Judge: Waive Speedy Trial, or I’ll “Beat Your Ass”

If you’ve ever had a public defender in a criminal case, you probably plead guilty for fear of getting beaten in a trial. Yesterday in Brevard County, Florida however, a public defender got beaten at arraignment, literally. Judge John Murphy is accused of punching veteran public defender Andrew Weinstock in the face repeatedly, after the two exchanged words in the court room. Murphy reportedly wanted Weinstock’s client to waive his right to a speedy trial, and when he refused, the judge said “If I had a rock I’d throw it at you” and then invited him outside of the courtroom to “beat [his] ass”.

The dialogue in the court room was captured on video (below). In the video you can see Weinstock exit the court room, reportedly thinking it was just to talk. Once they got off camera, without saying a word, the judge reportedly grabbed him by the collar and began punching him in the head. You can hear the sounds of scuffle on the court room video. Two deputies broke up the melee, after which Judge Murphy returned to the bench and began hearing other cases. “I will catch my breath eventually,” Murphy said. “Man, I’m an old man.”

No arrests were made, no charges were filed, but the public defenders office said they will be reporting the incident to the Bar association. See the video below, then I’d like to riff on this a bit more…


I’m glad this happened, and it’s not because public defenders are scum who sell out their clients and deserve to get hit. They are, and they do, but that’s not the point. The point is, human beings cannot be trusted with the power that the court system is trusted with.

Waive Speedy Trial or I'll Beat Your Ass
Waive Speedy Trial or I’ll Beat Your Ass

The constitutional right to a speedy trial outlined in the US Constitution’s sixth amendment serves an important purpose, or at least, it’s supposed to. The limitless resources of the State can be, and are, used to drag out criminal cases in such a fashion as to deplete the resources of a defendant. In many if not most criminal cases, the defendant is coerced to waive this right from the start, but it is not usually this pronounced. Your attorney will often tell you to waive it because if you don’t, it will piss off the judge and the prosecutor because it makes their lives more difficult, and that could influence a judge’s ruling on some matter, or any effort made at a plea deal.

What happened yesterday in Brevard County is a less nuanced version of exactly the same thing. Sure, you have a right to a speedy trial, but if you exercise it, the State will do violence to you. In fact, being punched in the face a couple of times, is far less violence than the threat of being locked in a cage for months or even years, or having your property taken. I’ve had numerous criminal cases over the course of my lifetime, some more deserved than others, and in every single one of them, even the cases I beat, I would rather have been punched in the face a few times, than to even go through the court proceedings.

There were no charges filed against the judge, reportedly because the public defender didn’t wish to pursue any. Try to imagine if anybody else had punched any other officer of the court. At the very least, they would be held in contempt. There is absolutely no doubt that there would have been an arrest and charges if any private person engaged in even the verbal abuse pictured in that video, much more so if it came to physical violence. It would make little difference if the victim of the assault sought not to pursue the matter, the court would charge the assailant with at a minimum, contempt and disorderly conduct. But, since it’s a judge, it’s no big deal, apparently.

The judge immediately returned to the bench and began hearing other cases after the fray. Imagine what impact that had on other defendants who wished not to waive their speedy trial rights. Imagine the mindset of a man who is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of laws and facts, who hasn’t even caught his breath after he just got done assaulting an attorney for defending his client’s constitutional rights. The notion that a man could be trusted to make rational decisions in that mindset is one of the more absurd things we see the State doing, and the fact that this could be allowed to happen, should be all the proof you need that the State cannot be trusted with such authority.

How many other cases have gone before this judge? How much property has he ordered seized from defendants? How many years of prison time has he handed down? Probably a great deal. He reportedly has a “high reputation” in the court system, yet he is so unstable that he would verbally abuse a public defender on camera, then walk off camera and assault him for no reason other than for defending his client’s constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial.

I wouldn’t trust a system that allowed this to happen to feed my pets. Yet people trust it to interfere violently in all aspects of our lives. They tell us what we can eat, drink, and inhale, they dictate our business dealings, they interfere in our family affairs, they do all of this under the premise of a lawful authority to cage us if we disobey, and murder us if we resist. All this power is granted to people who lack the basic self control required to avoid getting into fisticuffs, and the accountability to do anything about it. Over 12 million people will be arrested in the United States this year, and be put in front of judges like this one.

Yeah, let that sink in for a minute….

Sources: 1, 2

If you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]


Christopher Cantwell is a former political prisoner, and current host of the Radical Agenda. The most entertaining podcast of the Alt Right.

  • Zac Segal

    The best attorneys I’ve ever seen have been public defenders. Never waive your rights. Always take it to trial if you have a reasonable shot at winning. Too many defendants cave in and take plea bargains and if they fought back more and demanded their right to a trial more, there would be fewer bogus charges being made. A public defender following orders from a smart client can turn the state on its ear. It’s worth the risk to fight the power. Screw their backlog and don’t make their jobs easier to hang something on you. I hope that judge gets impeached and charged. He’s a criminal.

    • Jim

      Zac, big problem though. PUBLIC DEFENDERS are overworked. MANY won’t do leg work to help you. They got too many cases to concentrate on just one guy. The defendant will see the writing on the wall. YOU are GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT. Either take a plea deal and do less or NO jail time, or fight it yourself and the judge gives you 15 to 20.
      Time and again this happens. Domestic violence laws are written this way. MANY drug cases are this way. “OH CAUGHT WITH A JOINT? PLEAD to CHARGES I, 2 and 3 and you get 5 years. OR fight it yourself and get 30..
      Judges, I’ve suspect, feel totally empowered to be a ‘god’ . Judges, like many lawyers, don’t want to work more than they have too.

      • SamuelAdams1776

        Yup! I love how people have so much respect for judges and will also tell you they despise lawyers. Judges do have a god complex and I suspect feel like a king in his/her micro kingdom. I cant believe more people havnt sought revenge on these parasites. Youd figure there would be some judges who turn up missing.

        • Benji DirtySnake Greenlee

          in my town the judge is also a lawyer who robs people… he stole $600 from my mom, my mompaid him for a case and when she didn’t hear anything back, she called and asked and he said “I never took on that case, I have no paperwork involving that case..” and I’ve heard SEVERAL other people say the SAME thing has happened to them – he’s a THIEF!

