District Judge Jim T. Martin
Third Judicial District Judge Jim T. Martin says he agreed to not hear criminal cases for the time being because of “one-sided reports to the media” that could lead to criticism of decisions he would make in such cases.
“Therefore, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, it is proper that he not hear any criminal cases,” Martin’s attorney, Michael Lilley, said in a prepared statement.
Douglas R. Driggers, the chief judge in the Third Judicial District, confirmed last week that Martin wouldn’t hear criminal cases for the time being because of an investigation that has already resulted in bribery charges against District Judge Mike Murphy and has led Martin to retain Lilley as his attorney.
Prosecutors allege that Murphy solicited a bribe from potential judicial applicant Beverly Singleman, told District Judge Lisa Schultz to tell Singleman she needed to pay the bribe, and threatened to destroy Singleman’s reputation for telling others that he solicited a bribe from her.
Murphy has pleaded not guilty.
An incident report released by prosecutors makes clear that investigators have their eyes on Martin, though he has not been publicly named as a suspect in a crime, charged or received notice that he may be indicted.
Hearing criminal cases could create a conflict for Martin because the case is being investigated and prosecuted by Ninth Judicial District Attorney Matt Chandler for the Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office, which prosecutes cases in the district where Martin is a judge.
The report details an event at which Murphy is alleged to have told a Las Cruces attorney if she wanted a judicial appointment she had to “write a check to the Democratic Party every week in whatever amount she could afford and deliver it to Edgar Lopez.”
Martin, who was present for the meeting, said very little, the report states.
But the attorney, Beverly Singleman, talked about the meeting with District Judge Lisa Schultz, who the report states later confronted Murphy and Martin. From the report:
“Then Judge Schultz challenged both Murphy and Martin on their behavior in soliciting contributions from judicial candidates, and informed them that this was both wrong and unethical. Judge Martin did not argue or disagree with Judge Schultz, but instead remained silent and indicated his understanding of her accusations with a nod of his head.”
“She told them that they should not do it again and both judges promised to comply.”
Martin testified recently before the grand jury that indicted Murphy.
Full statement
Here’s Lilley’s full statement:
“Judge James T. Martin and Chief Judge Douglas Driggers mutually agreed that reassignment of Martin’s criminal cases is appropriate. Judge Martin recognizes that, because of one sided reports released to the media, any decision he makes in a criminal case might be criticized. Therefore, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, it is proper that he not hear any criminal cases. Judge Martin will continue to assist the district court to ensure that the public is served.
“For the past two years, Judge Martin has had a full caseload of civil matters, and he has volunteered to assist with overflow criminal cases. He believes it is paramount that such cases continue to be heard so that victims’ and defendants’ rights can be adjudicated in a fair and timely manner.”
A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.