On Wednesday, September 4, 2024, the Detroit Free Press reported that Macomb County Circuit Judge James Maceroni has chosen not to recuse himself from a case involving County Prosecutor Peter Lucido. This decision comes amidst concerns raised by Lucido regarding a campaign contribution linked to Maceroni, which Lucido argues creates an appearance of impropriety.
The controversy centers on a lawsuit Lucido filed against the county’s top attorney and the ethics board. Following a hearing on August 19, Judge Maceroni took the matter of disqualification under advisement. Ultimately, in an order dated August 29, he denied Lucido’s motion to disqualify himself from the case. According to court records, the chief judge of the circuit court is expected to review Maceroni’s decision.
Lucido’s attorney, Todd Perkins, filed the disqualification motion on August 12 after discovering that Maceroni had donated $100 to the campaign of Christina Hines, the Democratic candidate for county prosecutor. This contribution occurred more than seven months prior to the filing of Lucido’s lawsuit on June 28, which is currently being heard in Maceroni’s court.
During the August 19 hearing, Maceroni described the donation as “a pretty typical donation,” but Perkins emphasized that the contribution was not disclosed by the judge, raising questions about potential bias. Perkins argued that the contribution reflects a concern about the integrity of the judicial process, stating that it is “not about the money, but a bias, the perception of what could be impropriety.”
John Schapka, the County Corporation Counsel, expressed confidence that the chief judge will uphold Maceroni’s ruling upon reviewing the case. In his opinion, Maceroni stated that a single $100 contribution could not be viewed as having a significant impact on the electoral outcome for the prosecuting attorney, suggesting that the influence of such a small donation is negligible without a public endorsement accompanying it.
Furthermore, Maceroni’s order indicated that Lucido had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the contribution posed a serious risk of judicial bias. The judge noted that there was no reason to believe the contribution would significantly affect the ethics complaint brought before the court.
Macomb’s judicial code allows judges to contribute to political campaigns, including those for prosecuting attorney, without being classified as engaging in financial dealings that would necessitate abstaining from involvement in cases related to those campaigns. Maceroni emphasized that the timing of the contribution, made during a fundraiser, did not indicate any impropriety regarding the lawsuit.
The judge’s order mentioned that there was no reasonable anticipation at the time of the donation that it would lead to a civil action arising from the ethics complaint. Maceroni’s ruling further stated that no substantial connection had been established between the small donation and the ongoing legal matters.
Lucido’s request for a referral of the disqualification motion to the chief judge in the event of a denial was also noted. He and Perkins expressed a desire for the lawsuit to be reassigned to another judge through a random process.
The ethics board has previously dealt with two complaints against Lucido, filed by Mark Brewer, a former Michigan Democratic Party chairman. One of the complaints was dismissed, while the other was forwarded for a public hearing. This remaining complaint alleges that Lucido misused county resources for campaign purposes. Lucido has denied these allegations, and the public hearing on this matter has yet to occur.
A hearing regarding several motions in the lawsuit is scheduled for September 23 before Maceroni, where defendants will seek to have the case dismissed either in full or in part.
Source: Detroit Free Press
