State District Judge Francis Mathew, who is 72 years old, faces a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence (DWI) stemming from an incident on December 13 in Santa Fe. Despite the accusation, Mathew continued to perform his judicial duties and preside over cases in his courtroom. His attorney, Ben Ortega, declared Mathew’s intentions to contest the charge, asserting his innocence and highlighting that the judge’s blood alcohol level was below the legal limit of 0.08% during breath tests taken an hour after his stop at a DWI checkpoint. Mathew’s defense claims he fully cooperated with law enforcement throughout the process.
The legal situation arose when Mathew was stopped at the DWI checkpoint, where officers observed that he had difficulty performing standardized field sobriety tests. He admitted to consuming a glass of wine and a cocktail during dinner prior to his detention. Nonetheless, after being transported to a state police facility for further testing, his recorded blood alcohol levels were 0.05% and 0.04%, indicating he was under the influence but not above the legal threshold for driving. Due to these results, police opted to release him rather than incarcerate him at that time.
Despite the pending DWI charge, Mathew has continued to handle court cases, and this has raised questions about his capacity to serve as a judge while facing criminal allegations. The Chief Judge of the First Judicial District, Bryan Biedscheid, acknowledged the need for more information regarding the situation. In addition, a spokesperson from the Administrative Office of the Courts stated that judges, including chief judges, are not permitted to comment on cases that are ongoing, underlining the complexity of the ethical considerations involved.
The probable cause for charging Mathew lies mainly in his perceived poor performance during the sobriety tests rather than any definitive evidence of impaired driving. Ortega argued that the non-standardized tests used against Mathew lack proper validation and were particularly unfair for a judge in his age group. The defense contended that a lack of evidence showing actual impaired driving should lead to his exoneration when the case proceeds.
Judge Francis Mathew’s legal troubles have surprised many, given his status as a sitting judge who has been serving since his appointment in 2013 by former Governor Susana Martinez. He was later elected to continue in this role. Throughout his tenure, Mathew has overseen several notable cases, including controversial matters involving public figures. His continued presiding over court cases in light of these allegations may offer insights into the standards and policies governing judicial conduct amidst such disputes.
Overall, Judge Mathew’s case illuminates broader issues concerning judicial accountability and the complexities of legal proceedings involving individuals in positions of authority. As the situation develops, it will be important to observe how the judicial system addresses accusations against its members and maintains both public trust and legal integrity in handling cases of this nature.
