Judge suspended for making ‘G-rated dad jokes' about defendants. He claims he was ‘trying to lighten the tension'
The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission has indefinitely suspended Broward Circuit Judge Gary Farmer Jr for making jokes during his hearings, according to Law & Crime.
Many of the comments reportedly occurred during felony criminal hearings last August. During one case, a defendant had reportedly impregnated three women all within nine months of each other.
'OK, you've been busy,' Farmer said during the session. 'You were just shooting all over the place! That's good, do you know their names? First and last? Romantic are you? Don't tell Susie about Jane, don't tell Jane about Mary. God bless you, man. One's enough.'
Later he joked about ordering the man to wear a condom.
'I'm going to order that you wear a condom at all times. For your own good. OK? Probation is going to check. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding," Farmer said.
When the defendant's appointed defender turned out to be a woman, the judge told the man "don't get her pregnant."
During another case, a defendant was named Georgia, and Farmer began singing a song about "sweet Georgia" and making jokes about peaches.
'You're supposed to say 'peachy.' How you doin', Georgia? Peachy!' Farmer said.
Though it's unclear why, Farmer also reportedly "quoted extensively" from a sketch performed by Marlon Wayans on "In Living Color," according to the commission.
Farmer knew his jokes weren't landing, admitting at one point during a trial that he was telling 'exceptionally, exceptionally bad jokes.'
But he appears to have persisted.
During a bond hearing, a defense attorney representing a suspect facing first-degree kidnapping charges joked with the judge about the nature of the kidnapping.
'I gotta tell you judge, in the history of kidnappings, this would be the first time someone gets kidnapped and taken to a strip club," the defense attorney said.
Farmer replied: 'I was about to say, I think there's a long list of husbands who have claimed exactly that in the past. We've all been taken against our will.'
The judge responded to the allegations that his jokes were "inappropriate" and "undignified" by insisting they were meant to be helpful, not harmful.
'These jokes were said to lighten tension, reduce stress for criminal defendants, and show a sense of humanity,' Farmer said. 'They generally are G-rated 'Dad jokes' that are corny but not offensive, and were not degrading to the solemnity of the proceedings.'
Farmer previously served in the Florida State Legislature as a Democrat. It's unclear when or if he'll return to the bench.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Kilmar Abrego Garcia wants criminal case thrown out over Trump administration's ‘vindictive' prosecution
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is asking a federal judge to throw out a criminal case against him, claiming he was 'singled out' by President Donald Trump's administration for 'having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice' after he was wrongfully deported to a brutal prison in his home country. Despite admitting in court that he was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March, government lawyers and top administration officials spent weeks insisting Abrego Garcia would never be allowed back into the country following a high-profile lawsuit challenging his arrest and removal. He was abruptly flown back to the United States in June to face a criminal indictment in Tennessee, where a grand jury indicted him on federal smuggling charges. Prosecutors cannot abuse the law to 'punish someone for exercising his constitutional rights,' lawyers for Abrego Garcia wrote on Tuesday. 'Yet that is exactly what has happened here.' 'Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been singled out by the United States government,' they added. 'It is obvious why. And it is not because of the seriousness of his alleged conduct.' Last month, the federal judge overseeing his criminal case ordered his release from jail before trial, finding that prosecutors failed to show 'any evidence' that his history or arguments against him warrant his ongoing detention. That order arrived moments after another federal judge overseeing his wrongful deportation case blocked the Trump administration from immediately arresting and deporting him after he is set to be released from jail. The court agreed to pause his release from pretrial detention so attorneys can 'evaluate options' as they brace for immigration officers to arrest and remove him a second time. That pause is set to expire this Friday August 22. Abrego Garcia's attorneys argue he was only charged because 'he refused to acquiesce in the government's violation of his due process rights.' 'Rather than fix its mistake and return [him] to the United States, the government fought back at every level of the federal court system,' attorneys wrote. 'And at every level, [he] won. This case results from the government's concerted effort to punish him for having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice.' The Independent has requested comment from Homeland Security. In court filings, Abrego Garcia's attorneys detailed the 'severe mistreatment' and 'torture' he experienced during his month-long detention inside El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. His attorneys say the 29-year-old father was subject to 'severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture' at the facility. 'A group of the most senior officials in the United States sought vengeance: they began a public campaign to punish Mr. Abrego for daring to fight back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in this case,' his attorneys wrote. His lawyers admitted that motions to dismiss on grounds of selective or vindictive prosecution are rarely granted but 'if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case,' they said. 'The government is attempting to use this case — and this Court — to punish Mr. Abrego for successfully fighting his unlawful removal. That is a constitutional violation of the most basic sort,' his attorneys wrote. Abrego Garcia — who entered the country illegally as a teenager after fleeing gang violence in El Salvador — was deported on March 15 despite an immigration judge's order that blocked his removal from the country for humanitarian reasons. Government lawyers admitted in court documents that he was removed from the country due to a procedural error and several federal judges and a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' his return. Still, the government spent weeks battling court orders while officials publicly said he would never step foot in the United States, characterizing him as a serial abuser and criminal gang member. Emails and text messages provided to members of Congress appear to show that administration officials and government lawyers were sympathetic to his wrongful removal and made efforts to get him out of El Salvador before the case made headlines, which caused major headaches for the White House. A two-count indictment in Tennessee accuses Abrego Garcia of participating in a years-long conspiracy to illegally move undocumented immigrants from Texas to other parts of the country. He faces one count of conspiracy to transport aliens and one count of unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens. But in their request to keep him in jail before trial, federal prosecutors also claimed he is a member of transnational gang MS-13, and 'personally participated in violent crime, including murder.' Prosecutors also claim he 'abused' women and trafficked children, firearms and narcotics, and there is also an ongoing investigation into 'solicitation of child pornography.' Abrego Garcia is not facing any charges on those allegations and a federal judge determined that the government failed to link those allegations to evidence that implicates him.
