The Politics of Judicial Horse-Trading
in New Jersey

© Victims-of-Law, Inc.

The former Superior Court of New Jersey Judge, Marianne Espinosa-Murphy, 1986-1993, is once again looking to don a black robe. She was denied tenure after her first seven years but a compromise was reached in 1993 to allow her to sit for another seven years. She adamantly refused.

The last time she solicited a new nomination in Morris County, former Governor Whitman informed her she had her opportunity for another seven year term and refused it thus the nomination should go to a qualified new candidate.

In her latest attempt to be vetted for a seat on the bench where she now resides, Union County, she’s actually being considered by the Acting Gov. Richard Codey. It defies explanation except when one considers New Jersey’s infamous reputation for corruption.

New Jersey Judging the Judges Index

SECTION LINKS

Background Information on Marianne Espinosa-Murphy

Judicial Nomination & Confirmation in New Jersey

New Jersey's Senatorial Courtesy

New Jersey State Senators -- 2005

Murphy’s Law

Grievances against Murphy the former judge

Grievances against Murphy [the Attorney], Involving Case Fixing

Rubberstamping Judicial Nominees & An Alleged Senatorial Blocking

New Jersey Senators who recommend Constitutional Amendments to reign in the New Jersey Judiciary

Background Information on Marianne Espinosa-Murphy

Espinosa-Murphy is married to W. Michael Murphy, Jr., a former Morris County prosecutor; 1990-1995; the step-son of Richard-Joseph Hughes a/k/a Richard J. Hughes. Hughes was a County Judge, 1948-52; a Superior Court Judge, 1952-61; Governor of New Jersey, 1962-70; a member of Democratic National Committee from New Jersey, 1970-73; and the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, 1973-81. He passed away on December 7, 1992; the Hughes Justice Center in Trenton carries his name.

Her husband was defeated in his candidacy for governor of New Jersey in 1993. At present he is ‘Of Counsel’ at McManimon & Scotland, L.L.C.; One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, New Jersey.

Espinosa-Murphy is a member of the law firm Tompkins, McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry, at Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ. She clerked for her father-in-law from 1974-1975 when he was the NJ Supreme Court Justice. UPDATE 6/27/0-5: Ms. Marianne Espinosa and W. Michael Murphy are divorced or obtaining one at this time.

Judicial Nomination & Confirmation in New Jersey

In New Jersey, the state Constitution determines how people become Supreme Court justices or Superior Court or Tax Court judges. The Governor nominates a person to be a justice or a judge and then submits the nomination to the state Senate. They vote whether to confirm the nominee for the position. If confirmed by the Senate, the nominee is sworn in for an initial term of seven years.

After seven years, justices and judges can be reappointed. Once again, the Governor submits a nomination to the state Senate, which votes whether to confirm the nominee for reappointment. If reappointed the justices or judges have tenure. This allows them to remain in their posts until they reach the age of 70, when the New Jersey Constitution requires that they retire. Unfortunately, the appointment process and tenure strengthens judicial independence in New Jersey to the point that there is little or no accountability by judges who violate their oath of office.

It is crucial that once a justice or judge is being considered for tenure the citizens, litigants and lawyers of the state should be able to rely upon the senators to not only investigate but to listen to those who have had experience with the judge including reviewing his/her demeanor in the courtroom as well as the judge’s written opinions.

New Jersey's Senatorial Courtesy

In 1993 when Espinosa-Murphy came up for renomination, New Jersey was still practicing ‘senatorial courtesy’ which allowed senators to block a vote on a gubernatorial nomination of a candidate from their district. Arguing that she was rude and biased, Morris County’s Republican Senator, John Dorsey, refused to sign off on Murphy’s re-nomination. Dorsey had paid heed to Murphy’s record and reviewed the numerous grievances from lawyers and litigants when he invoked senatorial courtesy. Espinosa-Murphy herself went into a tirade and together with her political friends they filed a lawsuit disregarding the separation of powers doctrine. The courts do not have jurisdiction over the Senate but she did get her pound of flesh in publicity.

The New Jersey Supreme Court considered senatorial courtesy a "nonjusticiable political question" Not long after, the Senate chose to eliminate ‘senatorial courtesy’ or has it taken on a new form?

New Jersey State Senators -- 2005

Murphy moved from Chatham (Morris County) to Summit (Union County) a year ago bringing her into a new political camp.

Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Union, a political power broker, is championing her return to the bench. Lesniak, of Weiner Lesniak in Parsippany, was one of the politicos who had fought in the Democratic caucus for Murphy's reappointment in 1993. He presumably has made a priority of pushing for women and minorities on the bench. This is all well and good but why Murphy? She certainly isn’t a ‘disadvantaged’ minority unless one believes she was denied tenure because of her Hispanic origin or her female sex. Aren’t there any other qualified women who happen to be considered in a racial minority in the entire state of New Jersey?

Nicholas P. Scutari, Union county's other Democratic senator continues to express some reservations. Scutari, also an attorney, says that after the New Jersey Law Journal published a story about Murphy's potential appointment, "I received a lot of mail. I'm getting plenty of input from litigators and a couple of litigants from both counties."

Thomas Kean Jr., Union county's third senator, a Republican, has not publicly commented on Murphy’s nomination. It was Kean's father, former Gov. Thomas Kean, who named Murphy to the bench in 1986.

Murphy’s Law

It’s not only been alleged that Espinosa-Murphy is discourteous and belligerent toward lawyers and litigants; when she was a judge in Morris County, the New Jersey Law Journal’s judicial surveys from 1989 and 1993 rated Murphy’s performance as negative.

“In 1989, she ranked 12th out of 15 Morris/Sussex judges with a score of 6.0 in overall competency. She scored 5.9 in knowledge of law, 6.2 in demeanor and 5.7 in ability to handle complex matters. Murphy also did poorly in the 1993 survey, ranking 19th out of 20 vicinage judges with an overall score of 6.8 and with a dismal rating of 5.25 in demeanor. Survey respondents also said she had a strong pro-wife bias in matrimonial cases.”

Her political and judicial affiliations are not only impressive they protectively insulate her from having her unethical behavior exposed. As an attorney she is notorious for late court filings and neglecting to return phone calls or respond to written requests. She willingly participates in ex parte judicial hearings to the benefit her clients while denying all procedural due process to adversaries. She makes legal and frivolous claims in court filings. In a bitter irony, it’s all condoned by the New Jersey Judiciary despite actual, legally filed court records and documents. What this attorney gets away with is above and beyond extraordinary.

 Murphy’s Law may be affecting another former judge, the infamous Andrew P. Napolitano who is a defendant in Licette Music Corp. v. Sills Cummis, Esx-L-1469-99. Napolitano a/k/a Judge Napolitano on Fox News continues to trade on his former judicial title despite the unethical implications. The lawsuit was filed by Attorney Glenn Bergenfield. Bergenfield has PDF links to several interesting articles such as: His Turn as Litigant , New Jersey Law Journal, July 30, 2001; also in February 16, 2004: N.J. Appeal Tests Liability Of Firms When Contract Partners Are Sued . It is alleged that Murphy was retained as a ‘special master’ by her close associate and friend, Andrew P. Napolitano, Esq. when he was with Sills, Cummins. She ruled that the claim Napolitano submitted was ‘time barred’ which was not true. As luck would have it, Napolitano presumably did not catch her error.

If anything can go wrong, it will. -- Murphy's Law

Grievances against Murphy the former judge

Jeff Golden, Vice-President of Fathers' and Children's Equality (FACE) in Cinnaminson, NJ contacted Senator Scutari’s office to register his objection to Murphy’s latest try for a new judgeship. Unlike the political power broker, Senator Lesniak, Senator Scutari appears to be open to reviewing her qualifications.

Jeff was a friend of Marty Rodetsky, a litigant, who appeared before Murphy when she was a judge. Marty had a tape from one of the hearings in his case Rodetsky v. Rodetsky where Murphy was uncontrollably screaming at him. When Marty played this tape at the first meeting of the Governor's Commission to Study the Laws of Divorce (Murphy was on the committee), everyone just sat silently and listened in disbelief.  Unfortunately, at that time a video tape wasn’t available or the Commission would have seen Murphy crawling up on her desk and getting close enough to Marty's face that her spittle was hitting him as she screamed.  Sadly, Marty passed away and it will take a lot of leg work to see if a copy of the tape can be located.   

Jeff is very concerned for all litigants who may have to go before Murphy if she becomes a judge again. He feels that his friend Marty, even from the grave, would be more than pleased if his tape would help stop her nomination so others could avoid the horrors he had to face while alive.  

