Albuquerque Journal
Sunday, December 24, 2006

With Judge's Convictions Tossed, Gov. Seeks Legislative Fix

By Martin Salazar
Journal Staff Writer

    Gov. Bill Richardson says he'll push for legislation to hold judges to the same standards as other public officials in the wake of the recent New Mexico Supreme Court decision tossing out the rape and bribery convictions of a former Española municipal judge.
    In a unanimous decision, the state's high court overturned the 2003 convictions of former judge Charles Maestas, finding that the "official acts prohibited" statute on which the convictions were based doesn't apply to judges.
    "We are currently reviewing this ruling," Richardson spokesman Jon Goldstein said.
    "Governor Richardson strongly believes that all public officials should be held to the highest ethical standards, and the governor will push for legislation this session to ensure that judges are held to the same high standards as other public officials," Goldstein added.
    Maestas had been accused of using his judicial powers to compel sexual favors from a female defendant with a case pending before him in Española's Municipal Court. He was released earlier this year after serving out his prison sentence.
    Maestas has maintained that the sexual encounters were consensual and that the alleged victim and her boyfriend concocted a scheme to set him up so they could bring a civil rights lawsuit against the city of Española.
    Celina Jones, administrative assistant to New Mexico Chief Justice Richard Bosson, said the Supreme Court didn't have a comment on Richardson's plan to ask the Legislature to change the law.
    "The opinion in this case really speaks for itself," Jones said.

Possible retrial
    The state's high court left unanswered the question of whether the Attorney General's Office could retry Maestas under a different bribery statute that does apply to judges.
    Attorney General Patricia Madrid's office hasn't issued a statement on the convictions being overturned.
    But with Madrid's term ending Dec. 31, the decision on whether to retry Maestas will likely be made by incoming Attorney General Gary King.
    Phil Sisneros, communications director for the incoming attorney general, said King has been briefed on the case.
    "Gary is aware of the case, but certainly no decision has been made one way or another," Sisneros said. "He will review it."
    King takes over as attorney general on Jan. 1.
    David Henderson, the attorney representing Maestas, has argued that there are provisions in the state constitution and state statutes that would bar any re-trial of his client.

Legislative intent
    The Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Maestas' conviction considered a key question: Did the Legislature back in 1967 when the law was first enacted, and in 1993 when it was rewritten, intend to shield judges from the Governmental Conduct Act?
    The Governmental Conduct Act is a code of ethics of sorts for public officers and employees. The definitions portion specifically excludes judges from the definition of "public officer or employee."
    Until last year, the fact that Maestas— who was accused of promising leniency to female defendants in return for sex— had been convicted of a law that might not even apply to judges hadn't been raised. The issue was raised only during his appeal.
    The Attorney General's Office argued that the exclusion of judges was clearly an oversight on the Legislature's part, because there would have been no rational reason for not including judges in the statute.
    The law makes it a fourth-degree felony for legislators, public officers and employees to request or receive any money, thing of value or promise thereof that is conditioned upon or given in exchange for promised performance of an official act.
    Albuquerque attorney Raymond Sanchez, who was house speaker in 1993 when the act was rewritten, said he doesn't recall any discussions about judges being included or excluded from the law's provisions.
    Stuart Bluestone, a top legislative staffer in 1993 and currently chief deputy attorney general, said he doesn't recall the discussions surrounding the law and whether the Legislature specifically intended to exclude judges from it.
    Michael Browde, a constitutional scholar and UNM School of Law professor, served as an adviser to the legislative committee that rewrote the act in 1993.
    "I don't remember any discussions about judges," he said.
    But, Browde added, "I think there's a serious separation of powers problem, which of course is taken care of by the Judicial Standards Commission and the Code of Judicial Conduct. I don't know if that was a specific subject of discussion back when we were doing the government conduct stuff in the early '90s."

Accountability
    Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision, written by Justice Edward Chávez, notes that the Governmental Conduct Act was enacted in 1967, the same year that the Judicial Standards Commission— the entity that polices judges— was created.
    "The purpose of creating the commission was to provide an independent authority to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct," the decision states.
    Justice Chávez also noted that when the Legislature was contemplating the Governmental Conduct Act, another statute existed for prosecuting judges who accepted or solicited valuable items in exchange for the performance of an official act.
    The court's ruling said judges were again excluded from the Governmental Conduct Act in the 1993 rewrite.
    "If the Legislature wanted some sections of the act to apply to judges, it certainly knew how to do so," the court said.
    Maestas could have been charged under that bribery statute, which remains on the books today, the Supreme Court found.
    Exactly why the Attorney General's office opted not to file that charge against Maestas is unclear. A message left for Prosecutor Julie Ann Meade wasn't returned.
    In addition to the criminal charges filed against Maestas, the Judicial Standards Commission launched disciplinary action against him. He was suspended without pay and resigned his judicial post on July 2, 2003, two weeks after a jury convicted him.
    The Supreme Court never banned Maestas from seeking judicial office again, but the Judicial Standards Commission could ask the high court to issue such a decision if Maestas were to become a candidate for judge in the future.