Judge Simpson SLAMS Repeat Violator With DEVASTATING Jail Sentence!

本站添加: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]This is the public defender Natalie Payne within and on behalf of Ms. Sherri Walker who is approaching. Hi. Please state your name for the record, ma'am.

[00:00:06]Sherri Walker. All right.

[00:00:08]Thank you.

[00:00:09]This is Claire on behalf of the probation your honor. Ms. Walker is before the court for a violation of probation hearing. Ms. Walker is in violation of the terms ordered by the court in that she owes a balance of $1,218.78.

[00:00:22]Yes. She failed to complete the substance abuse assessment and or treatment. She failed to complete a mental health assessment and or treatment.

[00:00:30]Um and the end treatment. She failed to complete 25 hours of community service, failed to report to probation as directed, and has one, two, three, four new pending criminal cases, one being a possession of drug paraphernalia, of retail fraud second degree, of possession of another possession of drug paraphernalia, of retail fraud first degree second offense, and of retail fraud second degree second offense. Right out of the gate, this case is already snowballing fast. Judge Simpson isn't just hearing about one missed appointment or one technical slip-up here.

[00:01:05]This is a full stack of probation violations crashing together at once.

[00:01:09]Unpaid financial obligations, no substance abuse treatment, no mental health compliance, unfinished community service, failure to report, and then multiple brand new criminal allegations layered on top. That combination is exactly what makes judges start looking at probation not as a second chance anymore, but as a failed opportunity.

[00:01:29]And notice something important here.

[00:01:31]Every single new allegation happened after probation was already granted.

[00:01:36]That detail matters heavily in court because probation is supposed to be the break before harsher consequences arrive. The courtroom energy just shifted from rehabilitation to accountability in a hurry, and you can already hear the prosecution building the framework for a full year in jail.

[00:01:52]The real question now becomes, can the defense humanize Ms. Walker enough to stop this situation from completely collapsing. Um all of those incidences happened after being placed on probation. Um given um Miss Walker's non-compliance with her probation and her failure to uh to follow through, probation is recommending that Miss Walker serve 360 365 days in jail with credit for 13 days served to date to serve the balance, that she complete an in-jail drug program with consideration of early release upon completion, waive remaining term except for financial obligations, and discharge her probation. Thank Thank you, Your Honor. I did have the opportunity to meet with Miss Walker and discuss these violations of probation with her as well as the jail recommendation. We do acknowledge and admit to the alleged violations, and I would ask to argue against the jail recommendation, however, um when appropriate. All right.

[00:02:50]You're basing it on violation.

[00:02:52]Yes, Your Honor. All right. Go ahead.

[00:02:55]So, Your Honor, I was able to have a very long, meaningful conversation with Miss Walker, and first off, she does want to apologize to the court that she did not complete the terms as ordered on probation, and she does acknowledge that she currently has some pending cases, and I do not want to comment on those as they are still pending. Outside of point out that it is my understanding they are all non-assaultive allegations. Um my client does reside in Ypsilanti by herself. She receives Section 8 housing. Um Miss Walker states to me that prior to her receiving Section 8 housing a year and a half ago, she was a resident of the Delonis Center. Since receiving this housing, her life has changed in a lot of positive ways, including that she has potential work at a laundromat actually down the street here. She is a caregiver for her mother who resides in Ypsi. Her mother is 83 years old and um is unable to really get around. My My is also engaged at the Hope Clinic on Harriet Street and has even spoken to people there about the possibility of potentially volunteering.

[00:03:58]My client [clears throat] is very concerned that a year in jail, of course, would uh leave her likely losing her Section 8 as well as then her current apartment that she's been in for a year and a half. Now, this is where the defense pivots emotionally and strategically. The attorney understands the violations look terrible on paper.

[00:04:15]So, instead of trying to deny the facts, she's reframing the consequences. The argument becomes, "If you send her to jail, you're not just punishing her, you're potentially wiping out the only stability she's managed to build." And in probation hearings, housing absolutely matters. Section 8 housing can be incredibly difficult to regain once lost, especially for someone already struggling with addiction issues and instability. The defense is carefully painting a picture of somebody hanging on to structure by a thread. A job opportunity nearby, caregiving responsibilities, volunteer possibilities, and independent living after previously staying in a shelter environment. But, here's the courtroom tension. Judges hear these promises constantly. So, the challenge becomes credibility. Is this genuine rebuilding, or is this another last-minute plea after repeated noncompliance? That's the balancing act Judge Simpson is weighing right now. And viewers, be honest. If someone keeps violating probation but finally seems to stabilize their life, do you give them one more chance, or do consequences have to kick in eventually?

