Capitan officer's misconduct hearing Friday - Ruidoso News

"According to the Attor-ney General's office, character witnesses appearing for McGarry are Mayor Sam Hammons, Chief of Police Randy Spear, Capitan officer Kevin Kennedy and Capitan Municipal Judge J.D. Roehrig.

McGarry has remained on active duty with the Capitan Police Depart-ment throughout the investigation."

Kidding right? How can anyone in Capitan get fairness if the mayor , the chief , the dog catcher AND the JUDGE are all witnessess for this man? THE JUDGE? Something is definitely wrong in Capitan.

Your idea of fairness is wrong

Please expound on that, seems you have no argument. You honestly think you could ever get a fair hearing from a judge that has been a character witness for an officer whose ethics are in question?

The mayor, the police chief, the police officer and the judge all vouch for the credibility of Officer McGarry. You seem to be outnumbered by people who have been elected by the majority who think like they do, not like you do. Did you go to Santa Fe to testify against Officer McGarry?

I believe you are referring to Capitan Municipal Judge Roehrig and I see no reason that he would be unfair in adjudicating based on his decision to be a character witness for Officer McGarry. I do not question Judge Roehrig's integrity and I believe that he felt he had good reason to take the action he did.

AZ: It was handled.
miss pinky: I bet.

Grabba crayon wrote:

The mayor, the police chief, the police officer and the judge all vouch for the credibility of Officer McGarry. You seem to be outnumbered by people who have been elected by the majority who think like they do, not like you do. Did you go to Santa Fe to testify against Officer McGarry?

So you stayed home and did nothing, didn't go to Santa Fe? Coward.

It was handled.

Seems they packed a mighty big canon to shot a sparrow, did they?

Does Sean need that much "high profile" back up just because he was "confused" when he checked the wrong box(es) in the application form?

can you hear me now wrote:

It was handled.

All is well?

Well, well well. So much has happend, but for all the wrong reasons. Congratulations to Sean who weathered such an atrocious attack on his personal character. The problem is great looking guys like us, well there are people out there rooting for us to fail. Fortunately, I never have, but I digress. I was already disgusted by the lack of journalistic integrity and now we have censorship and censorship for no other reason but to protect the "character" of one libeled person.

Bavarian Hillbilly wrote:

Seems they packed a mighty big canon to shot a sparrow, did they?
Does Sean need that much "high profile" back up just because he was "confused" when he checked the wrong box(es) in the application form?

to shoot

Thank you Skiddy :-)

I heard that Sean's buying tonight down at the WPS! If true, I wonder why he's so happy?

I wonder too. Putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? The decision isn't made until December, right? Or did they already tell him it is all good? And he can continue with his , as you say "mischief"?... lol.

I'm just buckling up my Wranglers right now.

So, If I understand you, the case is over , and he was exonerated? Will there be an article in the RN paper on this? And will they put some of the hearing information in the paper? Where can we read about this? I believe it is a matter of public record and I would like to see the whole process.

eagle justice wrote:

So, If I understand you, the case is over , and he was exonerated? Will there be an article in the RN paper on this? And will they put some of the hearing information in the paper? Where can we read about this? I believe it is a matter of public record and I would like to see the whole process.

Yes, thank you, and while we are making requests, can you please put an article in the RN about the upcoming Sedarwall trial on the 20th in Sandoval County. There is a lot of speculation, and a newspaper is supposed to bring us THE NEWS, right?

Pinky wrote:

I believe you are referring to Capitan Municipal Judge Roehrig and I see no reason that he would be unfair in adjudicating based on his decision to be a character witness for Officer McGarry. I do not question Judge Roehrig's integrity and I believe that he felt he had good reason to take the action he did.

Actually you should have a problem with this if you have any respect for the law.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is clear on the matter. At NMRA 21-200(b) the following is found:

"A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness."

21-200 is titled "Impartiality". In fact the mere fact that the judge did this shows him to be biased on the record. In legal parlance this judge has been recused since he first held this bias. Certainly any actions he takes in his court from this point forward that include this officer are without jurisdiction.

Those of you who wish to see the judge disciplined for his actions need merely inform the Judicial Standards Commission that this judge did indeed testify as a character witness.

Yes, please and while you're at it, let's not forget one about Shane's sentencing hearing tomorrow. Thanks!