Shame on You: Commission Sanctions Michigan Judge Who Sent Shirtless Photo To Bailiff

We previously discussed the case of Wayne County Circuit Judge Wade H. McCree who sent a shirtless photograph of himself to a Sheriff’s Office employee. McCree is now famous for proclaiming that “I’ve got no shame in my game.” Perhaps, but the Michigan Supreme Court found some shame for the court system and accepted a recommendation from the Judicial Tenure Commission and publicly censured Judge Wade H. McCree.

The bailiff’s husband was not too keen in his wife receiving the photo and filed a complaint. He gave the picture of the judge in the buff to reporter Charles LeDuff. McCree responded “Hot dog, yep that’s me. I’ve got no shame in my game. I ain’t talking to nobody else’s wife. You can almost get that here and now.” He added “I’ve sent that out to other women. There’s nothing nude about it. I’m in no more clothes than I’ll be at the Y this afternoon when I swim my mile.”

The message from the court is that working on the bench is meant to be somehow distinguishable from swimming laps in a speedo. For one thing, the robe stays on when you are on the bench.

That seems to be the point of Canon 2:

A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in
All Activities
A. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.

In what may be the most obvious decision to everyone but McCree, he “conducted himself in a flippant manner and did not give the interview the seriousness he should have. As a result, he brought shame and obloquy to the judiciary.”

Source: FREEP

20 thoughts on “Shame on You: Commission Sanctions Michigan Judge Who Sent Shirtless Photo To Bailiff

  1. So, how do they deal with the fact (implicit at the very least from the circumstances) that he misuses his office to identify women to send his “game” to? Then he appears to use the interview to further troll for women by touting his workout and where he may be found swimming. Arrrgh. what a vile pos. Ew, he can’t even take the pic without grinning at himself.

  2. Leaving aside the obvious, one can’t help but wonder about the rulings of a judge so self-involved, arrogant and oblivious of the perceptions of others. It’s hard to imagine that he takes the law, the state/petitioner and the defendant/respondent anywhere near as seriously as he takes himself.

  3. enoch – I think the prof does a pretty regular bit of featuring judges that fit your description 8-{D I wish this clown was the only one but it seems to be a strain that appears far too often.

  4. e – I was not complaining about your comment but about the sad prevalence of over inflated egos on the bench. Its depressing

  5. There are men who treat their sexuality as a game and as an ego boost. Usually, they are successful, but ultimately lousy in bed, despite any orgasms their partner might receive. By lousy in bed, I mean unable to establish the basis of an intimate relationship, which encompasses so much
    more than sexual pleasure.

  6. Oops, I forgot to add that I think this man unfit to be a judge because of his inability to understand the nature of his transgression.

  7. So what actually happens with a censure? Is it a de facto slap on the wrist that is puffed up to appear like an actual punishment (but an ordinary person loses much more in either being fired or arrested)

    I remember when Representative Charlie Rangel got himself into some hot water recently and ended up in a battle for his reprimand. In the end it came down to a decision of reprimand or censure. (Throwing him out of office was no longer an option at that stage). He contested it greatly, trying to avoid the censure and settle for the reprimand. In the end, it was decided to censure him.

    I watched on the TV Nancy Pelosi read that Charlie was to be censured. I thought that meant something. But, all he had to do was be admonished by the Speaker of the House (which was weak in my view) and be required to explain himself before the house, which was pathetic. To my chagrin that was the end of it. Nothing real. Just fluff and lip service.

    In the end, it was apparent to me certain people are sometimes above the law. Either they get away from it outright, or they receive minimal sanction because it is either watered down through an tiresome process that gives them every out in the book and drags it on hoping time will take the wind out the the will to prosecute them.

  8. He should be removed from the bench – he thinking way too much about himself to be able to think about the litigants. Maybe a job as a model.

  9. It amazes and saddens me that people think that they have more of a right to debate another person’s right to privacy and so carelessly accept the government’s intrusion into that privacy and yet seem not the slightest bit concerned about the government’s failure to serve the citizens, which is what too many judges and prosecutors are doing these days.
    See “Supreme Court takes up DOMA” post on this blog- over 700 posts. Here, what, 20?

  10. all you people sound like jealous dumb ass haters. he never miss-used his office to identify any women. you all are just lonely losers and jealous. so stop lying out the side of your neck on people @BJKeltner u f’ing liar!

Comments are closed.