Details are a little sparse but our Eyes tell us that Metropolitan Court Judge J. Wayne Griego has been removed from the bench by the Supreme Court. We can't help but believe that the rally outside the courthouse played at least some part in the court's decision. The Center for Family Justice started their rally calling for a grand jury investigation into Griego's shenanigans just yesterday and have reportedly gotten 250 signatures on a petition calling for a grand jury investigation.
We believe that a grand jury investigation is not only warranted but necessary even if Griego is permanently removed from the bench. Our judges and elected officials should be held to a higher standard not a lower one.
Showing posts with label Judge J. Wayne Griego. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge J. Wayne Griego. Show all posts
Mar 12, 2008
Mar 7, 2008
Judgement Rally
Center for Family Justice to Rally for Judge J. Wayne Griego Indictment
Metropolitan Court Judge J. Wayne Griego was recently brought before the Judicial Standards Commission for fixing tickets for court staff and family (read our take here). This is the second time that the Judge has played fast and loose with the law and we don't believe he's qualified to continue in his capacity as a Metro Court Judge.
The Center for Family Justice (find their website here) agrees with our position and has decided to do something about it. They're holding a three day rally (Tuesday, March 11th, Wednesday March 12th, and Thursday, March 13th) calling for a grand jury investigation into Griego's ticket fixing activities and collecting signatures for a petition to force a grand jury to be empanelled. CFJ President Leslie Cumiford explained their reason for pursing a grand jury investigation in an email we received yesterday.
Metropolitan Court Judge J. Wayne Griego was recently brought before the Judicial Standards Commission for fixing tickets for court staff and family (read our take here). This is the second time that the Judge has played fast and loose with the law and we don't believe he's qualified to continue in his capacity as a Metro Court Judge.
The Center for Family Justice (find their website here) agrees with our position and has decided to do something about it. They're holding a three day rally (Tuesday, March 11th, Wednesday March 12th, and Thursday, March 13th) calling for a grand jury investigation into Griego's ticket fixing activities and collecting signatures for a petition to force a grand jury to be empanelled. CFJ President Leslie Cumiford explained their reason for pursing a grand jury investigation in an email we received yesterday.
Griego[], as a judge, has a charge and a duty to the People of NM and he has utterly failed in this duty. Additionally, he has violated the law and acted in a conspiratorial manner from his official judicial offices.If you have a problem with Judge Griego's continued disregard for the law and his position, the center asks that you drop by the Metro Courthouse Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm. There'll be a petition available for you to sign and a sign for you to carry if you have a few moments to take part in a little protest activity.
The Constitution of the State of New Mexico allows the People, by petition, to convene a grand jury to consider indictment of an offiical for criminal behavior. In the absence of any real oversight in this state over misdeeds of the judiciary, it is time for the People to lawfully take this matter into their own hands and convene a grand jury regarding Griegos' actions. We do so under the New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 14 which states in part: "A grand jury shall be convened upon order of a judge of a court empowered to try and determine cases of capital, felonious or infamous crimes at such times as to him shall be deemed necessary, or a grand jury shall be ordered to convene by such judge upon the filing of a petition there[of] signed by not less than the greater of two hundred registered voters or two percent of the registered voters of the county, or a grand jury may be convened in any additional manner as may be prescribed by law."-Leslie Cumiford, President Center for Family Justice
Mar 4, 2008
Manifest Necessity
"Manifest necessity" - it sounds like some political philosophy or foreign policy. Unfortunately, it was the actual reason given by Judge Benjamin Chavez for the recent dismissal of a DWI case being heard in his courtroom.
The facts of the case are fairly simple. According to police reports, Alicia A. Cleary was arrested May 9, 2007 for Aggravated DWI (3rd or Subsequent), Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Careless Driving. She had been observed hitting a pole on Academy and APD issued an attempt to locate bulletin on a Corvette last seen headed East on Academy with debris hanging from the vehicle.
Not too long after the advisory the Corvette was observed turning West on Osuna Rd from Eubank. APD officer Locke followed the Corvette to an apartment complex just West of Osuna where he initiated a traffic stop. At the time there was a male driving the vehicle who exhibited signs of intoxication. He told the officer that Cleary had been driving and had hit a pole on Academy - an assertion that was confirmed by Ms. Cleary.
A DWI officer was called and a DWI investigation ensued whereby Ms. Cleary was administered a field sobriety test which according to police records, she failed. Ms. Cleary later refused to take a breathalyzer test but was arrested on the strength of the failed field sobriety test.
Ms. Cleary wisely obtained defense council (which by the way we recommend). You see this wasn't Ms. Cleary's first rodeo, at the time she had 2 prior DWI convictions and 4 prior arrests. The attorney chosen to represent Ms. Cleary was David Crum.
So far, there really isn't anything particularly remarkable about this case. We've got a defendant with 2 priors grinding her way through the system that lands her in court February 28, 2008.
Our Eyes tell us that the case proceeded normally right up until the prosecution rested. At that time Defense Attorney Crum objected to the state not calling any witnesses from the car - which by the way they don't have to do. The state is only required to call witnesses for their case. They are also required to turn over any and all evidence in the state's possession to the defense.
The defense has the ability to call any witnesses including any passengers that may have been in the vehicle at the time of the alleged DWI. Therefore it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to call witnesses for the defense.
You'd think that there would be a short discussion of the motion, it would be denied and the trial would proceed normally. In this case, you'd be wrong. According to court documents, Judge Benjamin Chavez declared a mistrial for "manifest necessity."
We're still trying to figure out what the heck that's supposed to mean, but there might be a clue in the fact that it appears that attorney David Crum is a financial supporter of Judge Chavez's campaign for District Court Judge.
It seems that Chavez (the one in a robe, not the one from on high), has decided to set his sights on District Court. Our Eyes tell us that David Crum has been a supporter of the judge in the past and was all set to host a fundraiser for Chavez that very night.
If true, Judge Chavez's necessity has become manifest with a questionable decision involving a habitual offender for an attorney who's supporting him financially. At best the decision creates an appearance of impropriety. At worst, he could be guilty of misconduct. After all, there's very little difference between fellow Metro Court Judge J. Wayne Griego fixing tickets for family and friends and Judge Chavez apparently having an alternate and personal consideration when issuing a mistrial.
We understand that MADD was in the room and that they were well... not happy. We'll see if anything comes of this but if true, we certainly wouldn't want to see Chavez continue in Metro Court much less District Court.
The facts of the case are fairly simple. According to police reports, Alicia A. Cleary was arrested May 9, 2007 for Aggravated DWI (3rd or Subsequent), Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Careless Driving. She had been observed hitting a pole on Academy and APD issued an attempt to locate bulletin on a Corvette last seen headed East on Academy with debris hanging from the vehicle.
Not too long after the advisory the Corvette was observed turning West on Osuna Rd from Eubank. APD officer Locke followed the Corvette to an apartment complex just West of Osuna where he initiated a traffic stop. At the time there was a male driving the vehicle who exhibited signs of intoxication. He told the officer that Cleary had been driving and had hit a pole on Academy - an assertion that was confirmed by Ms. Cleary.
A DWI officer was called and a DWI investigation ensued whereby Ms. Cleary was administered a field sobriety test which according to police records, she failed. Ms. Cleary later refused to take a breathalyzer test but was arrested on the strength of the failed field sobriety test.
Ms. Cleary wisely obtained defense council (which by the way we recommend). You see this wasn't Ms. Cleary's first rodeo, at the time she had 2 prior DWI convictions and 4 prior arrests. The attorney chosen to represent Ms. Cleary was David Crum.
So far, there really isn't anything particularly remarkable about this case. We've got a defendant with 2 priors grinding her way through the system that lands her in court February 28, 2008.
Our Eyes tell us that the case proceeded normally right up until the prosecution rested. At that time Defense Attorney Crum objected to the state not calling any witnesses from the car - which by the way they don't have to do. The state is only required to call witnesses for their case. They are also required to turn over any and all evidence in the state's possession to the defense.
The defense has the ability to call any witnesses including any passengers that may have been in the vehicle at the time of the alleged DWI. Therefore it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to call witnesses for the defense.
You'd think that there would be a short discussion of the motion, it would be denied and the trial would proceed normally. In this case, you'd be wrong. According to court documents, Judge Benjamin Chavez declared a mistrial for "manifest necessity."
We're still trying to figure out what the heck that's supposed to mean, but there might be a clue in the fact that it appears that attorney David Crum is a financial supporter of Judge Chavez's campaign for District Court Judge.
It seems that Chavez (the one in a robe, not the one from on high), has decided to set his sights on District Court. Our Eyes tell us that David Crum has been a supporter of the judge in the past and was all set to host a fundraiser for Chavez that very night.
If true, Judge Chavez's necessity has become manifest with a questionable decision involving a habitual offender for an attorney who's supporting him financially. At best the decision creates an appearance of impropriety. At worst, he could be guilty of misconduct. After all, there's very little difference between fellow Metro Court Judge J. Wayne Griego fixing tickets for family and friends and Judge Chavez apparently having an alternate and personal consideration when issuing a mistrial.
We understand that MADD was in the room and that they were well... not happy. We'll see if anything comes of this but if true, we certainly wouldn't want to see Chavez continue in Metro Court much less District Court.