          I got a ticket for no plates, my car failed inspection for an exhaust leak, I was heading home and got pulled over, the cop told me if I had the car legal by court they would throw it out, I only get paid ONCE a month and I was broke, I had to wait another week to get money to fix the exhaust, I got the car fixed and legal, went to court and the fucking judge says “oh, it took you a week to get the car legal?” I said “yea… I had to wait until I got paid to afford the work needed.. I only get paid once a month…” he says “oh, well it took you too long, so you’re pleading guilty then?” I said “NO! I have the car legal! I had to be able to afford to get the car fixed before it would pass! it’s fixed and it passed!!” he says “oh well, I understand, but… it took you too long… so you’re pleading guilty, RIGHT?!?!”

          • Lee Wilkinson

            What end up happening..that was bullshit..That judge was an asshole..

          • Benji DirtySnake Greenlee

            admittedly, at the time I was a lot less informed, so thinking I had literally no choice, I accepted the guilty plea…

          • The Dude

            I do not even believe you one bit. A inspection can not tell if your exhaust is leaking and even if it could it would not fail.

          • Benji DirtySnake Greenlee

            umm… you CLEARLY have no fucking clue what you are talking about, do you? LOL

            yes, you can tell an exhaust has a leak… the car will act funny in some cases (mine wasn’t) or emit smoke, my car was a turbocharged car and the turbo downpipe had “flex pipe” the car barely sat a few inches off of the ground and over time, gravel and other things have punctured the flex pipe, the car would sit at idle and after a few minutes at idle, smoke came out from the flex pipe…. and whether or not they fail you for an exhaust leak depends on state and county – how about learning something before you fucking open your mouth, moron.

            why would I just make up such a story anyways? makes no sense…. LOL

          • The Dude

            They have to get under your car and look. They never do that.

          • Benji DirtySnake Greenlee

            again, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, why are you even bothering? really? for one, they don’t have to get under the car when the car is SMOKING, did you miss that part? lol
            umm, the cop did tell me what I sai, what legal advice did I say he gave me other than get it legal and come to court? any cop would say something like that, how is that unheard of? lol also, yes the judge said all of that to me, that was kinda the reason I was complaining, about the BS the judge said to me, that he shouldn’t have been able to say, but he did… lol

            how about you not worry about it, because it’s done and gone 3+ years in the past now, and whether or not it happened isn’t up to me to prove to you, since you clearly know every damned thing

          • The Dude

            the cop told me if I had the car legal by court they would throw it out,
            That is legal advice. He can not know the outcome of your trial.
            My car does not even smoke out of its exhaust pipe. No wonder you failed inspection.
            Keep lying.

          • The Dude

            They can not even tell my 98 cobra does not have catalytic converters. They just plug it in and it tells them I pass. My older cars they shoved rods into my exhaust pipe and got the readings and it would pass. These methods of testing can not detect a exhaust leak whether its the law or not.

          • Benji DirtySnake Greenlee

            LMFAO dude, you’re a JOKE, shut the fuck up.

            you’ve never heard of smoke coming from a car exhaust? wow. DUMB lol

            you know, I could REALLY give a fuck less if you are STUPID enough to think I am gaining ANYTHING by making something up… really. ok, cool. you don’t believe it? fine. I don’t give a fuck, LOL

            now please, go find something better to do.

          • The Dude

            Also there are holes all over your story. Like for instance a cop giving legal advice and anything the judge said to you. You have to have a pass to drive a car to inspections if it’s tabs are expired. They sell 3 or more day passes specifically to get your car inspected. The judge would not tell you that you took to long or anything like that. There job is to determine if you did or did not commit the infraction. You did thus you have to pay the ticket. I have sat in court many times and its full of a bunch of liars who believe their own bullshit.

          • Lee Wilkinson

            I’m sorry you had to do that & had to deal with that judge my friend..It’s s*** like this that makes ya lose faith in our judicial system & the idiots clapping when the judge walked back in can go to hell with the judge as well..I hope they have to deal with that judge themselves one day & lets see if they clap..I bet that wouldn’t be clapping by the time they leave his courtroom..

          • cannotvote

            He should be barred from his position,period – this guy thinks he’s ‘Judge Dread’. The base iniquity of the legal system is most can’t afford to defend themselves, then you throw a bombastic hothead judge into the mix – what a sick mindset, to be so dispassionate!

        • Jesse Elliott

          Judges are lawyers. That’s what the “limited government” retards don’t get. They are lawyers and government officials.

        • Joseph Mccourt

          OH, there has been cases of retaliation and even had one blown away eating dinner in A.C. N.J. There’s been others but too many are walking around with that God complex and it tarnishes the reputations of the ones that are actually decent and thorough.

    • joe

      I hear and read this all the time but have yet to see it proven. I had pending felonies and everything in my discovery to prove it was all lies yet was told by the public pretender that they wouldn’t accept and that I should take 5 years that they offered, yet went and got a paid lawyer after I bonded out and got the whole case thrown out 2 weeks later due to the discovery and what was in it. You obviously have never faced criminal charges or you’d change your whole observations of the public pretenders office.

      • Zac Segal

        I was facing DV assault just 6 months ago and got it dropped, didn’t even have to take a disorderly persons charge. They offered and I said no deal. Plus due to my deafness, I was making them get real time transcription, a regular asl interpreter just wouldn’t do and that gave them fits. My public defenderslashsupermodel was an Ace. I would hire her for real. Everett Washington, home of Officer Troy Meade, he shot a guy in the back 7 times and got off. Hey, I know cops and lawyers and I stand by my assertion. Of course, you have to have a fightable case. If you’re busted and you know it, well, that’s different.

        • Jason Mitchell

          The most important thing, is always


          If you don’t do that, no lawyer can help you.

    • Ernest

      Zac, you are 100% correct. I refused to not go to trial and all charges dropped! BS haveing to make deals if you are innocent. No one should be afraid to fight the good fight

      • Joseph Mccourt

        You have obviously not spent much time dealing with the different judicial systems. You are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. There are so many people doing as much as 5 to 10 times the amount of time they should have gotten because of a system that was doomed from the start.I spent a lot of time in there and did it all in the law library working on appeals and reconsiderations, post conviction reliefs, you name it.And i even met a couple who were totally innocent.Our whole sentencing guidelines need to be reworked and a lot of people should be released while a lot should never see daylight again.

  • harrymanbach

    That level of un-professionalism is beyond fucked up. The bailiffs should’ve cracked the judge’s skull.

    • Jim

      Yeah, that would’ve been good. THEN the judge FIRES the bailiff’s and they have to spend the next year trying to get their jobs back.

