Opinion ID: 830957
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: judicial obligation

Text: In this case, the trial judge (a) indicated that he was determined to attain a racially representative jury and proportional representation on the basis of race, notwithstanding explicit prohibitions in the law concerning discrimination in pursuit of a racially representative jury or proportional representation on the basis of race; (b) indicated that he would not engage in the sort of race baiting he believed was compelled by the law even thought this might get him in hot water with the appellate courts; (c) indicated that he viewed as dreadful Batson's threshold requirement of a judicial finding of racial bias motivating a peremptory challenge in the course of dispensing with that requirement and denying a peremptory challenge to which defendant was otherwise entitled by law; (d) indicated that if his view of the law did not prevaila view that he recognized as being contrary to the law of this state and that he proceeded to apply in this casehe would have to decide whether [he] can function as a judge any longer; (e) indicated that he would continue to apply his own personal view of the law, rather than the law of this state, until either removed from the bench by the disciplinary committee or ordered to have a new trial; and (f) indicated that until either removed from the bench by the disciplinary committee or ordered to have a new trial, I am going to seek to have this proportional representation on the juries that hear cases in this court. I can't be clearer. I'm going to do it until I'm ordered not to do it and then when I'm ordered not to do it, then I'll have to decide what's next for me. These comments, and the trial judge's attendant actions taken in conformity in denying defendant's peremptory challenge, establish a basis for concluding that this is the unusual case in which retrial should occur before a different judge. Moreover, we believe that these same comments and actions could supply a basis for the Judicial Tenure Commission to investigate whether judicial misconduct has occurred should it choose to do so. [15] Michigan has a hierarchical judicial system, and trial courts are required to follow applicable rules, orders, and caselaw established by appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. This structure is essential to the orderly, uniform, and equal administration of justice. A trial court is not free to disregard rules, orders, and caselaw with which it disagrees or to become a law unto itself. Although a trial court is not required to agree with appellate rules, orders, and caselaw, as with litigants and all other citizens seeking to comply with the law, the court is required in good faith to follow those rules, orders, and caselaw. [16] Judges, like all other persons, are required to act within the law. This is the essence of the rule of law, and this is the essence of the equal rule of the law. These are obligations that apply equally to this Court with regard to the federal decisions of the United States Supreme Court and to our Court of Appeals. [17]