Judge Simpson EXPOSES the DRUNK Driver’s Shocking Drive-Thru Confession!

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]Court does call the case people of the state of Michigan versus Paul McGriffin.

[00:00:05]>> Right out of the gate, we're back in Judge Simpson's courtroom. And this one starts with a familiar kind of case, retail fraud. A defendant appearing remotely and a judge who wastes no time getting the basics on the record. The name is stated, the case is called, and now the court is moving directly into the charge. That may sound routine, but in court, this is where the stakes become real. A misdemeanor is not nothing. It can still mean jail time, fines, court costs, bond conditions, and restrictions that follow a defendant long after the hearing ends. And with Judge Simpson, the tone is always clear.

[00:00:42]He'll keep the process moving, but he expects the defendant to understand exactly what is happening. So, keep an eye on the pattern here. Charge, rights, bond, conditions. Simple on the surface, but every sentence can change what this defendant is allowed to do next.

[00:00:59]and prosecuting attorney Morgan Barroso on behalf of the people.

[00:01:03]>> Uh yes, here we are again in the courtroom of the Honorable J. Cedric Simpson. The J is for justice in case you wondering. Today we have a full plate of incredible cases, but the most incredible thing will be Heather. Keep an eye on her throughout these proceedings because she's just a little bit on the tired side. Please like, subscribe, and leave a comment. Let's get on with the show.

[00:01:33]>> This is an arrangemental.

[00:01:35]>> It was Okay. Mr. McGriffin, can you state your name, please?

[00:01:39]>> McGuffin.

[00:01:41]>> All right, sir. You are before the court on a misdemeanor complaint that alleges that on or about July 22nd, 2023 at the location of 7,000 East Michigan Avenue in Fitzville Township, that being the Walmart, that you did commit the offense of retail fraud in the second degree. Do you understand the nature of that charge, sir?

[00:02:03]>> Yes.

[00:02:05]>> I'm sorry. You'll need to repeat that.

[00:02:07]You broke up.

[00:02:08]>> Yes, I understand.

[00:02:10]>> All right. That is a misdemeanor as indicated, punishable by up to one year incarceration. A $2,000 fine plus court cost. The fine could be increased to three times the value of the property taken. If that's greater than $2,000, that would become the maximum fine. You understand the n you understand that, sir?

[00:02:28]>> Yes.

[00:02:30]>> All right. First question I have for you, sir, is do you wish to be represented by an attorney?

[00:02:36]>> Yes.

[00:02:37]>> All right. This is a public defender.

[00:02:40]>> Good morning. This is public defender Lauren Perry on behalf of Mr. McGuffin.

[00:02:45]We will wait for more reading and stand for charges and request another pre-trial date. Your honor, I did just pull up Wayne County. It seems like he may be in Wayne County for some time.

[00:02:56]So, I expect him to still be there by >> Mr. McGuffin, do you have an out date?

[00:03:01]>> No.

[00:03:03]>> No. Okay.

[00:03:07]I'll set his bond so that he gets credited at $5,000. Well, I'll set it at a $1,000 person or 10% bond. So, I'm basically setting it at $100.

[00:03:20]All under standard conditions, including no assault behavior or possession of weapons, no alcohol, recreational marijuana, or illegal drug use. You are also not to go to any Walmart in the state of Michigan. And there it is, the condition that turns a basic retail fraud arraignment into something very specific. Judge Simpson doesn't just set a bond and move on. He adds standard conditions. No assaultive behavior, no weapons, no alcohol, no marijuana, no illegal drugs. But then comes the big one. No Walmart anywhere in Michigan.

[00:03:54]Not just that Walmart. Not just that location, any Walmart in the entire state. That is a serious restriction.

[00:04:02]And it makes sense in the context of the charge because the alleged offense happened at a Walmart. The court is essentially saying until this case moves forward, stay away from the environment tied to the accusation. And notice the bond amount, too. Judge Simpson sets it in a way that appears to account for the defendant's current custody situation.

[00:04:22]So, the courtroom may sound calm, but these are real legal guard rails being placed around the defendant immediately.

[00:04:32]I'll adjourn the pre-trial in this matter to >> March 20th at 9 a.m. or April 3rd.

[00:04:39]>> Why don't we do April 3rd so we make sure everything gets in. I'll adjourn this to April 3rd, 2020 49 a.m.

[00:04:49]All right, sir.

[00:04:51]>> Thank you.

[00:04:56]Court does call the case of the people versus Gardo Ortiz on behalf of the people. Good morning.

