Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
The N.M. Supreme Court has been asked to immediately and temporarily suspend Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy, who is facing possible indictment on bribery charges.
The state’s Judicial Standards Commission filed the petition with the high court on Tuesday. The court has sealed the petition, so details aren’t known publicly, except that it is a “verified petition for immediate, temporary suspension.”
When the commission receives a serious complaint against a judge, it’s not unusual for the body to seek immediate but temporary suspension. Such petitions usually don’t charge a judge with ethical misdeeds, but instead seek suspension pending the outcome of the commission’s probe.
While cautioning that he could not speak about any specific case, Commission Director Randall D. Roybal told NMPolitics.net that such petitions are usually filed when allegations are “serious enough that the commission believes the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is at stake.”
Murphy has received notification that a grand jury will consider charging him with bribery. The allegations are that Murphy, a Democrat, paid a bribe in exchange for then-Gov. Bill Richardson appointing him to the bench in 2006, and that he may have solicited bribes for Richardson from applicants for other judgeships.
The bribe or bribes were allegedly paid as political contributions and went to an unnamed “local political figure.” No one besides Murphy, including Richardson, has received notification that they may be indicted.
Murphy’s attorney, Michael Stout, could not immediately be reached for comment, but he has said Murphy ‘committed no crime.’
What’s next
The commission is the state body charged with investigating allegations of ethical misdeeds by judges, but it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide whether a judge has broken ethical rules and discipline the judge.
The Supreme Court is now required by rule to serve Murphy with an order to show cause why he should not be suspended. That order must be presented to Murphy at least 10 days before the Supreme Court sets a hearing on the matter – “unless a shorter time is ordered by the court.”
Then the court will make a decision on whether to suspend Murphy.
When the commission completes its investigation, it will come back to the Supreme Court, potentially either with a petition to reinstate Murphy if it found no cause for disciplinary action, or, if it believes action is warranted, with a petition seeking discipline.
Such discipline could be as severe as seeking Murphy’s permanent removal from the bench.
The chief judge in the Third Judicial District Court, Douglas R. Driggers, has already instructed that Murphy won’t hear criminal cases until the matter is resolved because of the conflict the situation creates.
Though the Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office in Las Cruces has appointed a special prosecutor to take the case against Murphy, the office is still officially handling the case. It’s also prosecuting criminal cases in the Third Judicial District Court, and many of them had previously been assigned to Murphy, who is assigned to the court’s criminal division.
Update, 10:20 p.m.
Stout had this to say:
“Judge Murphy believes that confidence in the judiciary is critically important. To solidify confidence in his judicial service he will respond appropriately within the rules of the Judicial Standards Commission and the Supreme Court. In the end, it will be clear through proper process – not through unverified and illegal leaks or gossip – that any suggestions of wrongdoing are baseless. Judge Murphy has always acted lawfully and he will continue to do so.”