      • Vince

        OK, Deviled Egg… Way to stand by your Oath, Fucking coward.

  • DaleGribble2

    This is disgusting. Even more so that the people awaiting to approach are applauding the sub human scum who is about to screw their lives over…. I agree with Zac that judge should be charged. Power tripping at its finest.

    • Robin Cassin

      I agreed Dale! But people are stupid.

    • barbcinque

      Excellent point! lol. The judge is actually screwing those waiting to stand before him and they are applauding him for doing so.

  • Sheryl Mcallister

    Charges should be filed on the Judge for assult and he needs to taken off the bench and disbarred. And why did the court cops not arrest the judge on the spot and charge him?

    • Chad Selbe

      in florida if two people not living together get in a fight and no one wants to press charges its considered a mutual fight like an agreement.

  • ed

    public defenders are heroes. they work incredibly long hours and are terribly underpaid. they have huge caseloads and very little time. want an attorney who will spend 100hrs working on your case? you better have very deep pockets because they don’t come cheap. and no matter what attorney you have, when the prosecutors offer you a plea deal where you spend 12 months in jail vs going to trial where they will give you 5-10 if you lose, you have to think very deeply about that. Any jury is always a wild card, no matter what attorney you have.
    i have know many attorneys, and the vast majority of public defenders will tell you that they do their jobs because they are the last line between somebody accused of a crime and our corrupt legal system (as seen above)

  • Lynn Moscoso

    I would have also preferred some punches than to endure the trial my little girl and I endured. Also, I too agree that some of the best attorneys are public defenders. Any monkey can point the finger. To break the case into sensible pieces, that takes skills. To everyone, use up all of your rights and in matters of your freedom and your good name, do not sell yourself out.

  • magormissabib

    I have been there. Pleaded no contest when i was not guilty because the PD was to lazy and indolent to do thieir job.

  • Forrest Darden

    I applaud this rare public defender, but in the scheme of things he has done more good for his client than the convicted in the courtroom today, more than likely if his client is found guilty or even has to share a room or cell with these of an animal instinct they will do more harm than this judge would ever do, so why they were clapping is a mystery to me. In my opinion the only honourable person in that whole of a courtroom is that public defender and I applaud him for standing up for the rights of his client.

    But shame on you America for allowing injustices, violence against the innocent, outrageous divorce settlements, thugs who won’t think twice about taking your life is you “diss” them to continue to do more violence, how can you applaud when you have brought false allegations against anyone when you are, if not more guilty at harming the innocent than this judge…

    • DE

      Well said, although I take umbrage with your characterization of this public defender, who defended his client’s constitutional rights, as “rare.” I’m a public defender and my colleagues and I fiercely defend our clients’ constitutional rights all day, everyday. I’d even go so far to say that you’re usually better off with a public defender than a private attorney. There are crappy public defenders out there, sure, but they are in court pretty much everyday. While private attorneys will go to trial a few of times a year, some of us go to trial a few times a week. We know the judges, the prosecutors, and the cops. Yes, we probably have less time to work on your case than private attorneys, but we’re not afraid to go to trial and fight. Private attorneys, on the other hand, have a financial incentive to plea people out. It’s quicker and easier, so they can get their check and move on.

  • Anthony Jackson

    How can Cantwell say “public defenders are scum who sell out their clients and deserve to get hit” right after reporting how a public defeder protecting his client got hit?

  • Cup_of_STFU

    The attorney sounded snarky as all hell. I can understand the judge’s frustration, but it’s absurd to get so frustrated as to say what he said, or anything beyond that.

  • Robin Cassin

    Sorry but the most disturbing part of this video is the galley applauding the judge as if what he did was in some way ok. Above all else the Judge is to be professional. But this did happen in Fla so there you go.

    • Kimberly Horton Rock

      Why are you picking on Florida? Lol… I live here.. Believe me, this is not surprising in the least.. They’re all a bunch of crooked, lazy, obnoxious, self-righteous thugs in robes and uniforms..

      • barbcinque

        That would be why he’s picking on Florida! lol. But honestly, the corruption is rampant everywhere in the US right now. That being said, I fear anywhere in the south more than any place else in the US.

    • Joseph Mccourt

      That pissed me off big time.

  • Onlooker from Troy

    Oh don’t worry, Chris, we can reform it, don’t cha know. It’s just around the corner.

    • lawrence

      they will file a counter-reformation with bio weapons when that happens

  • Craig Whisenhunt

    You are right. Many public defenders are over worked. Nearly all are underpaid. Those who are veterans are so because they either are committed to the work they do or have nowhere else to go. However, because law is a profession where absent an employment opportunity one can set out on their own, those who don’t care about their clients don’t last long in that environment. Public Defenders try more cases to verdict than private attorneys. They typically negotiate more favorable dispositions as well. This is the consequence of having more experience with a particular judge and state attorney than private attorneys typically have. That isn’t to suggest there are not great private attorneys, or that there are not awful public defenders. There are great and terrible examples in any profession. But to blankety assert that public defenders do not fight for their clients, or should inspire fear in those so unfortunate to have one, is offensively inaccurate and diminishes the valid position you’ve taken with this judge for his conduct. More importantly, this very video showcases a public defender taking a stand, refusing to yield, and fighting for his client. Literally. Perhaps you had a bad experience with a charge at some point. Maybe you had a bad example of a public defender. But many of us are exceptionally proud of the work we do for those being accused by the government of violating the laws of this country. We are the wall between the government and the people, and the primary line of defense for the Constitution. We are underpaid and overworked. But for many of us, the vast majority by my experience, are committed to our clients and their rights. And we fight every day while many people think we are complicit with the state, lazy, dispassionate, incompetent, and stupid. We fight anyway, and not for the recognition, or to prove people wrong, but because we believe in what we do, and we believe the rights of our clients are worth protecting.

    • Darryn Frost

      I have been there, and been screwed by a PD when I was young and frightened, and ended up taking terrible advice and pleading guilty twice for crimes that not only did I not commit, but would not even have benefited from in the slightest. I just happened to share a house with some scummy dudes. If I had money, I would never have been convicted at all.

      • Craig Whisenhunt

        You might be right, then again just because you hire a private attorney doesn’t mean you will fare better. Public Defenders are accountable to their boss, a fresh out of law school attorney who can’t find a job and hangs his own shingle is accountable to no one, inexperienced, and not likely to benefit you very much. I’ve been a public defender for years. I will not try and convince you that there are not awful ones out there. There most certainly are. The majority are not that way, but do tend to suffer from the reputation of the worst.