[00:05:07]This is public defender Lauren Perry on behalf of Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Ortiz, can you state your name for the record, please?

[00:05:15]Eraldo Contras Ortiz.

[00:05:18]>> All right. I have a substitution of attorney.

[00:05:23]>> I've got it. Thank you, AM.

[00:05:30]>> All right. What do we wish to do?

[00:05:31]>> Your honor, as for pre-trial, my client has executed an advice of rights to be pleading as charged uh with the prosecutor's deferred. Understand your honor will not make that promise.

[00:05:41]prosecutor.

[00:05:44]>> All right.

[00:05:46]>> May I have swear affirm truth, the whole truth and nothing?

[00:05:54]Yes, sir.

[00:05:55]>> State your name.

[00:05:56]>> My name is Aaron. Last name Hud Peters.

[00:05:59]>> All right.

[00:06:02]All right.

[00:06:04]Sir, it is this court's understanding that you are going to be pleading guilty to the charge of retail fraud in the second degree. That is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year incarceration, a $2,000 fine plus court cost. Fine could be increased to three times the value of the property taken if that's greater than $2,000. That would become the maximum fine. You understand that, sir?

[00:06:23]>> Yes, your honor. All right. And understanding all of that, you still wish to plead guilty.

[00:06:28]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:06:29]>> And to that charge, how do you plead?

[00:06:32]Uh >> guilty. Guilty.

[00:06:34]>> You understand that by pleading guilty, you'll not have a trial of any kind?

[00:06:38]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:06:39]>> All right. You signed an advice of rights form today. Is that correct?

[00:06:42]>> Yes, sir.

[00:06:43]>> Any question regarding any of those rights?

[00:06:46]>> Uh, you see a copy on the podium. Please look at paragraph five. Those are your rights which are part of a trial. You understand by pleading guilty, you'll be waving those rights as well as all the rights contained on that form.

[00:06:55]>> Yes, your honor. You understand you're waving you're giving up your right to appeal of right?

[00:07:00]>> Yes, sir. Are you on probation or parole? Now, we've shifted into a guilty plea. And this is where Judge Simpson slows the process down for a reason. A plea is not just someone saying guilty and walking away. The court has to make sure the defendant understands what rights are being given up, the right to a trial, the rights listed in the advice of rights form, and even the right to appeal as a matter of right. That's why this sequence can feel repetitive because legally it has to be clean. The judge is building a record that shows the plea is knowing, voluntary, and informed. And here's the important part.

[00:07:36]Once the defendant confirms these rights are being waved, it becomes much harder to come back later and say, "I didn't understand." What do you think? Should courts spend even more time explaining these rights? Or is this level of questioning enough?

[00:07:49]>> No. Has anybody promised you anything other than what's been stated here today on the record to get you to plead?

[00:07:56]>> No, your honor. Anybody threaten you or coerc you?

[00:08:00]>> No.

[00:08:01]>> You're doing this voluntarily?

[00:08:03]>> Yes, sir.

[00:08:04]>> Of your own free will?

[00:08:05]>> Yes.

[00:08:06]>> And because you believe that you are indeed guilty of this offense?

[00:08:09]>> Yes, sir.

[00:08:10]>> November 27th, 2023 at the location of 2000 Waters Road, Pittsfield Township, Washington County, State of Michigan.

[00:08:18]What do you do at the Target store that makes you think that you're guilty?

[00:08:23]>> Yeah. Um, I switched the tags on uh two items. There was a >> Okay. So, you switched you switched the tags and attempted to walk out of the store.

[00:08:36]>> Okay. And you attempted to try to pay the lower price, >> right?

[00:08:40]>> Was the difference in the price switching greater than $200?

[00:08:45]>> Yes, sir. All right. You didn't have anybody's permission to do that, did you?

[00:08:49]>> No, I did not. So, it was open to the public at the time. Yes, your honor. And these items that you switched the tags on, these were items that were offered for sale by Target?

[00:08:59]>> Yes, sir.

[00:09:00]>> Council, have I complied with the court rule? Would it be proper to accept this defendant's plea?

[00:09:03]>> The people are satisfied.

[00:09:05]>> Yes, sir. Court will accept the defendants's plea of guilty to this charge.

[00:09:14]There we go.

[00:09:18]Defendant is referred to probation for a pre-sentence investigation and report sentencing in this matter will be >> at 9:00 a.m.

[00:09:31]>> April 10th, 2024, 9:00 a.m.

