Murray Snow: The man judging Sheriff Joe

• Friends and associates call Murray Snow a judge's judge%2C a legal scholar%2C a kind man and a devout Mormon.
• At issue is whether Snow went too far by questioning Arpaio on investigations Arpaio launched against him and his wife.

Federal judges tend to speak from the bench like gods thundering down from the heavens. They run tight courtrooms, hold lawyers to the rules, and demand that motions be filed along strict guidelines.

And occasionally they threaten to hold elected officials — like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio — in contempt of court.

Arpaio and his top officers have been in front of U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow since summer 2009, shortly after they managed to get Judge Mary Murguia to recuse herself from their case because of remarks made by Murguia's sister, who leads a Latino advocacy organization.

In May 2013, Snow ruled that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office indeed engaged in racial profiling. And nearly a year later, Snow chastised Arpaio for violating the court order, leading to the current contempt hearings.

Now Arpaio wants Snow to recuse himself as well for running down questions about two fruitless but troubling investigations.

One investigation was into an alleged conspiracy among Snow, the Department of Justice and other politicians; the other into statements Snow's wife might have made in a restaurant about Snow's supposed bias against Arpaio.

Snow has stayed the contempt proceedings while he ponders the arguments from the sheriff and from the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the racial profiling suit and wants Snow to remain on the case.

Snow has stated outright that he intends to find Arpaio and others in civil contempt of court for disobeying court orders to end racial profiling of Hispanics by sheriff's deputies. At issue was whether he would refer Arpaio and others to the U.S. Attorney's Office to pursue criminal contempt charges.

Legal ethics experts and courthouse regulars are split on whether Snow crossed a line and compromised himself or if Arpaio is trying to force Snow off the case by creating conflict, thus being even further in contempt.

Federal judges do more fact-finding and ask more questions than state judges do, so he may have been well within bounds.

But was he getting too personal? Clearly he waded deep into the dispute, and even when the sheriff told him the investigations were dismissed as "junk" and dropped, he pressed for more information.

Or was he too political? Is it true, as a tipster told Arpaio, that Snow's wife said the judge wanted Arpaio out of office? That would certainly suggest bias.

One legal ethics expert said that "from 60,000 feet," it might look as if Snow had blundered into a conflict. But from up close, the expert said, Snow would be remiss by not asking those questions.

This is not the trial to determine whether the Sheriff's Office had racially profiled, the expert stressed, but rather a hearing to determine whether the sheriff and his associates were in contempt of court — and trying to get the drop on the judge who handles your case might fit under the definition of contempt.

Who is Murray Snow?

Judges are not supposed to be political.

Their job is to weigh cases against the law, to determine whether acts and arguments fit within the U.S. Constitution, though politicians often assume that a judge will rule in their favor if they think he or she is of their philosophy.

As many self-named conservatives learned when the immigration laws of SB 1070 hit the U.S. Supreme Court, that is not the case. Constitutional is constitutional. Contempt is contempt.

Snow is considered a judge's judge and a legal scholar.

"I know him to be very prepared," said former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton. "He puts up with no nonsense. His reputation is that he's very conservative politically, but I haven't seen it in the courtroom."

More than one of the sources who talked to The Arizona Republic labeled Snow as a very conservative Republican.

Arpaio's supporters have suggested that Snow is an activist, which "makes people on the legal bar chuckle," as one of Snow's former law partners said.

Most of Snow's friends and associates refuse to talk about him for the record. Snow, unsurprisingly, would not sit for an interview: Federal judges are closed-mouthed. The clerk of the District Court would not even confirm Snow's age.

His friends and associates are mostly attorneys and judges, state and federal. They call him a straight shooter and an open-minded man, fond of discourse.

He takes meticulous account of details, and it has been clear from his commentary in the Arpaio case that he has read every brief and examined every piece of evidence.

"He has an excellent bulls--t detector," attorney Dan Barr said.

"He's not one to throw his weight around," said Jack LaSota, a former Arizona attorney general.

Snow is said to be a devout Mormon and a warm and caring family man.

"He's one of the smartest guys I know and he's incredibly compassionate," said Phil Alvidrez, a TV producer who was Snow's longtime neighbor.

A personal side

Grant Murray Snow was born in in 1959 in Boulder City, Nev. He did his undergraduate and law degrees at Brigham Young, then clerked at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1987, he went to work directly out of law school for the law firm that became Osborn Maledon.

In the 1990s, he was hit by a truck while crossing Central Avenue near Thomas Road and was hospitalized with serious injuries, though one friend said, "It did more damage to the truck," again given Snow's large frame.

LaSota said, "He was always very forgiving of the truck driver," while another friend noted that it ended his participation in pickup basketball games at Monterey Park in Phoenix, for better or for worse.

Former associates at Osborn Maledon said Snow was the person that everyone turned to for personal advice.

His work in the church was important to him, friends said.

"Murray was really good at seeing the best in people," Alvidrez said of the time that Snow served his Mormon ward as a bishop.

The judge told Alvidrez that as he looked out at the congregation, "I see rows and rows of heroes," because Snow knew the hardships they had endured because they had come to him for counsel.

It was in contrast to his demeanor in the courtroom.

One lawyer who has known him out of court and practiced before him said, "On the bench he's surprisingly stern. It's surprising because it's a departure from his personality off the bench."

Snow was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 2002 by Gov. Jane Hull, and then to the U.S. District Court by President George W. Bush in 2007. In effect, he had to learn to be a trial court judge when he went to federal court because appellate judges do not preside over trials.

But federal judges have more resources to work with than state judges, bigger staffs who can research the law and help with briefs. It is understandable that they can delve more deeply into a case rather than just "calling balls and strikes" as judges and lawyers are prone to say.

And they are tenured for life. They don't have to campaign for general election or stand for retention. They have better retirement programs than state judges, so they don't have to stay on the good side of attorneys who could offer them work after they leave the bench. They tend to take that authority into the courtroom with them.

"They don't have to walk the line," as one judge said.

They are consequently less easily intimidated.

More than one acquaintance said that Snow was recently asked by the U.S. Marshals Service to stop riding the light rail or driving to court each day given the case against Arpaio, and Arpaio's tendency to follow and investigate those he perceives as political foes.

The sources said that marshals were bringing Snow to court instead.

One of Snow's friends said, "If I were to follow someone around waiting for him to do something illegal, Murray Snow is the last guy I would follow."