Normally, I hate to say I told you so. But today, I will make a special exception. I TOLD YOU SO.
While researching the Judicial Tenure Commission and how they cover investigations, I stumbled into non-public summaries.
Upon reading 2020 cases, I found this:
“A judge made comments to a reporter about a pending case they were presiding over, in violation of former Judicial Conduct Canon 3(A)(6), which was in effect at that time of their comments. The judge referred to the amount of times the defendant had appeared before them for the same crime, and expressed the judge’s opinion that state law was too lenient towards this type of crime. The judge also indicated to the reporter that they set the defendant’s bond high because of the danger the defendant presented to the community.
The Commission acknowledged that current Canons 3(A)(9) and 3(A)(10) do permit a judge to make certain comments to the public in the course of their official duties, including the explanation of court procedures, statements about proceedings in which they are a litigant, or responses to public allegations about their conduct. In addition, former Canon 3(A)(6) allowed the judge to provide “public information [of your] holdings or actions.” The Commission stated, however, that even had that been the judge’s purpose, the judge’s reference to the defendant’s situation as “crazy,” and the judge’s dramatic emphasis of the crime, went beyond an acceptable explanation of their bond decision.
The Commission determined that the judge’s remarks not only violated former Canon 3(A)(6), which forbade any public comment about a pending case, they also violated current Canon 3(A)(6), in that they might have reasonably been expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the pending case. The Commission noted that the judge presided in a lightly populated jurisdiction, and their inflammatory comments could have had an impact on the circuit judge’s decisions in the case, as well as the likelihood that the comments could likely have been heard by potential jurors.
The Commission commended the judge for their candid acknowledgement of their violation of both former and current Canon 3(A)(6), found that the violation was unintentional, and noted that the judge had no prior disciplinary record. The Commission dismissed the matter with a caution to the judge to be mindful of public comments about active cases in the future.”
Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission Non-Public Summaries, 2020.
Though the name is taken out, the timeframe, contents, and location details match perfectly to this WoodTV8 Article.
The “lightly populated” part made me laugh, considering that Barry County is way over-policed.
It was later published in the Annotated Michigan Judicial Code of Conduct, as well.
This was not at all unintentional. It’s a blatant violation of due process.
May I just remind you that this man is up for reelection soon?
