On Tuesday, December 16, 2025, the Detroit Free Press reported that Judge Kenneth King of the 36th District Court is contesting a professional misconduct complaint filed against him following an incident in 2024 where he ordered a teenager detained for falling asleep during a field trip to his courtroom. The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, the body responsible for investigating judicial misconduct, filed the complaint in mid-November.

King, who is already facing a federal lawsuit filed by the teen’s family and has been removed from handling high-level criminal cases, submitted a formal response at the end of November, recently obtained by the Free Press. In his response, King acknowledges making certain statements and taking specific actions, but argues that crucial context is missing. He denies violating judicial canons and is seeking a dismissal of the complaint. Furthermore, he is raising affirmative defenses, including the concept of judicial immunity, according to his attorney, Todd Perkins.

The question of judicial immunity is central to the ongoing federal lawsuit against King, and its applicability is currently under review by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The complaint filed by the Judicial Tenure Commission initiates a formal process that could potentially lead to the Michigan Supreme Court removing King from his position if the allegations are substantiated.

The professional complaint focuses on two incidents: the 2024 detainment of the sleeping teenager and the 2022 detainment of a defense attorney. In his response, King admits to key details of the teen’s detainment but offers several caveats. He acknowledges addressing a group during a field trip in August 2024 and noticing 15-year-old Eva Goodman sleeping approximately 45 minutes into his presentation. He admits to yelling at her to wake up, as shown in a since-removed video.

King confirms that he did not make an official finding of contempt on the record. He also acknowledged describing a juvenile detention facility to the girl, including a graphic anecdote about an inmate. However, he claims this description was presented without proper context. He also confirms that he was standing at the gallery railing, not on the bench, and was not wearing a judicial robe when the incident occurred, factors relevant to the judicial immunity argument.

King disputes the claim that Goodman was disruptive and denies intentionally embarrassing her by calling her “Sleepy” or enjoying the interaction. He also denies that the girl objected during the incident and that he expressed a desire to give her jail time. He further denies failing to follow the law, treating the child without dignity, or bringing reproach upon his profession.

Regarding the 2022 detainment of a defense attorney, King admits to certain aspects of the incident but contends that context, scope, and breadth are missing. The incident occurred during a court hearing when an assistant prosecutor requested an adjournment due to outstanding discovery owed to the defense attorney and the unavailability of a witness.

King took issue with the defense attorney’s response, who stated he was prepared to proceed with the existing discovery but would not oppose an adjournment. King suggested the defense attorney was being untruthful, asserted that proceeding would constitute malpractice, and advised the prosecutor that further discovery was unnecessary. The situation escalated when King interrupted the defense attorney, instructing him to “Be quiet. I’m done,” leading to the attorney’s detainment after he repeated “Be quiet?”

While King asserts that context is missing, he did not elaborate on what that context entailed. He denies that the defense attorney was handcuffed during his detention, that the attorney was not confrontational, and that the attorney defied any order or process. He also denies failing to be faithful to the law or failing to be courteous, patient, and respectful.

Perkins, King’s attorney, expressed hope that the public will witness justice as the misconduct case proceeds publicly.

The Michigan Supreme Court has mandated that public hearings in the misconduct case must commence within approximately six months.

 

 

Source: Detroit Free Press