No proof of widespread judicial bribery, at least yet

District Judge Mike Murphy’s bribery indictment has received national attention because it raises the possibility of a widespread criminal scheme involving former Gov. Bill Richardson and the judges he appointed.

But the public has yet to see proof that such a scheme existed.

More than three months after Murphy was indicted, special prosecutor Matt Chandler isn’t saying much about a larger case involving multiple defendants. NMPolitics.net recently asked whether other judges might be charged and if Chandler believes there was a wider pay-to-play scheme involving multiple judges and Richardson.

“Although I can confirm the investigation continues, I cannot comment on the details at this time,” Chandler said.

Murphy’s own alleged statements are the basis for suspicions that a wider bribery scheme may have existed. If Chandler has uncovered proof, he’s not revealed that publicly. And no one else – not Richardson, not any other judges, not even the alleged bagman in the case – has been charged or received noticed that they may be indicted.

It may be possible that others will eventually be charged and proof of a wider scheme will come to light. But the early media hype surrounding Murphy’s indictment has not been followed by a quick expansion of the case to include other defendants, as some expected it would.

If you ask Murphy’s attorney, Michael Stout, that’s because there is no widespread conspiracy.

“Being human, individual judges make mistakes in law and in life, but as a group they are dignified and honest and working for the common good,” said Stout, who maintains Murphy’s innocence. “There is no systemic judicial corruption in New Mexico, and individual foibles do not change that.”

‘No one is off limits’

It was a combination of statements and actions by Chandler, and the alleged statements by Murphy, that fueled early speculation that the case might go all the way to Richardson. Murphy allegedly said the money judicial applicants paid for their appointments was given to Richardson; Chandler included Richardson on a list of potential witnesses he might call during Murphy’s trial.

Chandler talked tough in a May interview with the New York Times about the possibility of questioning Richardson, and he said there were “other suspects.”

“At this time, the investigation is directed at Mr. Murphy, but I can assure you that law enforcement are following leads involving other suspects,” the Times quoted Chandler as saying. “No one is off limits to get the truth.”

Court records have named some others who are likely among the “suspects” to whom Chandler was referring. One is local politico Edgar Lopez, the man Murphy allegedly said would “hand-deliver” judicial hopefuls’ envelopes of cash to Richardson.

But Chandler hasn’t presented any evidence that Murphy actually paid the $4,000 he allegedly claimed he gave in exchange for his 2006 appointment to the bench. NMPolitics.net has found campaign contributions totaling only a few hundred dollars.

Several other judges and lawyers have told law enforcement that Murphy said he paid for his position, though some doubt he really did it. The defense appears to be preparing to claim that Murphy talks big but didn’t pay a bribe to anyone.

Chandler said most people involved in corruption cases “aren’t writing ‘bribe’ on the memo line of their checks” – they’re paying with cash or political favors, which he said makes proving corruption cases a challenge.

Showing that Murphy actually paid a bribe in exchange for his appointment “is not an element the state has to prove at trial” but is “more of an investigation in and of itself,” the prosecutor said. Chandler is focused on convincing a jury of the crimes alleged in the indictment – 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.

So even if Murphy is convicted, the question of whether a larger criminal scheme existed might linger.

A criminal conspiracy, or standard politicking?

Statements attributed to Murphy aren’t the only ones that raise the possibility of a larger scheme. In a journal she kept about the situation, District Judge Lisa Schultz, who first reported the allegations against Murphy to law enforcement, wrote about a conversation she had with former Appeals Court Judge Rudy Apodaca.

According to a law enforcement report released by Chandler, Schultz wrote that Apodaca told her, “as terrible as it sounded, the system in fact did work in the manner described by Judge Murphy.”

District Judge Jim T. Martin, who Chandler’s office has questioned, explained to law enforcement the reality of the appointment process: The governor gets to make a political decision by appointing from among a handful of applicants recommended by a nominating commission. Martin said the governor picks someone who is active in his or her political party.

“‘A way to show that you’re active in the party is to make donations to the party, participate in events, go to fundraisers, help a particular campaign, be a good Democrat or Republican. That’s kind of the nature of politics; you have to be actively involved in the game,’” the law enforcement report quotes Martin as saying.

Some say what Martin described – and what Murphy may have engaged in – is standard politicking, not bribery. Stout told NMPolitics.net that the judiciary “is too important to allow one judge’s political comments to be used as a foundation for attacking an entire institution.”

A politically motivated prosecution?

Some say the prosecution of Murphy, a Democrat, is designed to create one or more judicial vacancies for Republican Gov. Susana Martinez to fill, and to create another corruption scandal to taint Democrats headed into the 2012 election.

Stout has accused Chandler, a Republican, of playing politics.

“The only goal of this charge and this warrant is to seek to humiliate through images of incarceration for an apparent political purpose,” Stout said earlier this month when Chandler convinced a magistrate judge to approve a new bribery charge related to the selection of the 3rd Judicial District Court’s chief judge, and an arrest warrant for Murphy.

Stout accused Chandler of “abuse of prosecutorial authority” with the new charge and arrest of Murphy – an arrest that took place while Stout was out of town.

Chandler, who ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 2010 but remains a rising star in the GOP, told NMPolitics.net he’s not playing politics.

“Despite what people on both sides want to claim, this is not a prosecution of a political party,” he said. “This is the prosecution of an elected official that allegedly put a price tag on a judgeship, and he happens to be a registered Democrat.”

“Leaving conduct such as this unchecked for fear of being called a ‘political prosecutor’ is exactly what those that support this conduct desire,” Chandler said. “That accusation doesn’t describe me, and it won’t deter me.”

Will we eventually see proof of a conspiracy?

But the allegations against Chandler persist. Statements in law enforcement reports hinting at involvement by Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels are among those some say Chandler included in court documents for political, rather than legal, purposes.

While not citing the statement naming Daniels, Stout said, “Corruption cases are difficult to prove when there is no corruption, when there is only speculation, gossip and conspiracy theories available.”

“By using only insinuation as proof, the problem is not with the judiciary but with those seeking to condemn it,” he said.

On the other hand, some say all Chandler has done is include Murphy’s statements in court documents, and Murphy, not Chandler, is responsible for the fallout.

Chandler recently tried to turn the tables by arguing that Stout is the one trying the case in the media. In filing a motion seeking a change of venue – a motion that was denied – Chandler said statements such as the one alleging “abuse of prosecutorial authority” manipulate public confidence in the judicial system and impugn the prosecutor.

Time will tell whether Chandler will be able to prove that a wider conspiracy existed. But it’s fair at this point to say that we’re a long way from seeing proof of a criminal conspiracy involving Richardson and multiple judges he appointed to office.

This article has been updated to clarify the allegations behind Murphy’s indictment.