Another New Mexico judge is in big trouble.
District Judge John W. Pope of Los Lunas admitted in a Monday filing at the New Mexico Supreme Court that alcoholism was the reason he failed to show up during the final stages of an April criminal trial. His absence led to a mistrial.
He didn’t show up because he was busy consuming “excessive amounts of alcohol,” according to a news release from the Judicial Standards Commission. To make matters worse, when questioned by the media, Pope lied and attributed his absence to a mild heart attack.
The binge forced Pope to be hospitalized.
In the Monday filing, Pope admitted to the allegations. He also agreed to the discipline recommended by the commission. If the high court approves the agreement, Pope must spend 60 days in alcohol rehab, write humbling letters to jurors in the case and the commission to apologize for his actions, pay a $1,000 fine, and, if he completes rehab and returns to the bench, be on permanent, supervised judicial probation and in a 12-step alcohol recovery program for the rest of his time on the bench.
The commission showed a tough but fair approach in the Pope case. Clearly, he has a major problem. Rather than seeking a long, unpaid suspension or Pope’s removal from the bench, the commission is trying to get him the help he needs. That’s honorable.
If only our criminal justice system had the same focus on rehabilitation.
I can only wish Pope, who has been a district judge for 13 years, the best. This state has experienced enough failures in recent years.
• In 2005, District Judge Thomas Fitch of Socorro resigned after crashing a state-owned van and pleading guilty to drunken driving.
• In 2004, District Judge John Brennan of Albuquerque resigned after being arrested while trying to dodge a DWI checkpoint and later pleading guilty to aggravated drunken driving and cocaine possession.
• In 2002, District Judge Thomas Cornish of Las Cruces resigned after pleading guilty to drunken driving in an incident that involved prescription medications.
Why have there been so many cases of substance abuse by judges? Will there be more? More than one source has confirmed for me that there is at least one other current investigation into allegations of substance abuse by a New Mexico judge.
It’s encouraging to see the commission make a stand in these cases. New Mexico is no longer looking the other way when judges act improperly. The judiciary, and the citizens of the state, will benefit in the long run.
This should be a wake up call to voters. Judicial races are often the last to get attention. I know this is a sleepy election year with many boring races, but there are contested races for magistrate and probate judge positions in Doña Ana County.
Take the time to learn about the candidates. Vote. Vote. Vote.
***
While we’re on the subject of judges, some of you have expressed concern about Magistrate Judge Olivia N. Garcia reporting so many anonymous donations on her May campaign contribution report.
Of the almost $7,000 she has raised, Garcia reported $1,700 as anonymous contributions, including 15 of $100 each.
There’s nothing illegal about this, and it doesn’t violate the state’s judicial code of ethics. But I cringe whenever I see an anonymous contribution on anyone’s campaign finance report, especially that of a judge. Probate Judge Alice Salcido, who is up for re-election this year, reported one anonymous $100 contribution.
I don’t like seeing one on a report, but 20 separate anonymous contributions? Who are these donors to Garcia’s campaign? Are they attorneys who might appear before her in court? If so, should they be giving money? Maybe, but it should be done in such a way that requires Garcia to disclose it.
If they aren’t attorneys, why are they concerned about remaining anonymous?
It’s not likely that Garcia is doing anything improper, but how are we to know for certain?
And the bigger question: Why does the law allow this? Perhaps Judicial Standards Commission Executive Director Jim Noel, who is a member of the governor’s ethics reform task force, should raise this issue. The law should be changed.
***
Early voting has begun. Here’s the information on where to vote in Doña Ana County, thanks to a handy news release:
You still vote at the old county courthouse, 251 W. Amador Ave. in Las Cruces. The elections bureau won’t move into the new governmental complex until after the June primary.
Early voting is open Mondays through Fridays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Beginning May 20, additional early voting sites will be open from noon to 8 p.m. Tuesdays through Fridays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays in these locations:
• Anthony Community Center, 675 N. Main Street in Anthony
• Hatch High School Band Room, 427 N. Main Street in Hatch
• Sunland Park Community Library, 984 McNutt Road in Sunland Park
• Highland Elementary School, 4201 Emerald Street in Las Cruces
Don’t forget that you’ll be required to provide some sort of identification (the law is lenient enough to include a utility bill in its definition of identification, but that’s a subject for another time) or you will be subjected to a series of questions about your identity.
If you have questions, call the elections bureau at (505) 647-7428 or 7505.
***
Did I mention that you should vote? If, like me, you’re registered as an independent, you’ll have to wait until November to do that. Those of you who opt for party membership, go vote. You have three weeks to do it. What excuse do you have to not get it done by June 6?
Thanks for reading today. There’s more to come tomorrow.