[00:09:35]Mr. Bond in this case, I'll set the defendants bond at a $5,000 personal recgnissance bond. standard conditions including no assaulted behavior or use of any weapon use or possession of any weapons, no alcohol, recreational marijuana or any illegal drugs. And you're not to go to any Target store in the state of Michigan. You understand that?

[00:09:56]>> Yes, your honor. All right.

[00:09:57]>> Anything further, Mr. >> No, you're right. Thank you.

[00:09:59]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:10:01]>> There is no restitution.

[00:10:03]>> There's no Okay.

[00:10:05]>> Another retail fraud case. Another statewide store ban. This time the restriction is not Walmart, it's Target.

[00:10:13]And again, Judge Simpson is being very precise. The defendant admitted to switching tags and attempting to pay a lower price with the difference being more than $200.

[00:10:24]That matters because it supports the charge level and gives the court a factual basis to accept the guilty plea.

[00:10:29]After that, the defendant is referred to probation for a pre-sentence investigation, sentencing is scheduled, and bond conditions are imposed. This is the courtroom version of you're not done yet. The plea is accepted, but sentencing is still ahead. Probation now prepares a report, and that report can influence what the final punishment looks like. So, while the defendant avoids trial by pleading guilty, he does not avoid accountability. The case simply moves into the next stage.

[00:11:05]Sorry does call the case of the people versus Thaad Stal again. Your honor Dan here on behalf of Mr. Stalck. He's stepping forward for pre-trial. State your name.

[00:11:24]>> Thomas Stalmeck. Thank you.

[00:11:26]>> Your honor, for pre-trial, I'm asking for an adjournment. Uh Miss Brusso and I did talk briefly. I think both sides would like a little bit more time for a negotiation. May I address travel before I ask for a pre-trial date?

[00:11:38]>> Your honor, my client is on a tether.

[00:11:40]I'm not asking for that to come off. He does have a job in Boulder, Colorado. Um he also has a condominium there where he'd been working and living. He's asking permission to go next week, if I've got this right, that from the 12th coming back on April 2nd uh to work. And if if your honor would grant that, I would ask for the third uh for pre-trial.

[00:12:00]March 12th through uh April 2nd, please.

[00:12:10]>> Any objection from the people?

[00:12:11]>> No, your honor.

[00:12:12]>> And that's to Colorado.

[00:12:14]>> To Colorado, please.

[00:12:21]I'll indicate the defendant may travel to Colorado March 2nd through April March 12th, excuse me, through April 2nd, 2024 inclusive. I will adjourn the matter to April 3rd, 2024 9:00 a.m. bond will continue. Do >> you need to do anything with community corrections on the tether to let them know that or is that >> he's on a >> he's on GPS >> GPS tether?

[00:12:44]>> Yes.

[00:12:45]>> Yes. Um, it might be best since we have a little bit of time, Mr. Gar, that you prepare an order for my signature. Certainly, we'll send it over. Sounds good.

[00:12:56]>> Very much. Thank you.

[00:12:57]>> This hearing is a good example of how not every courtroom moment is explosive, but every detail still matters. Here, the defendant is on GPS tether and wants permission to travel to Colorado for work. Defense council explains there is a job, a condominium, and a specific travel window. The prosecution does not object and Judge Simpson grants permission for travel from March 12th through April 2nd while continuing the bond. That might seem like a small scheduling issue, but it's actually a major practical ruling. A person on Tether usually has movement restrictions and leaving the state without court approval could create serious consequences. So, the judge handles it cleanly. Permission granted, dates locked, order to be prepared. No drama, no shouting, just a controlled legal adjustment that lets the defendant keep working while the case continues.

[00:13:51]>> Court's case of people versus Denanishia Canada.

[00:14:04]>> Good morning, your honor. My name is Rose Bodri and I'm here with my co-consel Janice Witherspoon representing Miss Canada. I'm requesting to practice under Michigan court rule 8.120.

[00:14:14]My supervising attorney Sarah Salin, bar number P7782 is present with us today as well.

[00:14:21]>> All right. Permission to practice is granted. Good morning, Miss Sullen.

[00:14:25]>> Good morning, judge.

[00:14:28]>> All right. What are we doing on this case?

[00:14:32]>> Uh, your honor, we understand you guys are going to have a conversation, a meeting, >> I believe. So, your honor, we understand that our clients are interested, but we need to clarify the sentence. We're hoping that because it's a 12-year matter without a victim in restitution that the case would be closed.

[00:14:52]>> Excuse me. Um, so our client's interested in the plea offer that's been made. We're just going to clarify the sentence. We're just hoping that without a victim or uh restitution that the case could be closed.

