Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy
The attorney representing Third Judicial Judge Mike Murphy says the judge’s Thursday arrest on a new felony charge is politically motivated.
“The only goal of this charge and this warrant is to seek to humiliate through images of incarceration for an apparent political purpose,” Las Cruces attorney Michael Stout said. “It has nothing to do with pursuing justice. Not only is the charge unfounded, but the warrant is improper.”
Murphy was arrested Thursday and charged with bribery. He allegedly offered to help defend District Judge Lisa Schultz against an investigation into an ethical complaint if she agreed to be the tie-breaking vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief judge in Las Cruces.
Murphy is already on suspension without pay because of the other bribery case against him. In that case, Murphy is facing felony bribery charges and a misdemeanor charge of violating the state’s Governmental Conduct Act.
Prosecutors allege in that case 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. His trial is scheduled to start Oct. 31, but his attorney is seeking dismissal of the charges.
Special prosecutor Matt Chandler said Thursday he will seek to have Murphy indicted on the new charge in the next two weeks and, if he’s successful, will seek to have both cases combined.
Here’s Stout’s full statement:
“The only goal of this charge and this warrant is to seek to humiliate through images of incarceration for an apparent political purpose. It has nothing to do with pursuing justice. Not only is the charge unfounded, but the warrant is improper.
“There is no legitimate reason for seeking the arrest of a district judge who has consistently met all of the court’s requirements for release.
“The presiding judge, Judge Smith, was not even aware of the warrant and previously denied the prosecutor’s request for a warrant – first for a felony and then for a misdemeanor. Before that Judge Robinson had stated that serving a warrant would be unprofessional and inappropriate. Despite being denied his requests by two district judges the prosecution continued to improperly seek a warrant, this time from a magistrate judge.
“The prosecution has had the information concerning this charge for many months, yet it did not present it to the grand jury when it had the chance, and now it acts as though there is an emergency when Judge Murphy’s counsel happens to be out of state.
“This latest gambit is yet another abuse of prosecutorial authority.
“The defense will address the propriety of this conduct by motions before the court.”
A prior version of this article incorrectly stated that Murphy is charged with paying a bribe for his position.