        As to your charges, depending on what they were and where you live sometimes sharing a residence with “scummy dudes” exposes you to some criminal allegations that better company might have avoided. In many states illicit items, such as drugs, weapons, and stolen items, that are found in common areas of residences can be charged against anyone having access to that area. That doesn’t mean everyone is guilty, or even that everyone should be charged, but it does mean that it is possible for every one of those persons to potentially be arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty by a jury. Some people will not risk lengthy prison sentences for things that were not theirs and plead to a “safe” disposition. Other people will go to prison in the face of overwhelming evidence on principle that they are innocent. There are plenty of innocent men and women in prison. Why a person elects to plead a case is a personal matter. But in a system with Judges that will severely sentence a person after trial and rules that truly favor the state in almost every way It is hard for most people to risk the repercussions of fighting when deals are offered.

    • DE

      Totally agree. People think “you get what you pay for” and presume all kinds of terrible things about public defenders. It doesn’t help that we’re frequently depicted as young, inexperienced, bumbling idiots on television. And really, I can understand a client’s concern when they see their attorney running around the courtroom, juggling 20 other cases that day. It’s unfair for them, but that’s the nature of the work they do. What people DON’T know is that many of us are very committed, ideologically, to the work we do. I went to law school to become a public defender and I absolutely love the work I do. If people paid more attention, they’d notice that private attorneys are frequently the ones pushing pleas and bending over to the State and Judge. If you want someone willing to fight and go to trial, you’re better off with a public defender. That being said, it varies from place to place. There is definitely a problem in particularly busy jurisdictions, where public defenders may be representing 20-30 clients a day, everyday. That’s really not effective assistance of counsel and it IS unfair. But we can’t fault the public defender for that, like the writer of this article seems to be doing. It’s just yet another example of how god-awful and unfair the criminal justice system is in this nation.

  • james

    There you go, here’s proof our judges in America are self entitled and ain’t worth shit

  • Joshua JustJoshua

    wow he even took his buisness card that his public defender gave him so he couldnt follow up with him

  • CitizenVet

    I agree with the larger points, but must correct the writer on some points. First, the indictment that public defenders are scum who sell out their clients and deserve to get hit shows a fundamental ignorance and is belied by simply watching the video. This attorney was hit and abused by this off-the-hook judge precisely because he refused to sell out his client’s speedy trial right. Second, the writer assumes no charges were pressed because the public defender didn’t wish to pursue any. Again, a fundamental ignorance of the system. Victims’ wishes do not control whether charges are filed or not, the district attorneys office controls that, sometimes in conjunction with victims’ wishes, and sometimes not. Also, this happened yesterday; just wait and see what happens. I suspect you will see charges filed, prosecution likely referred to the state attorney for conflict purposes, and that judge will likely be disciplined by the state bar, if not removed from the bench (as he should be).

    • DE

      Agreed. The judge is totally in the wrong here, but the attorney could have been a little more careful with his words. And it was terribly stupid of him to confront the judge after “challenged” to trial by combat. There’s obviously some history between the two of them…

  • Right

    Cantwell, you fat balding intellectually bankrupted idiot, that Judge did not demand that the defendant waive his right to trial. Christ you are such an ass clown.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Mr. Right, you fat balding intellectually bankrupted idiot, that Judge
      did demand that the defendant waive his right to trial. Christ you
      are such an ass clown.

      • Right

        No he didn’t, sweetie.

        • Darryn Frost

          Are you an idiot or just blind? Clearly the Judge got very angry and beat the PD for being insistent on not waiving his defendants right to a speedy trial.

          • Right

            What I saw was the Judge politely ask repeatedly what the PD
            wanted to do. I saw the lawyer respond smarmily, refuse to answer the question,
            and not comply when the judge told him to sit down but instead started mouthing

            I have a lot of respect for this judge. He could have just
            had the lawyer locked up for contempt, but instead he offered the opportunity
            to settle it like men. That’s judge is old school and he gets props in my book.

            There are too many effeminate little bitch boys in the
            current generation. Like when Antonio Behuler challenged Cantwell to a boxing
            match, and Cantwell like to shit his pants. You AnCaps are all a bunch of
            pussified wimps. Internet whining apparently makes men soft.

          • Craig Whisenhunt

            The issue you have with the attorney is not an uncommon one. However, this was not a discussion of the defendants constitutional right to a speedy trial. It was a question of his procedural right to a speedy trial pursuant to Florida Statutes. In order for the Defense to exercise rights to speedy trial they cannot be attributable for any delay of the case. They also cannot agree to any hearing date set beyond the date of expiration of the time period permitted to prosecute the case. (90 days on a misdemeanor, 175 on a felony.). The lawyers reply to the Judge was simply his conformity to a rule that says he cannot ask for a pretrial hearing or conference to be set. He deferred to the court as to whether the case should be set for trial or for a docket sounding at the courts pleasure, but affirmatively stating he would not waive speedy trial rights. It may have seemed snarky, and the tone suggests this probably isn’t the first time these two have waged this battle, but the attorney did and said exactly what he was supposed to under the rule.

            The Judge under no circumstances should ever direct an attorney to sit down while a case that attorney is representing is being addressed. The insinuation that the hearing could be conducted without the attorney and that the attorney was unneeded directly violated the defendants right to counsel and a fair and impartial judiciary.

          • Right

            You sound like you know what you’re talking about, and I
            appreciate the cordiality of your response. I’m not a lawyer and have had no
            dealings with the legal system in my lifetime, so I really don’t get the
            nuances here which is why I failed to understand. Why, in your opinion, do you
            think the judge responded as he did if you think these two have interacted
            before and the judge knew what was going on with the lawyer? It seems to me
            that the outcome was the same as intended even without the lawyer present after
            the altercation. I’m just trying to figure out if the judge was actually trying
            to pull a fast one or not.

          • Craig Whisenhunt

            There are very few procedural rules which benefit a defendant. The most easily pursued procedural benefit is a speedy trial as a defendant is not required to present evidence or witnesses the time to get ready for trial isn’t dependent on subpoenaing lots of people to testify. That’s a burden the prosecutor has to deal with, and if he has to scramble to get everything together it’s more likely something gets missed, a witness can’t be found, or some crucial part of the state’s case can’t be effectively presented.

