Heideman, In re, 2
| Decision Date | 20 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 387 Mich. 630,198 N.W.2d 291 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Bert M. HEIDEMAN, District Judge 99th Judicial District, Keweenaw and Houghton Counties. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Bruce D. White, Detroit, Examiner for the Commission.
Before the Entire Bench.
This case is based on a recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission that Respondent, District Judge for the 99th Judicial District, be removed from office.
On December 12, 1969, the Commission filed its first formal complaint against Respondent. Honorable Stuart Hoffius was appointed Master, and a hearing on the Complaint was held on March 23, 1970. The Master's findings were received by the Commission on May 22, 1970, and the Commission subsequently recommended that Respondent be removed from office. This Court remanded the case to the Master for the purpose of taking additional testimony.
On May 12, 1971, the Commission filed its second formal complaint against Respondent, and petitioned this Court for interim suspension. This Court by order entered June 17, 1971, consolidated both complaints. The petition of interim suspension was held in abeyance pending the hearing before the Master.
The hearings on the consolidated complaints were held before the Honorable Stuart Hoffius beginning on August 30, 1971, and were concluded on October 11, 1971. On March 22, 1972, the Judicial Tenure Commission again recommended that Respondent be removed from office.
The Commission found that Respondent had acted in a manner inconsistent with his responsibilities as a District Judge. More particularly, they found among other things, that Respondent failed to order jury trials upon request; that he persistently failed promptly to process, try, and dispose of cases, both misdemeanor and felony; and that he failed to keep an accurate record of proceedings in his court. It should be pointed out that nowhere was Respondent charged with malicious or immoral behavior.
We feel that the hearings before the Master afforded Respondent all of his rights consistent with due process. Respondent presented his own evidence and had full opportunity to examine the Commission's witnesses. We therefore adopt the Commission's findings and recommendation and remove Respondent from office for persistent failure to perform his duties, and conduct that it clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice. 1
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waltemade, Matter of
... ... In his report the Referee completely sustained 13 specifications of charges (to wit, Nos. 2, 5-10, 13, 15, 20, 23, 30, 42) and sustained in part two charges (to wit, Nos. 3, 44). He found that the remaining 31 charges were not established, ... Board of County Comrs., Noble County, 109 Okl. 249, 235 P. 525; Matter of Heideman, 387 Mich. 630, 198 N.W.2d 291; Matter of Terry, 323 N.E.2d 192 (Ind.); and a series of California cases, to wit, Cannon v. Commission on Judicial ... ...
-
Seitz, In re, 90794
... ... No. 90794 ... Calendar No. 1, Sept. Term, 1992 ... Supreme Court of Michigan ... Argued Sept. 3, 1992 ... Decided Feb. 2, 1993 ... Concurring and Dissenting Opinion ... of Justice Levin Feb. 3, 1993 ... Page 560 ... [441 Mich. 591] Joseph F ... 376, 355 N.W.2d 69 (1984) ... But see In re Ryman, 394 Mich. 637, 232 N.W.2d 178 (1975); In re Heideman ... ...
-
Probert, Matter of, Docket No. 61331
... ... Terms shall be staggered as provided by rule of the supreme court. Vacancies shall be filled by the appointing power ... "(2) On recommendation of the judicial tenure commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, retire or remove a judge for ... See, e. g., In re Graham, 366 Mich. 268, 275, 114 N.W.2d 333 (1962); In re Heideman, 387 Mich. 630, 632, 198 N.W.2d 291 (1972); In the Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich. 665, 682-689, 256 N.W.2d 727 (1977). See generally GCR 1963, 930, ... ...
-
Sommerville, Matter of
...the disposition of court business. See, e.g., In re Weeks, 134 Ariz. 521, 524-25, 658 P.2d 174, 177-78 (1983); In re Heideman, 387 Mich. 630, 631-32, 198 N.W.2d 291, 291-92 (1972); In re Anderson, 312 Minn. 442, 447, 252 N.W.2d 592, 594 (1977); In the Matter of Kohn, 568 S.W.2d 255, 260-62 ......