LANSING, Mich. (WXYZ) - A new rule being considered by the state's
highest court could limit complaints of misconduct against judges.
Michigan's
Supreme Court justices are considering adding a three-year statute of
limitations to complaints filed against judges with the Judicial Tenure
Commission. According to the proposed rule, “any complaint filed more
than three years after the grievant knew…or should have known...shall be
dismissed.”
Since 2014, 34 judges across the state have faced
some sort of action that began at the Judicial Tenure Commission, which
can range from a letter of caution to being removed from the bench
entirely.
"There’s just all kind of reasons why trying to defend
something three years after the fact is difficult," said Brian Einhorn,
an attorney in support of the rule change.
Einhorn has represented
dozens of judges accused of misconduct, from former Judge Wade
McCree—who carried on an affair with a litigant—to ex-Justice Diane
Hathaway, who was sent to prison for bank fraud.
"If a person
knows that a judge did something three and a half or four years ago, I
don’t think it’s fair to the judge to have to defend himself," Einhorn
said.
But not all attorneys agree. Peter Henning is a former
federal prosecutor and today is a law professor at Wayne State
University.
"You’re talking about an individual who has immense
power and can be quite intimidating," Henning said. "If you have certain
types of cases, say for example a sexual harassment case, that may take
years to surface because the individual who was harassed is going to be
intimidated and might not have the strength to come forward for four or
five years."
The proposed rule allows for claims outside of the
three-year statute of limitations to be considered for "good cause," but
critics fear the term is vague and could lead to prolonged legal
battles.
"Should the judge be able to get off simply because
(misconduct) happened more than three years ago?" asked Chanel 7's Ross
Jones.
"But we’re dealing with something that’s probably not going to happen very often," Einhorn responded.
But there have been past examples of misconduct that could have been thrown out with a statute of limitations.
In
Wayne County, Judge Bruce Morrow was disciplined for misconduct that
happened years before a formal complaint was filed, including giving
bond to a man after he was convicted of rape, even though state law
didn’t allow it.
Morrow was suspended for two months.
Today
in Livingston County, Judge Teresa Brennan is under fire for her affair
with a state police officer that testified in a murder trial in her
courtroom. His testimony helped to send a man to prison. Their affair
happened more than three years before it was finally discovered. It’s
unclear if the JTC is investigating Brennan.
Still, attorney Brian
Einhorn says judges shouldn’t have to defend themselves from years-old
allegations, after memories fade and evidence becomes stale.
"There’s
timing for doing everything," Einhorn said. "And there’s nothing
different about a judge being accused of misconduct to a lawyer being
accused of malpractice to a doctor being accused of malpractice."
Except
in Michigan, there is no statute of limitations for complaints against
lawyers or doctors, either. Giving judges special protection would be
unique and improper, argues Carl Marlinga, who is a judge himself.
"The
unintended effect, certainly, is to offer a level of protection for bad
judges," Marlinga said. "With the judiciary, maximum integrity is the
minimum qualification. Anything that would protect or shield a judge
from scrutiny I just think is wrong."
A decision on the proposed
statute of limitations and scores of other rules currently being
considered by the Michigan Supreme Court could come any day.
"What
is the benefit?" asks Wayne State's Peter Henning. "What is the upside,
other than what appears to be giving judges added protections?"
Full Article & Source:
State Supreme Court considers limits on judicial misconduct probes
1 comment:
You bet it's good news for bad judges!
Post a Comment