Judicial Immunity May Not Help Detroit Judge

By Steven M. Wolock

How far does the doctrine of judicial immunity extend to protect the conduct of judicial officers that otherwise might be tortious?   According to knowledgeable local criminal defense attorneys, Detroit District Court Judge Kenneth King was well-regarded as a trial judge and had handled felony cases for many years.  But this summer, Judge King made national news when he handcuffed and jailed 15-year Eva Goodman for falling asleep in the gallery of his courtroom.  Two days after the incident, Judge King was removed from his docket for five weeks, and required to undergo social and emotional training.  In late September, Judge King was back on the job, but demoted to the court’s traffic division. 

Ms. Goodman, through her mother as next friend, sued Judge King for constitutional and state law torts including false arrest and imprisonment.  Judge King filed a motion to dismiss on judicial immunity grounds, and Ms. Goodman’s lawyers have responded.  Although the motion is currently pending, it would appear that Ms. Goodman has the better argument.

Factual Allegations:

As unsettling as the credibly alleged facts are, we detail them here for their relevance to the judicial immunity question and as a reminder of how even good judges can let their egos lead them astray.  We caution that the facts discussed below are only alleged facts.  We note, however, that Judge King’s motion did not challenge Ms. Goodman’s factual allegations, and courtroom video clips and Judge King’s post-incident public remarks appear to be generally corroborative.

Judge King’s troubles began when a Detroit non-profit organization took Ms. Goodman and other students on a field trip to hear the Judge speak about careers in the law and to watch a preliminary exam.  After the group watched a brief homicide proceeding, the court recessed.  Judge King began his lecture and publicly broadcast it on the court’s YouTube channel. 

The Judge left the bench to stand in front of the gallery.  He asked the group if any of them wanted to be a judge.  When a young man said yes, Judge King took off his robe, gave it to the teen to wear, and seated him on the bench. 

About 45 minutes into his lecture, Judge King noticed that Ms. Goodman had nodded off.  According to Ms. Goodman, the Judge screamed, “wake up” and made some snide remarks.  In her complaint, Ms. Goodman, while alleging she had a “rough night’s sleep,” also averred that the homicide proceeding caused her to re-live a traumatic event and “shut down.”  Ten minutes later, after Ms. Goodman had fallen back asleep, Judge King told her to go to the restroom to relieve herself.  While she was gone, Judge King told the audience that he intended to put Ms. Goodman in the lock-up because of her disrespectful attitude and also hold a mock trial. 

At that point, it was time for the preliminary examination.  Just before the case was called, the Judge had Ms. Goodman locked up, handcuffed and dressed in a jail jumpsuit.  A courtroom deputy then gave the gallery his standard warning instructions about courtroom decorum, saying

Immediately after the actual preliminary examination was finished, the Judge asked the defense attorney to pose as Ms. Goodman’s “mock trial” defense counsel.  Ms. Goodman was then brought back into the courtroom, after spending over one hour in lockup.  She was made to stand at the podium, manacled and in a jumpsuit, with a courtroom video camera trained on her, while the “proceeding” was livestreamed on Judge King’s YouTube “Personal Meeting Room.”  Over the next 15 minutes, Judge King conducted his “mock trial.”  Judge King berated Ms. Goodman and told her graphic horror stories about the disturbed children she would encounter if she went to a juvenile detention facility.

While not alleged, I note that the Detroit Free Press published a report not long after the incident about the Judge’s questionable use of his Courtroom YouTube livestream.  The paper reported that its investigation found evidence suggesting that Judge King routinely engaged with his online followers through the YouTube chat function, including during hearings.  No doubt this conduct will be part of any Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission investigation is now underway or that will undoubtedly go forward in the future.

Respective Arguments on Defense of Judicial Immunity:

In his motion, Judge King argues that he was at all times acting within the scope of his duties as a sitting judge.  Ms. Goodman, the Judge contends, was on a visit to watch a session of the court, and even alleged that it was the content of the session that caused her to close her eyes.  Judge King argues he was acting in his official capacity, and judges are not stripped of their judicial authority during brief recess periods.  Judge King cites Michigan Compiled Law (“MCL”) §600.1701, which vests judges with the authority to hold even courtroom spectators in contempt for “disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or impair the respect due to its authority.” (Emphasis added).  Judge King also points to the teaching function judges often serve, citing Sobriety Courts as an example.

In her response, Ms. Goodman relies on the framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Mireles v. Waco, 502U.S. 9, 112 (1991).  There, the Court stated, “our cases make clear that the immunity is overcome in only two” circumstances:

Ms. Goodman also cited Supreme Court precedent explaining what constitutes a “judicial act”:

Ms. Goodman contends that both exceptions to judicial immunity apply.  First, she makes a compelling argument that Judge King was not acting in his judicial capacity, but rather as a lecturer.  She notes that there was no case or controversy, no case number, no official record, and no order entered.  In fact, although Judge King purported to hold a “mock trial” (with an unwilling participant), there was nothing that occurred – aside from the brief homicide proceeding that took place before the conduct at issue and the preliminary exam while Ms. Goodman was in lockup – that could be reasonably called a “judicial proceeding.” 

Ms. Goodman also argues that the judge’s actions were “taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”  While conceding that Michigan courts do have jurisdiction to hold a spectator in contempt for “disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during its sitting,” Ms. Goodman’s counsel notes that she alleged that the events at issue occurred before the court was “sitting.” 

Ms. Goodman may encounter some difficulty with this argument. In interpreting MCL §600.1701(a), the Michigan Court of Appeals has defined the phrase, “the sitting of the court,” broadly and “not strictly limited to the period of the court’s gavel-to-gavel functioning.”  In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 667 257 Mich. App. 96, 103 (2003).  On the other hand, the fact that the courtroom deputy announced that court was in session and gave his decorum instructions after Ms. Goodman was locked up is likely to be seen as strong evidence, although Ms. King’s lawyer did not expressly argue the point in his brief.  Further, Judge King did not hold or even threaten to hold Ms. Goodman with contempt.  Rather, he publicly humiliated her in front of her group and on a live internet feed.  And when the incident hit the news, Judge King defended his actions by saying that they were “my own version of ‘Scared Straight.’”

Takeaway:

Judicial immunity (appropriately) affords judges a nearly impregnable armor for judicial acts and acts within their jurisdiction.  Review of case law indicates that courts broadly apply those term.  Nonetheless, Ms. Goodman’s case appears to present one of those rare occasions where the defense fails.

In our next article this month, Jesse Roth shares a personal story of a harrowing encounter abroad that underscores the value of living in a society governed by the rule of law.