Judge Explodes After Attorney Threatens Prosecutor During Heated Court Hearing

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]No one.

[00:00:01]No one.

[00:00:04]Is ever going to come into this courtroom.

[00:00:07]And be intimidated in some way by some threat to their profession.

[00:00:14]>> [laughter] >> Court does call the case the people state of Michigan versus James Whitley.

[00:00:19]>> If the court please, somebody has the people.

[00:00:23]>> Good afternoon your honor for the record my name is Jeffrey Dan.

[00:00:27]>> And working out here is Mr. Whitley sitting next to me on the right.

[00:00:31]James Whitley.

[00:00:32]>> Thank you.

[00:00:34]>> All right.

[00:00:35]>> May I ask the court a question?

[00:00:36]>> [laughter] >> Yes, you may.

[00:00:38]>> Thank you.

[00:00:39]>> The 14th District Court of Oakland County is now in session in Michigan at 1:45 p.m.

[00:00:44]It was >> You may be seated.

[00:00:47]Back on the record in the case of people state of Michigan versus James Whitley.

[00:00:53]Typically, oh go ahead.

[00:00:55]>> Thank you. No problem. You have the people.

[00:00:57]>> Good afternoon your honor for the record my name is Jeffrey Dan. I've conferred with my client Mr. Whitley sitting to my right.

[00:01:04]>> Typically the court doesn't publicly discuss and I will apologize Miss Hughes.

[00:01:13]And I will allow certainly counsel to say what they want to say or need to say.

[00:01:19]The court doesn't discuss bench conferences but I think under the circumstances I'm going to certainly >> Oh, this is the moment a defense counsel never wants to see. Notice how the judge keeps asking the same question from different angles. That's not repetition, it's pressure testing. Judges often do this when they're trying to determine whether someone's explanation actually holds up under scrutiny. And right now the court seems less interested in the grievance itself and more interested in the intent behind it. Was it a legitimate ethical concern or was it perceived as a threat? That distinction is about to become very important.

[00:01:59]>> disclose that unless Ms. Hughes since it is your issue that you brought to the court, unless you have some strong objection to that.

[00:02:11]>> I have no objection. Thank you.

[00:02:13]>> The court has been informed that >> [clears throat] >> at least alleges that the defense counsel has indicated that he that should this exam begin that it may be his intent to grieve the elected prosecutor for pursuing this case.

[00:02:39]Court has some concerns with that. First and foremost that >> [clears throat] >> that posture in and of itself can have a chilling effect not only on just proceedings and may be an attempt to interfere in these proceedings which may in and of itself constitute a grievable offense.

[00:03:03]>> [laughter] >> But also that this court if that is indeed the allegation um would not proceed with a hearing that would require someone to then commit a grievable offense.

[00:03:28]And Ms. Hughes also disclosed to the court that she has into an upper chain command to seek their advice as to what she should do.

[00:03:38]It was ultimately um said I think at one point to certainly bring it to the court's attention which I think is appropriate.

[00:03:46]Um such as under Mr. Bennett, I will ask you whether or not you believe in this case that the people in proceeding are committing a grievous offense. And if so, for you to state on the record what that offense is.

[00:04:21]>> My concern >> Not asking for your concern. I'm asking for you have made an accusation.

[00:04:29]That know what?

[00:04:32]>> believe that they're committing a grievous offense.

[00:04:34]>> Do you believe that in starting this exam that they would be committing a grievous offense?

[00:04:42]>> No.

[00:04:45]>> Was that said to the prosecutor?

[00:04:49]>> That was said I don't believe it was said though in the manner that was described at the bench. But certainly >> Then tell me how it was said.

[00:05:00]>> I Well, there were two things. One at the bench Do you want me to ignore the one you didn't disclose?

[00:05:10]>> Tell me how it was said.

[00:05:11]>> Oh, what I said was is that I believe that uh if she go if the state were to go forward that it would be grievous because I believe that I believe that the prosecutor is not following through on their ethical obligations under the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.

[00:05:34]>> Which ethical obligation are they not following through?

