was signing.

Nothing new

Corruption and shenanigans are nothing new in Sunland Park. I kept an eye on the city for years when I covered Doña Ana County for the Sun-News. A decade ago a damning audit found widespread disregard for state laws in Sunland Park.

I thought things might have been turning around in 2005 when Sunland Park entered into an agreement with Doña Ana County to form a joint utility to serve the Santa Teresa area and end decades of legal wrangling that hampered growth and cost taxpayers untold sums of money.

Now, after years of working to hash out the details and get things going, Sunland Park is thinking about backing out. That’s caused Gov. Susana Martinez to criticize city officials for threatening the growth potential of the region, and to urge them to uphold their agreement.

In response, Sunland Park’s city manager went to a Spanish-language news website out of El Paso to make this allegation:

“I see in the governor an unhealthy racist obsession against a town of poor Mexican immigrants, who additionally vote Democrat.”

That’s an outrageous and irrational allegation to toss at a governor who is Hispanic, from El Paso, and the granddaughter of immigrants from Mexico. Those who have supported the creation of the joint utility include former Sunland Park Mayor Jesus “Ruben” Segura and former Gov. Bill Richardson – both Democrats – in addition to several county commissioners who are Democrats and Republicans, and some former Sunland Park city councilors and current state lawmakers who are all Democrats.

In short, elected officials who represent the south county at various levels of government and from both major political parties have worked toward the creation of the regional utility. The only officials who appear not to be on board are those currently in control of the volatile city government in Sunland Park.

There’s nothing racist about wanting a city to uphold its end of an agreement that would help encourage economic development.

Residents deserve better

The reality is that the city is playing political games. The question is, why? There’s every reason to suspect the worst.

If Sunland Park can’t be trusted to stick to its agreements, how can any other government work with the city? How can any business make a long-term commitment to the region?

Perhaps government officials in Sunland Park don’t understand how serious this is. The city manager, Jamie Aguilera, was quoted by the Sun-News as saying he’d “seen worse” than the recent council meeting:

“I’ve seen people come to blows, roll around wrestling. It’s kind of a shame that what seems like disorder to some people is actually democracy at work. The councilors were questioning what the mayor was doing, his actions, his lack of attendance. People lost their tempers, but eventually they calmed down again.”

The city’s government is volatile. Its word isn’t worth a penny. There’s reason to suspect widespread corruption. Sunland Park’s government is standing in the way of the bettering of people’s lives in Southern Doña Ana County.

As long as that’s the reality, there’s no way the state will create a legislative district with Sunland Park as its population center.

It appears the Department of Finance can’t take control of the city in spite of Garcia’s request, because takeover can only follow a state audit that finds widespread problems. The city was headed for potential state takeover a decade ago because of the bad audit, but a behind-the-scenes deal between Richardson and Segura put a stop to that.

Perhaps it’s time for the state auditor to launch a new probe, and for the state to look for ways to reign in the reckless behavior in Sunland Park. Hopefully this time no state official will be willing to make a deal that lets Sunland Park’s government continue its abuse of the public trust.

It’s time for the city’s government to grow up. Residents of Sunland Park and the region deserve better.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

More than three months after his indictment, District Judge Mike Murphy remains the only person charged in a bribery case that raises the possibility of a widespread criminal scheme involving former Gov. Bill Richardson and the judges he appointed.

District Judge Mike Murphy’s bribery indictment has received national attention because it raises the possibility of a widespread criminal scheme involving former Gov. Bill Richardson and the judges he appointed.

But the public has yet to see proof that such a scheme existed.

More than three months after Murphy was indicted, special prosecutor Matt Chandler isn’t saying much about a larger case involving multiple defendants. NMPolitics.net recently asked whether other judges might be charged and if Chandler believes there was a wider pay-to-play scheme involving multiple judges and Richardson.

“Although I can confirm the investigation continues, I cannot comment on the details at this time,” Chandler said.

Murphy’s own alleged statements are the basis for suspicions that a wider bribery scheme may have existed. If Chandler has uncovered proof, he’s not revealed that publicly. And no one else – not Richardson, not any other judges, not even the alleged bagman in the case – has been charged or received noticed that they may be indicted.

It may be possible that others will eventually be charged and proof of a wider scheme will come to light. But the early media hype surrounding Murphy’s indictment has not been followed by a quick expansion of the case to include other defendants, as some expected it would.

If you ask Murphy’s attorney, Michael Stout, that’s because there is no widespread conspiracy.

