in Re Hon Elizabeth Biolette Church , 499 Mich. 936 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                         Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    May 25, 2016                                                                        Robert P. Young, Jr.,
    Chief Justice
    Stephen J. Markman
    Brian K. Zahra
    152830                                                                            Bridget M. McCormack
    David F. Viviano
    Richard H. Bernstein
    Joan L. Larsen,
    In re:                                                                                              Justices
    HON. ELIZABETH BIOLETTE CHURCH,                           SC: 152830
    CHIPPEWA COUNTY PROBATE and                               RFI Nos. 2014-021034;
    DISTRICT COURT                                                     2014-021209
    BEFORE THE JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION
    ___________________________________________/
    The Judicial Tenure Commission has issued a Decision and Recommendation, to
    which the respondent, Hon. Elizabeth Biolette Church, Chippewa County Probate and
    District Court Judge, consents. It is accompanied by a settlement agreement, in which
    the respondent waived her rights and consented to a sanction no greater than a public
    censure and a 120-day suspension without pay.
    In resolving this matter, we are mindful of the standards set forth in In re Brown,
    
    461 Mich. 1291
    , 1292-1293 (2000):
    Everything else being equal:
    (1) misconduct that is part of a pattern or practice is more serious than an
    isolated instance of misconduct;
    (2) misconduct on the bench is usually more serious than the same
    misconduct off the bench;
    (3) misconduct that is prejudicial to the actual administration of justice is
    more serious than misconduct that is prejudicial only to the appearance of
    propriety;
    (4) misconduct that does not implicate the actual administration of justice,
    or its appearance of impropriety, is less serious than misconduct that does;
    (5) misconduct that occurs spontaneously is less serious than misconduct
    that is premeditated or deliberated;
    (6) misconduct that undermines the ability of the justice system to discover
    the truth of what occurred in a legal controversy, or to reach the most just
    result in such a case, is more serious than misconduct that merely delays
    such discovery;
    2
    (7) misconduct that involves the unequal application of justice on the basis
    of such considerations as race, color, ethnic background, gender, or religion
    are more serious than breaches of justice that do not disparage the integrity
    of the system on the basis of a class of citizenship.
    In the present case, those standards are being applied in the context of the
    following stipulated findings of fact of the Judicial Tenure Commission, which,
    following our de novo review, we adopt as our own:
    1.    The respondent is, and at all material times was, a judge of the
    Chippewa County Probate and District Court in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
    2.     As a judge, she is subject to all the duties and responsibilities
    imposed on judges by this Court, and is subject to the standards for
    discipline set forth in MCR 9.104 and MCR 9.205.
    3.     Over the course of the last several years, respondent reduced
    charges, dismissed charges outright, or modified sentences in at least 20
    criminal cases, without holding a hearing and where she had no explicit
    authority from the prosecutor to do so. Those 91st District Court cases are:
    People v Tenecyck (Case No. 13-55757-ST); People v Stebleton (Case No.
    13-7804-SI); People v Debolt (Case No. 13-8954-ST); People v Reiswitz
    (Case No. 13-8812-SI); People v Hough (Case No. 13-56209-SM); People
    v Swiger (Case No. 13-7402-SI); People v Payment (Case No. 14-10642-
    01); People v Brand (Case No. 13-9214-SI); People v Parr (Case No. 13-
    6874-SI); People v Wiezbenski (Case No. 13-7024-SI); People v Captain
    (Case No. 12-6474-SI); People v Gagnon (Case No. 11-53224-SM); People
    v Gunckel (Case No. 14-57103-SM); People v Morningstar (Case No. 14-
    11943-SM); People v Keesler (Case No. 14-57118-ST); People v Mellea
    (Case No. 14-57254-SM); People v Manos (Case No. 14-11974-SI); People
    v Hatfield (Case No. 14-12032-SI); People v Dicks (Case No. 14-12080-
    SJ); and People v Homminga (Case No. 14-587515-SD).
