LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The Michigan Supreme Court has suspended a former 36th District Court judge after finding that she exhibited a pattern of “pervasive” misconduct on the bench. Former judge Kahlilia Davis, whose term expired in January 2023, will face a six-year suspension without pay.

“Much of [Davis’s] misconduct was premeditated, as shown by the multiple witnesses who testified that she engaged in conduct directly contrary to the Chief Judge’s instructions and contrary to the interests of justice,” the report said. “As just one example, when told specifically that she could not dismiss cases simply because the process server was someone she did not particularly trust, respondent stated: ‘I don’t care what the chief judge or anybody else at this court says. This is my courtroom.’”

MORE NEWS: Train Crash Kills One in Kalamazoo

The order noted that Davis e-mailed Bible verses to her supervisors, fellow judges, and court staff, and that her conduct was not protected by the right to free speech. “The Bible verses quoted by the respondent were, in the context of respondent’s e-mails, clearly intended to be insulting, discourteous, disrespectful, and menacing toward the recipients. The e-mails also reflect a failure to demonstrate the professionalism demanded of judges.”

The Court also found that Davis intentionally disconnected the video recording equipment in her courtroom and did not keep a record of hearings for weeks at a time. Later, when interviewed by the Judicial Tenure Commission, she lied about disconnecting the video equipment. Among other offenses, she created unauthorized recordings of courtroom proceedings on her personal cell phone, abused her contempt powers in at least two cases, forced people to pay illegal punitive sanctions, and unlawfully jailed a process server.

“… We conclude that [Davis] engaged in repeated, deliberate misconduct that besmirched the judiciary’s reputation and prejudiced the administration of justice,” the Court wrote. “The nature and pervasiveness of respondent’s misconduct requires the highest condemnation and harshest sanction.”