“Not only does someone stumbling and falling affect that judge and that judge’s family; it affects people’s perception of the judiciary as a whole, and it undermines their faith in their institutions. And I think having confidence in the judiciary when you walk into a courthouse is really important.”
— Chief Justice Charles Daniels, New Mexico Supreme Court If anything, the comment by Daniels in an interview earlier this year with Journal Up Front columnist Leslie Linthicum is an understatement. Everyone who walks through a courthouse door — the mother seeking enforcement of a child-support order, the father seeking visitation rights, the victim of embezzlement seeking restitution, the survivor of a DWI crash seeking answers, the relatives of a murder victim seeking justice — deserves to know the man or woman on the bench will be fair and impartial and professional. In point of fact, Las Cruces District Judge Mike Murphy deserves no less in his own bribery and witness intimidation case. And yet he remains a judge, albeit on unpaid leave, pending his February criminal trial. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of felony bribery, criminal solicitation and intimidation of a witnesses stemming from allegations that he suggested a lawyer should donate to a local politico to improve her chances of being appointed to the bench. He remains a judge despite being known for making inappropriate remarks. He acknowledged in a secretly recorded conversation that “I should never be chief judge because I got no tact. You know, I may be rude, crude and socially unacceptable, but I’m none of those other things.” The other things — to which he took exception — were allegations he was homophobic and anti-Semitic. All this in a conversation with a gay Jewish judge who now is a chief accuser in his bribery case. Murphy’s former law partner says Murphy is highly intelligent and “a hoot to be around.” Fine. But being in the court system isn’t a hoot for the vast majority of people. It can be terrifying ordeal. And yet, despite having to be told “you just don’t say those things; you could be misinterpreted,” Murphy was not only nominated to preside over legal proceedings, he was appointed by then-Gov. Bill Richardson. While Murphy’s legal problems don’t stem from anything he did on the bench, the chief justice is absolutely correct about the spillover from what a jurist does outside the courtroom. It’s not a hoot the Las Cruces criminal docket is at a standstill, in part because Murphy can’t hear cases . It’s not a hoot that his actions triggered a case that has affected others in the legal system — from Judge Lisa Schultz, who some view as a pariah for her whistleblowing tactics; to other judges who will have to testify; to the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, who spent last week condemning the “false allegations” and “factual misrepresentations” in a motion that questioned whether he could be impartial in any aspect of Murphy’s case. There doesn’t seem to be any dispute that Murphy said some of the things he said; only what he meant or how they were construed. Judge Murphy needs to ask himself if he would want someone who lacks a filter between brain and mouth to preside over his own case — perhaps someone whose witty repertoire includes you-might-be-a-redneck jokes. And he should ask whether it’s justice for serious cases to languish because a judge’s conduct is in question. And whether the entire judiciary should pay the consequences of his shoot-from-the-lip modus operandi. According to Murphy’s application seeking a judicial appointment, he promised he would “always try to preserve the good public repute of the court.” He fell woefully short of that mark. He should try to repair it by apologizing and resigning. This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.
