On Thursday, May 8, 2025, Judge Gary M. Farmer Jr. of Broward County filed an amended answer to ethics charges in the Florida Supreme Court, addressing allegations brought by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) under case numbers 2024-900 and 2025-125. The response outlines his position on the formal charges related to his conduct as a judge.

In the filing for JQC case 2024-900, Farmer acknowledged making certain remarks and jokes in court, as outlined in the charges. He explained that these were intended to ease tension and convey humanity toward criminal defendants, describing them as lighthearted “Dad jokes” that were not meant to undermine courtroom decorum. However, he admitted that some comments, particularly those deemed “racy,” were inappropriate.

Farmer expressed regret for these remarks, noting he had apologized during a probable cause hearing and reiterated his apology in the filing. He clarified that one instance involving a conversation about a television show was unintentional, as he was unaware his microphone was active. Farmer stated he has refrained from such humor since the initial complaint was lodged with the Chief Judge.

Regarding allegations of absenteeism, Farmer admitted to working from home on several occasions but claimed he was informed this was permissible. He challenged the JQC’s reliance on swipe card records to track his presence, explaining that “In the criminal wing, it takes only 2 swipes to make it into the building (unlike the civil wing or west tower, where it takes 6 swipes), and it was extremely common that a few judges would walk in together and we would take turns swiping cards.” Farmer also noted that his Friday special set hearings, which involved complex motions, were frequently canceled, leaving him without scheduled court appearances. In such cases, he worked on judicial orders or reviewed legal publications.

Farmer disputed claims that his courtroom comments demonstrated bias or impropriety, arguing that some remarks were taken out of context or stemmed from cases with extensive histories not fully captured in the charges. He maintained that certain issues raised by the JQC were matters for appellate review rather than disciplinary action. Additionally, he denied allegations of bias, asserting that his rulings adhered to legal standards, even when they conflicted with his personal views from his time as a legislator.

For JQC case 2025-125, Farmer again admitted to making jokes in court, reiterating their purpose was to reduce stress for defendants. He argued that some cited comments lacked context and were part of broader conversations. In one instance, he corrected the JQC’s record, confirming a defendant’s name as Jaques Strapp. Farmer also addressed specific cases, including one involving a defendant named Mallard, who faced challenges due to homelessness and probation violations. He explained that her treatment differed from similarly situated defendants due to systemic issues, such as inadequate check-in options for homeless individuals on probation.

Farmer further responded to charges involving a defendant named Kyhle, noting the case’s complexity due to the defendant’s health issues and uncooperative state witnesses. He also addressed concerns about remarks in another case, explaining they arose from frustration with the state’s repeated delays and failure to comply with court orders.

In his filing, Farmer requested discovery materials, including transcripts and recordings, to support his defense. He also asked that the trial be held in Broward County in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, pursuant to JQC rules.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.