By Donald Talonen
On Friday, August 2, the Allegan County Prosecutor’s Office, led by current Prosecutor Myrene Koch, filed an emergency motion with the Michigan Supreme Court to revoke the bond of a man convicted of criminal sexual conduct. The move comes during a complex legal battle involving ex parte emails exchanged between a judge and the prosecutor during the man’s trial, raising questions about judicial impartiality and ethics.
In August 2019, a jury in Allegan County found Daniel Loew guilty of repeatedly sexually assaulting a girl, beginning when she was 13-years-old and he was 21. He was sentenced to prison in November of the same year, as confirmed by the prosecutor’s office.
The case has seen a series of appeals and decisions, leading to the current situation where the prosecutor’s office filed an emergency motion to revoke Loew’s bond. The office cites concerns for the safety of the community and the victim in its recent press release. The emergency motion aims to remand Loew to the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
In 2020, it came to light that Judge Margaret Zuzich Bakker, the circuit court judge overseeing Loew’s trial, had exchanged private emails with Allegan County Prosecutor Myrene Koch during the trial. Koch, even though she was not directly involved in prosecuting Loew’s case, responded to these emails.
Allegan County District Court Judge William Baillargeon granted Loew a new trial based on the ex parte communication, which he said called into question the judge’s impartiality. But in January 2022, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed Baillargeon’s order for a new trial, prompting another appeal by Loew’s attorneys.
On July 16, the Michigan Supreme Court also rejected a new trial for Loew, though it said the private emails were indeed unethical and the judge should have recused herself.
Two days later, Baillargeon revoked Loew’s bond and remanded him to the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. He criticized the behavior of both Koch and Bakker at the July 18 bond hearing, saying their actions had, “brought dishonor and shame to the courts of Allegan.” Koch told News 8 that her emails “were specifically and solely about policies and procedures moving forward” and said the focus should be on achieving justice for Loew’s victim.
But after a motion for reconsideration by Loew’s attorneys, the prosecutor’s office says Baillargeon again granted bond and released Loew into the community on Tuesday. These events prompted the Prosecuting Attorney’s office to file its emergency motion with the state’s high court.
“This motion was based upon numerous risk factors including the safety of the victim, the safety of the community, the seriousness of the convictions, and the risk of flight of the Defendant; factors not wholly considered by Judge Baillargeon,” the release says.
This new development is part of a larger narrative including allegations of bias against the prosecutor and the involvement of the Michigan Supreme Court in the ongoing legal proceedings. The situation is further complicated by its political context, as Prosecutor Koch is up for reelection. The case highlights the intricate balance between the pursuit of justice, the rights of the convicted, and the ethical standards expected of those in the legal profession.
Some community members question whether the timing of these legal actions is influenced by political motivations as well as new ethical missteps, adding additional layers to the public discourse.
On June 29, Villar filed a motion for Judge Bakker to recuse herself in a separate matter upon the discovery of a social media post by Taylor Michelle Koch, Berrien County Assistant Prosecutor and child of Koch. Taylor wrote, “The only person lying is Villar” to which the post was noticed and liked by Judge Bakker.
The motion seeking recusal by Villar reads in part, “The liking of the post of Taylor Michelle also constitutes a public endorsement of Myrene Koch, a candidate for non-judicial office in violation of Canon 7 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.”
“Plaintiff requests that this Court recuse itself from this matter and all other matters in which Attorney Villar is before the Court.”
According to Villar, following a short recess, the hearing was adjourned without reason. The recusal has not been decided.
When asked about Friday’s press release Villar said, “It appears that she is using her political office (via her letterhead) to get a campaign advantage.”
In the release, the prosecutor’s office also made allegations that Baillargeon appears to be biased against Koch, accusing the judge of showing “both financial and judicial support” to Koch’s opponent. However, there were no attachments or documents included with the press release to support the claim.
The prosecutor faces challenger Mike Villar in the Aug. 6 primary. Villar, according to a report from the Holland Sentinel, has previously challenged Koch and was also the person who unearthed the emails between Koch and Bakker.
“Because of judicial bond decisions, this perpetrator (Loew) has been on the street for more than three years,” Koch said Friday in a statement. “I filed the appeal of the latest bond decision because of what I assess to be a clear potential threat to public safety. (Loew) should be in prison.”
Villar disagreed saying, “Judge Baillargeon can donate to a candidate just as Judge Margaret Bakker contributed to Myrene Koch’s campaign four years ago. Maybe Ms. Koch should say that the Michigan Supreme Court is biased against her because they found that her actions in speaking to Marge Bakker were unethical. In fact, the situation in speaking to Ms. Koch was so unethical, the Supreme Court indicated that Marge Bakker should have known it was unethical and should have recused herself on her own. She did not do that. As I said four years ago, it is a violation of the professional rules of ethics to assist a judge in violating the canon of ethics. Everyone knows that a Judge and Prosecutor should not speak to one another without informing the defendant or his attorney. Ms Koch had an obligation to report Judge Bakker’s unethical behavior and should have known that their behavior was a violation of the canon of ethics. Instead, she engaged with the judge while thinking that their behavior would never be found out.”
“Also, I did not represent Mr. Loew at any time, and I am not a part of his appellate team. Like all of my opponent’s claims of any misconduct by me, she simply makes the claim without providing any proof whatsoever. If you look at the claims that I have made during this election, they are based upon actual occurrences for which I provide proof to support every claim.”
Judge William Baillargeon simply stated, “My decisions on this case are based on case law and Michigan Court Rules. My orders speak for themselves.”
Judge Margaret Bakker declined to comment. Prosecutor Myrene Koch and attorney Heath Lynch did not respond to a request for comment.
The case has become a focal point for discussions on the balance between the pursuit of justice and the maintenance of ethical standards. It highlights the delicate nature of public trust in legal institutions and the challenges faced when that trust is perceived to be compromised. It is a situation that underscores the importance of adhering to ethical standards and maintaining impartiality in the judiciary.
Overall, public opinion appears to be divided, with some standing behind the prosecutor’s office and others questioning the ethical conduct of the involved parties. As the case progresses, it will be important to monitor how these opinions evolve and what impact they may have on the legal system and political landscape in Allegan County. The unfolding events will likely continue to be a topic of public interest and debate.
The fate of Judge Bakker and whether she receives discipline, is a matter for the Judicial Tenure Commission to review. If a judge is found to have engaged in improper ex parte communication, several outcomes are possible. The judge may face disciplinary action by a state judicial conduct commission, which could range from a reprimand or censure to suspension or removal from office. The severity of the discipline depends on various factors such as the nature of the communication, the judge’s intent, and whether any party gained a procedural or substantive advantage as a result.
