A Judge and District Attorney resort to fisticuffs when they're unable to see eye-to-eye over a defendant's right to a speedy trial indicating a sad breakdown of Courtroom Decorum.
June 2, 2014 - Brevard County Judge John Murphy is alleged to have attacked Assistant Public Defender Andrew Weinstock's after calling Weinstock outside of the courtroom during a hearing. At issue was whether Weinstock's, as of yet unnamed, client was to waive his judicially guaranteed right to a speedy trial and, instead, await a trial that better fit the judges' preferred calendar.
The ABA Journal reports that Weinstock claims that, as Weinstock repeatedly asserted both his client's right to a speedy trial leading to the following exchange:
Judge Murphy: "You know, if I had a rock I would throw it at you right now. Stop pissing me off. Just sit down. I'll take care of it. I don't need your help. Sit down."
APD Weinstock: "I'm the public defender. I have a the right to be here and I have a right to stand and represent my clients"
Judge Murphy: (interrupting) "I said sit down"
Judge Murphy: "Sit down. If you want to fight, let's go out back and I'll just beat your a**."
APD Weinstock: "Let's go right now" (marching rapidly outside the courtroom)
The rest of the incident occurred off of camera but audio recorded sounds that appeared to indicate a physical confrontation. While the ABA Journal cites Weinstock as later claiming that he expected to talk with Judge Murphy in the hallway outside the courtroom the video (posted by the ABA Journal and provided by WKMG Local 6) suggests that Weinstock was, at least, extremely naive in thinking what would come next would be anything resembling a civil exchange of ideas.
At this point, no charges are being pressed but Weinstock has been reassigned to a different courtroom so he will not need to be facing Judge Murphy again - something that we can be sure his future clients will be glad about - and Judge Murphy has been reputedly placed on a temporary paid leave of absence.
So who's to blame? Clearly Judge Murphy was in the wrong - a Judge has no excuse resorting to violence in this matter and if they're unable to keep their cool, they have the power to call a recess, regroup and move forward. He didn't do that and that was inappropriate. However, both the ABA Journal and the mass media have portrayed Weinstock as purely the victim here which isn't necessarily the case. The longer, uncut, version of the video (posted below) shows that from the very start of his interaction with Judge Murphy with respect to this particular client, Weinstock demonstrated a marked lack of decorum and disrespect to the Court.
"His flippant and rude answers to Judge Murphy's simply question of what he wanted to do in this client's matter would have gotten him removed from the courtroom and strongly reprimanded in most courtrooms a few years ago. Now, unfortunately, it appears that some courtrooms in North America have lost their sense of decorum and protocol", noted Attorney Mesinschi after viewing the extended-length video.
"It doesn't excuse the Judge's reaction here, not in the least bit, because in the end, he reduced himself and the Court to the level of Weinstock whose demeanor would have gotten him booted -- and failing that, forcibly removed -- from the courtroom until he could muster up the appropriate respect the Court deserved". Mesinschi continued.
There is a tale, most likely the legal equivalent of an urban legend that tells of a a Judge who scolded a young Assistant Public Defender in Massachusetts for her inappropriate attire -- an otherwise very appropriate outfit but with a skirt that was a tad too short for a Courtroom. When the young lawyer started presenting her case the Judge interrupted and said something to the effect that, "I'm sorry, I cannot hear you".. when the young lawyer started again, this time louder, the judge once again interrupted her and said, "I'm sorry, Miss (name), I cannot hear you".... when the, now flustered, young lawyer started a third time -- louder still -- the judge interrupted and said something to the effect of "I'm sorry, counsellor, I simply cannot hear you. But perhaps if you leave the courtroom and come back with a skirt at a more appropriate length the Court can hear you."
Now this tale would be a fairly extreme example and would likely have gotten the Judge in hot water with certain groups but it does denote a time when there was a certain decorum required for a trial in both how one dresses and how one addresses the Court. Weinstock fell far short here from the off.
