| VOLUSIA EXPOSED.COM |
|
|
Confrontation In The Court Room The Judge John C. Murphy Incident What Really Sparked The Argument Between A Judge And A Public Defender? |
June 9, 2014 |
"Police throughout the United States have been caught fabricating, planting, and manipulating evidence to obtain convictions where cases would otherwise be very weak. Some authorities regard police perjury as so rampant that it can be considered a "subcultural norm rather than an individual aberration" of police officers."
|
Now For The Rest Of The Story What Were They Arguing About? After engaging in some arguing with Assistant Public Defender Andrew Weinstock, Judge Murphy advised Weinstock that "If you want to fight, let's go out back and I'll just beat your ass", and apparently shortly later, the judge made good on his threat. |
|
This incident has become media folly, not only locally, but also nationally and internationally. Yes, once again, Florida's criminal justice system has become the laughing stock of the world.
While we applaud the media's attempt to enlighten the public of what transpired, and what actions may or may not be taken against the judge, most of the media has lost focused on a much larger question. What were the judge and attorney fighting over?
To the credit of Matt Reed, a reporter from Florida Today, his article titled You can't do that, your honor focuses on the apparent reason for Judge Murphy frustration with Assistant Public Defender, Andrew Weinstock. Weinstock's refusal to waive his clients' U.S. Constitutional right to a speedy trial - as guaranteed by Sixth Amendment.
In our opinion, in order to obtain a better understanding of what transpired between Judge Murphy and Weinstock, it's necessary to watch the court video from a few minutes prior to the apparent off screen ass beating of Attorney Weinstock by Judge Murphy. Many media outlets did not include this particular video footage. To the credit of BrevardsBestNews.Com, they secured, and posted this very enlightening video footage. (see above).
Did The Judge Really Expect The Attorney To Waive His Clients' Right To Speedy Trial?
Did The Public Defender Taking An Ass Beating In Defense Of His Clients' U.S. Constitutional Rights?
While we applaud the media's attempt to enlighten the public of what transpired, and what actions may or may not be taken against the judge, most of the media has lost focused on a much larger question. What were the judge and attorney fighting over?
To the credit of Matt Reed, a reporter from Florida Today, his article titled You can't do that, your honor focuses on the apparent reason for Judge Murphy frustration with Assistant Public Defender, Andrew Weinstock. Weinstock's refusal to waive his clients' U.S. Constitutional right to a speedy trial - as guaranteed by Sixth Amendment.
In our opinion, in order to obtain a better understanding of what transpired between Judge Murphy and Weinstock, it's necessary to watch the court video from a few minutes prior to the apparent off screen ass beating of Attorney Weinstock by Judge Murphy. Many media outlets did not include this particular video footage. To the credit of BrevardsBestNews.Com, they secured, and posted this very enlightening video footage. (see above).
Did The Public Defender Taking An Ass Beating In Defense Of His Clients' U.S. Constitutional Rights?
|
VolusiaExposed invites you to listen to the video recording.
It involves two different criminal defendants. The first defendant is a Mr. Rodriguez. Here is our paraphrasing of the event. Listen to Judge Murphy ask Weinstock -"What do you want to do?" - regarding how to proceed with his client's case. Weinstock replies back "Docket Sounding". Judge Murphy - Tomorrow? |
U.S. Constitution 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 of 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 defence. |
|
Weinstock - "Your discretion"
Judge Murphy - "Well it's (speedy trial time limit) going to expire before I can get him in, so question.." Weinstock - "Not my emergency." Judge Murphy - "Question - you want to set it for trial?" Weinstock - "You can set it for trial, if you want to set it for trial instead, sure." Judge Murphy - "Well..." Weinstock - "I'm not waiving.......... (Judge and Weinstock Engage In An Argumentive Exchange) Shortly later, another one of Mr. Weinstock's clients appears in front of Judge Murphy. When Weinstock also refuses to waive his client's speedy trial right - Judge Murphy advised Attorney Weinstock that "if I had a rock, I would throw it at you". Mr. Weinstock then advises Judge Murphy that "this is an emergency created by the State" (apparently failure to meet speedy trial deadlines). |
RULE 3.191. SPEEDY TRIAL (b) Speedy Trial upon Demand. Except as otherwise provided by this rule, and subject to the limitations imposed under subdivisions (e) and (g), every person charged with a crime by indictment or information shall have the right to demand a trial within 60 days, by filing with the court a separate pleading entitled ―Demand for Speedy Trial,‖ and serving a copy on the prosecuting authority. (1) No later than 5 days from the filing of a demand for speedy trial, the court shall hold a calendar call, with notice to all parties, for the express purposes of announcing in open court receipt of the demand and of setting the case for trial. (2) At the calendar call the court shall set the case for trial to commence at a date no less than 5 days nor more than 45 days from the date of the calendar call. (3) The failure of the court to hold a calendar call on a demand that has been properly filed and served shall not interrupt the running of any time periods under this subdivision. (4) If the defendant has not been brought to trial within 50 days of the filing of the demand, the