            Every state is going to handle this somewhat differently. In Florida the state has 90 days from the date a person is arrested on a misdemeanor offense to bring the case to trial. That doesn’t mean if day 91 comes around there is a dismissal, so long as a charge has been formally filed within the 90 days the state is given the benefit of a “recapture” period of roughly 15 days once the defense as filed a notice of expiration that the 90 days have passed. While 90 days seems like a lot of time the starting date of the arrest is important. Many people get arrested daily. Sometimes this results in prosecution, sometimes the State decides to not pursue it. Most of the time that determination is made within the first 30 days or so. But sometimes, particularly in cases like the one involved in the story above, that decision can be delayed by witnesses who aren’t cooperative or hard to find, officers might take vacation before the state attorney has made a decision and need to be spoken to, or the file just slips through the cracks. Prosecutors are over worked too. So sometimes that means a decision isn’t made until somewhere closer to the 60 day mark. There decision triggers an arraignment, which is an opportunity for the defendant to come to court and be formally advised of the charges against him or her, and enter a plea. But the arraignment has to be set with enough time for a notice to go out to the Defendant so he or she knows to show up. After all it has now been more than 2 months since the arrest, he or she might think it was all dropped (wishful thinking sometimes does get rewarded). So an arraignment date is set, we are now close to day 75 or 80 and the Judge wants to know what is happening next, that’s the hearing in the video above. Judges hate when people do not waive speedy trial rights. It gums up the works. Suddenly everyone is rushing around trying to schedule a trial within the next two weeks, which probably already have matters scheduled that have been pending for months, and now the state might not get to prosecute this person because of the “sleazy” defense attorney who won’t waive a right. We for a brief moment have an ounce of power and control over the government, we get to call the shots, we get to make them bend to our desire to a trial on our schedule. It’s a powerful thing. Judges, like most everyone, hate to be controlled by someone else. They start throwing threats out like, ” if he doesn’t waive we can just set this for trial, but there will be no deals, if he loses he is going to jail.” I’ve seen judges set speedy trials on days they know the defense attorney has scheduled vacations just to force the waiver. The defense has to be available to exercise the right.

            In the end it disrupts the balance of power in favor of someone that even the best judges wind up getting jaded into thinking doesn’t deserve much benefit to the doubt. Some are of course better than others, but no judge I’ve ever practiced in front of took well to me on cases I refused to waive speedy on. I refuse as a matter of course in every case unless there is a benefit to my client to delay. Maybe he needs time to get his license, or pay something off that will improve our bargaining position. Maybe I need an expert and it’s going to take some time for me to find one, or maybe the one I have isn’t available. There are plenty of reasons to waive, but to make the judge happy just isn’t one of them.

          • Right

            So basically, the judge is trying to see that a fair and comprehensive trial is had by ensuring both sides have adequate time to prepare, given the fact that the state is already overburdened because there are so many miscreants and scofflaws in society and the state really only has limited resources at it’s disposal to apply to any single case, and if this criminal gets his speedy jury trial resources have to be shifted from elsewhere, meaning some other scumbag might get off … and the defense is just trying to overburden the state and hope that the case gets dropped … sounds like gaming the system to me.

            It doesn’t explain why the judge would want to fistfight over it though. I don’t really understand why it’s the judges concern, his job is just to schedule the trial and let the system work it’s magic. I’m sure it’s frustrating for him, but the law is the law, whether it favors the state or the scumbag.

            One last question. If the judge assaulted this lawyer, why then are they not filing charges against the judge?

          • Craig Whisenhunt

            The rules, when followed correctly, ensure fairness for both sides. The Defendant, the person you suggest may be a miscreant or scofflaw, is presumed to be innocent. The entire purpose of our system of Justice is to burden the state to prove something that should be remarkably hard to prove. To say something is true to the point that no reasonable doubt can exist is an incredible proposition. The reality is that Juries will convict on much less certainty and the consequences can be lifelong and devastating for people wrongfully convicted.

            You see it as gaming the system, you’re not alone. From the outside it might look like that, but what I think changes the perspective is when you view the citizen’s rights as being more worthy of protection than the government’s. The State Attorney has discretion to prosecute. They get to pick and choose. No person gets to choose whether they get prosecuted or not, we are all at the mercy of the State in this regard. The State can sit on a case, waiting for a Defendant’s ability to secure witnesses to diminish, waiting for recollections of those present to weaken, making it more difficult to fight the charge.

            The Constitution guarantees you the right to a speedy, fair, public trial. The State of Florida has gone further and specified a time limit for what constitutes speedy. The Prosecutor, like the Defendant, is bound to follow the laws and rules of procedure. So when the prosecutor makes the election to delay commencing the prosecution of a case he does so at his peril if the Defendant is prepared to go to trial immediately. It was the prosecutor’s decision to not prioritize that citizen’s case, likely with the anticipation that citizen would give up a valuable right that would only benefit the prosecutor’s delay tactics.

            Something else to consider is that lies over time often becomes less distinguishable from the truth. When a witness swears to tell the truth they do not suddenly become incapable of lying. Police Officers are human beings, some are dedicated public servants, others are bullies with badges, but all of them are capable of lying, and all of them at times will have reasons and motives to do so. A lengthy delay in a case allows more time to prepare and coordinate a version of the truth to present, practice makes perfect and a speedy trial erodes the opportunity to practice.

            I guess the other, perhaps the most important, consideration is that your statement “the law is the law, whether it favors the state or the scumbag” attributes a presumption of guilt. Most of my client’s are guilty. Not always of what they’re accused of, but the vast majority are truly guilty, know they are guilty, and almost never contest their charges. It is rare that a person who is undeniably guilty will fight off a case, unless there is nothing to lose (Death Penalty cases for instance, no benefit is derived from pleading out.) Those who fight their cases maintain their innocence, they could be you or me, wrong place at the wrong time, misidentified, the victim of some misunderstanding or overzealous cop or jealous neighbor. These are not scofflaws or miscreants, they are citizens, they are mothers and fathers, employers, employees, church goers, girl scout leaders, and little league coaches. Anyone can be accused of a crime, not everyone is guilty. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly, and nobody deserves to have their life put on hold for years while the state dangles them with the threats of prosecution over a matter they know isn’t true. Our founding principles recognized the grave risk of giving the government the power to prolong prosecutions and guaranteed no citizen would ever suffer from such an abuse of power. When we exercise that right to a speedy trial we are doing it because we do not believe the State can prove that a citizen is guilty of a crime. We are seeking to avoid a wrongful conviction, one which might occur if the state can drag a case out indefinitely and cause our client’s to lose jobs, their homes, their reputations. The longer a case goes on the more likely innocent people are to plead to a deal. Not because they are guilty, but because they can’t afford to keep fighting. Their attorney may not be the expense, but days off from work to appear in court eventually lead to people risking their livelihoods. The emotional and mental strain that years of your life in prison are hanging in the balance can be physically draining. Why would anyone wish to endure that indefinitely when the rules guarantee them a swift resolution? That isn’t justice, that’s abuse.

