GILBERT'S FATE UP TO SUPREME COURT

Replacement Tapped In Case Of Suspension

TRAVERSE CITY - Court officials are tight-lipped about what punishment could
be meted out to Judge Thomas Gilbert whose duties were restricted last year
after he admitted he smoked marijuana.

But District Judge Michael Haley said a replacement, retired District Judge
James McCormick, has been lined up in the event that Gilbert is suspended
some time this summer.

Haley said he has learned what sanction the Judicial Tenure Commission has
recommended to the state Supreme Court for approval, but he said he could
not say what it is because of court rules.

Gilbert, in a separate interview, said he is aware the Supreme Court is
considering his case but he said he does not know what punishment has been
recommended.

Gilbert was indefinitely barred from sentencing drunken driving and
marijuana defendants after he admitted to smoking marijuana at a Detroit
rock concert in October.

After the incident became known, Gilbert took a leave of absence to attend a
four-week rehabilitation for alcohol abuse.

Haley said Gilbert would likely resume hearing all criminal cases once the
Supreme Court has sanctioned the judge or otherwise resolves the case.

Last week, the Judicial Tenure Commission released its annual report that
described the cases it resolved in 2002.

Because Gilbert's case is still pending, there is no mention of it in the
report. In fact, court rules bar any officials from the commission or the
Supreme Court from discussing Gilbert's case or even acknowledging that a
case is pending.

The tenure commission, the state's constitutionally established watchdog of
judges, follows a lengthy and complicated process when it reviews a
complaint against a judge.

Last year, the commission closed 627 grievances against state judges.

Of those, according to the commission's report, a substantial number were
not considered because they dealt with allegations of legal error, which are
the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, or they were complaints against
federal judges, who do not fall under the commission's jurisdiction.

In 594 of the 627 cases, the commission did not find evidence of misconduct
by a state judge and the cases were closed.

In 2002, the court issued formal complaints against four judges. The
misconduct ranged from making abusive comments to litigants to a judge who
failed to perform his duties.

The commission also privately cautioned or admonished 15 judges for lesser
misconduct, including excessive delays in the performance of their duties,
acting unprofessionally, or for having inappropriate contact with litigants
from one side of a case without the presence of the opposing side.