The law is supposed to be blind. But I fully believe that in Judge Margaret Zuzich Bakker’s courtroom, she has always been peeking.
When Judge Bakker rolls her eyes at the jury, it sends a message of contempt—not just to the parties, but to the very citizens who are the fact-finders in our system. When she emails prosecutors like Myrene Koch behind closed doors, she crosses from collegiality into ex parte communications; a clear violation of basic judicial ethics and damaging to the perception of fairness.
This isn’t a mere lapse. It’s a glaring abdication of judicial impartiality and she should know better.
She’s Literally Cited in the Judicial Disqualification Handbook
Michigan’s Judicial Disqualification Handbook (2025 edition) isn’t just theory. It’s a working guide, one that Judges are required to cite and adhere to. It lays out when judges must step aside, including:
- MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a): Bias or prejudice for or against a party or attorney.
- MCR 2.003(C)(1)(b)(ii): Failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety under Canon 2 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.
- The Loew case (2024): A judge’s private emails with prosecutors about police investigation deficiencies created an “appearance of impropriety” that required disqualification.
If Bakker’s eye-rolls and backchannel emails sound familiar, that’s because they’re the textbook examples the handbook warns against. And as she’s in the handbook, it means she knows the rules; she just isn’t following them.
I suspect she believes she can retire off into the sunset without accountability, as she is about to “age out” of the Judicial System.
The Damage Isn’t Hypothetical
These behaviors, eye-rolling, private emails, disparaging people, fixing cases, aren’t inconsequential. Judges are the referees of fairness in the courtroom. When they tip toward one side, they undercut:
- The jury’s independence as neutral fact-finders
- The appearance of impartiality, which is as important as impartiality itself
- The due process rights of the accused
When a judge ignores written standards of fairness, it’s not just bad conduct; it’s systemic rot. And Allegan County is by far, the best example of systemic rot for enabling child abuse in case after case with zero remorse.
The Bottom Line
When judges put their fingers on the scales of justice, they don’t just tilt a case. They tilt the entire system.
Judge Margaret Zuzich Bakker may think an eye roll is harmless, or that an email to a then prosecutor Myrene Koch is routine. But every gesture and message sends the same loud message: fairness doesn’t live here.
And if fairness doesn’t live in the courtroom, then where does it?
⚖️ What You Can Do About Judicial Misconduct in Michigan
Judges may seem untouchable, but there are tools the public can use to hold them accountable:
- File a Complaint with the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC):
The JTC investigates allegations of judicial misconduct. Complaints can be filed online or by mail. Be specific, attach evidence, and reference judicial canons if possible. - Request Judicial Disqualification:
Parties in cases can move to disqualify a judge under MCR 2.003, citing bias, prejudice, or the appearance of impropriety. - Court-Watch and Report:
Attend hearings, take notes, and publicly document misconduct. Judges act differently when they know the public is watching. - Contact Local Media and Advocacy Groups:
Public pressure is powerful. Share verified evidence with outlets like Clutch Justice, ACLU of Michigan, or watchdog organizations. - Vote with Knowledge:
Michigan elects judges. Learn their records. If a judge has a history of misconduct, eye-rolls at juries, or improper emails with prosecutors, vote them out when they’re on the ballot. - Push for Legislative Oversight:
Contact your state representatives to demand reforms that require mandatory video recording of court proceedings, expanded public access to judicial complaints, and stronger enforcement of disqualification rules.
Bottom line: Judicial misconduct thrives in the shadows. Public vigilance is the best disinfectant.