            As to your last question, it is entirely and exclusively up to the State Attorney whether or not to prosecute any citizen. Doesn’t matter if that citizen is a judge, a lawyer, or a street sweeper. In this case the prosecutor for that circuit may feel it would be inappropriate for him to make that decision. After all, his attorneys have to practice in front of this particular judge as well as every other judge in that building. He has a conflict of interest that likely cannot be avoided. In all likelihood a prosecutor from another circuit will be asked to investigate the case and determine what, if any, crime should be prosecuted. I anticipate that no charges will ultimately be brought, but the Florida Bar will likely discipline the Judge, and perhaps remove him from the bench. The statement “if I had a rock I would throw it at you.” Is not an assault, and the suggestion of meeting out back and beating the attorney’s ass was an invitation to mutual combat which would preclude any prosecution for battery. Conceivably the Judge could be prosecuted for disorderly conduct, but in light of the national attention to the matter it is likely to be perceived that the need for prosecution and punishment is unnecessary.

          • Right

            That was a very reasoned reflection on the judicial system
            in general to which I can find no substantive objections, so I won’t try.
            Thanks for it; I am much in concurrence with your elucidations. You’re
            obviously a good lawyer, and one I’d like to have in my corner if I ever found
            myself called in front of the bench.

            I will only say that yes, it is difficult for me to maintain
            the presumption of innocence given the fact that I have lived my life by the
            rule of law and have personally never had much trouble, while so many other
            people do. When I’ve gotten pulled over for speeding or whatnot, I was always
            guilty of breaking the rules, and I accepted the consequences. I’ve live my
            life this way, which I consider moral and honorable. I frequently see other
            people violating society’s rules and doing whatever is in their power to avoid
            the consequences. This has soured me on
            human nature, so I do believe that most people are guilty.

            But, my own cynical nature aside, I am thankful for a system
            that is even above me, where the mandate is the presumption of innocence in a
            world where the overwhelming majority are guilty. We are all lucky in that

          • Roy J Lores

            You have absolutely no morals other than what your deity the state dictates, if the state dictated tomorrow that all pets must be killed mercilessly you would support such a thing unquestioningly as the mandate of your god.

          • Right


          • CitizenVet

            Quick answer: yes, the judge was trying to pull a fast one. Not in the sense that the judge was trying to do something illegal, he was just trying to get the defendant to waive a right that was completely unnecessary to waive, and trying to intimidate him and his attorney into doing it. That is unprofessional and unethical conduct on behalf of the judge. Why did he do it? I suspect, as is generally the case that I see in these instances, because the judge is arrogantly invested in his authority and is used to getting his way and not being questioned. When someone does stand up to him, and on firm statutory or constitutional grounds (and particularly from the defense which usually gets steamrolled by the bench), then he gets pissed.

          • Kitties nRainbows

            Your “effeminate” generation is not the issue here.

          • CitizenVet

            That is what “you saw” because you don’t understand what procedure requires and therefore misinterpreted what happened. I see this every day. The judge wanted the defendant to waive time, the attorney said no and go ahead and set it. This is likely a daily thing, and the attorney said no on this occasion. Judge got irritated because the attorney wasn’t going along. The judge does not have the authority to tell the attorney to “sit down” and the judge will “take care of this” without the attorney (6th Am. violation), and the attorney did nothing within the video that would rise to contempt of court (contempt of court does not mean anything that irritates a judge). The judge here was way over the line.

        • Kitties nRainbows

          Yes he did. You are just delusional and mentally unbalanced.

          What kind of a sellout speaks truth FOR power? That’s right, you do. Now go collect your Social Security check from the poor people you stole it from and quit obsessing about the big scawwy anarchists.

        • Roy J Lores

          You are so brazen as to deny what’s captured on video for everyone to see? You are truly a piece f work you love authoritarianism and totalitarianism to the max, you can deny it all you want but your posts make clear where you stand.

          You have the gall to call yourself a minarchist when you are anything but as your love and devotion for the biggest and most evil and corrupt government ever known to man demonstrates.

          And yo spend all your tie threatening everyone who dos not blindly worship the state as you do with extermination through state violence and when someone finally replies in kind offering the same you go cry like a mama’s boy,only when you realized that your deity was not going to save you you decided to cut the middleman and come after me.

          Frankly I do not care if yo do because Liberty is something worth fighting an if necessary dying for.
          Am I scared of dying? Every living being is, but if I have to go for the cause of liberty so be it.

          • Right


  • Arnt Johnsen

    So this judge can threat and abuse a public defender when he wanted a speedy trial for his client, then it makes a sense when i read that many trials are role play for the gallery where an innocent can go to jail for something he didnt do. Isn’t there any kind of control on what happens in a courtroom, Especially when a judge seems to do exactly what he wants without punishment? No wonder people doesnt trust the legal system.

  • Michael Mayo

    Holy shit., Get this guy off the bench NOW! We do not need people like that in our justice system!

  • pyrodice

    Let’s imagine for a second that the judge lost that fight. Think there’d be charges filed then?

  • Layne Piratess Carver

    I work
    for a public defender’s office as non-attorney personal, and let me tell you, I
    have seen public defender’s accomplish amazing things for people that, most
    likely, didn’t deserve it. Their job is not to “get you off”, but to
    protect your constitutional rights. Their case load is staggering, they’re
    underpaid, and they’re very overworked. Some are willing to buck the system
    more than others, but quite honestly sometimes clients aren’t represented as
    well as they should be. Most of the time, when the client isn’t represented
    effectively, it’s the clients fault for not making and keeping appoints,
    getting us the documents or information we need, not showing up to court,
    etc. “Scum of the earth that deserves to be hit” is more than a
    little harsh. You want counsel that holds your hand? Hire an attorney. Then you
    will pay for every visit and every phone call. The bottom line is, whether
    right or wrong, getting in trouble is going to cost you.