[00:15:08]To be clear, there is a victim in this case and that would be the store that she stole from.

[00:15:21]>> Um, >> what do you mean you want to clarify the sentence? I don't understand.

[00:15:26]>> So, we understand first off that everything was uh returned to the stores. So, the store was not actually harmed. But um we we are just I guess asking whether uh we're asking I guess the the full terms of the sentence um of the of the plea deal that the prosecution's put forward specifically.

[00:15:43]Um we'd like to know whether the prosecution would be willing to have the case closed with uh no future chance of probation or anything like that.

[00:15:52]>> Now this is where the courtroom tension starts to sharpen. The defense is asking whether the case can essentially be closed without future probation, especially because they say everything was returned and there was no restitution issue, but Judge Simpson and the prosecution immediately push back on the framing. The key correction is simple but important. The store is still the victim. Returning property does not erase the fact that the store was allegedly stolen from. That is a huge distinction. In retail fraud cases, people often think, "Well, if the items came back, what's the harm?" But legally, the act still matters. The case still has a victim. The process still has rules, and sentencing is not something the defense can pre-negotiate with the judge here. And Judge Simpson makes it clear, he does not do Cobb sentencing promises.

[00:16:41]>> Well, >> no, that is something that is decided by probation. As I as I discussed with you in our meeting, she would need to undergo a pre-sentence investigation and report. It is very uncommon for individuals to do any jail time associated with a retail fraud. However, the offer that has been extended is for a 93-day misdemeanor, which we are prepared to move forward on, but this is a victim's right rights case, and because of that, you cannot do immediate sentencing, and there needs to be a pre-sentence investigation.

[00:17:15]Okay. Uh, and I appreciate that. Uh, I don't actually being discussed during our meeting, but we will, uh, discuss with our client if >> Well, it doesn't matter whether it was discussed at the meeting. There was an offer that was made and the offer that was made, you can choose to accept it or not, and we can then move forward with the case. If you're asking for the court to agree to any type of sentencing, I do not cob or I don't sentences. So, >> okay. Um, if you'd be so kind to let us uh pass the case. So, we just got our clients for uh you want it pass. So, you're going to call it up today?

[00:17:53]>> Yeah.

[00:17:53]>> Yeah.

[00:17:54]>> Or in Germany. Okay. I'll pass it. Thank you.

[00:18:00]Courts case people versus Alex.

[00:18:04]Is it Eber?

[00:18:07]That is >> Eber, your honor. Good. Oh, sorry. Yes.

[00:18:14]>> Alex, >> what are we doing?

[00:18:19]>> U Debra, >> prosecuting attorney Morgan Barroso on behalf of the people.

[00:18:24]>> Sorry, Miss Barroso. Uh, good morning, your honor. Deborah Schlussell, P56420.

[00:18:28]On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Alexber.

[00:18:30]Mr. Eber, state your name, please.

[00:18:32]>> Alex Eber, for the record.

[00:18:34]>> Your honor, uh, at this time, we have reached a plea agreement with the prosecution. We have submitted this morning a signed advice of rights and I will let Miss Barroso uh elaborate on the plea agreement if it pleases the court.

[00:18:51]>> All right. Go ahead.

[00:18:52]>> Yes, your honor. The defendant the offer has been for the defendant to plead to an added count two of operating while intoxicated. In exchange, count one would be dismissed.

[00:19:01]>> That is our understanding.

[00:19:03]>> Now, we move from retail fraud into operating while intoxicated. And this plea agreement has a classic structure.

[00:19:09]The defendant pleads to an added count and in exchange the original count is dismissed. That does not mean the defendant walks away clean. It means the case is being resolved through a negotiated plea and the court still has to confirm the defendant understands the charge, the penalties, and the rights being waved. Judge Simpson is about to walk through the possible jail time, fines, court costs, community service, rehabilitative programs, vehicle immobilization, and other financial consequences. That list matters because OE cases are not just about a fine and a lecture. They can affect driving, employment, insurance, probation, and treatment requirements. Would you take a plea like this if one count gets dismissed, or would you risk trial and fight the original charge?

[00:20:05]Sir, please raise your right hand.

[00:20:09]>> Do you solemnly swear or affirm testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, I help you.

[00:20:16]>> I do.

[00:20:17]>> Again, state your name for the record, please.

[00:20:19]>> Uh, Alex.

[00:20:21]>> All right. Sir, it is this court's understanding that you're going to plead guilty to the charge of operating while intoxicated. That is a misdemeanor that is punishable by up to 93 days in jail, up to a $500 fine plus court cost. The court could order community service and any rehabilitative programs court deems necessary. Court could also order your vehicle immobilized. Court ordered you to pay the cost of the prosecution as well as the cost of any emergency governmental services. You understand that, sir?