“Being human, individual judges make mistakes in law and in life, but as a group they are dignified and honest and working for the common good,” said Stout, who maintains Murphy’s innocence. “There is no systemic judicial corruption in New Mexico, and individual foibles do not change that.”

‘No one is off limits’

It was a combination of statements and actions by Chandler, and the alleged statements by Murphy, that fueled early speculation that the case might go all the way to Richardson. Murphy allegedly said the money judicial applicants paid for their appointments was given to Richardson; Chandler included Richardson on a list of potential witnesses he might call during Murphy’s trial.

Chandler talked tough in a May interview with the New York Times about the possibility of questioning Richardson, and he said there were “other suspects.”

“At this time, the investigation is directed at Mr. Murphy, but I can assure you that law enforcement are following leads involving other suspects,” the Times quoted Chandler as saying. “No one is off limits to get the truth.”

Court records have named some others who are likely among the “suspects” to whom Chandler was referring. One is local politico Edgar Lopez, the man Murphy allegedly said would “hand-deliver” judicial hopefuls’ envelopes of cash to Richardson.

But Chandler hasn’t presented any evidence that Murphy actually paid the $4,000 he allegedly claimed he gave in exchange for his 2006 appointment to the bench. NMPolitics.net has found campaign contributions totaling only a few hundred dollars.

Several other judges and lawyers have told law enforcement that Murphy said he paid for his position, though some doubt he really did it. The defense appears to be preparing to claim that Murphy talks big but didn’t pay a bribe to anyone.

Chandler said most people involved in corruption cases “aren’t writing ‘bribe’ on the memo line of their checks” – they’re paying with cash or political favors, which he said makes proving corruption cases a challenge.

Showing that Murphy actually paid a bribe in exchange for his appointment “is not an element the state has to prove at trial” but is “more of an investigation in and of itself,” the prosecutor said. Chandler is focused on convincing a jury of the crimes alleged in the indictment – 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.

So even if Murphy is convicted, the question of whether a larger criminal scheme existed might linger.

A criminal conspiracy, or standard politicking?

Statements attributed to Murphy aren’t the only ones that raise the possibility of a larger scheme. In a journal she kept about the situation, District Judge Lisa Schultz, who first reported the allegations against Murphy to law enforcement, wrote about a conversation she had with former Appeals Court Judge Rudy Apodaca.

According to a law enforcement report released by Chandler, Schultz wrote that Apodaca told her, “as terrible as it sounded, the system in fact did work in the manner described by Judge Murphy.”

District Judge Jim T. Martin, who Chandler’s office has questioned, explained to law enforcement the reality of the appointment process: The governor gets to make a political decision by appointing from among a handful of applicants recommended by a nominating commission. Martin said the governor picks someone who is active in his or her political party.

“‘A way to show that you’re active in the party is to make donations to the party, participate in events, go to fundraisers, help a particular campaign, be a good Democrat or Republican. That’s kind of the nature of politics; you have to be actively involved in the game,’” the law enforcement report quotes Martin as saying.

Some say what Martin described – and what Murphy may have engaged in – is standard politicking, not bribery. Stout told NMPolitics.net that the judiciary “is too important to allow one judge’s political comments to be used as a foundation for attacking an entire institution.”

A politically motivated prosecution?

Some say the prosecution of Murphy, a Democrat, is designed to create one or more judicial vacancies for Republican Gov. Susana Martinez to fill, and to create another corruption scandal to taint Democrats headed into the 2012 election.

Stout has accused Chandler, a Republican, of playing politics.

“The only goal of this charge and this warrant is to seek to humiliate through images of incarceration for an apparent political purpose,” Stout said earlier this month when Chandler convinced a magistrate judge to approve a new bribery charge related to the selection of the 3rd Judicial District Court’s chief judge, and an arrest warrant for Murphy.

Stout accused Chandler of “abuse of prosecutorial authority” with the new charge and arrest of Murphy – an arrest that took place while Stout was out of town.

Chandler, who ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 2010 but remains a rising star in the GOP, told NMPolitics.net he’s not playing politics.

“Despite what people on both sides want to claim, this is not a prosecution of a political party,” he said. “This is the prosecution of an elected official that allegedly put a price tag on a judgeship, and he happens to be a registered Democrat.”

“Leaving conduct such as this unchecked for fear of being called a ‘political prosecutor’ is exactly what those that support this conduct desire,” Chandler said. “That accusation doesn’t describe me, and it won’t deter me.”

