This is the first in a series of articles running this week that will examine whether the judicial discipline process is fair to judges accused of misconduct. For additional articles and more information, visit the home page for this special report by clicking here.
John Brennan couldn’t have known when he tried to evade a DWI checkpoint in
As a result of the May 2004 incident, the former chief judge of the Second Judicial District Court in
Brennan’s was one of several egregious incidents involving judges in 2004 that shocked the state. The events of that year turned the focus of the governor, legislature and Supreme Court to the judiciary. In
Though there were many scandals, Brennan’s arrest was the catalyst for a massive shift in the way the state deals with the accountability of its judges.
“In one terrible summer night, we were reminded that even the best of us can fall,” state Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Bosson said in his 2005 state of the judiciary address. “We learned that a fellow judge – a man I still today call my friend – committed serious criminal acts.”
In response to the incidents, the high court offered additional help to judges with substance abuse problems. Several judges, including Galvan and Brennan, left the bench. The legislature and governor doubled funding for the Judicial Standards Commission, the board charged with holding judges accountable to the state Code of Judicial Conduct, and its staff grew from the equivalent of four full-time employees to seven.
The state Board of Finance granted special appropriations to the commission in 2004 and 2005 because it ran out of money and had no funding to proceed with cases against judges accused of misconduct.
Historically, the commission had most often negotiated stipulated agreements with misbehaving judges behind closed doors. Such agreements might be compared by some to criminal plea bargains, and often reveal few details to the public. Only after agreements were reached would the high court, the body with the authority to discipline judges, be asked for approval.
Most investigations were resolved with such agreements because the commission didn’t have the resources to plead cases before the high court and fight for tougher discipline.
With the increase in funding, the commission has the ability to aggressively pursue sanctions against misbehaving judges. That has meant a dramatic increase in the number of incidents brought before the high court and, as a result, into the public eye. From its inception in 1968 to Aug. 31, 2006, the commission filed 102 petitions for discipline or temporary suspension with the high court. Thirty-five, or 34 percent, were filed between Jan. 1, 2004 and Aug. 31 of this year.
The number of commission inquiries that resulted in judges leaving the bench, other discipline or temporary suspensions rose from three in 2003 to seven in 2004 and 16 in 2005. The numbers for 2006 are on track to be similar to those from 2005.
At least 12
In the previous 8 years, from 1996 to 2003, 14 judges left the bench statewide as a result of commission action.
In addition to the recent resignations, Doña Ana County Magistrate Judge Carlos Garza is on suspension while the commission investigates alleged drug use and other accusations, and Las Cruces Municipal Judge Melissa Miller-Byrnes was disciplined earlier this year for an inappropriate comment she made to a newspaper reporter. Both have been disciplined for misconduct in the past.
In an interview, Bosson said there has been a need in the past few years for tough action against judges accused of misconduct, many of them from
“There have been a lot, and there have been a number from this county. That is a proven fact,” Bosson said. “We have done our very best to respond to what is a very real need for accountability.”
There’s another factor that has led to the increase in activity. Jim Noel was hired as the commission’s director at the beginning of 2004 and discovered that there was no process for moving cases through the system. Some had gone unresolved for five years. He established a trailing docket that handled cases more efficiently and increased the commission’s capacity for investigating complaints.
Despite the increase in activity by the commission, Noel said most of
“We have a very good judiciary in this state. We are blessed with the judges that we have,” he said. “The ones that engage in misconduct are the ones that are few and far between.”
But those few must be held accountable, Bosson said in his 2005 address. The judicial system depends on it.
“We in the judiciary were humbled as we faced the prospect of losing that which we hold most dear – public confidence. For public confidence has a fragile spirit that, once lost, can never be brought back to life,” Bosson said. “… What the
For additional articles and more information, visit the home page for this special report by clicking here.
This article, like all posted on Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics, is copyrighted (© 2006) by Haussamen Publications, Inc., and is not to be republished without permission.