defendant shall have the right to the appropriate remedy as set forth in subdivision (p). (c) Commencement of Trial. A person shall be considered to have been brought to trial if the trial commences within the time herein provided. The trial is considered to have commenced when the trial jury panel for that specific trial is sworn for voir dire examination or, on waiver of a jury trial, when the trial proceedings begin before the judge. (d) Custody. For purposes of this rule, a person is taken into custody (1) when the person is arrested as a result of the conduct or criminal episode that gave rise to the crime charged, or (2) when the person is served with a notice to appear in lieu of physical arrest. (e) Prisoners outside Jurisdiction. A person who is in federal custody or incarcerated in a jail or correctional institution outside the jurisdiction of this state or a subdivision thereof, and who is charged with a crime by indictment or information issued or filed under the laws of this state, is not entitled to the benefit of this rule until that person returns or is returned to the jurisdiction of the court within which the Florida charge is pending and until written notice of the person‘s return is filed with the court and served on the prosecutor. For these persons, the time period under subdivision (a) commences on the date the last act required under this subdivision occurs. For these persons the time period under subdivision (b) commences when the demand is filed so long as the acts required under this subdivision occur before the filing of the demand. If the acts required under this subdivision do not precede the filing of the demand, the demand is invalid and shall be stricken upon motion of the prosecuting attorney. Nothing in this rule shall affect a prisoner‘s right to speedy trial under law. (f) Consolidation of Felony and Misdemeanor. When a felony and a misdemeanor are consolidated for disposition in circuit court, the misdemeanor shall be governed by the same time period applicable to the felony. (g) Demand for Speedy Trial; Accused Is Bound. A demand for speedy trial binds the accused and the state. No demand for speedy trial shall be filed or served unless the accused has a bona fide desire to obtain a trial sooner than otherwise might be provided. A demand for speedy trial shall be considered a pleading that the accused is available for trial, has diligently investigated the case, and is prepared or will be prepared for trial within 5 days. A demand filed by an accused who has not diligently investigated the case or who is not timely prepared for trial shall be stricken as invalid on motion of the prosecuting attorney. A demand may not be withdrawn by the accused except on order of the court, with consent of the state or on good cause shown. Good cause for continuances or delay on behalf of the accused thereafter shall not include nonreadiness for trial, except as to matters that may arise after the demand for trial is filed and that reasonably could not have been anticipated by the accused or counsel for the accused. A person who has demanded speedy trial, who thereafter is not prepared for trial, is not entitled to continuance or delay except as provided in this rule. (h) Notice of Expiration of Time for Speedy Trial; When Timely. A notice of expiration of speedy trial time shall be timely if filed and served after the expiration of the periods of time for trial provided in this rule. However, a notice of expiration of speedy trial time filed before expiration of the period of time for trial is invalid and shall be stricken on motion of the prosecuting attorney. (i) When Time May Be Extended. The periods of time established by this rule may be extended, provided the period of time sought to be extended has not expired at the time the extension was procured. An extension may be procured by: (1) stipulation, announced to the court or signed in proper person or by counsel, by the party against whom the stipulation is sought to be enforced; (2) written or recorded order of the court on the court‘s own motion or motion by either party in exceptional circumstances as hereafter defined in subdivision (l); (3) written or recorded order of the court with good cause shown by the accused; (4) written or recorded order of the court for a period of reasonable and necessary delay resulting from proceedings including but not limited to an examination and hearing to determine the mental competency or physical ability of the defendant to stand trial, for hearings on pretrial motions, for appeals by the state, for DNA testing ordered on the defendant‘s behalf upon defendant‘s motion specifying the physical evidence to be tested pursuant to section 925.12(2), Florida Statutes, and for trial of other pending criminal charges against the accused; or (5) administrative order issued by the chief justice, under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv), suspending the speedy trial procedures as stated therein. (j) Delay and Continuances; Effect on Motion. If trial of the accused does not commence within the periods of time established by this rule, a pending motion for discharge shall be granted by the court unless it is shown that: (1) a time extension has been ordered under subdivision (i) and that extension has not expired; (2) the failure to hold trial is attributable to the accused, a codefendant in the same trial, or their counsel; (3) the accused was unavailable for trial under subdivision (k); or (4) the demand referred to in subdivision (g) is invalid. If the court finds that discharge is not appropriate for reasons under subdivisions (j)(2), (3), or (4), the pending motion for discharge shall be denied, provided, however, that trial shall be scheduled and commence within 90 days of a written