by Adrienne Rockenhaus
In United States v. Liggins (2023), the Sixth Circuit overturned Judge Stephen Murphy III’s ruling because he judged a Black man based on his appearance, stating on the record that the defendant “looks like a criminal to me.”
In my husband’s case, the record proves Judge Murphy judged a disabled veteran based on my desperate need for safety. When Judge Murphy complained on the record about being ‘penalized for his wife’s behavior,’ he wasn’t talking about a blog post. He was referring to the Bivens Civil Rights Lawsuit I was forced to file against his own Probation officers. Specifically Stylianos Agapiou for violating a standing No-Contact Directive, and a U.S. Marshal for sexual harassment and intimidation.
Instead of addressing these serious violations, Judge Stephen J. Murphy III weaponized them. The transcript shows him openly calculating the sentence based on my lawsuit, worrying aloud that leniency would make him look ‘intimidated by the filings.’ In plain English: he had to punish my husband to prove he wouldn’t listen to a woman reporting abuse by his officers.
The parallel is undeniable, but the stakes are far bloodier. In Liggins, Judge Stephen J, Murphy III abandoned neutrality for personal bias. In my husband’s case, he abandoned the law to sanction retaliation. The lawsuit I filed (the ‘behavior’ he despised) was the direct cause of the September 4th armed raid where that same Marshal I sued for sexual harassment returned to put a gun in my face and held me prisoner in my own home. His team beat my husband unconscious in front of me.
By citing my ‘behavior’ as a reason for sentencing, Judge Murphy didn’t just ignore the violence; he co-signed it and escalated it.
The Sixth Circuit called Judge Stephen J. Murphy’s bias ‘wholly incompatible with justice’ in 2023. The record shows he is doing it again right now.
This time to silence a victim of his own enforcers.