Will we eventually see proof of a conspiracy?

But the allegations against Chandler persist. Statements in law enforcement reports hinting at involvement by Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels are among those some say Chandler included in court documents for political, rather than legal, purposes.

While not citing the statement naming Daniels, Stout said, “Corruption cases are difficult to prove when there is no corruption, when there is only speculation, gossip and conspiracy theories available.”

“By using only insinuation as proof, the problem is not with the judiciary but with those seeking to condemn it,” he said.

On the other hand, some say all Chandler has done is include Murphy’s statements in court documents, and Murphy, not Chandler, is responsible for the fallout.

Chandler recently tried to turn the tables by arguing that Stout is the one trying the case in the media. In filing a motion seeking a change of venue – a motion that was denied – Chandler said statements such as the one alleging “abuse of prosecutorial authority” manipulate public confidence in the judicial system and impugn the prosecutor.

Time will tell whether Chandler will be able to prove that a wider conspiracy existed. But it’s fair at this point to say that we’re a long way from seeing proof of a criminal conspiracy involving Richardson and multiple judges he appointed to office.

This article has been updated to clarify the allegations behind Murphy’s indictment.

District Judge Mike Murphy

A magistrate judge ruled Saturday that a new felony bribery case against District Judge Mike Murphy can move forward.

From the Albuquerque Journal:

“Following a two-day preliminary hearing that ended Saturday, state Magistrate Judge Conrad Perea concluded there was probable cause to believe Murphy tried to bribe fellow District Judge Lisa Schultz with favorable assignments and help with a potentially damaging Judicial Standards Commission investigation.

“In exchange, Murphy wanted Schultz to vote for Douglas Driggers as chief judge of the Third Judicial District in an election last December, special prosecutor Matt Chandler of Clovis has said.”

During a two-day hearing in Las Cruces, the judge listened to a tape recording Schultz secretly made of the conversation on which the charge is based. Michael Stout, Murphy’s attorney, argued that Murphy’s offer to “go out of my way” to help Schultz defend herself against an ethics complaint in exchange for her support for Driggers wasn’t bribery.

“That’s a crime? To say you are going to help someone out? … Tell the Judicial Standards Commission you did a good job, not a bad job? This is politicking; it’s lobbying,” the Journal quoted Stout as saying.

But Perea found there was enough evidence for special prosecutor Matt Chandler to make his case to a jury.

“Difficult as this decision was, I had to do what I believed was right, with all due respect,” the Journal quoted Perea as telling Murphy.

During the hearing, Stout asked Schultz if she wanted to “bring Mike Murphy down.” She said she doesn’t wish Murphy ill and, by coming forward in this case, she has “everything to lose and nothing to gain, and I continue to be a whistleblower despite that.”

“This kind of bribery strikes at the heart of American democracy,” the Journal quoted Schultz as saying.

In addition to this more recent bribery charge, Murphy faces bribery charges in another case. In that case, 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. No one else has been charged or received notice that they may be indicted in that case.

Now that Perea has approved the new case moving to district court, Chandler intends to join the two cases, so Murphy could face trial on all charges at once.

A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy

A judge has denied the prosecutor’s request to move the bribery trial of District Judge Mike Murphy out of Doña Ana County.

That means Murphy’s trial remains scheduled to be held in Las Cruces and start Oct. 31.

Ninth Judicial District Attorney Matt Chandler filed the change of venue motion earlier this week. He argued that the case has received heavy media scrutiny, Murphy and most witnesses are elected officials in the county who are well-known, and Murphy’s attorney has made negative statements about the prosecution in public.

That wasn’t enough to convince the judge presiding over the case that an impartial jury can’t be found in Doña Ana County.

Murphy is on suspension without pay while he fights 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. No one else has been charged or received notice that they may be indicted in that case.

Murphy also faces a more recent felony bribery charge alleging that he offered to help defend District Judge Lisa Schultz against an investigation into an ethical complaint if she agreed to be the tie-breaking vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief judge in Las Cruces.

Chandler intends to join the two cases, so Murphy could face trial on all charges at once.

A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.

District Attorney Matt Chandler

District Judge Mike Murphy could face trial on bribery charges somewhere other than Doña Ana County if the case’s prosecutor gets his way.