    Judges DO have entirely too much power. We’ve had a Judge tell an attorney that
    her (the attorney) enforcing constitutional rights on a case was
    “ridiculous, but she (the Judge) was afraid of a Writ being taken out on
    her.” This said after storming of the bench and having a fit. (At least
    she didn’t have a physical altercation!) Gee, Your honor, you think
    Constitutional rights are ridiculous?

    Perhaps, I am most disturb by the fact that this Judge has probably done a lot
    of sentencing on Simple Battery and Simple Assault cases…I wonder how harsh
    he was on the defendants that came through his court room that were charged
    with basically the same offense he just committed.

    I am
    proud of the office I work for. I know in my heart that I’m working for the
    right side of the legal system. Sure, sometimes we have to defend alleged child
    molesters and other despicables, but at the end of the day, it is not our job
    to decide their guilt, but to protect their Constitutional rights, because
    often times, no one else will.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Why does a “judge” have any power at all? Why don’t we have “Justices of the Peace” anymore?

      What we have are overblown NPD’s (Narcissistic Personality Disorders) whose egos won’t fit in the courtroom. And as per usual, it’s Baby Boomer authoritarians who have made this issue such a big and obvious problem, ruining everything they touch.

      This power creep has gone far enough. “Judges” should simply be referees, not Robed Gods among men.

  • Chris Marshall

    (321) 637-5641 The phone number for Judge John C Murphys Chambers!!! Let this asshole know how you feel about his trampling of the constitution

  • Roger Wilson

    This video is completely offensive to justice and our established system of adversarial justice.

    Every competent attorney knows the public defender is supposed to be fighting the prosecutor, not the judge.

    • DE

      Indeed. Adversarial justice is about defense attorneys fighting with prosecutors, not judges!

  • Jay Strange


  • Vae Victae

    Public defenders absolutey suck, I found that out the hard way. Stupid bitch couldn’t even remember my name like 4 months into the case.

  • Vae Victae

    LOL…I guess this judge might not be the best candidate for an “objective arbitrator” in a private law society.

    “YOU WANNA FUCK WITH ME!?!?” /*thump* *thump*


  • James Dore

    There is a dirty little secret in that exists in the legal system which is the core reason why the defender did not press charges and it is this, the Judge would be found immune from prosecution. In American law there is unwritten doctrine called “Absolute Judicial Immunity” which, in short, means that a judge commits a crime or violates a person’s rights or even murders a person while they are in the process of carrying out judicial duties they are absolutely immune from civil or criminal liability. Because the judge was hearing cases the attack occurred while he was engaged in a judicial act. A judge need only be in a court room at his appointed time to be carrying out a judicial act. Judges claim they need this immunity to ensure their fairness and impartiality of the law, such immunity has only proven that they instead abuse and disregard the law.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Psychopaths always claim they need some kind of power in order to “help” people, don’t they? What do you do when the whole system is psychopathic?

  • Susan J. Barretta

    A good public defender should fight to ensure that the constitutional process is followed for his/her client – even if the client is the lowest life form scumbag of the earth.

  • Stephen Maro

    I know some of the best PD’s in Ohio. They will often suggest waiving speedy trial BECAUSE…. the state has already taken the time to put together a case they feel they can win, and the defendants attorneys need the time to put together a defense. They often freedom of information act reports, transcripts, etc… and that takes time. Anyway, you get the idea. Don’t be too quick to judge why a lawyer would or wouldn’t want a client to wave speedy trial until you hear their side of it. The judge was still way out of line.

  • Mike Ballard

    I’m sorry… Was that Cuntwell?

  • billdog1969

    public defenders always tell you to wave your rights they work with the judges to fuck you less harder.

  • Robert Gough

    I wonder what would happen if all court cases were allowed to be filmed by the public. And I mean all. The justice system is no less broken than the rest of the circus masquerading as the impetus to society. Great Article!

  • Bobby O’Dell


  • Rudabaga

    As a fan of this site and a former PD for 10 years, I really take issue with your characterization. It’s one of the toughest jobs out there for almost no pay and the people who do it, by and large, care deeply about protecting their clients’ rights. It’s an unbelievable slog that is stacked so heavily in favor of cops and prosecutors that it’s almost impossible and yet they fight every day against all odds with clients who have no support system and are often too damaged to take care of their responsibilities. I urge you to rethink your stance and place the blame where it bleongs: on the corrupt criminal justice system.

  • The round of applause that he was given when he returned to the court room is disturbing too. What a farce!

  • bill_boyles

    imagine how you would feel if you were one of the next defendants up, and the judge asks you if YOU’D like to waive YOUR right to a speedy trial. given the judge’s attitude, statements, and behavior, it would be reasonable for you to also fear some sort of reprisal, be it physical or legal, for failing to do, despite the fact that it is your constitutional right to demand a speedy trial. i see this as no different than when police harass someone for refusing an unlawful search or other similar situations. Honestly, I personally find it ridiculous in the first place they automatically ask everyone to waive that right anyway, and think it smacks of coercion.

    this man’s attorney was berated and insulted, then threatened, and finally assaulted, merely for discharging his court-ordered and constitutionally-mandated duty to provide his client with a vigorous, ethical, and professional legal defense. that is wholly unacceptable. also, from the dialogue and interpersonal interplay, i would wager that this is not the first time this judge has given this pd shit for not waiving a trial, maybe not even the first time that day, since the lawyer was clearly expecting the judge to react poorly when he refused to waive his client’s rights. that tells me this is a more systemic problem in this court and with this judge rather than an isolated incident. again, totally unacceptable, particularly coming from a judge sitting on a bench in a courthouse

    There should NEVER, EVER be ANY sort of reprisal for demanding your constitutional rights. frankly, you shouldn’t have to demand them, they should just be accorded to you automatically, and in this case, they weren’t respected at all, which is a blatant miscarriage of justice and a corruption of the adversarial legal process, as well as being insulting to the constitution, everyone who has fought for it or respects it, and anyone who has taken an oath to uphold it, including this judge and the lawyer. i find it especially troubling that the judge continued on with the proceedings even though the man’s lawyer was not let back into the courtroom. at the VERY LEAST, he should have continued the case until the man’s lawyer was present or the man got a new one, and then recused himself from any further action immediately. On a brighter note, the man’s charges will probably be dropped now, and if not and he is convicted his lawyer has a slam-dunk of an appeal.