    4.     Over the course of the last several years, respondent dismissed at
    least 32 ticket cases without holding a hearing and where she had no
    explicit authority from the prosecutor to do so. Those 91st District Court
    cases are: People v Smith Family Sanitation (Case No. 12-4859-SI);
    People v Beland (Case No. 12-4891-SI); People v Huyck (Case No. 12-
    4889-ST); People v Greene (Case No. 12-4978-SI); People v Heikkinen
    (Case Nos. 12-4916-OI, 12-4917-OI, and 12-4918-OI); People v Mitchell
    (Case No. 12-5089-OI); People v Karakas (Case No. 12-51 04-SI); People
    v Bagwan, (Case No. 12-5452-SI); People v Eggart (Case Nos. 12-5651-SI
    & 12-5652-SI); People v Rogers (Case No. 12-5690-SI); People v Fox
    Excavating (Case No. 12-5714-SI); People v McLeod (Case No. 12-5786-
    3
    SI); People v Reynoso (Case No. 12-5795-SI); People v Nietling (Case No.
    12-5800-SI); People v Heather Goudge (Case No. 12-5855-SI); People v
    Bertram (Case No. 12-5914-SI); People v Schuster (Case No. 12-5919-SI);
    People v Hiatt (Case No. 12-5926-SI); People v Mongene (Case No. 12-
    6015-SI); People v Akers (Case No. 12-6090-SI); People v Parr (Case No.
    12-6117-SI); People v Cardiff (Case No. 12-6221-01); People v McEwen
    (Case No. 12-6250-SI); People v Miller (Case No. 12-6349-SI); People v
    Johnston (Case No. 12-6411-SI); People v Bosley (Case No. 12-6439-SI);
    People v Saluja (Case No. 12-6443-OI); People v Morley (Case No. 12-
    6446-OI); People v Schwiderson (Case No. 12-6492-SI); People v Poth
    (Case No. 12-6653-OI); People v Dumback (Case No. 12-6597-SI); and
    People v Shuman (Case No. 13-7084-SM).
    5.    In the matters referred to above, respondent engaged in ex parte
    communications by considering substantive matters relevant to the merits
    of the pending proceedings, without the knowledge or consent of the
    prosecuting attorney.
    6.    Respondent also engaged in ex parte contacts as follows:
    (a) People v Betlam (50th Circuit Case No. 13-001221-FC)
    i. This matter was before respondent on January 16, 2014 for
    a bench trial.
    ii. Before the trial started, respondent, accompanied by
    defense counsel Jennifer France, went to the holding cell where Mr.
    Betlam was being held by the Chippewa County Sheriff’s
    Department.
    iii. Respondent met there with Mr. Betlam, in the presence of
    Ms. France, but without the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney.
    iv. Respondent never told the prosecutor of her ex parte
    meeting with the defendant, Mr. Betlam, nor did she ever make a
    record of the event.
    (b) People v Ferraro
    i. Respondent was assigned to preside over People v Ferraro,
    91st District Case Nos.:
    (1) 15-58203-SM (filed on or around April 27, 2015,
    charging the defendant with domestic violence, contrary to
    MCL 750.812) and
    4
    (2) 15-58285-SM (filed on or around May 28, 2015,
    charging defendant with domestic violence, 2nd offense,
    contrary to MCL 750.812, and 4th-degree child abuse,
    contrary to MCL 750.136b[7]).
    ii. On April 28, 2015, respondent disqualified herself on her
    own motion in Case No. 15-58203-SM, and on June 3, 2015 she did
    so in Case No. 15-58285-SM, indicating in both matters that she
    believed that her continued assignment would create an appearance
    of impropriety.
    iii. Respondent added the following on the disqualification
    order in Case No. 15-58203-SM: “DEFENDANT IS THE SON OF
    BLDG MAINTENANCE MAN WHO IS PART OF ONGOING
    JTC INVESTIGATION.” [sic]
    iv. The State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) assigned
    Judge Beth Gibson of the 92nd District Court to preside over Case
    No. 15-58203-SM on May 1, 2015 and over Case No. 15-58285-SM
    on June 8, 2015.
    v. On June 12, 2015, Mr. Ferraro pleaded guilty to one charge
    of domestic violence (Case No. 15-58203-SM) and one charge of
    domestic violence-second offense (Case No. 15-58285-SM); the
    child abuse charge was dismissed without prejudice.
    vi. In Case No. 15-58203-SM, Judge Gibson sentenced Mr.
