Judge Luddington - Bodycam footage and .27 OWI

Background for context: Judge Thomas Ludington is a longtime Michigan jurist — over a decade as a state circuit judge and roughly twenty years as a federal district judge — and he’s generally regarded locally as a stand-up, public-service-oriented guy.

He’s currently facing a Michigan “super drunk” OWI (alleged BAC ≥ .17, reported around .27).

Question for the group: assuming the evidence makes conviction likely (he drove three hours, .27 is a fifth of Whiskey over the three hours) , is a straight plea worse for public perception than going to trial?

A plea signals accountability and efficiency, but it also creates an immediate admission and headline.

A trial — even if it ends in conviction — arguably reinforces “not above the law” by subjecting himself to the full adversarial process.

For someone in judicial office, which path tends to land better publicly in your experience?