[00:05:38]>> The The two that I am concerned about are one is uh determining what the actual facts and the two is prosecuting somebody who may in fact be actually innocent. What I did was I had offered Miss Hughes if she felt that it was appropriate that she wanted to They wanted to discuss the written candid note with the alleged victim. I said, "What?

[00:06:09]We can just adjourn this out and you can talk to her and decide how to go forward."

[00:06:14]So, my only concern is that they didn't make contact with the alleged victim who now has a different story but I no longer believe that's a problem.

[00:06:38]>> Does that even as you describe it amount to something that is stable?

[00:06:50]>> It doesn't.

[00:06:52]>> And why was it set?

[00:06:56]>> Because at the time I believed that it was real.

[00:07:00]>> What changed?

[00:07:04]>> Quite honestly, what changed is I wasn't aware at the time that they had the lay witness here.

[00:07:11]And so, the presence of the lay witnesses I think are They would eliminate all of the issues I had with uh the police providing the testimony that's admissible that's admissible here but not in the file.

[00:07:27]>> Miss Hughes >> I absolutely intend on proceeding pursuant to MCL 768.27c.

[00:07:35]I have made no statements to Mr. Bennett about this property.

[00:07:42]I also think that it is It is not is not present.

[00:07:46]>> [clears throat] >> Explain to me, Mr. Bennett, how that makes a difference. Because quite frankly, I think your accusation as against prosecutor amounts to your attempt to obstruct these proceedings.

[00:08:06]So, explain to me which in and of itself would be grievable, counsel.

[00:08:15]So, explain to me the diff- what happened now that you know that they're there, how that changed the whole mindset.

[00:08:23]>> [clears throat] >> The proceeding with statements that were exclusively be inadmissible at trial.

[00:08:42]And going forward on those.

[00:08:45]These are confrontation clause issues.

[00:08:48]>> There's a statute which covers that.

[00:08:50]>> I I understand that, your honor. My concern was it goes to circuit court on those statements, and now they can't proceed to trial.

[00:09:00]Because at that point, confrontation's going to attach at trial.

[00:09:07]>> Then why would that be grievable?

[00:09:13]If they proceed pursuant to a statute promulgated in the state as well as a court rule which covers that, why would that be grievable at any point?

[00:09:25]>> My concern was not determining the facts of the case that they're going to present evidence in today.

[00:09:34]>> If they believe those facts that but for a hearsay objection would come in.

[00:09:42]That [clears throat] goes that that not at all goes to their determination of the facts. They may believe that to be the case.

[00:09:50]>> I understand.

[00:09:53]>> So, how would that even come into [clears throat] play?

[00:09:58]Mr. Bennett, I I mean I How does that even come into play?

[00:10:10]>> I explained what my position is. I don't know what else to to say.

[00:10:16]>> [clears throat] >> Okay, let me just say this. I don't care if somebody's on the defense. I don't care if somebody's on the prosecution side. It doesn't matter to me, especially between counts.

[00:10:28]No one no one is ever going to come into this courtroom and be intimidated in some way by some threat to their profession, particularly in proceeding with what is their obligation. It is Ms. Hughes's obligation to bring this case.

[00:10:51]It is your obligation to defend your client. She can't make threats to you to try to prevent you from proceeding to defend your client or to do nothing if your client wishes that for you to do that as the defendant.

[00:11:09]This behavior that behavior Mr. Bennett, is inexcusable in this court's mind. Absolutely inexcusable.

[00:11:21]And quite frankly, sanctionable.

[00:11:23]Because you can't try to make somebody not do something by quite frankly, as I'm listening to your explanation, are just absolutely, unequivocally false threats to their livelihood.

[00:11:43]>> I don't believe that's what I was doing.

[00:11:46]>> I What do you think you were doing?

[00:11:48]>> Trying to bring to Ms. Hughes' attention that an issue that may or may not exist.

[00:11:56]She interpreted it as a threat, which I understand.

[00:12:00]>> I'm going to agree with your boss.

[00:12:04]And you.

[00:12:05]>> I did not >> If you start this exam.

[00:12:09]She's supposed to take that as something that should be brought to her attention as opposed to a threat?

