Overview

This 2016 Review Department opinion involves Robert Alan Murray, a Kern County deputy district attorney, who was found culpable of moral turpitude under Business & Professions Code §6106 for intentionally falsifying a defendant’s confession during plea negotiations in a child molestation case. Murray inserted two fabricated lines into the defendant’s transcribed statement to make it appear that the defendant had confessed to sexual intercourse with a 10-year-old girl—an offense carrying a life sentence. He then sent the altered document to the public defender. The misconduct led to the dismissal of all charges, and the Review Department increased his discipline from a 30-day suspension to a one-year actual suspension.

Key Facts

• During plea talks, Murray added two fake lines to the transcript implying the defendant admitted to intercourse with the victim.
• He sent the falsified transcript to the public defender via email, with no indication that it was altered.
• The public defender, believing it genuine, confronted his client—causing the client to lose trust and confidence in counsel.
• When confronted nine days later, Murray said it was a “joke.”
• The Kern County Superior Court found his misconduct “egregious, outrageous, and conscience-shocking” and dismissed the case for violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.
• The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the misconduct was deliberate and prejudicial.

Proceedings and Findings

• OCTC charged Murray with three counts: one for moral turpitude (§6106) and two under §6068(a) for failure to support the laws.
• The hearing judge found gross negligence amounting to moral turpitude, dismissed the other two counts, and recommended a 30-day suspension.
• On review, the Review Department found Murray acted intentionally and rejected the “joke” defense, granting the criminal courts’ findings prima facie weight.
• The court emphasized the severe impact on the defendant’s rights, the victim, and the public’s trust in justice.
• The panel found that a longer suspension was necessary to preserve integrity and public confidence.

Reasoning

• Murray’s conduct constituted intentional deception, not mere negligence.
• As a prosecutor, he was held to elevated ethical standards of candor and impartiality, higher than other attorneys.
• By falsifying a defendant’s statement, he undermined due process and the administration of justice.
• The Review Department found significant harm to the 10-year-old victim, the defendant, and the justice system.
• While Murray presented evidence of good character and community service, the aggravation outweighed mitigation.

Aggravation and Mitigation

• Aggravation: substantial harm to the administration of justice, the victim, and the public; loss of faith in the justice system.
• Mitigation: no prior discipline; cooperation and candor; positive character evidence; extensive community service; remorse (limited weight due to delay).

Final Disposition

The Review Department imposed a two-year stayed suspension, two years probation, and a one-year actual suspension. Murray was required to complete Ethics School, pass the MPRE, comply with Rule 9.20, and file quarterly probation reports. The decision stresses that prosecutorial misconduct undermines the rule of law and that deceit in criminal cases—especially by prosecutors—requires firm discipline to preserve confidence in justice.

Sanctions & Disposition Table

Notes: The Review Department held Murray’s intentional alteration of evidence violated §6106 and standard 2.11 (moral turpitude). His “joke” defense was rejected as inconsistent with his duty of candor and fairness.

Tags