LAS CRUCES – A magistrate judge on Saturday refused to dismiss a charge that District Judge Michael Murphy bribed a fellow judge, ruling that the case will proceed to trial in state District Court – the court from which Murphy was suspended following his indictment in a separate bribery case in May.
Following a two-day preliminary hearing that ended Saturday, state Magistrate Judge Conrad Perea concluded there was probable cause to believe Murphy tried to bribe fellow District Judge Lisa Schultz with favorable assignments and help with a potentially damaging Judicial Standards Commission investigation.
In exchange, Murphy wanted Schultz to vote for Douglas Driggers as chief judge of the Third Judicial District in an election last December, special prosecutor Matt Chandler of Clovis has said.
In the key piece of evidence, a recording Schultz secretly made of a conversation with Murphy on Nov. 10, 2010, Murphy mentioned the pending Judicial Standards investigation against Schultz, adding: “If you help Doug (Driggers) out, why wouldn’t he go out of his way to help you out? . . . I certainly am going to go out of my way to help you out.”
Defense attorney Michael Stout argued that Murphy had merely lobbied Schultz for a vote for his choice for chief judge and, in any event, was not in a position to deliver court assignments or a favorable outcome to the Judicial Standards investigation.
“That’s a crime? To say you are going to help someone out? . . . Tell the Judicial Standards Commission you (Schultz) did a good job, not a bad job?” Stout said to Perea. “This is politicking; it’s lobbying.”
Stout called no witnesses during the preliminary hearing. Instead, Stout grilled the lone witness, Schultz, about her feelings toward Murphy, about the vote for chief judge, and the Judicial Standards Commission investigation, the existence of which Schultz said she was prohibited from even confirming.
Stout argued Schultz failed to answer questions on the stand about the Judicial Standards investigation, and that her testimony, and the recorded conversation, should be tossed. Perea ruled against Stout.
Stout asked Schultz if she was angry with Murphy, if she wanted him removed from the bench, and if she wanted to “bring Mike Murphy down.”
“No,” Schultz testified. “I’d like to see justice upheld. I don’t wish Mr. Murphy ill. . . . I’m very aware at this stage of disclosure, that I have everything to lose and nothing to gain, and I continue to be a whistle-blower despite that.”
Schultz also said she recorded the conversation with Murphy because she anticipated he would try to offer her something for her vote and was motivated not by animosity but “duty to the community” and a desire to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
“This kind of bribery strikes at the heart of American democracy,” Schultz said.
After issuing his decision, Perea told Murphy, “Difficult as this decision was, I had to do what I believed was right, with all due respect.”
In a separate but related case, Murphy faces felony charges of bribery, criminal solicitation and witness tampering. In that case, Murphy is alleged to have told a lawyer in 2007 that she needed to make payments to a local Democratic politico if she wanted to secure a judicial appointment from then-Gov. Bill Richardson.
— This article appeared on page A1 of the Albuquerque Journal
Reprint story -- Email the reporter at rromo@abqjournal.com. Call the reporter at 575-526-4462
