The Court issued the two following opinions regarding judicial misconduct.
In re Simpson
Docket No. 150404
Judge Simpson, a Washtenaw County district court judge, also taught classes at the Ann Arbor campus of Western Michigan University Cooley Law School. He hired a 1L from one of his classes, Ms. Vargas, as a summer intern. After Vargas began interning for Simpson, the two began exchanging regular texts and calls outside of working hours.
One night, Vargas crashed her car. Before police arrived, Vargas called Judge Simpson, who showed up at the accident scene. Simpson did not directly interfere with the officer, but tried to offer to give Vargas a ride home. After the police charged Vargas with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Simpson had conversations with the police and prosecutor about the case.
Justice Viviano drafted the majority opinion, which Justices McCormack, Bernstein, and Larsen joined. The Court agreed that Simpson interfered with a police investigation and criminal prosecution. On a count of misrepresentation, the Court held that a statement Simpson had made about the timing of a text exchange was careless and inaccurate but not an intentional misrepresentation. The Court agreed, however, with the Judicial Tenure Commission’s (JTC's) finding of an intentional misrepresentation when Simpson claimed the exchange of texts and calls were only about work-related issues.
The opinion held that the Judicial Tenure Commission erred by ordering Simpson’s removal from office. Instead, the Court said a proportional penalty was a nine-month suspension without pay. The Court reached this conclusion because the record did not show that Simpson’s false statement was given under oath.
The Court refused to address allegations of misconduct not found and recommended by the JTC. The Court said to do so would violated Michigan’s Constitution (and said the Court’s caselaw supported this conclusion). Chief Justice Markman concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Zahra. Markman would have gone outside the JTC’s record and took a different reading of the Court’s caselaw from the majority. Justice Wilder took no part in the case.
Full opinion here.
----------
In re Gorcyca
Docket No. 152831
Another Judicial Tenure Commission case. In this case, Oakland County Circuit judge, Judge Lisa Gorcyca, found three children in contempt of court. In a divorce proceeding, the children had refused to spend time with their father during his stipulated parenting time.
During the contempt hearing, Gorcyca had apparently “circled her temple with her finger while comparing [one of the children] to Charles Manson and his cult.” When the JTC asked Judge Gorcyca about this, she said she was not indicating that the child was crazy but that she was looking forward to the “forward movement he would make in therapy.” The JTC deemed this to be a false statement.
Yet again, the Court agreed with the JTC’s finding of misconduct for absence of appropriate judicial temperament, but disagreed with the JTC’s finding that Gorcyca abused the contempt power. The Court also rejected JTC’s recommendation of suspension for thirty days, opting instead for a public censure. In addition, the Court denied the JTC’s recommendation of imposing costs, fees, and expenses against Gorcyca. Justice Zahra drafted the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Markman and Justices McCormack, Viviano, Larsen, and Wilder.
Justice Viviano drafted a concurrence, joined by Justice McCormack, stating that he disagreed with how the majority opinion ignored some of the JTC’s other findings of misconduct. He said the Court presumably disagreed with these JTC recommendations. But, if it so, the Court should say that, according to Viviano.
Justice Bernstein concurred in part and dissented in part. He would have found that Gorcyca’s exercise of the contempt power constituted misconduct and would have suspended her for thirty days without pay.
Full opinion here.