Disciplining judges - Essay Example

Disciplining Judges Number Introduction That every in America has judicial uniqueness is a matter that is well underscored by states having their own jurisdiction, laws and legal procedures. The issue of disciplining judges is not an exception when it comes to legal procedures that may vary from one state to another. In the case of Michigan, the procedure of disciplining judges will have to be consistent with the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) which was adopted and effected by the Michigan Supreme Court on October 1st, 1988.

Alongside this, the principles disclosed in the Board of Law Examiners and the Code of Judicial Conduct are to be followed during this disciplinary process, as shall be seen forthwith. First, there has to be a formal complaint against the conduct of a Michigan State judge, refer, or magistrate, on the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission’s (MJTC) complaint form. The complainant must equally append his signature to the complaint. The signature must be notarized to ensure that the complainant has sworn to the truthfulness of the statements that embody the grievance.

The above development must then be followed up by the preliminary investigations stage. Herein, the Commission has to review the complaints. Alongside notarization of documents, there will have to be a reviewing of the evidence or other supporting documents. Other court files may be reviewed, if necessary. At special instances, staff requests may be made upon grievant to produce additional information such as videos or transcripts of court proceedings to help ascertain the allegation. From this assessment, the Commission’s staff is to prepare a report recommending the most appropriate course of action.

Each grievance is to be analyzed and voted upon by the very Commission. The import of this stage is that sufficiency of facts and jurisdiction are dealt with. According to Finkelman, Hershock and Taylor (2006), the stage above may then be followed by investigations at the Commission’s direction. Upon the Commission determining that a complaint warrants review beyond initial investigations, the Commission will direct its staff to investigate the same matter and then report back the results. The same Commission will give the staff specific instructions on the manner extensive investigations are to be conducted.

These extensive investigations may include contacting of witnesses, observing courtroom proceedings, reviewing court records and other court documents and the conducting of other inquiries as the issue being investigated may dictate. The judge presiding on the case may comment on allegations, upon the judge having been issued with a copy of the grievances, as an important part of the investigation. The response that the judge issues is then to be weighed in light of other pertinent information.

In accordance with MCR 9.207 (C) and MCR 9.207 (B) (1), the judge’s comment must be made prior to the disposition of the grievance. Herein, it is important to note that grievances may be closed when investigations reveal facts that demand dismissal, either due to lack of jurisdiction or the allegations being found to be untrue in themselves. Even in this case, there should an issuance of a warning to the judge, to the effect that his mistake should never be repeated. This is to be done in a letter.

Conversely, if investigations reveal that questionable or improper conduct occurred but it was relatively of a minor magnitude, then MJTC may dismiss the case, will dismiss the case but give a cautionary letter to the judge (Epps, 2008). In the event that the judge satisfies the conditions that the Commission had set during the monitoring or investigative period, the Commission may dismiss the matter altogether. If the judge’s conduct is found to be more troublesome, MJTC may issue an admonition.

This admonition comprises a notice to the judge, detailing the description of proper conduct and the conclusion MJTC reached. Partly, this admonition is also made to forestall an escalation or a recurrence of the judge’s misconduct. Upon receiving this admonition, the judge has a timeframe of 28 days within which he is to file a petition that the Supreme Court should review. During the hearing stage, the judge must be allowed to file answers to the charges in the Commission’s hearing. Alternatively, the Supreme Court may be requested to appoint to hear, take evidence in the matter, and to resultantly report to the Commission.

According to Michigan Rules of Evidence, MRC 9.211 (A), the judge can be represented by represented by counsel during the hearing and the incriminating evidence presented by an examiner whom the Commission had appointed. According to In re Ferrara 458 Mich 350 (1990), the general standard proof in MJTC proceedings is the preponderance of the evidence. A report then is made with the Commission, on the findings of fact and conclusions of the law. Parties have the chance to present oral arguments before MJTC at this instance.

As already mentioned, the Commission may dismiss the matter or forward it to the Court with a recommendation that the Court publicly suspends, censures, retires or relieves the judge of his duties. Findings It is easy to see that the structured and formal manner in which a judge’s interdiction makes the entire process significantly bereft of malice and other elements of personalization of the entire process. Partly, this is seen in the fact that not even the Commission has the power to take disciplinary measures on a judge.

Secondly, the process is formal and well-elaborated. Particularly, within 21 days of the issuance of its Decision and Recommendation, MJTC should file its original record in the Supreme Court and a copy on the judge being interdicted. Within this time, the judge has 28 days to file a petition in the Supreme Court and MJTC, 21 days to respond to the judge’s claims. The Supreme Court reviews MJTC’s Decisions and Recommendations and may interdict the judge, reinstate and warn him, or order the adducing of more evidence.

References Epps, D. (2008). Mechanisms of Secrecy. Harvard Law Review, 121 (6), 1556. Finkelman, P. Hershock, M. J. & Taylor, C. (2006). The History of Michigan Law. Ohio: Ohio University Press.