by Richard W. Millar, Jr.

About a year ago, or twelve deadlines ago as I am wont to think about it, I wrote a column about the then peccadilloes (pun definitely intended) of now former Judge Wade McCree. Well, Mr. McCree (having disrobed in the physical sense and been disrobed in the judicial sense) is back in the appellate courts—this time as a defendant.

When I last reported, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission had recommended then Judge McCree be removed and conditionally suspended without pay in the event he was re-elected by the voters of Detroit. (I think you could infer that the Commission had a dim, but probably accurate, view of the sagacity of the city’s electorate, but I digress.)

Since then, the Michigan Supreme Court “both removed Judge McCree from judicial office and prospectively suspended him without pay for six years if voters should re-elect [him] in November, 2014.” (It would seem the Supreme Court had an equally dim view of the electorate, but again I digress.)

This time, Mr. McCree was sued by Robert King. Unless you have a better memory than I do of my articles, you may not remember that Mr. King was a defendant in a child support case essentially pursued by one Geniene La’Shay Mott, presided over by none other than then Judge McCree. As the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals put it: “Judge Wade McCree, while serving as the presiding judge in a felony child-support case against Robert King, maintained a romantic and sexual relationship with the complaining witness against King.”

Feeling left out, Mr. King sued Mr. McCree and Ms. Mott in federal court, averring that the judge and she had violated, or conspired to violate, his due process rights. (I have to wonder how someone in Detroit who was $672 behind on child support, has the wherewithal to prosecute a federal case through the appellate level, but that will be my final digression.)

The district court held that the case was barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, and Mr. King appealed. The Sixth Circuit had to review the former judge’s conduct in order to determine whether immunity applied, as an important question was whether he was acting in his judicial capacity when he and the complainant Mott were boinking in his chambers. The opinion turns out to be more expansive in its detail than the Commission’s opinion I reported on earlier.

After his first meeting with Ms. Mott, the judge texted her: “Girl, every man in the damn courtroom was peeping your upscale game.” (I have no idea what that means, but I take it that it was complimentary.) Judge McCree had testified that at their first lunch they discussed her “work” and she “claimed to have been in public relations ... and obviously a whole lot more, as it did involve intimate ... relations.”

Judge McCree admitted he loaned her about $6,000 to tide her over until the NBA season, which was her “big time” when “she was coming into a sum of money.”

He also acknowledged that on a “few occasions their trysts took place in his chambers.” He further conceded that during these and other adventures, they had discussed the fate of the hapless and left out Mr. King.

Ultimately, Judge McCree decided that it might be a good idea (wisdom late is better than no wisdom at all) to transfer the case to someone else. He did so, texting Ms. Mott that “Brother King is on his way 2 ‘hangin’ Judge Callahan.”

The Mott/McCree relationship did not end well. She showed up at his house (causing the equally left out Mrs. McCree to call the police), claimed pregnancy, and demanded money. He filed a stalking and extortion complaint against her with the county prosecutor and everything went downhill from there.

The Sixth Circuit found that the judge’s courtroom (and on the record) dealings with Mr. King were part of the judicial function and thus immune. The court also held that Mr. King’s due process rights were not violated when the judge and Ms. Mott were having judicial congress in his chambers which “acts, though ... reprehensible, did not directly involve King. ... We hold that a defendant cannot avoid the bar of judicial immunity by relying on non-judicial, out-of-court acts that may have affected in-court, judicial acts.” May have affected?

Concurring Justice Cole, sensing that the majority opinion may not play well with the public, started off with:

What dark days for the Michigan court system, whose Hall of Justice is inscribed with the words ‘freedom,’ ‘truth,’ ‘equality,’ and perhaps most importantly, ‘justice.’ ... Judge McCree may as well have taken a sandblaster to those inscriptions. Casual readers of the opinion (as well as . . . Robert King) may erroneously conclude . . . that we are somehow endorsing Judge McCree’s conduct or going out of our way to protect one of our own. Though constrained by precedent to grant immunity, we do nothing of the sort.

I guess Mr. King will have to peep on his upscale game.

Richard W. Millar, Jr. is a member of the firm of Millar, Hodges & Bemis in Newport Beach. He can be reached at millar@mhblaw.net.