  • Rockie Springer

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

    This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law,
    statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause
    to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

    This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute,
    ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be
    subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than
    those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person
    being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

    under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state,
    or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful
    authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their
    lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any
    official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be
    done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the
    performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in
    addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors,
    Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards,
    etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or
    both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use,
    attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or
    fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death
    results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
    aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,
    or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
    for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to

  • Rockie Springer

    In hiring an attorney or accepting a public defender the “client” –that mentally incapable ward of the court has voluntarily given up all rights. The public defender, the attorney you hire, the prosecutor, all work for the court, the judge. They will not tell you this. Look it up. Also look up the LEGAL definition of “understand”, as in — do you understand the charges against you. The legal definition is — to stand under the authority of the judge. In other words do you volunteer to stand under my ruling and authority. Of course everyone answers yes, but the only correct answer is no, I do not understand.

    The courts and the cops do not follow their own law. That in itself is criminal. But the US is the one country in the world in which fraud is perfectly legal. Unless someone points it out. At that point that fraud becomes a felony.

    In this case, and in about ALL cases across the US, this federal statue applies, yet few even know it exists, even fewer use it.
    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

    This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law,
    statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause
    to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

    This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute,
    ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be
    subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than
    those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person
    being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

    under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state,
    or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful
    authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their
    lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any
    official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be
    done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the
    performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in
    addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors,
    Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards,
    etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or
    both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use,
    attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or
    fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death
    results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
    aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,
    or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
    for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to

  • Linda

    The Judge did not deny him his 6th amendment right in fact once the Judge returned he received his right to a speedy trial and if you watch the video the Public Defender iniated Dis-Respect to the Judge in his court room and they both should be Dis-Barred for their actions!

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Judges, and cops, and everyone else do not get to assault people because their egos are miffed at “disrespect”.

  • Nancy

    My son,at the age of 16,was brought up on assault charges and gun charges.He was assigned a public defender.The assault charges were brought by a person who assaulted my son.He knew he had no standing so he got a friends daughter to bring gun charges.The P.D. told my son to plead guilty.I cursed him and he asked if I wanted him to step down.I told him no,I want you to do your job.Back in the courtroom the judge threw the bogus assault charges out.The girl with the gun charges was asked what the gun looked like.Her words”The barrel was as round as a quarter and it was a wooden barrel”,the judge”Get the f— out of my courtroom now”I looked at the P.D. and said”see,if you would have done your job you wouldn’t be looking so stupid right about now”

  • disqus_36IhkKB0M5

    sometimes judges get pissed off. If you had to sit there and listen to guilty criminals you would be too

    • Kitties nRainbows

      They could work somewhere else if it bothers them so much. Nobody “has to” do anything they don’t want to do, it’s just a matter of cost and willingness to pay.

  • Richard Onley

    Look, folks, there are two choices: Figure out what these psychopaths AREN’T “qualifiedly immune” from–which requires dedication (enough to put down the pipe or the pilsner for a while) and organization (and anyone who tells me that’s “hierarchical” or “collectivist” is just looking for excuses)–or pray the manacles won’t be too tight.

  • dougdiggler

    Clearly we are at a point where maybe we need oversight over this country’s judiciary if they are so brazenly uncivil or worse, so cravenly corrupt.

    • johnny law


  • cannotvote

    Outrageous, now the judges are beating the public, next we will have judges shooting the public, or getting drunk and running them down, and getting away with it – fire his ass! For crying out loud, put that sob in prison, a private one, costing 50+k a year – he might even get a payback for his shares held! If this is the judicial system,….. well!?

  • Kevin Romillo

    What’s the possibility of this guy getting a mistrial if things don’t go his way with this judge? He’s already demonstrated he has bad feelings against his lawyer. ;P

  • disqus_h72b0hyjLz

    Because the wheels of Justice grind
    slowly, it will take some time for ‘due process’ to catch up to Murphy; and
    that is assuming the FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION follows through
    with an investigation and a ruling against him. Ditto for the FLORIDA

    So, by citizens putting enough heat on him, he will resign.

    Judge John C Murphy is a public figure and, as such, he does
    not have a right to privacy for anything, including his public records.

    Judge Murphy is 56 years old (Jan 1958)

    He lives at 3152 Bellwood Circle
    in Rockledge, Florida 32955-5111.

    I would publish his phone numbers, but he has recently had them disconnected.

    This is posted as a public service without malice.

  • Joseph Mccourt

    I have seen my fill of judges that were drunk, totally out of order and making decisions that were outright illegal. I was told i was not getting a p.d. and had to defend myself on a case that had mandatory sentencing on a guilty verdict. I won the case but the creep did it again two weeks later and i also won that case. i had gotten para-legal license and i’m glad i did. I believe that all judges should be put before a review board every so often after a certain amount of complaints and people should not have to be afraid of retaliation for filing any motions.

  • Don Duncan

    I was charged with possession of a controlled substance in 1978 (Vegas) after an illegal search (long story). I paid an attorney $500. He showed up but left for another case down the hall. I kept telling the judge what happened and he kept rolling my case over. After 4 hours I was the only defendant. My lawyer had told me he tried to plead it out but the asst. DA refused. He said it was going to trial and I needed to pay him $5K. I didn’t believe him so I went up to the asst. DA as my case began. I asked him if my lawyer spoke to him about a plea deal. He said No. I turned to my lawyer and said, “You’re fired and I want my money back”. I plead it out for a promised $50 fine even though there was no way they could have justified the search. Now I know I should have plead “not guilty” and defended myself. I probably would have gotten it dismissed. After watching the judge hear cases for 4 hours I judged him to be fair and my case to be ridiculously petty compared to the others. I did not get my money back from the attorney, but it did feel good to fire him in open court in front of everyone.

    I had a simular experience in 1969 when I was visited in jail by a lawyer my father had paid. He told me I was in big trouble, before even hearing from me. All he knew was the charge was threatening with a gun. I told him to get out. I went to court and got it dismissed. The lawyer would not refund my dad’s money so I paid him back.

    Every case is different, depending on the judge mostly. But the prosecutor is important also. If you are going against the state today its a lot worse. I would plead out unless I had a great lawyer/case.

    Any way you cut it, avoiding arrest is best. After arrest, you lose. I spent the weekend in jail both times because I was arrested on a Friday nite and had to wait for Monday to be heard.

  • barbcinque

    What a disgusting display. Who are the thugs and the criminals again?

Facebook Censorship

I’m often banned from Facebook

Can I please get your email address so we can stay in touch? If you’re not on my mailing list, our communications are at the discretion of left wing lunatics!