or recorded order of denial. (k) Availability for Trial. A person is unavailable for trial if the person or the person‘s counsel fails to attend a proceeding at which either‘s presence is required by these rules, or the person or counsel is not ready for trial on the date trial is scheduled. A person who has not been available for trial during the term provided for in this rule is not entitled to be discharged. No presumption of nonavailability attaches, but if the state objects to discharge and presents any evidence tending to show nonavailability, the accused must establish, by competent proof, availability during the term. (l) Exceptional Circumstances. As permitted by subdivision (i) of this rule, the court may order an extension of the time periods provided under this rule when exceptional circumstances are shown to exist. Exceptional circumstances shall not include general congestion of the court‘s docket, lack of diligent preparation, failure to obtain available witnesses, or other avoidable or foreseeable delays. Exceptional circumstances are those that, as a matter of substantial justice to the accused or the state or both, require an order by the court. These circumstances include: (1) unexpected illness, unexpected incapacity, or unforeseeable and unavoidable absence of a person whose presence or testimony is uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial; (2) a showing by the state that the case is so unusual and so complex, because of the number of defendants or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate investigation or preparation within the periods of time established by this rule; (3) a showing by the state that specific evidence or testimony is not available despite diligent efforts to secure it, but will become available at a later time; (4) a showing by the accused or the state of necessity for delay grounded on developments that could not have been anticipated and that materially will affect the trial; (5) a showing that a delay is necessary to accommodate a codefendant, when there is reason not to sever the cases to proceed promptly with trial of the defendant; and (6) a showing by the state that the accused has caused major delay or disruption of preparation of proceedings, as by preventing the attendance of witnesses or otherwise. (m) Effect of Mistrial; Appeal; Order of New Trial. A person who is to be tried again or whose trial has been delayed by an appeal by the state or the defendant shall be brought to trial within 90 days from the date of declaration of a mistrial by the trial court, the date of an order by the trial court granting a new trial, the date of an order by the trial court granting a motion in arrest of judgment, or the date of receipt by the trial court of a mandate, order, or notice of whatever form from a reviewing court that makes possible a new trial for the defendant, whichever is last in time. If a defendant is not brought to trial within the prescribed time periods, the defendant shall be entitled to the appropriate remedy as set forth in subdivision (p). (n) Discharge from Crime; Effect. Discharge from a crime under this rule shall operate to bar prosecution of the crime charged and of all other crimes on which trial has not commenced nor conviction obtained nor adjudication withheld and that were or might have been charged as a result of the same conduct or criminal episode as a lesser degree or lesser included offense. (o) Nolle Prosequi; Effect. The intent and effect of this rule shall not be avoided by the state by entering a nolle prosequi to a crime charged and by prosecuting a new crime grounded on the same conduct or criminal episode or otherwise by prosecuting new and different charges based on the same conduct or criminal episode whether or not the pending charge is suspended, continued, or is the subject of entry of a nolle prosequi. (p) Remedy for Failure to Try Defendant within the Specified Time. (1) No remedy shall be granted to any defendant under this rule until the court has made the required inquiry under subdivision (j). (2) At any time after the expiration of the prescribed time period, the defendant may file a separate pleading entitled ―Notice of Expiration of Speedy Trial Time and serve a copy on the prosecuting authority. (3) No later than 5 days from the date of the filing of a notice of expiration of speedy trial time, the court shall hold a hearing on the notice and, unless the court finds that one of the reasons set forth in subdivision (j) exists, shall order that the defendant be brought to trial within 10 days. A defendant not brought to trial within the 10-day period through no fault of the defendant, on motion of the defendant or the court, shall be forever discharged from the crime. |
Judge Murphy responds in a angry voice -"Stop pissing me off - Sit Down - I'll take care of it, I don't need your help".
Shortly thereafter, Judge Murphy invites Attorney Weinstock to join him in the hallway, so that he (judge) can "beat his ass".
Both Weinstock and Murphy walk off camera view, and if you listen closely, you can hear what appears to be Judge Murphy making good on his threat to beat Weinstock's ass, along with more than a few expletives.
Does The Court's/Prosecutor's Schedule Out Weigh
A Criminal Defendant's Constitutional Rights
Is This The Case In Judge Murphy's Brevard County Courtroom?
Is This Problem Actually Larger Than One "Pissed Off" Judge?
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a fair and speedy trial.
In the State of Florida, speedy trial is defined by Rule 3.191 of the Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedures (see above scroll box)
In short, all misdemeanors charges shall be brought to trial within 90 days, and all felonies having a trial date within 175 days.
