103. No, really, what does it take to fire a judge?
There's been some chatter in the blogosphere about Detroit's Judge David Bradfield and the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to send him for psychological counseling. (Here's Talk Left, and an archived piece; and Ali's Voice; and The Daily Judge.)
For the details, take a look at the factual allegations in the Michigan Supreme Court brief filed by the Judicial Tenure Commission. It would make a good bar exam question: how many torts did the judge commit? How many could also be charged as criminal offenses? Pages 25-27 detail the judge's prior disciplinary proceedings, including his act of driving his car into a security guard who had stood up to him in a mall parking lot.
Judge Bradfield understandably has an aversion to the news media. Earlier in his career he fought hard against the concepts of free speech, free press and the right to a public trial. In a ruling worthy of Major Major, who allowed people into his office to see him only when he was out, "Bradfield require[d] that photographers give him three days' notice that they intend to use a camera, yet he would not divulge the cases on his docket more than a day in advance, according to the Michigan Press Association Bulletin."
It seemingly didn't disturb the judge that his prohibition on cameras in the courtroom violated both his presiding judge's "1992 order and the Supreme Court's order opening courtrooms in 1989."
So here we have a dangerous guy, who hits people with his car and with his hands, threatens them with bodily harm, ignores orders from superior courts and violates the United States Constitution, whom the special master concluded was unworthy of belief, and who had twice been disciplined by the Michigan Supreme Court for similarly irrational rages (here's a link to the third set of charges) - and the discipline imposed on him was a year's suspension without pay.
At least it was without pay. But, really, what else can a judge do to persuade a disciplinary board that he or she is in the wrong line of work? (See post 60.) Removing a judge isn't a prison sentence. It's not even an award of damages in a civil action. Unlike disbarment proceedings, it doesn't threaten one's ability to practice one's profession. It merely means the judge returns into the ranks of lawyers, something many judges do voluntarily anyway. Yet it's easier to put a man in prison than to pry an unwilling judge's fingers from the bench.
Down in Texas, a judge had to commit sexual battery against not one, not two, but three different women before he got the Texas boot. But at least he got it.
Joel Jacobsen
Post a Comment
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments