On September 18, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals published People v. Plomb…and it’s a jaw-dropper.
The panel affirmed the conviction, but it also concluded the trial judge “pierced the veil of judicial impartiality.” Translation: the judge crossed the line from umpire to participant. That judge, Judge Jason J. Elmore, sits in Wexford County’s 28th Circuit Court, and apparently forgot he is no longer a prosecutor, and hasn’t been for one for over five years.
If anything, this opinion absolutely makes the case for formal discipline, serving as a reminder for him to stay in his professional lane.
What the appellate court found
During Jeffery Scott Plomb’s jury trial, Judge Elmore:
- Excused the jury mid–cross-examination of the confidential informant (CI), then questioned the witness outside the jury’s presence, steering the narrative about what “$40” meant in coded texts. The judge punctuated the exchange with “Bingo.”
- Coached the prosecution’s strategy, announcing he would allow questions about alleged prior buys and telling the prosecutor exactly what to ask when the jury returned.
- Accused defense counsel of ineffectiveness on the spot and misremembered the defense’s questions, incorrectly claiming the defense had “opened the door” to damaging other-acts evidence. The Court of Appeals confirmed the defense did not open that door and that Judge Elmore is, to be clear, full of shit.
- Bottom line from the appellate court: a judge can pierce the veil of impartiality outside the jury’s presence; and boy did it happen here. The court still affirmed because it found no plain-error prejudice under the strict appellate standard, but the misconduct finding stands, but that, I’m sure, doesn’t sit well with many legal professionals.
Why this isn’t a technicality
Michigan’s Stevens/Swilley line of cases bars judges from behaving like partisans, especially by “providing improper strategic advice to a particular side.” Here, the appellate panel compared the conduct to a judge acting like another prosecutor and concluded the totality of circumstances favored a finding that the judge pierced impartiality. That’s not a slap on the wrist; it’s a bright-red flag for oversight.
A another prosecutor? That is literally the last thing anyone needs on their case.
What Accountability Should Look Like
Michigan’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to promote public confidence in integrity and impartiality and to accept limits ordinary citizens don’t. When a published opinion says a judge pierced impartiality, the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) should review it.
As JTC Executive Director Lynn Helland often reminds me, anyone can file a JTC complaint; the form and instructions are public.
Concrete steps:
- Read the opinion (it’s short, 11 pages) and note the passages on coaching strategy and questioning the CI outside the jury.
- File a JTC request for investigation, attaching the opinion and citing the sections on judicial impartiality.
- Court-watch future dockets in the 28th Circuit and document patterns, because if he’s done it here so brazenly, I guarantee you he’s done it and may still be doing it thinking he can get away with it.
The principle at stake
A judge doesn’t get to excuse the jury, script the prosecution, and then pretend the trial is still fair.
Even when a conviction stands on appeal, the conduct can still be wrong. That’s why the remedy now is professional discipline; to protect everyone who has to stand in that courtroom next.
Propriety is an Issue in Wexford
You may recall that Judge Corey Wiggins, also at Wexford, screamed at an elderly attorney. Apparently they’re all trying to be Oakland County: The Sequel.
🖤 Love what we do? Support Clutch.