[00:12:18]>> We continued our discussion a second time where I was explaining where I was coming from.

[00:12:24]I did not say what I said in the hearing card for way.

[00:12:29]I was told >> You threatened a grievance for her proceeding.

[00:12:36]Am I wrong in that?

[00:12:37]>> I didn't consider that I threatened it.

[00:12:40]I was trying to bring an issue forward and she took it as a threat.

[00:12:44]threat.

[00:12:45]>> She took it as a threat. What was she supposed to take it as?

[00:12:55]>> I just I >> [laughter] >> She can She took it how she took it. I mean, that it was a mistake on my part.

[00:13:00]I acknowledge that.

[00:13:04]>> You're trying to tell this court that you >> Wow.

[00:13:08]Walking on real thin ice is courtroom language you never want directed at your law license. The judge has effectively shifted this hearing from a dispute about case strategy to a discussion about professional conduct. What's fascinating is that the underlying criminal case has almost taken a backseat when courtroom behavior becomes a story instead of the evidence.

[00:13:29]That's usually a sign that something has gone seriously off course. And now the biggest question is what happens to the defendant. It's whether defense counsel faces consequences of his own.

[00:13:40]>> didn't intend to threaten her boss and ultimately her.

[00:13:46]Is that what you're telling me, Mr. Bonner?

[00:13:49]>> I was trying to bring the nature of what I saw as a potential issue.

[00:13:55]But unfortunately started the >> being what?

[00:13:59]Their use of evidence pursuant to the court rule?

[00:14:03]Which is why we have these hearings, why you have the ability to object, and then this court would have to rule?

[00:14:11]>> Well, this case was different because this is not a situation where this is a situation where the alleged victim has given uh more another detailed statement as to what happened.

[00:14:27]>> And so what makes that different?

[00:14:36]>> The duty to investigate the facts.

[00:14:43]>> How do you know they haven't?

[00:14:51]>> Besides her telling me that they haven't, I I don't know.

[00:14:59]>> I don't think that there is, but I've never told him with all the information. I've never told him about the many contacts that she's had with my office. I've never told him about He's put on the record that she's been appearing at the hearings. Your Honor, she's been at hearings that Your Honor has presided over.

[00:15:15]The letter that was turned over to the police department was then turned over to the defense.

[00:15:21]Um and frankly he has never asked me. He just came to my office with I'm going to grieve Ellie Sabbagh.

[00:15:36]>> Mr. Bennett, I am very concerned. What was your intent on saying that?

[00:15:46]>> I intend in the >> You know, you I'm going to stop you right now because I'm going to tell you something.

[00:15:53]You need to be real careful because I may have to consider grieving you.

[00:15:58]>> I understand that, your honor.

[00:16:01]>> And I don't think you want that.

[00:16:03]>> [clears throat] >> I certainly don't want that.

[00:16:10]>> So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to take another about 10-minute break.

[00:16:14]And I'm going to come out and ask for your explanation before I decide on anything that I would do. But, I will let you know, Mr. Bennett, with regard to what I've heard of the conduct here, you are walking on real thin ice. Not just with me, but with your ticket to practice.

[00:16:31]Court is in recess.

[00:16:34]>> All rise.

[00:16:37]>> Hey, District Court for the County of Washtenaw, State of Michigan, is now back in session. The honorable Judge David may be seated.

[00:16:45]Back on record in the case of the People State of Michigan versus Whitely.

[00:16:49]Counsel is present as well as the defendant.

[00:16:53]Um Is there anything else regarding this issue that either side would like to say?

[00:17:07]>> Your honor, I'm going to self-report a violation under Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 A.

[00:17:16]I agree that I gave an inappropriate message to the prosecutor. I apologize for doing that. I feel obligated to report myself.

[00:17:30]>> We will see if that happens because the court hasn't made a decision as to whether or not the court should report you. Hey, Mr. Bennett, I am going to tell you in all the years I've been here I counsel and even when I was down in the trenches just counsel say things to each other maybe not meaningful necessarily. They'll say things out of anger to each other.