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
Gabbard revokes security clearances of 37 current, former US intelligence professionals
WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Tuesday, opens new tab that she had revoked security clearances of 37 current and former intelligence professionals whom she accused of "politicizing and manipulating intelligence." Gabbard said in a social media statement that the action was taken at President Donald Trump's direction. Gabbard has repeatedly alleged weaponization of the U.S. intelligence community, and last month the U.S. Department of Justice said it was forming a strike force to assess her claims. Trump has leaped on recent comments from Gabbard in which she threatened to refer officials from the administration of Democratic former President Barack Obama to the Justice Department for prosecution over an intelligence assessment of Russian interference in U.S. elections. Republican Trump has accused Obama, without providing evidence, of leading an effort to falsely tie him to Russia and undermine his 2016 presidential campaign. A spokesperson for Obama had denounced Trump's claims, saying, "These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction." It was not clear if all of those on the list released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence - including a former spokesperson for Obama's National Security Council and Biden's coordinator for global COVID response - had indeed served as intelligence professionals. An ODNI spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions about the backgrounds of those whose security clearances had been revoked. Gabbard says there was a "treasonous conspiracy" in 2016 by top Obama officials to undermine Trump, claims that Democrats called false and politically motivated. Trump won the 2016 election. An assessment by the U.S. intelligence community published in January 2017 concluded that Russia, using social media disinformation, hacking, and Russian bot farms, sought to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and bolster Trump. The assessment determined the actual impact was likely limited and showed no evidence that Moscow's efforts changed voting outcomes. Russia has denied it attempted to interfere in U.S. elections.
The Guardian
5 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Alligator Alcatraz' civil rights case sees split ruling from Miami judge
A federal judge in Miami issued a split decision in a lawsuit over the legal rights of detainees at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as 'Alligator Alcatraz', dismissing part of the suit and also moving the case to a different jurisdiction. US district judge Rodolfo Ruiz issued the decision late on Monday, writing in a 47-page ruling that claims the detainees at the facility do not have confidential access to their lawyers or to hearings in immigration court were rendered moot when the Trump administration recently designated the Krome North processing center near Miami as a site for their cases to be heard. The judge heard arguments from both sides in a hearing earlier on Monday in Miami. Civil rights attorneys were seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure detainees at the facility have access to their lawyers and can get a hearing. The state and federal government had argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility is located is owned by Miami-Dade county, Florida's southern district was the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier county, which is in the state's middle district. Judge Ruiz had hinted during a hearing last week that he had some concerns over which jurisdiction was appropriate. 'Much has changed since the complaint's filing,' Ruiz wrote. Six of the plaintiffs have met with lawyers through videoconference, though they claimed the conferences are not confidential since they are not in an enclosed room and staff is close by and in listening proximity to the detainees. A subset of detainees alleged they are eligible for bond hearings and their lawyers have been 'unable to access – yet alone identify – the proper court for those hearings'. But Ruiz noted the facts in the case changed on Saturday, when the Trump administration designated the Krome facility as the immigration court with jurisdiction over all detainees at the detention center. Ruiz wrote that the case had 'a tortured procedural history' since it was filed on 16 July, weeks after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility. 'Nearly every aspect of the Plaintiffs' civil action – their causes of action, their facts in support, their theories of venue, their arguments on the merits and their requests for relief – have changed with each filing,' the judge wrote. The judge granted the state defendants' change of venue motion to the middle district of Florida, where the remaining claims of first amendment violations will be addressed. The state and federal government defendants made an identical argument last week about jurisdiction for a second lawsuit in which environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe sued to stop further construction and operations at the Everglades detention center until it is in compliance with federal environmental laws. US district judge Kathleen Williams in Miami on 7 August ordered a 14-day halt on additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week. She had yet to rule on the venue question.