Feb 26, 2008
In Justice
We’ve been watching New Mexico’s judiciary and the system that surrounds it for some time. It is with a growing sense of alarm that we have watched judges inexplicably dismiss cases, involve themselves in illegal behavior, and generally treat their offices and the public with disrespect.
Before we begin, we believe that there are a number of honest, hard-working judges in New Mexico that take their jobs seriously. Their devotion to the spirit and the letter of the law are admirable and deserve praise.
However, the reality is that judges hold positions of great power and little public scrutiny. They have the authority to punish offenders and the responsibility to protect the public from those same offenders.
Last week we all found out about the punishment recommended by the Judicial Standards Commission for Metropolitan Court Judge J. Wayne Griego’s 14 counts of judicial misconduct (ABQ Journal - Subscription). Griego was found to have misused his publically granted judicial authority to help friends, family, staffers, and colleagues avoid proper judicial review and potential punishment by intervening on their behalf.
Even though this wasn’t the first time that Judge Griego has been caught with his hand in the judicial cookie jar (ABQ Journal - Subscription), the Judicial Standards Commission recommended only a 90 day suspension without pay and a $12,000 fine to pay for hearing costs. Of course this is just a recommendation, the Supreme Court could decide on a stiffer punishment or none at all.
Our question is a simple one… If Judge Griego has run afoul of judicial standards not once but twice, how can the public trust any decision made by the Judicial Gerrymanderer?
Our system of justice is based on the faith that we the governed can receive a fair and impartial hearing on any civil or criminal charge. Judges that make exceptions for friends, staffers, and family call into question the impartiality and the essential fairness of the system.
We understand that court rooms often become a kind of members only club where the judges all know the defense lawyers and the district attorneys, the district attorneys know the defense attorneys and the judges, and the defense attorney’s know the district attorneys and the judges. It’s an incestuous little group that knows good from bad, favored from disfavored.
The result is that in places like Metropolitan Court where public scrutiny and/or attention are at the absolute minimum, judgments are often made based on the personalities of the players rather than the guilt or innocence of the accused.
It’s a sad fact of life that the public does not hold our judges to a higher level of scrutiny. A judge who engages in rigging cases either directly or behind the scenes should not be returning to the bench to have the opportunity to continue to wreak havoc on the court system and simultaneously destroy the public’s faith in the judicial system.
In this case Judge Griego is charged with and been found to have engaged in practices directly related to the impartial implementation of his job; and for the second time. The State Supreme Court should act to restore faith in our judiciary by removing Judge Griego from the bench where he has repeatedly abused the authority entrusted to him.
Before we begin, we believe that there are a number of honest, hard-working judges in New Mexico that take their jobs seriously. Their devotion to the spirit and the letter of the law are admirable and deserve praise.
However, the reality is that judges hold positions of great power and little public scrutiny. They have the authority to punish offenders and the responsibility to protect the public from those same offenders.
Last week we all found out about the punishment recommended by the Judicial Standards Commission for Metropolitan Court Judge J. Wayne Griego’s 14 counts of judicial misconduct (ABQ Journal - Subscription). Griego was found to have misused his publically granted judicial authority to help friends, family, staffers, and colleagues avoid proper judicial review and potential punishment by intervening on their behalf.
Even though this wasn’t the first time that Judge Griego has been caught with his hand in the judicial cookie jar (ABQ Journal - Subscription), the Judicial Standards Commission recommended only a 90 day suspension without pay and a $12,000 fine to pay for hearing costs. Of course this is just a recommendation, the Supreme Court could decide on a stiffer punishment or none at all.
Our question is a simple one… If Judge Griego has run afoul of judicial standards not once but twice, how can the public trust any decision made by the Judicial Gerrymanderer?
Our system of justice is based on the faith that we the governed can receive a fair and impartial hearing on any civil or criminal charge. Judges that make exceptions for friends, staffers, and family call into question the impartiality and the essential fairness of the system.
We understand that court rooms often become a kind of members only club where the judges all know the defense lawyers and the district attorneys, the district attorneys know the defense attorneys and the judges, and the defense attorney’s know the district attorneys and the judges. It’s an incestuous little group that knows good from bad, favored from disfavored.
The result is that in places like Metropolitan Court where public scrutiny and/or attention are at the absolute minimum, judgments are often made based on the personalities of the players rather than the guilt or innocence of the accused.
It’s a sad fact of life that the public does not hold our judges to a higher level of scrutiny. A judge who engages in rigging cases either directly or behind the scenes should not be returning to the bench to have the opportunity to continue to wreak havoc on the court system and simultaneously destroy the public’s faith in the judicial system.
In this case Judge Griego is charged with and been found to have engaged in practices directly related to the impartial implementation of his job; and for the second time. The State Supreme Court should act to restore faith in our judiciary by removing Judge Griego from the bench where he has repeatedly abused the authority entrusted to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)