Hon. Emily Peacock See Rating Details

Circuit Court
Hillsborough County
13th Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.


General Rating Criteria

* Temperament (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality (1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)


Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)


Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)
Comments




What others have said about Hon. Emily Peacock


Comments


Other

Comment #: FL1986
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This judge was prejudicial against us from the time we first walked into her courtroom, consistently refusing to even speak to my husband. She has denied both admissible testimony and evidence in hearings, violated the law and both state and federal constitutions in her rulings, and contradicted her own statements in ruling different ways on similar issues (depending on whether it was something we wanted or not). She kept continuing our trial beyond limits prescribed by law and in her ruling ignored the law and an abundance of case law. She showed clear age discrimination in her written decision and included a description of my physical appearance as partial grounds for her "findings" in our case. She also used the fact that I declined diversion against me, referred to my exercising my 4th amendment right as "abusive" and used my history of having been molested as a child as a basis for determining that I was unable to protect any of my children from PROSPECTIVE sexual abuse (none was alleged). This judge should be removed from the bench for misconduct.