Back in 1993 after Murphy filed suit DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 429 (1993) to halt the practice of ‘senatorial courtesy’ several of her vocal opponents, Bruce Eden and Robin Vinik, filed pro se amicus curiae briefs. They argued that citizens of New Jersey must be allowed to exercise their “Constitutional right of redress through the only defense they have against a despotic judiciary--going to the Senator in their home county and complaining and asking to block the reappointments of local judges who violate citizens' rights.” 

Eden and Vinik stated: “We have seen Judge Murphy being abusive and arrogant toward litigants as she humiliates and degrades them in her courtroom by calling them ‘jerks’ and ‘stupid’” . . . They were in court and observed “Judge Murphy screaming at a litigant, holding her head in her hands and shaking her head, climbing up on all fours onto her bench while she berated the litigant and told the litigant that he had no rights in her courtroom.”

Grievances against Murphy [the Attorney]

Involving Case Fixing

After refusing to accept a second seven year term on the bench, Murphy eventually ended up as a member of the law firm, Tompkins, McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry in Newark, NJ. One of her alleged fields of expertise is representing legal malpractice defendants.

Suffice it to say that ethics is not one of this woman’s finer points. In one case she idiotically ranted on and on in court filed documents about “scenes from I Love Lucy” as she made up her little stories. The plaintiff became concerned that Murphy was more in tune with the Twilight Zone as evidenced by her inability to respond to legal arguments or undisputed court documented facts. Why she would pick on "I Love Lucy" is anyone's guess.

She was consistently late with court filings . . . reminds one of the song from the movie “Alice in Wonderland” . . . I’m late, I’m late for a very important date, no time to say good-bye, hello, I’m late, I’m late, I’m late. Murphy didn’t believe in apologizing or mending her ways; she remained consistent throughout the case. Funny thing, none of the judges would reprove her or deny her late filings. She didn’t believe in sending out copies of signed court orders in a timely fashion either. Tough luck to all her adversaries; she appears to be revered by certain judges who bend over backward to accommodate her rude behavior.

There are rumors around that certain unethical attorneys alter mailing addresses to make sure their adversary isn’t timely served. Yes, mistakes happen but after the second time it isn’t easily explainable. After the third time, it’s downright suspicious. When the plaintiff isn’t informed of open hearings that are conducted in court it’s normally considered an illegal ex parte hearing. In one case alone, Murphy was involved with the former judge, Andrew P. Napolitano in two ex parte hearings. One on August 5, 1994 and the other on or about March 30, 1995.

Perhaps Murphy isn’t aware that the Court keeps track of hearings on their Automated Case Management System (ACMS). On August 5, 1994 she received a signed Order that denied the plaintiff her attorney and managed to get a plaintiff’s motion dismissed without notice to the plaintiff. To add insult to injury, she failed to send out copies of the Order dismissing plaintiff’s attorney until plaintiff discovered the order existed.

The partial dismissal order Napolitano signed on March 31, 1995 (his last day on the bench) was prepared by the Tompkins firm and specifically states it was a result of an “open hearing.” The plaintiff was kept in the dark about the hearing as shown on the Order itself. Shockingly, the order was in violation of all known Court Rules including the omission of a properly filed Motion to Dismiss together with an Order to Show Cause based on the Frivolous Statute.

When the order itself was appealed, all of its irregularities and illegalities were ignored by appellate court judges that acknowledged Murphy’s lies that she had received Summary Judgment Orders. To date, no such Orders are available for review by the plaintiff nor is a transcript available to back up such a claim. Thus, besides ‘rubber-stamping’ judicial nominations we discover that even appellate court judges ignore the laws and rules and simply rubber-stamp bizarre claims allowing case-fixing for certain attorneys and judges.

For example, Murphy originally contended that the plaintiff’s attorney was a witness in the underlying case when a settlement was put on the record. The court documents prove otherwise; but nevertheless, Napolitano ended up stating not that the attorney was a witness, but that he was representing the plaintiff and agreed to the settlement. Besides being beyond bizarre, the facts are that the plaintiff was not allowed in the court when the settlement was being decided, she was never a litigant and her alleged attorneys in the underlying case were Murphy’s clients. The judge was none other than Napolitano himself who was the ‘genuine’ witness as proven by the court records in the underlying case.

In the malpractice action, Napolitano somehow managed to get the assigned judge removed from the case and twice had himself appointed. Unfortunately, this is just a small sampling of what really goes on in the New Jersey judiciary. Cover-up on top of cover-up. In this particular the case, the defendant attorneys and their defense attorneys who lied or covered up in other ways, together with others in authority, couldn't keep their stories straight. They were literally contradicting each other's falsehoods.

