Judges at trial court level are called "judges" and judges at the appellate court level are called "justices." This just goes to show you that there is no justice in the trial courts and there are no judges on the appellate courts.
That would be a funny enough joke if it were sometimes not true.
As reported by Legal Juice, in Grisham v. State, 319 So. 2d 130 the trial judge nullifies the accepted law for no better reason than it is "dumb", and the appellate court affirms the decision, with one judge dissenting.
Now there seems to be a number of reasons a court may get away with essentially nullifying a law. It violates the constitution of the state of federal government. It violates basic rights. But, "dumb" would not seem to be one of them. After all, from whose B.S. antenna is the court operating?
In Florida, William Grisham was charged with assault and he was committed to a mental hospital. During that time of his confinement the 180 days within which a trial is required to take place expired. Grisham's attorney told the judge that, according to a recent Florida law, his client must be released because his right to a speedy trial was violated, and pointed out that the law specifically states that people committed to mental hospitals do not lose their right to a speedy trial.
To this the Judge says, "That may be the law but ...if it is, it's a dumb law and I will deny your motion. I will let you take it up on appeal."
So much for applying the law. The case is appealed and the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's "the law is dumb" decision. Only the Chief Judge Rawls dissented, stating: "While the subject statute may well, as characterized by the trial judge, be '. . . a dumb law . . .', nevertheless, it is a law and it is our duty to abide by it as written."
I wonder if we can use this case as precedent for our client's benefit by simply telling the judge that if the law is "dumb" he has a duty to ignore the law. Maybe I can bring in a whole bunch of teenagers as experts to tell him that "it is stupid".