"[Weinstock's] attitude got my blood pressure up and I'm not the Judge sitting there" remarked Attorney Mesinschi. "Still, that doesn't excuse the Judge's response, nor the escalation. Both men fell terribly short of the mark that day and the victim is the image of the entire judicial system which becomes fodder for the 6pm news media."
"Now don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for Public Defenders," continued Attorney Mesinschi. "They're the abused, sick, old dog that nobody wants of the legal profession. They're tragically underpaid, unjustifiably overworked, and are treated poorly by pretty much everyone they encounter day-in-and-day out: court officials, judges and their own clients. All this while being probably one of the most important players in our criminal judicial system -- the defenders of the defenseless. There's a nobility there that's hard to beat -- but the reality is really only for a specie flew. Its no excuse, but its also not a surprise."
What's the Legal Point? Aside from who's responsible and who should be to blame for this incident (the answer, to both questions, is that BOTH Judge Murphy and APD Weinstock are to blame and responsible here) at the heart of the matter -- and something the media really hasn't bothered to focus on -- is what they were addressing in the first place.
The fundamental issue here is a constitutional issue. The 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution Provides:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed by the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense"
- Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment VI
The landmark case of Barker v. Wingo (1972) set out the court-part test which still applies today as to what constitutes a "speedy trial" within the meaning of the 6th Amendment. The Court would have to look to the following factors:
- length of the delay
- reasons for the delay
- defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and
- prejudice to the defendant (in a long delay).
Now, in this particular instance, we do not have much information as to what sort of prejudice may have been faced by the Defandant before Judge Murphy but we do have some indication that, at least according to Weinstock, some prejudice might have been present in his brief, and interrupted, reference to some sort of "emergency" that apparently the State was to blame for.
We do know the length of the delay would have been thirty-six (36) days LONGER than the earliest trial date. The longer version of the video shows us that, after catching his breath and resuming the hearing -- without Wienstein present -- Judge Murphy addressed the Defendant directly and advised him that if he doesn't waive his right to a speedy trial the Trial would be held on June 9, 2014. If he waived -- which is what the Judge seemed to have preferred, the Trial would be set for July 15, 2014. If the Defendant was being remanded to custody the entire time, that would indeed be a long time depending on the nature of the charges against him just to await a trial.
Ultimately, the Defendant -- demonstrating far more decorum and appropriate respect for the courtroom than Weinstock mustered that day -- requested a speedy trial and Judge Murphy set the young man's trial date for June 9th. The entire matter should have lasted two minutes if only both Judge Murphy and APD Weinstock had kept their cool, composure and
The takeaway. So where does all this leave us? To be honest, its hard to tell. In America the Judicial System has taken its blows for years -- from the circus that was the O.J. Trial, to the advent of "Judge XYB" presiding over a televised small-claims court to a Supreme Court that seems to make decisions on political lines rather than on any basis in history, law, or, indeed, good sense. We hear stories of Judges being paid by prison officials for each inmate they send their way. We see reports demonstrating on how America incarcerates more of its population than most any other country in the world and does so at a disturbingly disproportionate rate along racial lines. Other reports show how our prison populations and conviction rates are dramatically and horrifically skewed against the middle and low-income household and in favor of the wealthy few. Then there's judicial "celebrities" who go by their first names such as "Greta" and "Nancy" who remind us with every second breath that they're "lawyers" to justify some political statement that has no bearing in law or jurisprudence. Its not like the legal profession needed any help looking bad -- the lawyer joke has a long history of portraying just how absurdly bad the profession looks to outsiders (until they need a lawyer, that is). But things like this -- events like this -- only make it worse. It brings law and jurisprudence from the realm of academic and social policy to the chair-throwing nonsense of the Jerry Springer Show.
(c) 2014. Mesinschi Law Offices.
About Us: The Mesinschi Law Offices is the Canadian and American law firm dedicated to that caters to businesses large and small. We are where businesses turn to for all their immigration, corporate, contract, or cross-border needs. Visit us on the web at: MesinschiLaw.com , CanAmLegal.com or Immigr8.me For a copy of the article, see: LINK. Contents are not Legal Advice. Always retain and consult a lawyer to advise you on your specific rights and the risks associated with any conduct.