Opinion ID: 1953592
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judge Target of Criticism

Text: Crampton states that the risk of an impartial decisionmaker is too great where the judge `has been the target of personal abuse or criticism from the party before him,' id. at 351, 235 N.W.2d 352, quoting Withrow, supra at 47, 95 S.Ct. at 1464. The Court relied on Mayberry, supra at 465, 91 S.Ct. at 505, in which the United States Supreme Court held that a judge who is vilified ... necessarily becomes embroiled in a running, bitter controversy, rendering the judge unlikely to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication. Id. at 465, 91 S.Ct. at 505. Quoting Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539, 45 S.Ct. 390, 396, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925), the Court stated that `[t]he judge must banish the slightest personal impulse to reprisal, but he should not bend backward and injure the authority of the court by too great leniency. The substitution of another judge would avoid either tendency....' Mayberry, supra at 464, 91 S.Ct. at 504. Additionally, the judge should not himself give vent to personal spleen or respond to a personal grievance. These are subtle matters, for they concern ingredients of what constitutes justice. Therefore, justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. [ Id. at 465, 91 S.Ct. at 505, quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13, 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954).] I hasten to add, however, that a judge cannot be driven out of a case. Mayberry, supra at 463, 91 S.Ct. at 504. Accordingly, I do not premise my conclusion that Judge Giddings should be disqualified on the basis of the criticism leveled by the Governor, but rather on the inappropriate means by which Judge Giddings retaliated. The public comments Governor Engler made in regard to the Cain litigation and specifically in regard to Judge Giddings quite evidently struck at `the most vulnerable and human qualities' of the judge's temperament. Mayberry, supra at 466, 91 S.Ct. at 505, quoting Bloom, supra at 202, 88 S.Ct. at 1482. Such criticism does not itself violate a litigant's due process rights sufficient to disqualify the judge. However, Judge Giddings' repeated attempts to respond to the Governor's comments through plaintiffs did violate defendant's due process rights. While the comments made by the Governor arguably may have been inappropriate, Judge Giddings was sworn to impartially focus on the issues before the court and bring the litigation to a reasonably swift and completely fair resolution. The facts indicate that Judge Giddings was unable to surmount the public criticism and discharge his obligation by divorcing himself from the acrimonious political climate that had arisen. Accordingly, on these facts, I agree that it is generally wise where the marks of the unseemly conduct have left personal stings to ask a fellow judge to take his place. Mayberry, supra at 464, 91 S.Ct. at 504.