[00:05:17]She even stated to me she thinks the TV and the lights are still on at home, and she's concerned about paying rent, which your honor is wears on uh the due as I usually do on the 1st. In her case, it certainly is that she has to pay her portion of the Section 8. My client states to me that she came into custody um when her name was ran and she was picked up. Um and she states to me that she does not believe any new charges are coming from that police contact. Ultimately, I'm asking the court to consider discharging Ms. Walker from probation without improvement.

[00:05:48]She and closing out this case and not imposing the jail time so that she can maintain her housing.

[00:05:57]Ma'am, is there anything you want to tell me before I impose sentence? Yes, how you doing?

[00:06:02]Remember I was in I lived in Montgomery resided in Montgomery and we did the zoom and you had gave me >> [clears throat] >> some community work to do and I was in the Salvation Army but the the the husband and wife got in trouble by using drugs so they closed it down but I did do some community work there some hours there and also um I also was going to my court during the through zoom. I was doing all that.

[00:06:32]So like when I open up my blinds every morning it was a dope house there and the church that I was doing community work there service there for you.

[00:06:40]It was just it was I was just struggling you know cuz I love to open up my blinds every morning and so you know I was doing so well until one day a friend of mine just brought up drugs and I forgot I even did drugs. I was doing so well and so I got back up here. I went to the Delano Center.

[00:07:02]While I'm on drugs I was determined and got on Section A and now I live by myself on um on the forge.

[00:07:12]And I'm the only one with the key and and I do believe I left my lights and TV on and I don't know no um neighbors out there cuz I was only out there like a year and a half.

[00:07:23]This testimony is emotionally chaotic but it's also revealing something extremely important about Miss Walker's mindset. She's not talking like someone focused on legal arguments.

[00:07:34]She's talking like someone terrified of losing the first real stability she's had in years. Listen to the details she keeps repeating. The apartment, the lights being left on, the TV still running, people checking units, her neighborhood environment, the Section 8 housing. Those are survival details.

[00:07:52]And sometimes in courtroom hearings like this, defendants unintentionally expose more truth through rambling emotion than through polished answers. But there's another side to this, too. Judges also look for accountability and direct ownership. And right now, her statements are drifting between explanation, hardship, addiction, relapse, and external circumstances. The courtroom atmosphere becomes complicated because sympathy does not automatically erase probation violations.

[00:08:20]Judge Simpson is likely trying to separate genuine struggle from repeated excuses. You can actually feel the tension building toward the ruling because the court clearly recognizes her hardships. But recognition and leniency are not always the same thing.

[00:08:35]I wouldn't mind doing it. And then they're like, coming through, you know, cuz it was on the news about the mold and all that kind of stuff. And so, Section 8 have people coming through certain hou- um apartments to check the um >> [clears throat] >> the mold and the uh whatever that's was wrong with our apartments since it's been um uh uh what you call it?

[00:08:57]New management.

[00:09:00]Your property manager.

[00:09:02]But uh I just I haven't been on um if you can release me to um I've never been on tethers over 40 years as I was you know, in juvenile. I haven't experienced being on um tether as an adult. So, if you can please release me, if possible, to so I can take care on lose my place and my Section 8.

[00:09:25]And I would you can put two of them on my arm, my wrist, and my ankle. And I I would do anything that you want me to do.

[00:09:31]If you just give me a chance on on tether, I'll pay the fines. I I'll drop I'll drop clean. I'll Cuz I have a job down the street, the laundromat. I I can give you documents of that when I go to work. And also, the owner of the laundromat saw my work ethics and he gave me an gave my friend an application to give to me to fill out for um as a as a um a felon.

[00:09:57]So, I have that going for myself and the whole clinic I have that going for me.

[00:10:03]And I just can't do everything. I just can't be locked up and lose everything, be back you know, on the streets.

[00:10:09][clears throat] And I The only thing I love I will show you I will dry clean if you give me one more chance.

[00:10:20]Release me in the topic.

[00:10:22]I can show you.

[00:10:23]If I mess up then, I I swear I'll just do whatever you want me to do.

[00:10:27]But, please can I go home?

[00:10:28]>> How'd you come back into custody?

[00:10:31]Um I was at my friend's house right across the street from me. She's about to do my hair and next thing I know they just bust the door down.

[00:10:37]And they ran my name.

[00:10:40]And that was that and that's how I ended up here.

