A three-judge panel for the state Commission on Judicial Performance has recommended that no action be taken against Orange County Superior Court Judge Michael Murray after finding that allegations of misconduct against him as a prosecutor were unproven.
The full commission will determine Murray’s fate.
The agency on Jan. 5 alleged that Murray violated disclosure laws and used falsified CHP reports to convict a former Long Beach man for causing the traffic death of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy David Piquette, who was driving to work about 5 a.m. in July 2006.
A stove stolen from a Riverside County construction site had fallen from a pickup truck driven by defendant Cole Wilkins, landing on the 91 Freeway in Anaheim. Piquette, 34, died after swerving into a cement truck to avoid the stove. Wilkins was convicted of murder and sentenced to 26 years to life, which ultimately was reduced by appellate courts to manslaughter and four years in prison. By then, Wilkins had served 13 years and was released.
Wilkins has filed a lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol.
Murray, a deputy district attorney at the time, was charged by the commission with failing to investigate reports that CHP documents were rewritten to bolster the prosecution’s case after the originals were shredded. The defense was not told of the doctored reports as required by federal law.
A panel of three special judges heard the allegations against Murray and the defense arguments in Santa Ana from April 25 to May 18.
The group concluded Monday that the commission’s lawyers “did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence certain factual allegations leveled against Murray. To the extent the examiners did prove certain factual allegations, those facts do not support, as a matter of law, the … assertion that Murray either committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute or improper action.”
The judges said theories advanced by the commission’s lawyers were “vague and wholly unsupported by the evidence.”
The panel did find that certain evidence should have been given to Wilkins’ defense, but the judges did not fault Murray for that “error.”
“Given that Judge Murray is accused of misconduct solely when he was a DDA years ago, and the evidence regarding his behavior as a judge was consistently stellar, we do not believe that a ‘reasonable observer’ would find that his conduct, even if deemed a Brady violation, would ‘tarnish public esteem for the judiciary,’ ” the judges wrote.
The recommendation was signed by Special Master Judges Judith M. Ashmann-Gerst, Patricia D. Benke and George J. Abdallah.
Murray’s attorney, Edith Matthai, applauded the recommendation.
“We are pleased that after careful consideration of the evidence, the Special Masters concluded that Judge Murray had not engaged in either prejudicial misconduct or improper action,” Matthai said.
The ruling was criticized by Assistant Public Defender Sara Ross, who represented Wilkins and testified against Murray.
“We couldn’t disagree more strongly with the findings,” Ross said Monday. “Judge Murray’s conduct in the case was reprehensible, and these findings could set a terrible precedent in Orange County.”