[00:20:47]>> Yes, I do.

[00:20:49]>> And understanding that, do you still wish to plead guilty? Yes, your honor.

[00:20:53]>> And to that charge, how do you plead?

[00:20:56]>> Guilty, your honor.

[00:20:57]>> And you understand that by pleading guilty, you'll not have a trial of any kind?

[00:21:02]>> Yes.

[00:21:03]>> You had signed an advice of rights form.

[00:21:05]Is that correct?

[00:21:06]>> Yes, I did.

[00:21:08]>> Any questions regarding any of those rights?

[00:21:11]>> No, your honor.

[00:21:12]>> Looking at paragraph 5, those are your rights which are part of a trial. You understand that by pleading guilty, you'll be giving up those rights as well as all the rights on that form?

[00:21:20]>> Yes, your honor. You understand you're giving up your right to appeal of right?

[00:21:24]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:21:26]>> Are you on probation or parole?

[00:21:28]>> No, your honor.

[00:21:30]>> Has anybody promised you anything other than what's been stated here today on the record to get you to plead guilty?

[00:21:35]>> No, your honor.

[00:21:37]>> Has anybody threatened you or coerced you?

[00:21:40]>> No.

[00:21:41]>> You're doing this voluntarily?

[00:21:44]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:21:45]>> Of your own free will?

[00:21:47]>> Yes. And because you believe that you're guilty of this offense?

[00:21:51]>> Yes.

[00:21:52]>> At this point, the defendant has confirmed the plea is voluntary, confirmed no one threatened him, confirmed no one promised him anything outside the record, and now confirms that he believes he is guilty. That single yes may sound small, but legally it is doing a lot of work. The court is establishing that the plea is not accidental, pressured, or confused. Then the factual basis begins where the incident happened, whether he was operating a motor vehicle, and whether alcohol was consumed before operating.

[00:22:22]This is the courtroom moving from rights into facts. And in an oi plea, facts matter intensely because the judge needs enough on the record to support the conviction. The defendant's own answers become the foundation. It's not dramatic yelling, but it is legally heavy. Once those admissions are made clearly, the plea becomes much harder to unwind later.

[00:22:42]September 18, 2021 at the location of 366 or 386, excuse me, 3860, excuse me, South State Street, Pittsfield Township, Washington County, State of Michigan, were you operating a motor vehicle?

[00:22:58]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:22:59]>> Prior to operating that motor vehicle, you consumed intoxicating liquor?

[00:23:04]>> Yes.

[00:23:05]>> What did you have and how much?

[00:23:08]Uh I your honor I remember starting with the bloody mary and switching to beer. I do not remember that much due to the length of time that has passed but it I it was bloody mary then I switched to beer.

[00:23:21]>> All right. Were you stopped by the police or was there an accident?

[00:23:26]>> Uh there was no accident. I had fallen asleep in my car in a drive-thru. Uh the police were called. There was no accident. Um but I mean that was >> You fell asleep. You fell asleep at the drive-thru?

[00:23:39]>> Yes. And the police The police arrived?

[00:23:41]Yes. They didn't pull me or anything.

[00:23:43]>> Were you ultimately?

[00:23:45]>> Yeah.

[00:23:47]>> Were you ultimately arrested?

[00:23:49]>> Yes, I was.

[00:23:51]>> All right.

[00:23:52]Were you taken to the police station or the hospital?

[00:23:56]>> Uh police station.

[00:23:59]>> Was there a data master or breathalyzer test given?

[00:24:03]Uh >> is a blood draw.

[00:24:04]>> Blood drop. Mhm. Okay. Was that at the station?

[00:24:09]>> Uh, a ambulance came out.

[00:24:13]>> Okay. What were the results of that blood draw?

[00:24:17]>> Uh, uh, 216, I believe.

[00:24:21]>> Is that correct?

[00:24:22]>> Your honor, we will stipulate to the 216.

[00:24:26]>> All right. And sir, you have no reason to dispute those blood test results, do you? Uh, >> no, your honor.

[00:24:34]All right. Council, have I complied with the court rule?

[00:24:38]Would it be proper to accept this defendant's plea?

[00:24:40]>> The people are satisfied.

[00:24:42]>> Satisfied, your honor.

[00:24:44]>> All right. Court will accept a defendant's plea to count two. Count one is dismissed.

[00:24:49]>> And that is the legal turning point.