Ninth Judicial District Attorney Matt Chandler, the case’s special prosecutor, filed a motion seeking change of venue on Wednesday. His reasons, according to the motion:

The case has been heavily scrutinized by media including NMPolitics.net, and Murphy’s booking photograph has been published by numerous outlets. There’s been lots of commentary about the case on news outlets’ websites.

Murphy is an elected, public official in Doña Ana County and has “interacted extensively in the community as an advocate, political figure, and a judge.”

The state’s witness list includes people who are well-known in the county including almost every elected judge. “It will be impossible, if not infeasible, to select an impartial panel” because of the ties between “witnesses and their associates and constituents in this small county.”

Murphy’s attorney has issued statements to the press about the prosecution that are negative and go beyond a claim of innocence. One in particular “has the effect of undermining and manipulating public confidence in the judicial system as well as impugning the character of the prosecutor” when it claims that the only intent of the latest charge against Murphy, and his arrest, were “to seek to humiliate through images of incarceration for an apparent political purpose.”

That newest bribery charge, which Chandler filed late last month, alleges that Murphy offered to help defend District Judge Lisa Schultz against an investigation into an ethical complaint if she agreed to be the tie-breaking vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief judge in Las Cruces.

A magistrate judge approved Murphy’s arrest, and he was booked into the Doña Ana County Detention Center before being released on bond.

Murphy is already on suspension without pay because of the other bribery case against him. In that case, Murphy is facing felony bribery charges and a misdemeanor charge of violating the state’s Governmental Conduct Act.

Prosecutors allege in that case 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 to start Oct. 31, but his attorney is seeking dismissal of the charges.

Chandler intends to join the two cases, so Murphy could face trial on all charges at once.

A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy

The attorney representing Third Judicial Judge Mike Murphy says the judge’s Thursday arrest on a new felony charge is politically motivated.

“The only goal of this charge and this warrant is to seek to humiliate through images of incarceration for an apparent political purpose,” Las Cruces attorney Michael Stout said. “It has nothing to do with pursuing justice. Not only is the charge unfounded, but the warrant is improper.”

Murphy was arrested Thursday and charged with bribery. He allegedly offered to help defend District Judge Lisa Schultz against an investigation into an ethical complaint if she agreed to be the tie-breaking vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief judge in Las Cruces.

Murphy is already on suspension without pay because of the other bribery case against him. In that case, Murphy is facing felony bribery charges and a misdemeanor charge of violating the state’s Governmental Conduct Act.

Prosecutors allege in that case 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 to start Oct. 31, but his attorney is seeking dismissal of the charges.

Special prosecutor Matt Chandler said Thursday he will seek to have Murphy indicted on the new charge in the next two weeks and, if he’s successful, will seek to have both cases combined.

Here’s Stout’s full statement:

“The only goal of this charge and this warrant is to seek to humiliate through images of incarceration for an apparent political purpose.  It has nothing to do with pursuing justice. Not only is the charge unfounded, but the warrant is improper.

“There is no legitimate reason for seeking the arrest of a district judge who has consistently met all of the court’s requirements for release.

“The presiding judge, Judge Smith, was not even aware of the warrant and previously denied the prosecutor’s request for a warrant – first for a felony and then for a misdemeanor. Before that Judge Robinson had stated that serving a warrant would be unprofessional and inappropriate. Despite being denied his requests by two district judges the prosecution continued to improperly seek a warrant, this time from a magistrate judge.

“The prosecution has had the information concerning this charge for many months, yet it did not present it to the grand jury when it had the chance, and now it acts as though there is an emergency when Judge Murphy’s counsel happens to be out of state.

“This latest gambit is yet another abuse of prosecutorial authority.

“The defense will address the propriety of this conduct by motions before the court.”

A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.

District Judge Mike Murphy's booking photo

View the arrest warrant and criminal complaint, which contains more details about the allegations against Murphy, by clicking here.

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy, already indicted on bribery charges and suspended from the bench, was arrested this morning on a new bribery charge.

Murphy was arrested at 8:45 a.m. and booked into the Doña Ana County Detention Center on a $10,000 unsecured bond. He’s facing a new felony charge of bribery of a public officer or public employee.

Murphy has bonded out of jail and was released just after 10:30 a.m.

Special prosecutor Matt Chandler, whose office filed the charges, said Murphy is alleged to have offered “several promises” to District Judge Lisa Schultz in December 2010 if she would agree to be the tie-breaking vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief district judge in Las Cruces.

Chandler did not allege that Driggers, who later became chief judge, did anything wrong.