Rubberstamping Judicial Nominees & An Alleged Senatorial Blocking

“Rubberstamping” judicial nominees are par for the course in New Jersey. Eden and Vinik stated that “New Jersey citizens' right to a fair, impartial and accountable judiciary have been compromised by the "good old boy network" within the Judiciary and the Senate Judiciary Committee.” They observed “approximately eight hours of testimony.” In 1993, there were about 8 to 10 people who testified against reappointing Judge Vincent D. Segal, currently in Atlantic County, formerly of Camden County. Almost everyone who testified before the Judiciary Committee reviled this judge because of his actions, his abuse of his position and overall bias in the cases before him. . . . One person testified on his behalf, Diane Cohen, an attorney who became a judge in 1998. Segal was reappointed without further ado.

Attorney Diane Cohen was appointed a judge on June 11, 1998, her 60th birthday, and the last day she would be eligible to receive a full pension for ten years service upon mandatory retirement at age 70. Her former law partner, Senator John Adler, had blocked her appointment in Camden County. Allegedly she lied about her address (claiming she lives in the little village of Mauricetown) and Zane got her appointed in Cumberland County.

Cohen’s reappointment hearing was May 12, 2005, but Adler (now chairman of the Judiciary Committee) allegedly tabled her reappointment. UMMM!!! If true, isn’t it a form of ‘senatorial courtesy?’ There were three persons waiting to testify against her but never got the opportunity when the hearing was tabled. Other lawmakers dispute the Adler allegation saying it was Cohen’s ‘inadequate performance on the bench’ that was the deciding factor. With no hope of being retained, she resigned her title. All hopes of qualifying for a hefty pension had been dashed because she had to serve another three years to qualify.

New Jersey Senators who recommend Constitutional Amendments to reign in the New Jersey Judiciary

A few Senators have proposed constitutional amendments to try and bring the judiciary into compliance with the law and their assigned roles in the Constitutional scheme. For instance, SCR61 might help take the politics, horse-trading and rubber-stamping out of the judicial nomination problem.

SCR 17 -- Senator Gerald Cardinale with co-sponsors Senators Bucco, Littell and Connors proposed a constitutional amendment abolishing tenure for Supreme Court justices and establishing retention elections as part of the reappointment process.

SCR61 -- Senator Gerald Cardinale also proposes constitutional amendments establishing 4 year terms of offices and a new reappointment process for members of the judiciary. The statement includes:

The resolution proposes a constitutional amendment providing that “Superior Court judges would have four year terms with no provision for tenure in office.”

In order to remove the reappointment of jurists from the political process, the proposed amendment would also establish a nine-member bi-partisan Judicial Commission which would be responsible for determining whether Supreme Court justices and Superior Court judges should be reappointed.

Under the proposed amendment, if the Judicial Commission reappoints a justice or judge, the question of whether that justice or judge would be retained in office would be submitted by referendum to the voters at the next general election. If the voters do not approve the reappointment, the judge or justice would be out of office.

SCR72 -- Senators Gerald Cardinale & Bucco would require that provisions of the Constitution and statutory law to act as sole sources for judicial decision making. The statement notes that “under the guise of interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of New Jersey, there has been a growing tendency on the part of the Judiciary to rely on prior judicial decisions as precedent rather than on the written provisions of the Constitution and statutory law.”

Judicial decisions would be required to be based on the provisions of the Constitution and statutory law and that any prior judicial decision conflicting with the provisions of the Constitution or statutory law could not act as precedent.

SCR25 -- Senators Robert E. Littell and Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr. together with co-sponsors Senators Cardinale, Kavanaugh, Bark, Connors, McNamara and Bucco proposed a constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to invalidate certain court decisions. From the statement:

For many years, courts in general, and the New Jersey Courts in particular, have assumed the authority to impose policy determinations upon an unwilling populace under the guise of "interpreting" the Constitution.

The right of the people to avail themselves of their elected officials is the most basic feature of a republican form of government. When an unelected judiciary usurps the policymaking power of the Legislative branch, this right is significantly diminished.

The proposed amendment makes it clear that it is the people, not the courts, who establish the appropriate scope of constitutional provisions.

This amendment seeks to ensure their right of participation.

Judges are not, simply by virtue of the office they hold, endowed with the authority to second guess the people, to "fill gaps" that the people might have left, to establish new rights, or to circumscribe old ones. To the extent that a particular provision of the Constitution may not be sufficient for modern circumstances, it is for the people, not the courts, to address that change.