[00:24:51]Judge Simpson accepts the plea and count one is dismissed. That's exactly what the plea agreement was designed to do.

[00:24:58]The defendant takes responsibility for the operating while intoxicated count and in return the original count comes off the table. But do not mistake dismissed for no consequences. The accepted plea still moves the defendant into sentencing, alcohol screening, assessment, and the victim impact panel process. In OEI cases, courts often look beyond punishment alone and focus on risk, rehabilitation, and whether the person understands the seriousness of impaired driving. The blood result discussed earlier was extremely important to the record, and once the defendant said he had no reason to dispute it, the court had what it needed. So, the courtroom rhythm here is clean. Plea accepted, count dismissed, sentencing scheduled, and now the defendant has obligations before sentencing even happens.

[00:25:46]Defendant is referred to Von Schwarz for an alcohol screening and assessment and the victim's impact panel.

[00:25:54]Sentencing in this matter will be >> April 10th, 2024, 9:00 a.m.

[00:26:02]>> Um, your honor, uh, my client did do an assessment with Dawn Farm. If we submit that to your probation department and it's sufficient, would that be okay?

[00:26:14]How long ago did he do the assessment, >> Mr. Eber?

[00:26:18]>> Uh, it was mid mid January.

[00:26:24]>> If you submit that to probation, if that's acceptable to probation, I'm not going to have a problem. But I'm referring him to Von Sors.

[00:26:33]>> Okay. Thank you, your honor.

[00:26:35]>> Thank you.

[00:26:35]>> Thank you.

[00:26:37]>> Defendant have wave formal reading standing mute. Court will enter or not guilty, please. All right. what are we doing?

[00:26:44]>> And I did have a chance to speak with uh Miss Barroso yesterday. Your honor, you are correct. It's always available by phone. So, thank you for pointing that out. Um and so, we did speak yesterday, your honor, and I I believe at this point we're just looking for a a next pre-trial date so that we can have further discussions and um then either come to a resolution or set this matter for trial.

[00:27:12]All right.

[00:27:15]I will adjourn the matter then to April 3rd, 2024, 9:00 a.m.

[00:27:23]Um, what I will do, is there anything you want to say regarding?

[00:27:29]>> Yes, your honor. Um, if I may just briefly, Mr. Sherry has no prior record at all. He runs his own business um which is based out of Grand Rapids, but he does have offices here in uh Washington County as well. And I will say that the the instant facts that arise bring rise to this case, I should say, deal with a and a former disgruntled employee who he's had no contact with since the incident. Doesn't have plan to have any contact with in the future.

[00:28:05]And um so I think based on all that, he's a good candidate for a PR bond.

[00:28:11]Here, defense council is doing what defense council is supposed to do.

[00:28:15]Making the defendant sound stable, low risk, and responsible enough for a personal recgnizance bond. No prior record, owns a business, has offices, and the alleged conflict involved a former disgruntled employee with no planned future contact. That is a strategic presentation. The goal is to convince Judge Simpson that cash bond is unnecessary because the defendant is likely to appear and follow court rules.

[00:28:40]A PR bond means the defendant does not have to post money upfront, but it is not a free pass. If he violates the bond, misses court, contacts the protected person, or breaks conditions, consequences can come fast. So, this is a classic courtroom balance. Liberty on one side, public safety and court compliance on the other. And Judge Simpson is listening, but he is not leaving the bond wide open.

[00:29:09]Milbrook Trail. Is that your client's res?

[00:29:15]What is that?

[00:29:16]>> So that's our that's a office space we have in Ann Arbor. So that's uh >> So that's your office. That's your office space.

[00:29:23]>> Yes, sir. Yes. So I live in >> That's fine. That's fine.

[00:29:30]>> I'll set the defendants's bond at $5,000 personal recgnissance bond. I'll order standard conditions including no assault or behavior or use of any weapons. There should be no possession of any alcohol, recreational marijuana, or any illegal drugs. I will also order no contact with Christopher Bullet.

[00:29:49]>> Thank you. If I may real quick, I just checked my have a jury trial in front of Judge Fresh Hour on the 3.

[00:30:02]You have a jury trial?

[00:30:04]>> Yes.

[00:30:07]>> With Judge Fresh Hour?

[00:30:09]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:30:11]>> Doing that trial. So, you'll have Pardon.

[00:30:13]>> I'm also doing that trial. So, you >> So, neither one of you will be here.

[00:30:16]>> That's correct.

[00:30:17]>> Then that's great. This case will go along swimmingly.

