Callanan, Matter of

• Decision Date: 18 September 1984
• Docket Number: Docket No. 72548,No. 17,17
• Citation: 419 Mich. 376,355 N.W.2d 69
• Parties: In the Matter of Evan CALLANAN, Sr., Judge, 18th District Court, Westland, Michigan, Respondent. Calendar419 Mich. 376, 355 N.W.2d 69
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 69

355 N.W.2d 69

In the Matter of Evan CALLANAN, Sr., Judge, 18th District

Court, Westland, Michigan, Respondent.

Docket No. 72548.

Calendar No. 17.

419 Mich. 376, 355 N.W.2d 69

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued April 4, 1984.

Decided Sept. 18, 1984.

[419 MICH 377] Nicholas Smith, P.C. Suthfield (by Nicholas Smith), for Evan H. callanan, sr.

BRICKLEY, Justice.

This case comes before the Court on the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission that Evan H. Callanan, Sr., who stands convicted of three federal felonies arising out of the use of his office, be immediately removed from the office of Judge of the 18th District Court and be permanently enjoined from serving in any state judicial office in the future.

We order respondent removed from his judicial office, his pending appeal notwithstanding, but we decline to consider permanently enjoining future service in a judicial office.

I

Respondent was elected to his office in 1976. He was re-elected in 1982 to a six-year term beginning January 1, 1983. On May 27, 1983, a grand jury of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan returned a seven-count superseding indictment against respondent. The indictment charged conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1962(d) and 1963, aiding and abetting a violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2, 1962(c), and 1963, four counts of aiding or abetting mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2 and 1341, and one count of obstruction of justice, aiding or abetting, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2 and 1510. On September 1, 1983, following a jury trial, respondent was found guilty of conspiracy to violate RICO, aiding or abetting a violation of RICO, and aiding or abetting the commission of mail fraud. On October 14, 1983, respondent was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years, 10 years, and 5 years, respectively. Respondent's appeal is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On September 15, 1983, the commission, pursuant to GCR 1963, 932.7(d), gave written notice to respondent of the nature of the charges against him and informed him that he had 15 days to submit any material he wished to have considered by the commission. The notice informed respondent that the three felony convictions and the conduct which gave rise to them could constitute grounds for discipline under GCR 1963, 932.4. Respondent did not answer within the 15-day period. Also on September 15, 1983, the commission petitioned this Court to suspend respondent without pay pending disposition of his case. We granted that petition by order dated October 5, 1983. 338 N.W.2d 890.

On October 19, 1983, the commission filed Formal Complaint No. 29 against respondent. The complaint set forth respondent's convictions and incorporated the facts alleged in the federal grand jury indictment against respondent.

The complaint stated:

"(1) The respondent is now and, at all times hereinafter mentioned, was a Judge of the 18th District Court, in the City of Westland, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.

"(2) On May 27, 1983, a grand jury for the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, returned a superseding indictment charging respondent with six [sic] counts of violating the United States Code:

"Count One--Conspiracy, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations; 18 USC 1962(d), 1963, alleged that respondent, from September 1, 1980, through August 31, 1982, willfully, knowingly and unlawfully conspired with his son, Evan Callanan, Jr., Richard Debs, and Sam Qaoud, codefendants, to commit offenses against the United States Government, including, among other things, acts involving the acceptance of bribes chargeable under Michigan state law as found in MCL 750.117 and 750.118 [MSA 28.312 and 28.313]. A description of the alleged overt acts on the part of respondent may be found in the grand jury's indictment, a true copy of which is appended to this complaint as attachment A.

"Count Two--Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations; Aiding and Abetting; 18 USC 1962(c), 1963 and 2, alleged that respondent from September 1, 1980, through August 31, 1982, in concert with codefendants Evan Callanan, Jr., Richard Debs and Sam Qaoud, enterprised and engaged in activities which affected interstate commerce by making use of the office of the District Court Judge of the 18th District Court to unlawfully and willfully conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in a pattern of racketeering activity. These acts included, among other things, the solicitation and request of money for the benefit of themselves in exchange for special consideration to dispose of criminal cases pending in the 18th District Court. Specific description of these acts is included in the true copy of the grand jury indictment appended to this complaint as attachment A.

