← Case library
3rd DCAAugust 14, 2024Petitions for Writ of Prohibition Denied🔬 Novel Issue

Laurence v. State

Case No. 3D2024-0776

Twelve defendants sought writs of prohibition to disqualify a Monroe County judge whose spouse became Executive Director of the State Attorney's Office, arguing this created an objectively reasonable fear of bias. The Third DCA denied all petitions, holding the motions were legally insufficient because the spouse's role was purely administrative (finance, HR, IT, non-attorney staff) with no supervisory authority over assistant state attorneys or involvement in prosecutions, and adopting the reasoning of JEAC Opinion 2023-09 that such governmental employment does not require disqualification absent evidence the spouse assisted in the case's prosecution.

Key facts

  • Twelve criminal defendants filed writs of prohibition seeking to disqualify a Monroe County judge based on the judge's spouse becoming Executive Director of the State Attorney's Office, arguing this created an objectively reasonable fear of bias.
  • The spouse's role was purely administrative, involving finance, human resources, information technology, and non-attorney staff management, with no supervisory authority over assistant state attorneys or involvement in prosecutions.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This opinion fills a gap in Florida law—noted by the court itself as an area with 'very little case law'—regarding when a judge's spouse's employment at a prosecutor's or public defender's office requires… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.