Las Cruces’ two municipal judges have sued the city, seeking reimbursement for the cost of defending themselves against an ethical complaint filed in 2004 by the city attorney’s office.
The lawsuit is part of an ongoing battle between the judges and the city attorney’s office over problems at the court. Because of the lawsuit, the city is trying to decide how to proceed with at least 33 pending drunken driving and domestic violence cases, in addition to future cases.
The dispute began in 2004 when the judges, Melissa Miller-Byrnes and James T. Locatelli, complained to city management about the handling of cases by prosecutors and police. In a letter to the Las Cruces Sun-News that year, the judges said they were forced to “regularly dismiss cases because of prosecutorial incompetence committed by the police and prosecuting attorneys.”
About the same time, Miller-Byrnes called Assistant City Attorney Richard Jacquez, in an interview with the newspaper, “a smart ass, a smart aleck who has interfered with the administration of justice.”
The city attorney’s office reported the letter and Miller-Byrnes’ comment to the state’s Judicial Standards Commission, which asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to discipline both judges. How, the commission asked, could the public believe the judges were fairly handling cases being prosecuted by attorneys they said publicly were incompetent?
The high court found that the letter to the Sun-News was appropriate, agreeing with the judges’ attorneys and ACLU that their speech was protected by the First Amendment and that they were acting as watchdogs.
The court did chastise Miller-Byrnes for the “smart ass” comment, saying it was inappropriate.
The lawsuit, which was filed in district court in Las Cruces three weeks ago, claims the complaints to the commission “were obviously filed in retaliation for the judges attempting to address problems with the city attorney’s office.” The judges’ attorney is Melissa Reeves of Las Cruces, who is one of seven applicants for the new district judgeship here.
The judges formally asked the city in February to reimburse them for more than $100,000 in costs incurred while defending themselves against the complaint, which the lawsuit characterizes as “baseless,” with the exception of the “smart ass” comment. The request was formally presented to city council in closed session in April and, since then, “the city has failed and refused to provide a written decision,” the lawsuit states.
The judges claim the city has paid for the legal defense of others accused of misconduct in the past, and the city’s failure to do so for them “is an arbitrary and capricious act constituting an abuse of official discretion,” the lawsuit states.
In seeking reimbursement from the city, the judges claim the court, “as a separate and equal branch of government,” has the authority to use public funds in its budget to reimburse them, so the council’s failure to allow that “is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.”
The case was assigned on May 25 to District Judge Robert E. Robles, who recused himself the next day. A new judge has not been assigned.
Perhaps of more concern to the public than the dispute is its effect on the operations of the court. The city’s position is that judges who are suing the city can’t reasonably expect the public to believe they can be impartial when hearing cases the city is prosecuting.
Both judges did not return calls seeking comment.
District Attorney Susana Martinez said the city has dismissed 27 drunken driving and domestic violence cases in municipal court, but not yet refilled them in magistrate court. The city has also filed motions in six cases requesting that the judges recuse themselves.
The city is waiting for defense attorneys in those cases to take a position. If the judges don’t take themselves off the cases, the city will ask a district court judge to do it.
The city does have alternate judges who could hear criminal cases.
If that doesn’t happen, the city could ask Martinez to take the cases, or appoint city attorneys as special prosecutors so they can legally handle the cases in magistrate court.
But that presents another problem: The magistrate court is already severely overworked.
Martinez said she would only appoint city attorneys as special prosecutors under certain conditions. Currently, she said, city attorneys often agree to plea bargains in DWI cases, which they are not allowed to do in magistrate and other state courts.
City attorneys also do not check for prior drunken-driving convictions, except those that were prosecuted in municipal court, before making sentencing recommendations to the judges.
That means those convicted of DWI in municipal court could be sentenced as first-time offenders even if they already have several convictions in other parts of the state or nation, or in other courts in Doña Ana County.
Martinez said she would require city prosecutors to do the research required to find all prior drunken driving convictions before sentencing. Her office currently does that.
City Manager Terrence Moore called the situation unfortunate. If cases have to be taken to magistrate court, the city will lose revenue from court fees, but he said the need to ensure the proper handling of cases is more important than money. He acknowledged that the situation might exist as long as Miller-Byrnes and Locatelli are on the bench.
“Given the nature of where we are, there’s not a lot of choices,” Moore said. “We just do the best that we can.”
Miller-Byrnes, the court’s presiding judge, is currently paid an annual salary of $78,206. Locatelli is currently paid an annual salary of $74,296.