"Counts Three through Six--Mail Fraud; Aiding and Abetting, 18 USC 1341 and 2, charged that respondent, while serving in his official capacity as a Judge of the 18th District Court and as a Judge of the 3rd Judicial Circuit, used the United States mail to defraud the State of Michigan and its citizens of the right to conscientious, legal, faithful, disinterested and honest services. The specifics of these counts as they pertain to respondent and his codefendants are described in detail in the true copy of the indictment which is appended to this complaint as attachment A.

"(3) Pursuant to this indictment, a jury trial was conducted in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, before the Hon. Horace W. Gilmore, United States District Court Judge, which concluded on September 1, 1983, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to three of the six counts charged against the respondent. Respondent was found guilty of Count I, Conspiracy, Racketeer Influenced "(4) The above offenses are felonies punishable by imprisonment in the federal prison system, and as such constitute judicial misconduct prohibited by Article 6, Sec. 30(2), Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended, which states, 'On recommendation of the judicial tenure commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, retire or remove a judge for conviction of a felony * * * '. Further, such conviction constitutes misconduct in office prohibited by GCR 1963, 932.4(b)(i) which states 'A judge shall be deemed guilty of misconduct in office if he is hereafter convicted in the United States of conduct which is punishable as a felony under the laws of Michigan or Federal law.'

and Corrupt Organizations; Count II, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations; Aiding and Abetting, and Count VI, Mail Fraud; Aiding and Abetting. Appended to this complaint is attachment B, a true copy of the jury verdict and attachment C, a true copy of the request for presentence investigation and report.

"(5) Respondent's conduct as alleged in the aforesaid superseding indictment and his conviction of three felonies as a result thereof, constitute judicial misconduct in office, in that said conduct was clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice, within the provisions of Article 6, Sec. 30 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended; GCR 1963, 932.4(b)(i), as amended; GCR 1963, 932.4(b)(iv), as amended; GCR 1963, 932.4(d), as amended, and further was violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 3; and also violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons, particularly Canons 1 and 9 thereof. Further, respondent's conduct as alleged exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach, contrary to GCR 1963, 953(2), and violated the standards and rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court, contrary to GCR 1963, 953(4)."

On November 14, 1983, respondent not having answered the formal complaint, the commission examiner petitioned the commission for summary disposition of the charges against respondent. On December 8, 1983, respondent submitted a delayed answer to the formal complaint, answering each paragraph of the complaint by stating: "Respondent admits the allegations contained therein." Respondent also acquiesced in a summary determination of the charges against him.

Following a hearing held December 12, 1983, at which respondent did not appear, upon the statement of the examiner that all facts in the complaint were admitted by respondent, the commission recommended to this Court that respondent be removed from office and permanently enjoined from ever serving in a judicial office in this state.

II

Among other things, RICO prohibits persons from using an "enterprise" to engage in a "pattern" of "racketeering activity", 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c). Each act of racketeering activity, must be an act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion or narcotics which is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year under state law. Racketeering activity can also be an act indictable under various specified federal felony statutes or involving certain types of fraud. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(1). A pattern of racketeering activity is defined as at least two such acts within a ten-year period. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(5).

A transcript of respondent's federal court trial has not been provided to this Court. Nor was a transcript of the trial ever considered by the commission or any testimony taken. The commission does not contend that those facts necessary to support respondent's convictions in federal court have been conclusively proven for the purpose of the present proceeding. Instead, the commission contends that respondent's convictions and the facts underlying them, as alleged in the indictment As previously noted, respondent's delayed answer to the complaint admitted that the allegations contained therein were true. The commission...