[00:30:22]>> I I can be there.

[00:30:28]>> All right. What's the next date after that?

[00:30:31]>> April 17th at 9 a.m.

[00:30:33]>> April 17, 2024 9 a.m.

[00:30:37]>> Thank you, your honor.

[00:30:38]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:30:40]>> Thank you.

[00:30:42]>> Have a great day.

[00:30:44]>> You do the same, Mr. Elmer. So, if you're not going to be here, who are they sending?

[00:30:50]>> I have no idea. We don't work that far ahead.

[00:30:54]>> Okay. I want a choice.

[00:30:56]>> You want a choice? I want I want a vote.

[00:31:02]>> Wow. All right. Court calls case people versus Tammy Neee.

[00:31:07]>> That one word, wow, is the entire courtroom mood in miniature. Both attorneys are apparently unavailable for the date the court first picked and Judge Simpson immediately turns it into a dry courtroom punchline. This is one of those moments where the legal system suddenly feels very human. Calendars collide, trials overlap, attorneys are booked elsewhere, and the court has to keep the machine moving anyway. But underneath the humor, scheduling matters. If lawyers cannot appear, the case cannot move efficiently. Dates affect plea negotiations, trial preparation, witness availability, and how long a defendant remains under bond conditions. So, yes, everyone laughs, but the judge still needs a real date that works. And this is where Judge Simpson's style shows. He can joke, but the case is still getting controlled.

[00:31:56]The courtroom may laugh for a second, but the docket does not stop.

[00:32:05]>> Your honor, David, on behalf of Tammy Neee, and I'm requesting to wave her presence. Um, I was unaware of your court's policy that I must contact the prosecutor prior to the hearing and would not be able to uh speak with her on the day of. I guess I would ask, >> is that a policy?

[00:32:26]>> I thought that's how you practice law.

[00:32:28]But anyway, never mind. My bad.

[00:32:31]>> Your honor, I would just say in many other courts in the Zoom, the judges allow breakout rooms with the prosecutor the day of court. So, I was a little confused and that is >> Oh, that was that's not happening. All right. So, you need an adjournment.

[00:32:45]>> Um, I would just ask if there is any offer from the people.

[00:32:50]Well, so we'll just do it on the record.

[00:32:53]>> Why don't we get an adjourn date?

[00:32:54]>> You want an adjourn date? All right. The people want an adjourn date. I'll adjourn this matter.

[00:33:03]>> March 20th, 2024, 9:00 a.m.

[00:33:11]>> Thank you, your honor. And I apologize.

[00:33:13]I will remember.

[00:33:15]>> No, not No, not a problem. I didn't realize other judges did that. It's not happening here. All right. Thank you.

[00:33:25]>> That's why they make bones.

[00:33:28]Court calls the case of the people versus is it panali? Is it kali?

[00:33:40]>> I hear nothing. So maybe not.

[00:33:45]I don't know.

[00:33:47]>> He left. Who was it?

[00:33:53]>> He was in and out a couple of times. I don't know.

[00:33:57]>> Now, the court is dealing with a missing or unstable appearance issue. Someone has apparently been in and out, possibly connection problems, possibly not fully present. Judge Simpson chooses to pass the matter briefly instead of immediately escalating. That matters because a judge could take a harder line when someone is not properly appearing, especially in a criminal docket. But here, the court gives the situation a little room. This is not leniency without limits. It is courtroom management. Passing a case allows the court to keep moving while giving the person a chance to return or reconnect.

[00:34:31]And in a Zoom courtroom, these little moments happen constantly. Cameras off, audio missing, people dropping in and out, names not matching, defendants unavailable. The question is always whether it is confusion, technology, or avoidance. Judge Simpson does not jump straight to punishment here. He keeps the docket moving.

[00:34:51]>> Um, you want me to I'll pass this matter briefly. Is the officer here or Okay, I'll pass it until they come back.

[00:35:06]close case people versus sena is it ai aby your honor >> good morning I hear death for the people >> good morning assistant public defender Lauren Perry on behalf of Mr. AJ A.

[00:35:24]>> Sir, can you please um turn on your camera?

[00:35:32]>> All right. Thank you, Miss McDuffy. Good morning.

[00:35:36]>> Good morning, your honor.

[00:35:37]>> Always a pleasure.

[00:35:39]>> I'd like to disqualify myself for um filling in for Miss Barroso and whatever that date was.

[00:35:47]>> Wow. Not that I don't want to, you know, come visit, but >> you don't want to see us.

[00:35:53]>> No, I do. I just don't want to have to work.