It would appear by Mr. Weinstock's statement "this is an emergency created by the State", that the local State Attorney's office is a little behind in processing their criminal case load. Or is it the failure of the Clerk of the Court to efficiently move along the Brevard County criminal case load? Either way, Mr. Weinstock is correct, the emergency is not his. Weinstock's responsibilities are to ensure that his clients' constitutional rights are not violated, and that they receive a fair trial.
Recognizing Our Corrupt Criminal Justice System
You Must First Recognize The Symptoms - Before You Can Recognize The Disease
The media is focusing their talents and resources on an unusual event - a judge beating a defense attorney's ass. And we agree - this is an unusual event. However, maybe the sparkle from the unusual is blinding us from realizing that our attention should be on the usual practices of the court.
Has pressuring defense attorneys to waive their clients' rights become an accepted court practice?
How can an attorney gain the wrath of a judge by demanding that his clients retain their constitutional right to a speedy trial?
Could it be, that the judge expected Attorney Weinstock to be more of a "team player" to the court, than a representative of his clients' rights?
Is it now, kind of expected that defense attorneys will assist the prosecution and the courts when schedules get tight, or evidence gets lost? Does this new assistance include defense attorneys waiving more of their clients' rights, in order to lubicate the failing criminal justice engine? What other constitutional rights must be quietly waived? Will the 4th, 5th, 8th amendments also have to be waived, in order for the local criminal justice system to sputter on?
This incident in Judge Murphy's courtroom is just the latest symptom of a disease that has infected our criminal justice system. And without immediate emergency treatment - we are saddened to inform you, that this disease is probably going to have a terminal affect on many of your constitutional rights.
So what can we (the public) expect? Well, we should expect some proper actions by the Florida Bar and the Judicial Qualification Commission - but don't hold your breath waiting on that. Realizing how corrupt the local judiciary is - it's probably more realistic to expect more ass beatings to occur in the near future.
Welcome to Florida - the rules are different here !
Shortly thereafter, Judge Murphy invites Attorney Weinstock to join him in the hallway, so that he (judge) can "beat his ass".
Both Weinstock and Murphy walk off camera view, and if you listen closely, you can hear what appears to be Judge Murphy making good on his threat to beat Weinstock's ass, along with more than a few expletives.
A Criminal Defendant's Constitutional Rights
Is This The Case In Judge Murphy's Brevard County Courtroom?
Is This Problem Actually Larger Than One "Pissed Off" Judge?
In the State of Florida, speedy trial is defined by Rule 3.191 of the Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedures (see above scroll box)
In short, all misdemeanors charges shall be brought to trial within 90 days, and all felonies having a trial date within 175 days.
It would appear by Mr. Weinstock's statement "this is an emergency created by the State", that the local State Attorney's office is a little behind in processing their criminal case load. Or is it the failure of the Clerk of the Court to efficiently move along the Brevard County criminal case load? Either way, Mr. Weinstock is correct, the emergency is not his. Weinstock's responsibilities are to ensure that his clients' constitutional rights are not violated, and that they receive a fair trial.
You Must First Recognize The Symptoms - Before You Can Recognize The Disease
The media is focusing their talents and resources on an unusual event - a judge beating a defense attorney's ass. And we agree - this is an unusual event. However, maybe the sparkle from the unusual is blinding us from realizing that our attention should be on the usual practices of the court.
Has pressuring defense attorneys to waive their clients' rights become an accepted court practice?
How can an attorney gain the wrath of a judge by demanding that his clients retain their constitutional right to a speedy trial?
Could it be, that the judge expected Attorney Weinstock to be more of a "team player" to the court, than a representative of his clients' rights?
Is it now, kind of expected that defense attorneys will assist the prosecution and the courts when schedules get tight, or evidence gets lost? Does this new assistance include defense attorneys waiving more of their clients' rights, in order to lubicate the failing criminal justice engine? What other constitutional rights must be quietly waived? Will the 4th, 5th, 8th amendments also have to be waived, in order for the local criminal justice system to sputter on?
This incident in Judge Murphy's courtroom is just the latest symptom of a disease that has infected our criminal justice system. And without immediate emergency treatment - we are saddened to inform you, that this disease is probably going to have a terminal affect on many of your constitutional rights.
So what can we (the public) expect? Well, we should expect some proper actions by the Florida Bar and the Judicial Qualification Commission - but don't hold your breath waiting on that. Realizing how corrupt the local judiciary is - it's probably more realistic to expect more ass beatings to occur in the near future.
Welcome to Florida - the rules are different here !
-----------------------------------------------
Drop us a line to let us know what you think.
EMAIL US