[00:10:43]This is the moment where the emotional plea collides directly with judicial reality. Up until now, Ms. Walker has been trying to persuade the court that she deserves one more opportunity outside jail, tether, supervision, treatment, anything except incarceration. But, judges pay very close attention to patterns and Judge Simpson is now shifting the conversation toward responsibility and follow through. When he starts referencing the original sentencing date and prior court appearances, he's essentially building a timeline of missed opportunities. And that matters because probation courts operate heavily on consistency. Did the defendant report? Did they communicate?

[00:11:22]Did they attempt compliance? Even partial effort can sometimes help. But, complete disengagement becomes extremely difficult to defend. Notice how quickly the courtroom tone changes once the judge starts asking direct accountability questions. The emotional storytelling suddenly has less influence because the focus narrows to one central issue. You knew you were on probation, so why didn't you act accordingly?

[00:11:47]That's usually the turning point where defendants realize the judge may already be leaning toward custody.

[00:11:53]Cuz I originally sentenced you back in January 2023.

[00:11:59]You didn't do anything on my sentence.

[00:12:02]We had you set to come back April 10th of this year.

[00:12:08]Um on the violation of probation, didn't show up.

[00:12:13]And now we have you back.

[00:12:16]But Can I Can I respond to that? My mother My mother My My mail was going to my mother's address. I didn't have a place then, and she she didn't tell me that I had had court and that like that.

[00:12:28]And I'm not going to lie on my mom, but I didn't have a place then. I just recently got my place.

[00:12:34]And you know, she just I didn't know cuz my my mail was going to 2302. You knew you were on probation. Yes, sir.

[00:12:42]You didn't call probation.

[00:12:44]No, sir. You knew that you hadn't done anything.

[00:12:47]Well, but I had started down in Montgomery.

[00:12:51]Okay.

[00:12:52]You knew you hadn't done anything on probation.

[00:12:56]Right? Yes, sir.

[00:13:01]But You hold the keys to whether or not you get out of jail.

[00:13:08]But I'm going to order the 365 days in jail credit 13. Defendant needs to serve balance.

[00:13:15]I will consider release upon her completion of the in-jail non-farm program. I'll waive all of the remaining terms, including financial except the financial obligations, and discharge her from probation without improvement.

[00:13:29]Thank you. You can put that away. How do I do here?

[00:13:38]Also, this is people versus Jacob Treadway.

[00:13:41]He needs to go.

[00:13:43]Yeah, can you hear me, Mr. Harris?

[00:13:46]Can you hear me?

[00:13:47]>> Yeah. Okay, good enough.

[00:13:50]How you doing, Your Honor? I'm doing well, Mr. Good afternoon, assistant public defender Lauren Perry here on behalf of Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris, could you state your name for the record, please? Edward Harris.

[00:14:01]Assistant District Attorney Hospital Probation. Your Honor, Mr. Harris has been reported for violation of probation to the court.

[00:14:06]And just like that, the courtroom resets into another probation violation case, but this one immediately feels different. With Ms. Walker, the courtroom energy centered around addiction relapse, housing instability, and emotional desperation. But with Mr. Harris, the concern shifts toward mental and cognitive health. The defense attorney is already signaling memory problems, a possible aneurysm history, and questions about whether he can even fully track what's happening around him.

[00:14:35]That changes the emotional temperature of the hearing completely.

[00:14:38]Because now the court isn't only evaluating compliance, it's evaluating capacity. Was this deliberate non-compliance, or is this somebody whose medical condition may be impairing his judgment and memory?

[00:14:51]At the same time, probation violations are still probation violations, and Judge Simpson has to balance compassion with public accountability. And here's what makes these hearings so difficult.

[00:15:02]Courts can acknowledge serious personal struggles while still imposing jail time anyway. That contradiction is one of the harsh realities of probation court that surprises a lot of viewers. Uh Mr. Harris is in violation of the terms ordered by this court in that he also balance of $1,095, having made no payment. He failed to report to probation as directed, failed to provide proof of substance abuse treatment, and failed to complete or provide proof of a mental health assessment.

[00:15:33]Mr. Harris additionally has had new police contact um with a new case um being filed or submitted to the prosecutor's office.

[00:15:46]Your Honor, that alleged date of offense was May 3rd, 2025, with the requested charges of larceny and theft. Um probation is also aware that Mr. Harris is has in violation um of probation hearings out of circuit court. Um that's going to be addressed there. Um it's my understanding from the felony probation office that he's likely to serve jail time in those matters.

[00:16:11]Given all of the circumstances, uh probation is recommending that Mr. Harris serve 365 days in jail with credit for 88 days that he's served.