[00:35:56]>> Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Well, >> it's my day off.

[00:36:00]>> Blood about that. All right.

[00:36:02]Straightforward. Okay. All right.

[00:36:07]What What are we doing on this? So, not to cause too much stress on Miss McDuffy.

[00:36:12]>> I believe this is going to be a dismissal. It's really Oh, wow.

[00:36:21]>> can come back all she wants.

[00:36:22]>> All right.

[00:36:25]>> Is Is that a correct statement, Miss McDuffy?

[00:36:28]>> Well, I'll put a few more words on the record about that. Yeah. Um, she definitely helped me out, too.

[00:36:33]Wednesdays are my day off. It's a It's a group effort.

[00:36:37]>> So, >> yeah, I know this is all about you. Is this case being dismissed?

[00:36:41]>> It is, your honor. So, I did receive sufficient documentation to show that Mr. um I'm not going to mess his name up. So, I'm going to say that council's client has um resolved the issue with the Soberlink device. It appears that it is currently in service. He's in he's in good standing at least as to the possession of it. I won't speak to the actual results coming out of it, but um there does not appear to be an issue with an intentional deprivation of judicial services groups property in this case. And so, I will leave that to his probation in the 15th district court. um to address any further issues if there are any. But I'm um happy to dismiss this matter because the possession dispute has been resolved.

[00:37:22]>> This is a major outcome. The prosecution is satisfied enough to dismiss the matter because the possession dispute over the sober link device has been resolved. That explanation is important because it tells us the dismissal is not random and not because nothing ever happened. The prosecutor is saying the specific issue in this case, whether there was an intentional deprivation of property tied to judicial services group, no longer appears to support moving forward in this court. But notice the careful wording. Any further issues can still be handled through probation in the 15th district court. That keeps the dismissal narrow. It resolves this case, but it does not erase every possible supervision concern. And Judge Simpson dismisses it without prejudice, which is another important phrase.

[00:38:07]Without prejudice generally means the case is dismissed, but not necessarily barred forever if legally appropriate grounds later exist.

[00:38:15]Without objection, this case is dismissed. That's without prejudice.

[00:38:20]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:38:23]And thank you for coming in on your day off, Mr. >> All right. Take care.

[00:38:28]>> Thank you, everybody.

[00:38:31]Can you unmute and state your name for the record, please?

[00:38:34]>> Uh, yes. Good morning. Uh, my name is Rachel Marie Damron. Is his song.

[00:38:40]>> What are we doing?

[00:38:41]>> We're asking this for final settlement conference.

[00:38:45]>> Jury, final settlement conference will be set for April 5th.

[00:38:51]>> Yes. April 5th, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. Jury selection, if necessary, will be April 8th, 2024 at 8:30. Both of those proceedings are in person.

[00:39:10]Continued. Thank you.

[00:39:12]>> Thank you, your honor.

[00:39:15]or cause the case people versus Heather Atkins >> prosecuting attorney Morgan Barosa on behalf of the people was >> this an arraignment >> was here >> in Zoom or >> how long ago Yeah, >> she was in here pretty much all morning.

[00:39:47]Um, I know she had logged in and out a couple of times. So, >> Heather Atkins, tell you what, I won't issue a bench warrant if she was here.

[00:40:02]Don't know where she went. I'll adjourn the matter out to March 20th, 2024 9:00 a.m. I don't know why I'm being so nice, but why not? And that brings us to the end of another chaotic morning inside Judge Simpson's courtroom. A session packed with retail fraud charges, plea deals, bond arguments, travel requests, dismissals, scheduling conflicts, and one defendant who nearly ended up with a bench warrant after disappearing from Zoom. What stands out most in this entire docket is how control Judge Simpson keeps the courtroom, even when things get messy.

[00:40:35]Whether it was defendants admitting to tag switching, an owi defendant explaining he fell asleep in a drive-thru after drinking, or attorneys trying to negotiate plea expectations, the judge consistently forced clarity onto the record. That's the theme of this courtroom. Structure, accountability, and making sure everyone understands exactly where they stand legally. We also saw how much happens before sentencing even arrives. alcohol assessments, victim impact panels, probation investigations, tether conditions, no contact orders, and statewide storebs. These hearings may look routine from the outside, but every ruling affects someone's freedom, finances, and future. And Judge Simpson made it very clear throughout these proceedings that the court process will move forward whether people are fully prepared or not. If you found this case as shocking as we did, make sure to hit that like button, share your thoughts in the comments, and don't forget to subscribe for more jaw-dropping courtroom breakdowns.