There has been so much learned in the last few years about domestic violence and the ways in which it occurs, that no judge should be blind or one sided. There are men of all walks of life who participate in this kind of violence to a degree and they appear to let other men off the hook for it. Suzanne spoke of it in a text, she spoke of fear of being alone with Barry, her daughter encouraged her to get a restraining order, and Barry even admitted to hitting her when he clipped her nose. Then you have emotional abuse from control. It’s all there. Barry didn’t have to beat her daily for the abuse to come through loud and clear.
Judge Murphy recused himself because of knowing SD and her attorney. If justice is not served because we have to wait additional time for a judge who is fair, so be it. I would like to see Judge L recuse himself, because although he can site one case for his decision, he cannot ignore the evidence leading up to the murder. IMO.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am a victim and will stand for the rights of the victim every time.
I am praying there is someone, anyone schooled in the law who will go to bat for Suzanne now so that Justice is served.
BBM.
I'm with you in spirit!
But a trial court judge is bound by Supreme Court precedent to apply the
Spoto test, which allows the trial judge wide discretion to balance probative value and unfair prejudice. As a practical matter, I don't think the People have any real chance to reverse the ruling excluding the DV expert on appeal.
To me, the decision is just another example of the need to educate the judiciary about domestic violence, and about the limitations involved in trying to do so in the context of a single case. But I haven't given up hope.
I know personally one of the plaintiffs in a case that made a big difference in advancing the rights and opportunities of women to participate in university athletics. However, their case did not begin auspiciously: the (female) judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
But they were operating in the context of public advocates for women who sought to educate judges around the country about the manifest disparities in opportunities for women in athletics that resulted from a history of discrimination based on unfair stereotypes, logical fallacies, false ideology, and the blindness of college administrators - all of whom were male. While the case was pending, a highly respected and charismatic woman who coached the local university team invited the judge to meet the team and travel with them to a tournament.
It seems the judge gained insights from the experience. She ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, setting an important precedent that continues to influence the interpretation and application of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
This kind of cultural influence on a judge in a pending case may or may not happen in
People v Morphew, but IMO it exemplifies the kind of work we must engage in to be sure that judges who have discretion under the law apply it fairly, with a fully informed understanding of what happens to women who are in abusive relationships, like SM.
I am encouraged that women are speaking out about Judge L's decision, and I hope very much that their efforts succeed. They MUST continue even if Judge L is unmoved, and even if there is no pending
cause celebre.
Do not despair: if we persevere in these educational efforts, we will secure a better future for our daughters.
