In re Murphy

• Decision Date: 17 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. SC14–1582.,SC14–1582.
• Parties: Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 14–255 re John C. MURPHY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

181 So.3d 1169

Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 14–255 re John C. MURPHY.

No. SC14–1582.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 17, 2015.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 2016.

Judge Kerry I. Evander, Chair, Michael Louis Schneider, General Counsel and Executive Director, Tallahassee, FL; Fred Wallace Pope, Jr. and Margaret Knaust Kramer, Special Counsel, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP, Clearwater, FL, for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner.

Larry Gibbs Turner, Peggy–Anne O'Connor, Ronald Kozlowski, and Scott T. Schmidt of Turner O'Connor Kozlowski, P.L., Gainesville, FL, for Judge John C. Murphy, Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for review of the recommendation of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission that Judge John C. Murphy be disciplined as follows: a public reprimand, suspension without pay for 120 days, a fine of $50,000 plus costs, continued participation in a mental health therapy program until successfully discharged, and completion of Phase I of the Judicial Education Courses in the Florida Judicial College New Judges Program at his own expense and without receiving continuing judicial education credit. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. Pursuant to our constitutional authority, we reject the Judicial Qualifications Commission's recommendation and instead remove Judge Murphy from office for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Professional Conduct by his misconduct on June 2, 2014.

Judge Murphy's misconduct includes the following: (1) threatening to commit violence against an assistant public defender; (2) engaging in a physical altercation with counsel; and (3) resuming his docket while defendants were without counsel. This egregious conduct demonstrates his present unfitness to remain in office. Furthermore, where a judge's actions erode public faith in the courts, removal is appropriate. Judge Murphy's grievous misconduct became a national spectacle and an embarrassment to Florida's judicial system. We conclude that, through his misconduct, Judge Murphy surrendered his privilege to serve in our court system.

BACKGROUND

The Florida Constitution establishes the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), an independent entity with two parts, an Investigative Panel and a Hearing Panel, to investigate and hear allegations of professional misconduct by Florida judges. The Investigative Panel investigates alleged misconduct and files formal charges. The Hearing Panel subsequently hears evidence on the charges and makes findings, conclusions, and recommendations on both the misconduct and appropriate discipline. Art. V, § 12(b), Fla. Const.

We may accept, reject, or modify the Hearing Panel's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. Although the Hearing Panel in this case recommended discipline short of removal, the Florida Constitution gives this Court the responsibility to determine appropriate discipline, which includes removal from office. Id.; see In re Sloop, 946 So.2d 1046, 1049 (Fla.2006) ; In re Henson, 913 So.2d 579, 589 (Fla.2005).

On August 13, 2014, the JQC filed its Notice of Formal Charges against County Court Judge John C. Murphy of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County for his behavior during court proceedings. A majority of the JQC's Investigative Panel found that probable cause existed for charges based on Judge Murphy's alleged misconduct of threatening violence against an assistant public defender, leaving the bench to meet the assistant public defender in the hall to engage in a physical scuffle, returning to the bench to call cases in which defendants were represented by the Public Defender's Office and were without the presence of their attorney, and inducing some of the defendants to waive speedy trial rights. The JQC asserted in its Notice of Formal Charges that Judge Murphy's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B(2), 3B(4), and 5G of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

On August 13, 2014, Judge Murphy filed his answer to the Notice of Formal Charges. Judge Murphy maintained that he did not become frustrated because the assistant public defender refused to waive speedy trial, but rather because counsel "repeatedly refused to make any announcement to the court regarding the wishes of several clients—whether it be to proceed to trial, to enter a plea, or to waive the right to a speedy trial." Judge Murphy denied that he induced any defendant to waive speedy trial rights.

The Hearing Panel heard this matter on March 30 and March 31, 2015. A portion of the courtroom video from the incident was played for the Hearing Panel. The video showed Judge Murphy's verbal altercation with assistant public defender Andrew Weinstock after Mr. Weinstock refused to waive speedy trial for his client. Judge Murphy stated, "You know if I had a rock, I would throw it at your [sic] right now. Stop pissing me off. Just sit down." When Weinstock refused to sit down, asserting his right to stand and represent his clients, Judge Murphy responded, shouting: "I said sit down. If you want to fight, let's go out back and I'll just beat your ass." The two men left the courtroom and met in the hall.

