Final Recommendation

Mercedes C. Murphy
The Honorable

Mercedes C. Murphy

District Court Judge
7th Judicial District --
Catron, Sierra, Socorro, and Torrance Counties
General Jurisdiction Court

Year: 2020

Recommendation: Retain

Election Results:

Evaluation: Judge Mercedes Murphy’s evaluation results were positive. Attorneys rated her quite positively for being punctual in commencing proceedings, being attentive to the proceedings, and for being prompt in scheduling hearings and trials. The court staff rated her quite positively for behaving in a manner that encourages respect for the courts and for respecting court employees regardless of position. Resource staff (e.g., law enforcement, probation and parole officers, interpreters, etc.) rated Judge Murphy positively on all attributes. In her interview with the Commission, Judge Murphy indicated a willingness to work to improve her judicial performance.

Experience & Education: Judge Mercedes Murphy was appointed to the District Court in September of 2014 and was elected to the position in November of 2014. Judge Murphy has a general jurisdiction docket and hears all types of cases. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Murphy worked in the 7th Judicial District Attorney’s Office from 2002 to 2014. She received her undergraduate degree in political science from UNM in 1995 and her law degree from the Oklahoma City Law School in 2002.

PERCENTAGE THAT AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THE JUDGE EXHIBITS POSITIVE QUALITIES IN EACH CATEGORY *

Attorneys (n=45, 29% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 78% 11% 11%
Fair and Impartial 64% 22% 13%
Knowledgeable of Law 69% 18% 13%
Communication is Clear 80% 10% 11%
Appropriate Demeanor 72% 20% 8%
Properly Controls Proceedings 71% 13% 16%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=19, 76% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 89% 5% 5%
Fair and Impartial N/A N/A N/A
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear N/A N/A N/A
Appropriate Demeanor N/A N/A N/A
Properly Controls Proceedings N/A N/A N/A
Respects Court Employees 84% 11% 5%
Jurors (n=32, 34% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 100% 0% 0%
Fair and Impartial 100% 0% 0%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 97% 2% 1%
Appropriate Demeanor 99% 1% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 100% 0% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Resource Staff (n=27, 28% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 92% 4% 4%
Fair and Impartial 90% 4% 6%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 88% 8% 4%
Appropriate Demeanor 88% 4% 8%
Properly Controls Proceedings 96% 4% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A

* On the tables above, the "Agree" columns are comprised of the strongly agree and agree responses. Similarly, the "Disagree" columns are comprised of the strongly disagree and disagree responses. The combined percentage of "Agree", "Disagree", and "Partly Agree/Partly Disagree" for each category may not equal 100% due to rounding error. "N/A" indicates that the category is "not applicable" because some populations were not asked certain questions.

 

PERCENTAGE THAT RECOMMEND THE JUDGE BE RETAINED OR NOT BE RETAINED IN OFFICE. ‡

Attorney Retain Recommendation Bar ChartCourt Staff Retain Recommendation Bar ChartResource Staff Retain Recommendation Bar Chart

‡ On the charts above, the "Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend retain and somewhat recommend retain responses. Similarly, the "Do Not Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend not retain and somewhat recommend not retain responses.

 

Privacy Policy

Back to top