Detroit’s Third Circuit Judge Wade McCree is at the center of a Weiner-like controversy after sending a nearly naked picture of himself to his bailiff. It certainly produced a passionate response . . . from her husband who has filed a judicial complaint. McCree however appears unapologetic and notes that he did not send the photo to any other married woman — a curious claim of mitigation. When confronted over the photo, McGree responded “I’ve got no shame in my game.”
McCree did not deny the photo, stating when asked “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.”
Okay, I am now more concerned with his sanity and the propriety.
The fact that this was a court employee creates an obvious sanctionable violation of judicial ethics (as well as an unsolicited revealing photo to a woman). Let start with Canon 1:
A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. . . . The provisions of this code should be construed and applied to further those objectives.
Then there is 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.
Since few people besides Anthony Weiner would send such a photo, the judge fell a bit off this mark.
McCree’s name may seem familiar for some lawyers. His father, Wade H. McCree Jr., was solicitor general to Jimmy Carter and the first African-American judge to be appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He, however, tended to keep his robes on.
McCree is a graduate from the University of Michigan (B.A.) and Stanford Law School (J.D.).
By the way, McCree is reportedly an expert on sexual misconduct cases.
Source: Daily Mail
Matt/LeeJ,
I was pointing the joke at BettyKath, but you bring up a good point by pointing it at the judge, and in my view, a better point of relationships in general, in society today and the yesteryear of old cats like Redd Foxx, when most men didn’t know that “no” meant “no”.
We have the judge’s photo and words for proof of his bad behavior, but who knows what kind of relationship he and the bailiff had. He could have been bragging about how fit he was and she asked for proof (BethKath?), with only the husband being offended, or he could have blindsided her with the photo unprompted.
Either way, not a smart move on his part… No matter the personal dynamics, he was in a position of authority over her professionally, and he should have kept that in mind. The fact that he didn’t demonstrates his inability to do what he’s paid for, use good judgement. Power run amok… (I know, preachin’ to the choir!)
But the Foxx joke was….a joke. a joke and reality, mutually exclusive, well not when it comes to politics, and judges
Isn’t that quite the conundrum. Consequence has its reality. Don’t. Stop. means go home. Find a different speed dating circle.
How many judges think they can do whatever they want and get away with it? Is it subjective?
lee-jay,
Copy apples and oranges. I wrote that somewhat in jest, but only somewhat. For some reason, I think of the old Redd Foxx joke about a woman resisting a man’s advances: “Don’t. Stop. Don’t… Stop. Don’t stop!”. ; )
Uncle Ivan, being offended is not mutually exclusive to thinking he has a good body. I would be offended if some actor, model, or person with whom I worked I thght had a beautiful body sent me an unsolicited picture of him(her) self no matter how much I admired their beauty.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/28/detroit-judge-my-shirtless-photo-was-big-error-1224757823/
@bettykath:
Above you say you’d be offended if you were the bailiff receiving the photo, but then later say he does have a buff bod. So, you’re exercising a woman’s right to change her mind, I take it?
And you say you’d drop him from your list of casual acquaintences you spend time with… Too bad the real bailiff doesn’t have that choice, at least not yet. Let’s hope this guy loses his seat on the bench.
He needs to be fired, not only for his unprofessional conduct (photo and verbiage), but for lack of moral character befitting a judge in the first place.
No one can trust his judgement now, and all his previous decisions are suspect. He’s obviously the wrong guy for the job. Well, wait, we are talking about Detroit…
Well, he does have a buff bod.
I don’t quite get the arguments defending this guy (Oh, yeah, libs abound here…) If this guy sent this photo to my wife, I’d beat the $!@# out of him and stuff the photo down his throat.
He’s a real credit to the bar… and the human race. /s.
And it looks like he went to law school and became a judge cuz o’ his daddy and/or affirmative action…
Woosty,
You’re not supposed to tell the guests about the history of your recipe. It’s supposed to be a secret.