Does a possible conflict of interest exist between the local State Attorney office and the Seventh Judicial Court?
Updated January 26, 2011
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed"- Martin Luther King, Jr.
VolusiaExposed.Com congratulates Circuit Court Judge Matt Foxman in his recent election victory.
The Foxman family has a rather extensive history in the administration of justice within the Seventh Judicial Circuit. Recently, the Volusia County Justice Center in Daytona Beach was renamed the S. James Foxman Justice Center in honor of retiring Judge S. James Foxman, the father of Circuit Judge Matt Foxman and County Judge David Foxman (both of the Seventh Judicial Circuit).
VolusiaExposed.Com has recently developed some concerns that a possible conflict of interest has development between the Seventh Judicial Circuit and the local State Attorney's office with the hiring of Judge M. Foxman's spouse, Karen Foxman as an Assistant State Attorney.
Although we can appreciate the Seventh Judicial Circuit's apparent attempt to avoid a conflict of interest by assigning Judge Matt Foxman to the Family Court docket, we still believe that several conflicts of interest still possibly exist.
First, Judge David Foxman, according to his above Seventh Judicial Circuit BIO page hears criminal cases. These criminal cases will be prosecuted by Assistant State Attorney Karen Foxman's employer, State Attorney R.J. Larizza.
Second, since Judge Matt Foxman is a Circuit Court Judge, it is expected that he will be on the rotation list to hear Baker Act cases. Florida Statute Chapter 394 requires that in all involuntary Baker Act placements, that the local State Attorney will represent the interest of the State in those hearings. Will such present a conflict of interest? Will it be necessary to keep Judge Matt Foxman off the Baker Act hearing rotation?
Although Mr. Larizza promised us (the citizens) that his office will - ".. pursue justice, without fear, favor, reward or the promise thereof" (see Home Page of the State Attorney website) - we believe that committment will be a tough nut to crack given all the FOXMANS assigned within the Seventh Judicial Circuit. Even if all the Foxmans are able to walk this thin line - shouldn't just the mere perception of an ethical conflict be avoided?
In November 2007, similiar conflicts were raised about Circuit Court Judge Piggotte and her husband's status as an Assistant State Attorney. In response to a pending Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) complaint, Judge Piggotte removed herself from hearing any criminal cases. Since, apparently Judge Piggotte has been assigned to hear only civil cases.
Is the Public's best interest being served by having certain judges assigned to only hear civil cases due to these types of conflicts of interest? If such is the answer in the avoidance of an actual or perceived conflict of interest, should County Court Judge David Foxman now be removed from hearing criminal cases?
Given the 2007 media account of the Judge Piggotte matter, together with the recent situation surrounding Judge Marriott having to be asked (motion apparently filed by a defense attorney) to remove himself for a criminal case due to the judge's daughter's past relationship with the criminal defendant, how important is it to avoid any concerns involving possible misconduct by court personnel, whether actual or perceived?
VolusiaExposed.Com believe that the credibility of our justice system is of the utmost importance - such was the driving force behind us recently questioning the recommendation of by the Seventh Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC). We here at VolusiaExposed.Com believe that it is our right as Americans to question our government's actions (or lack of action) - and we have alot of questions that need to be answered.