[00:16:20]that that he's served [clears throat] the balance. That he complete the in-jail MRT program, for the court to consider early release upon completion of that, waving all other terms except his financial obligations, and discharging him from probation without All right.

[00:16:35]Your Honor, I did have a chance to speak with Mr. Harris and Ms. Polara about this. I'm going to ask for an adjournment of this hearing, actually, um to see what happens both in the felony case as well as I would like to get some documentation from Mr. Harris's caretaker, his sister. He's been having pretty significant memory issues. Um he had an aneurysm earlier this year, and I want to make sure that if that's going to if that could have an impact on the sentence, the court and probation has that information.

[00:17:08]Um and to see if felony probation has that information as well. I mean, frankly, Your Honor, I don't If I ask Mr. Harris if he's been diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer's, he doesn't remember. So, he's been having some um some some memory issues and his like I said, his sister is his full-time caretaker. You can hear the defense trying desperately to slow this case down before sentencing happens. An adjournment request in a situation like this is basically an attempt to buy time. Time to gather medical records, caretaker documentation, neurological evaluations, anything that might explain why Mr. Harris failed probation requirements. And honestly, the attorney raises a serious concern here. When she says he may not even remember whether he has dementia or Alzheimer's, that lands hard in a courtroom.

[00:17:58]But Judge Simpson's response is also revealing. He's saying essentially, "I'll sentence now, but I'm leaving the door open if legitimate medical information comes later." That's actually a very important judicial distinction. He's refusing delay, but not refusing reconsideration. In other words, accountability first, possible modification second. That's a common courtroom balancing act when judges believe action is still necessary despite mitigating circumstances. The problem for defendants in these situations is timing. Once jail is ordered, reversing momentum becomes much harder than preventing the sentence in the first place. Um so, I just need I just would like a chance to speak with her more to know more about what's going on with him.

[00:18:44]Well, it would seem to me that >> [clears throat] >> both could happen. I mean, the significant penalty in this case is the jail time that I would be imposing.

[00:18:56]I am certainly, if information is provided after you speak with the assistant to probation and into the court to reconsider the amount of time >> [clears throat] >> um if any that the defendant would serve.

[00:19:11]So, I I'm going to decline the adjournment. I think I'm going to go ahead with the sentencing with that caveat that if you provide that information, I'll take a that Sure, but yeah, if anything comes to light, I'll get it to the court. Um All right.

[00:19:26]Okay. Sir, anything you want to tell me before I impose sentence? No.

[00:19:31]All right.

[00:19:32]Given all of that, I'm going to order 365 days in jail, credit 88 days that he's served. Defendant, I'll order the defendant to serve the balance. I will indicate also that defendant is to complete the in-jail MRT program. I will consider an early release upon completion of that program, as well as if other factors are submitted to the court that would dictate an early release. I will waive all other further terms except his financial obligations, discharging from probation without improvement.

[00:20:05]Your Honor, if I may ask one question.

[00:20:07]Yeah.

[00:20:08]I'm I don't know if when Mr. Harris walks out of this room, he's going to remember to enroll in the MRT. Will the jail, since the it's court-ordered, will the jail automatically enroll him, do you know?

[00:20:18]Or anything like that?

[00:20:19]>> automatic.

[00:20:20]>> Officers? Um I can get in touch with the jail and see if Why don't we >> they can help me So, >> facilitate that. Okay. Okay. We'll do it that way. Okay. Thank you.

[00:20:32]>> Thank you. Thank you. You take care of yourselves.

[00:20:35]>> Okay.

[00:20:36]And there it is. Two different defendants, two different personal struggles, but ultimately the same courtroom conclusion. Probation was viewed as unsuccessful. Judge Simpson's rulings in both hearings followed a very similar structure. He imposed the 365-day jail sentence, credited time already served, ordered completion of in-jail rehabilitation programming, and left the possibility of early release tied directly to compliance and progress. That's a major theme throughout probation court. Judges often want measurable action, not promises.

[00:21:08]Ms. Walker's emotional plea about housing, addiction relapse, and rebuilding stability clearly impacted the courtroom emotionally, but the repeated violations and missed reporting obligations outweighed the request for another chance. Meanwhile, Mr. Harris's case introduced serious concerns about memory loss and medical impairment, yet the court still prioritized immediate sentencing while allowing future reconsideration if stronger evidence emerges. These hearings are difficult because they sit right at the intersection of punishment, rehabilitation, addiction, mental health, and personal responsibility. And sometimes the hardest part of probation court is that sympathy alone does not stop consequences from arriving. 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.