Carlos Garza’s future as a
Wednesday’s filing seeks Garza’s immediate suspension with pay, an order from the high court that he undergo urine and hair tests for illegal drugs, and an order that he explain why he should not be held in contempt for refusing the commission’s demand for the tests.
The commission sought the tests because of allegations that Garza has been using illegal drugs for several months.
Garza’s problems are beginning to stack up. He is already on suspension with pay until Nov. 3 because of serious allegations related to five other, separate commission investigations into alleged misconduct. Details aren’t known because that file has been sealed by the New Mexico Supreme Court. And he’s on judicial probation stemming from an admission earlier this year that he improperly involved himself in a drunken driving case against a woman with whom he had a personal relationship.
Garza is accused of “knowingly and willfully failing to comply” with an order from the commission that he submit to a drug test. On Aug. 17, according to the filing, the commission issued an order requiring Garza to undergo a physical examination, within 24 hours of his receipt of the order, to collect samples of hair and urine for drug testing, and to sign a form allowing the lab to release the results to the commission.
Capt. Richard Williams of the New Mexico State Police arrived at Garza’s home Friday morning to deliver the order from the commission. The door was answered by former Magistrate Judge Reuben Galvan, who resigned last year amid his own scandal. He told Williams he was living with Garza but that Garza was not home, the filing states.
Williams was able to contact Garza by telephone, and Garza agreed to meet him to pick up the order. Garza failed to show up to the meeting and did not return phone calls after that, according to Williams’ police report.
While Williams was waiting to meet with Garza, Garza called the commission’s director, Jim Noel, to ask what papers Williams was delivering to him. After Noel told him, Garza said he would meet Williams to pick up the order, and would submit to the drug tests that day, according to the filing.
After Garza skipped their meeting, Williams drove to Garza’s home. The car Garza told him he would be driving was parked out front, but no one answered the door, so Williams left the order taped to the front of the door.
Garza later told Noel he missed the meeting because he “left town” and did not return until Sunday, when he found the order on a table in his home.
Garza did take a drug test, according to the filing. He visited a lab in Las Cruces to submit to a urine test, but not a hair test, “and requested that… laboratory staff in Las Cruces withhold that information from the commission, so that he could pre-screen the results,” according to the filing.
The results of the urine test are not included in the filing. Hair tests examine a much longer time period.
Garza “has demonstrated an extreme lack of good judgment, disrupted the operations of the Doña Ana County Magistrate Court, undermined the integrity and independence of the Doña Ana County Magistrate Court as well as the judiciary as a whole, and has demonstrated a pattern of conduct that flies in the face of proper judicial decorum,” the filing states.
The filing was based on several affidavits and other documents:
• An affidavit from Nicole Gonzales, a judicial manager at the magistrate court, states that in November 2005 she and Tina Ross, a former supervisor in the court, noticed that Garza had “white powder under the rim of his nostrils.”
Then, on Feb. 7, 2006, she and Melinda Gamboa, a judicial supervisor, saw “a white powdery substance on the rim of Judge Garza’s nose. He was extremely hyperactive that day,” the affidavit states, adding that Garza’s behavior in recent months “has become increasingly erratic. He is paranoid all the time, and is of the opinion that everyone is out to get him. He has also been subject to frequent mood swings” and “is constantly up and down while on the bench; we cannot get him to stay on the bench. On June 27, 2006, for instance, in the middle of a sentencing, he just got up and left the bench.”
“Judge Garza acts in a manner consistent with someone addicted to cocaine,” Gonzales’ affidavit states. “He has the reputation in the court of being a party guy, a real party animal. He has associated himself with individuals who are known drug users.”
She also states that five clerks in the court have requested that they not be assigned to work with Garza because of his “erratic behavior and the increasing difficulties in working with him.”
Gonzales reported Garza’s alleged drug use to supervisors.
• An affidavit from Gamboa backs up the story of the Feb. 7, 2006 incident told by Gonzales. It also states that Garza “has been hyperactive and paranoid” for several months “and seems unable to focus.”
“The ‘joke’ around the courthouse is that Judge Garza is on crack because of his behavior and inability to deal with things at times,” the affidavit states.
Like Gonzales, Gamboa reported Garza’s alleged drug use.
• The Magistrate Advisory Committee of the Administrative Office of the Courts, whose members are five judges and former judges from around the state, met with Garza on Feb. 21, 2006 in response to concerns about “Judge Garza’s alleged drug use,” according to a letter the committee wrote to the AOC director. The committee raised concerns in its letter that Garza “appeared extremely nervous throughout the meeting” and “was overly talkative – to the point that it was difficult for committee members to carry on dialogue.”
They also wrote that Garza was “openly hostile to Judge Caleb Chandler (a member of the committee who is also assigned to oversee the
Garza, according to the letter, said several times that he would take a drug test “anytime, anywhere,” but when asked to do so that afternoon, said he would only do so after consulting with his attorney or sister Carmen Garza, who is now a federal magistrate judge. He was given an opportunity to call them, but returned to say he could not reach them, and a drug test was not arranged.
“As one member of the committee put it, ‘If a defendant appeared before me and behaved at arraignment like Judge Garza, I would order a 24-hour hold and detox,” the letter states. “In fairness to Judge Garza, the committee also discussed the possibility that his behavior may be the result of Attention Deficit Disorder as opposed to drug use.”
Garza told me this morning that the allegations of drug use are false and said he would speak with me later today, but he has not called back since. I’ve offered him a chance to respond to these allegations. I’ll let you know if he takes it.