Among the offers Murphy made to Schultz, Chandler said, was that he would “assist” Schultz in her defense against a Judicial Standards Commission investigation into an ethical complaint.

Both are things of value, which is where the bribery comes in: The chief judge gets a pay raise, and an investigation into judicial misconduct could result in a suspension without pay or removal from the bench, if the allegations are substantiated.

Chandler said prosecutors have an audio recording of the conversation between Schultz and Murphy.

The reason for the investigation of Schultz and its outcome would only become public if the commission found misconduct and asked the Supreme Court to discipline Schultz. That has not happened, so either the investigation is ongoing, or it was closed without finding misconduct.

No arrest last time; this arrest OK’d by Richardson appointee

Murphy is already on suspension without pay because of the other bribery case against him. In that case, Murphy is facing felony bribery charges and a misdemeanor charge of violating the state’s Governmental Conduct Act.

Prosecutors allege in that case 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 to start Oct. 31, but his attorney is seeking dismissal of the charges.

Murphy wasn’t arrested when he was indicted in May, so today is the first time he has been taken to the county jail as an inmate. The jail has a separate area where arrested law enforcement officers and others who might be in danger if they are in contact with other inmates can be held.

According to Murphy’s booking sheet (which NMPolitics.net has redacted only to remove personal information), Doña Ana County Magistrate Judge Conrad Perea approved Murphy’s arrest warrant and set bond.

Since Richardson judicial appointments are an issue in this case, it’s worth noting that Perea is a Democrat who was appointed by Richardson in 2010.

Murphy’s attorney, Michael Stout of Las Cruces, had no immediate comment.

A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy

The lawyer representing Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy has filed several motions seeking the dismissal of bribery charges against his client.

The motions challenge the grand jury indictment of Murphy based on a number of procedural issues, alleging that the grand jury was given improper instructions, that prosecutors failed to present evidence that would have helped Murphy, that prosecutors presented irrelevant evidence, and that the target notice notifying Murphy that he might be indicted failed to properly notify him of the charges he was potentially facing.

“The prosecution of Judge Murphy should end soon,” said Murphy’s attorney, Michael Stout. “Judge Murphy has done nothing wrong, and absent a flawed procedure there would be no prosecution.”

He hinted that additional motions to dismiss might be coming.

“This first set of motions simply points out some of many procedural flaws, but regardless of the legal jargon, the fact remains that Judge Murphy is factually innocent,” Stout said. “He should return to the bench sooner than later.”

Murphy has been suspended by the N.M. Supreme Court pending the outcome of the case.

Ninth Judicial District Attorney Matt Chandler, the special prosecutor on the case, said he’s confident the charges will stand.

“We presented all of the relevant facts to the grand jury, including the recording of the defendant discussing the bribes, and at the end of the day, 12 independent citizens of Doña Ana County found probable cause that Judge Murphy broke several of New Mexico’s bribery laws,” Chandler said.

“Now the criminal defense team is going to do all they can to attack the findings of the grand jurors,” he said. “It’s just one of the first moves of many from the defense to try and keep this from moving forward. We will file our responses in due time and we are confident the grand jury indictment will stand up in court.”

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.

Evidence Stout says was excluded

A memo filed in support of the dismissal motions states that Murphy claims that any advice he offered Singleman, directly at a lunch on Sept. 13, 2007 and later through District Judge Lisa Schultz, “was standard political advice, not intended to elicit a bribe” and is “protected by the First Amendment.”

Prosecutors have made portions of a journal Schultz kept about the situation public, and those notes indicate that Schultz feared Murphy was part of a larger criminal conspiracy that went all the way to Richardson and involved other judges. But among the evidence Stout alleges Chandler failed to present to the grand jury, one of the motions to dismiss states, is “Judge Schultz’s testimony that she thought what Judge Murphy was saying might be untrue because he has a penchant for saying outrageous things.”

Also of note in the filings is Stout’s claim that Chandler failed to show the grand jury “Judge Murphy’s bank records showing innocent transactions and showing no payment for $4,000 for his appointment.” That’s the amount former District Judge Stephen Bridgforth says Murphy told him he paid for his appointment.

“Omission of this critical and exculpatory piece of evidence is especially egregious because the foreman of the grand jury asked to be provided with such information and was put off by the prosecutor,” the motion states.

You can read the motions seeking dismissal of the charges against Murphy here, here, here and here, and the memo in support of the motions here.

A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.