Although there is no video of the events that occurred in the hallway, the courtroom audio captured Judge Murphy remarking, "Alright you, you want to fuck with me?" and sounds of a scuffle. Mr. Weinstock subsequently requested that Judge Murphy be arrested for hitting him twice in the face, but no arrest was made. There was no evidence, other than his own testimony, that Mr. Weinstock had been hit, and there is no video to confirm what occurred in the hallway. Upon Judge Murphy's return to the courtroom, he called the following cases in which the defendants were represented by the Public Defender's Office, but no assistant public defender was present:

1. State v. Rounkles. Judge Murphy gave the defendant options, either set the charges for trial or waive speedy trial. After the defendant stated he wanted his case done as fast as possible, Judge Murphy set the case for trial.

2. State v. Samperi. After the defendant told the court that his lawyer had not returned his phone calls, Judge Murphy responded, "I'm sorry. Not all public defenders do that." Judge Murphy later suggested that "all of you that have a complaint about the public defender, if you'd call the Public Defender's Office and make the complaint or, even better, write a letter and send it to the Public Defender's Office ... I think that would help." Judge Murphy asked the defendant if he wished to have the public defender removed from his case, to which the defendant said, "I think that's evident, sir." Judge Murphy removed the public defender and took testimony from the alleged victim in the case, the defendant's girlfriend, who wanted contact with the defendant. Judge Murphy lifted the no-contact order and instead ordered no unconsented contact. The defendant asked for a continuance. Judge Murphy set a new court date on the docket and reappointed the public defender.

3. State v. Simpkins. Judge Murphy announced the waiver of speedy trial for the defendant's violation of community supervision charge even though the defendant did not state her intent to waive speedy trial nor did she request a continuance.

4. State v. Spikes. The defendant stated that he wanted to resolve his resisting arrest charge. Judge Murphy asked the defendant if he wanted to relieve the public defender and represent himself instead; the defendant answered in the affirmative and pled no contest to the charge. Judge Murphy accepted his plea and ordered him to pay court and investigative costs.

5. State v. White. Judge Murphy offered the defendant to have her DUI trial the following week or to waive speedy trial. The defendant asked for a speedy trial, which Judge Murphy so scheduled.

6. State v. Agnello. The defendant agreed to waive speedy trial after Judge Murphy told the defendant that he could either go to trial not knowing who his lawyer would be or ask for a continuance.

7. State v. Anderson. When asked by Judge Murphy what he wanted to do with his DUI case, the defendant said that he had "no idea what to do in this situation. I haven't had a chance to speak to my public defender. And, now, I don't have a public defender." Judge Murphy told the defendant that he might have a chance to talk to a public defender if he waived speedy trial. The defendant then waived speedy trial.

8. State v. Barbour. The defendant told the court that he was hoping to resolve his two counts of assault on a law enforcement officer and one count of disorderly conduct. Judge Murphy asked the State if it wanted to make him an offer. The State made an offer, but the defendant rejected it, stating that he did not understand the offer.

The Hearing Panel also heard testimony from several witnesses, including Judge Murphy and Andrew Weinstock. Suzanne Carter was seated in the back of the courtroom during the incident. When Judge Murphy and Mr. Weinstock entered the hallway, Ms. Carter saw Judge Murphy grab Mr. Weinstock's collar with his left hand and raise his right arm as if he were going to punch Mr. Weinstock. She did not see a punch land because the door closed. Ms. Carter heard "a bunch of punch, punch," and Judge Murphy using expletives, including "fuck." Ms. Carter recalled the courtroom deputy going into the hallway after the first or second punching sound she heard. In addition to what she believed were three punches, Ms. Carter also heard sounds of a scuffle.

Andrew Weinstock testified that he was assigned to Judge Murphy's courtroom about three months prior to the incident. Mr. Weinstock described his relationship with Judge Murphy as adversarial, high stress, and very mercurial. From time to time they would have testy exchanges. Mr. Weinstock recalled that on other occasions prior to the date of the incident, Judge Murphy had told him, "Let's go out in the back hallway and discuss...