[00:17:59]I don't know why you would even think it would be within the bounds of anything decent >> [clears throat] >> to make that kind of threat. And I call it a threat. That's precisely what you were doing.

[00:18:19]And I have to make a decision now knowing it as to whether or not I should do it. And I will make that decision. Ms. Hughes, and I'm going to apologize on behalf of the court for having to do this, but I think [clears throat] it's necessary given this turn of events.

[00:18:38]Would your lay witness, as well as I guess the officers, would they be available on July 1st at 10:00?

[00:18:45][clears throat] >> Um is it at all possible to have the lay witness testify? It would be to identification.

[00:18:55]Um [clears throat] and I would >> As to identification of >> the defendant. So, it's very brief and I don't want to have to bring the lay person back.

[00:19:05]>> I understand.

[00:19:07]Mr. Bennett, >> I would stipulate to the identification.

[00:19:17]>> So you're stipulating that the person that is sitting beside you is James Whitley and that he was in a relationship with Jennifer Potter on April 27th, 2024.

[00:19:29]>> Yes.

[00:19:30]>> Thank you.

[00:19:30]>> Will that satisfy what that witness would testify to?

[00:19:33]>> Yes.

[00:19:34]>> Very good. Thank you.

[00:19:38]>> What's the date? I apologize.

[00:19:39]>> I am going to adjourn this if it will work for everybody to July 1st at 10:00 a.m. That is my only >> [clears throat] >> July 1st, July 1st at 10:00 a.m.

[00:19:58]>> Hold on. This has escalated fast. What started as a routine preliminary examination is suddenly turning into a debate about professional misconduct.

[00:20:08]The judge isn't discussing evidence yet.

[00:20:10]He's addressing something even more serious.

[00:20:13]Whether an attorney tried to use the threat of grievances leverage. In the legal world, that's a dangerous accusation because it could be seen as an attempt to influence how another lawyer does their job. Watch the judge's questions carefully here. He's not fishing for answers. He's testing credibility.

[00:20:30]>> I realize that gets close to a holiday, but will that work for >> Yes.

[00:20:36]>> Yes.

[00:20:36]>> Thank you.

[00:20:37]>> Oh, that's fine.

[00:20:42]I will adjourn it. Mr. Bennett, please apprise this office as well as the prior prosecutor if you're going to self report so that maybe others of us don't have to take any action.

[00:20:55]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:20:57]>> Preliminary examination in this matter is adjourned July 1st, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. before me.

[00:21:07]>> Welcome to Court Lens USA, where one bad decision can change a life forever.

[00:21:12]Balance scale fire inside these courtrooms across the United States.

[00:21:16]There are no scripts, no second chances, and no escape from the consequences of your actions. What you're about to witness are real moments filled with tension, fear, regret, explosive outbursts, and shocking courtroom drama that leave entire courtrooms speechless.

[00:21:31]Some defendants walk into court laughing, believing they're untouchable.

[00:21:35]Others think the judge will give them another warning. But sometimes, one mistake is all it takes for everything to fall apart. One disrespectful comment. One reckless decision. One emotional outburst that instantly turns freedom into handcuffs. At Court Lens USA, we take you deep inside America's most intense courtroom moments, where powerful judges confront arrogant defendants, emotional victims seek justice, and families watch life-changing consequences unfold right before their eyes. You'll witness brutal reality checks, emotional sentencing hearings, explosive confrontations, and unforgettable moments where justice arrives without warning. Because inside a courtroom, every word matters, every choice matters, and every second can change someone's future forever. These are not actors. These are not movie scenes. These are real people facing real consequences in real time. And sometimes, the people who walk into court the most confident leave completely broken by the reality of their choices. Every video on Court Lens USA is designed to pull you directly into the tension courtroom, from shocking judge reactions to the exact moment a defendant realizes their life is about to change forever. So, if you're fascinated by real courtroom drama, emotional legal battles, true crime stories, and intense moments that millions of viewers can't stop watching, you're in the right place. Subscribe now to Court Lens USA, and witness the moments where justice becomes unforgettable. Balance scale fire.