Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 14-255 Re John C. MURPHY, 181 So. 3d 1169

Background

On June 2, 2014, Brevard County Judge John C. Murphy threatened assistant public defender Andrew Weinstock in open court, challenged him to a fight, engaged in a hallway physical altercation, and then returned to the bench to proceed on multiple cases for which the public defender was not present.
The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) charged Murphy with violations of multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 4-1.1; the Hearing Panel found him guilty on those charges.
The Hearing Panel recommended discipline short of removal: public reprimand, 120-day suspension without pay, $50,000 fine, mental-health therapy, and judicial education.
After the Hearing Panel, Murphy sought treatment, produced psychological evaluations, and submitted a VA disability finding diagnosing 30% disability for PTSD related to combat service. The VA finding was not before the Hearing Panel.
The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the JQC findings, agreed they were supported by clear and convincing evidence, but rejected the recommended lesser discipline and ordered Murphy removed from office for conduct demonstrating present unfitness to serve.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (JQC)	Defendant's Argument (Murphy)	Held
Whether the JQC’s findings of judicial misconduct are supported by clear and convincing evidence	Murphy threatened violence, physically confronted counsel, and proceeded on cases without counsel present; these acts violated multiple judicial canons and professional rules	Murphy admitted anger but disputed some facts (who struck first) and argued his actions were atypical, provoked, and followed by remorse and treatment	Court: JQC findings upheld; clear and convincing evidence supported violations of listed Canons and Rule 4-1.1
Whether removal is appropriate vs. discipline short of removal	JQC argued misconduct warranted discipline; in reply emphasized VA PTSD finding as weighing against fitness	Murphy argued mitigation: immediate treatment, psychological care, testimony that incident was atypical, strong prior record, and willingness to undergo therapy	Court: Removed Murphy, concluding misconduct was egregious, eroded public confidence, and showed present unfitness despite mitigation
Relevance of post‑hoc PTSD/VA disability evidence to fitness assessment	JQC noted VA PTSD finding undermines fitness because judges face significant stress	Murphy relied on clinicians who testified he had responded to treatment and could safely return to work	Court: Considered VA finding as creating risk of recurrence; conflict among experts weighed against reinstatement and supported removal
Standard and scope of appellate review of JQC recommendations	JQC urged deference to Hearing Panel’s recommended discipline	Murphy asked court to accept Hearing Panel recommendation and mitigation evidence	Court: Afforded great weight to JQC but exercised independent constitutional authority to accept, reject, or modify recommendations and ordered removal as appropriate sanction

Key Cases Cited

In re Sloop, 946 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2006) (removal appropriate where judge’s conduct demonstrates present unfitness and erodes public confidence)
In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2003) (standard for review of JQC findings and role of this Court in discipline)
In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2001) (focus of proceedings is judge’s fitness to serve)
In re Hawkins, 151 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 2014) (judges held to higher ethical standards because of impact on public confidence)
In re Graziano, 696 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1997) (removal despite otherwise good record where misconduct strikes at heart of judicial integrity)
In re Garrett, 613 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1993) (removal appropriate despite judge’s illness where misconduct undermines fitness)
In re Shea, 110 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2013) (egregious intemperate courtroom behavior can justify removal)
In re Schapiro, 845 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2003) (judicial misconduct that damages public confidence supports removal)