    Ferraro to 93 days in jail, with 17 days credit and the remaining 76
    days suspended. Judge Gibson also imposed $500 in fines and costs
    and placed Mr. Ferraro on 12 months of probation.
    vii. In Case No. 15-58285-SM, Judge Gibson placed Mr.
    Ferraro on 24 months of probation and imposed $750 in fines and
    costs.
    viii. In both cases, Judge Gibson continued a no-contact order
    against Mr. Ferraro regarding the victim.
    ix. On July 8, 2015, charges were filed against the same Mr.
    Ferraro in Case No. 15-58414-FY, alleging that he had used a
    computer to commit a crime, contrary to MCL 752.796 and
    752.797(3)(d), as well as aggravated stalking, contrary to MCL
    750.411i, and malicious use of telecommunications services,
    contrary to MCL 750.540e.
    5
    x. The charges against Mr. Ferraro in Case No. 15-58414-FY
    were filed while he was still on probation in Case Nos. 15-58203-
    SM and 15-58285-SM.
    xi. Respondent disqualified herself on her own motion from
    Case No. 15-58414-FY on July 8, 2015, indicating that she believed
    that her continued assignment would create an appearance of
    impropriety.
    xii. Respondent added the following on the disqualification
    order in Case No. 15-58414-FY: “Defendant has had two very
    recent cases that Judge Church has recused on as well.” [sic] The
    two cases referred to were Case Nos. 15-58203-SM and 15-58285-
    SM.
    xiii. SCAO assigned Judge Beth Gibson of the 92nd District
    Court to preside over Case No. 15-58414-FY on July 9, 2015.
    xiv. Respondent sent two texts to Judge Gibson regarding
    Case No. 15-58414-FY.
    xv. On July 7, 2015, at 5:15 p.m., respondent texted Judge
    Gibson:
    “I am group texting both Judge Gibson in [sic] John Feroni I
    have been contacted by MSP regarding Carmen Ferraro they
    will be submitting report to the Circuit C [sic]ourt [sic] to the
    prosecutor and to you John for probation violation. Acid [sic]
    a report be sent all three and I told him that Judge Gibson will
    hear the matter
    “It was trooper Bitnar”
    xvi. On July 16, 2015, at 4:52 p.m., respondent texted Judge
    Gibson:
    “I could really use that boy on community service so hurry
    and send the Ferraro kid”
    7.    In People v Martinez (91st District Case No. 14-57336-EX),
    respondent declined to appoint a translator for the defendant when she
    should have.
    The standards set forth in Brown are also being applied to the Judicial Tenure
    Commission legal conclusions to which the respondent stipulated and which we adopt as
    6
    our own. The Commission concludes, and we agree, that the respondent’s conduct
    constitutes:
    (a) Misconduct in office, as defined by the Michigan Constitution of
    1963, as amended, Article 6, Section 30 and MCR 9.205;
    (b) Conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice, as
    defined by the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended, Article 6,
    Section 30, and MCR 9.205(B);
    (c) Conduct involving impropriety and the appearance of
    impropriety, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A;
    (d) Failure to be faithful to the law and maintain professional
    competence in it, contrary to Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3A(1);
    (e) Participation in ex parte communications, and consideration of
    them outside the presence of all parties concerning pending or impending
    proceedings, in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3A(4); and
    (f) A failure to adopt the usual and accepted methods of doing
    justice, in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3A(9).
    After review of the Judicial Tenure Commission’s decision and recommendation,
    the settlement agreement, the standards set forth in Brown, and the above findings and
    conclusions, we ORDER that the Honorable Elizabeth Biolette Church be publicly
    censured and suspended without pay for 120 days. Were we to apply the Brown factors
    in the first instance, we may have reached an alternate result. However, in light of
    respondent’s disclosed serious and debilitating medical condition, in addition to her
    acceptance of responsibility, the unique circumstances of this case warrant our deference
    7
    to the Judicial Tenure Commission’s recommended sanction. During the period of
    suspension, Judge Church shall not enter any courthouse in Chippewa County or initiate
    communication with the staff of any courthouse in Chippewa County unless she has a
    personal matter pending in any of those courts and then only to the extent that any other
    member of the public would have access to the court or the court staff. This order stands
    as our public censure.
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    May 25, 2016
    s0518
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 152830

Citation Numbers: 499 Mich. 936

Filed Date: 5/25/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023