Judge Simpson EXPOSES Defendant’s Dangerous Pattern in Explosive Bond Hearing!

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]With that, on behalf of Ms. Crittenden, Ms. Crittenden, can you please state your name for the record?

[00:00:03]>> Savannah Crittenden.

[00:00:05]You're requesting an adjournment. You were just recently appointed. Yes, Your Honor. I was just appointed yesterday, so I don't have discovery yet on this matter. Um, however, when appropriate, I would like to address bond.

[00:00:16]Adjourned a matter to July 31st, 2025.

[00:00:20]9:00 a.m. Yes, as to bond briefly. Right away, this hearing comes in hot because the defense is trying to slow things down, while also pushing for bond relief almost immediately after appointment.

[00:00:32]That is always a difficult balancing act. Savannah Kitten's attorney is basically telling the court, "I just got this case. I don't even have discovery yet, but I still want the judge to consider release conditions." And you can already feel the tension building because the prosecution is clearly preparing to argue danger, repeated contact, and escalation. What makes this interesting is the framing from both sides. The defense paints this as proximity to an circumstance, an extended stay hotel, accidental overlap, construction issues, no reason for contact. But prosecutors are preparing a completely different narrative, repeated warnings ignored. And in courtroom logic, judges care a lot about whether someone followed instructions after law enforcement intervention.

[00:01:18]Judge Simpson immediately sounds cautious here. He's listening carefully, but the tone suggests he's not eager to gamble on bond reductions when allegations involve stalking and a minor. And viewers, pay attention to this pattern throughout the hearing.

[00:01:32]Whenever the court hears, "Police had to come back again," that instantly changes how risk gets evaluated. Would you trust somebody to follow conditions after multiple warnings from police? That question is about to become the center of this entire exchange. Your Honor, um it's my understanding that these alleged incidents allegedly took place at an extended stay hotel while Ms. Crittenden's apartment complex was under construction.

[00:02:01]She has no before staying at that extended stay hotel had not known and I would argue still does not know the alleged complaining witness in this case has no reason to have contact with them.

[00:02:17]I'm still trying to determine whether the construction on her apartment complex is complete.

[00:02:23]Well, your honor, I think that given the circumstances, I'd be asking for a release on a PR bond with a DPX tether with potentially a no go to to that extended stay hotel.

[00:02:37]Response.

[00:02:39]Your honor, we would ask that the bond um continue as set until the next um probable cause conference date. The defendant was under investigation for uh criminal sexual conduct with a minor.

[00:02:53]That um investigation was uh furthered for um other information to be obtained.

[00:03:01]Ms. Crittenden was advised not to have any contact uh with the minor or his father following the original bond condition. Uh she immediately went back to the hotel, had contact um with the minor and his father. Police had to be called. The police came out, um instructed her not to have contact with the minor and his father. Uh police left the hotel and were dispatched back again. She was having contact with the minor and the father uh and making harassing phone calls. Hence, the stalking charges. So, we would ask that the bond continue. And your honor, if I may Yes.

[00:03:35]Again, I just want to make sure it's clear the the out the CSC allegations, it's the same complaining witness as in this stalking charge. And again, I just want to get that. So, This is one of those moments where the defense is trying to carefully acknowledge the court's concerns without fully surrendering the argument. You can hear the attorney attempting to soften the situation by clarifying that the CSC allegations and the stalking allegations involve the same complaining witness.

[00:04:06]Strategically, that matters because the defense wants this framed as one ongoing dispute rather than multiple unrelated dangerous incidents. But then the prosecution's narrative keeps crashing back in. The judge hears warned not to make contact. Police called twice.

[00:04:22]Allegations of threats afterward. That combination is brutal for bond arguments. Judges look at behavior after warnings as a direct test of compliance.

[00:04:31]If someone allegedly ignores instructions immediately, the court starts worrying that future bond conditions may not work either. And Judge Simpson practically says the quiet part out loud when he admits he's surprised the bond is already this low.

[00:04:46]That is devastating for the defense position because once a judge says that on record, the odds of reduction drop dramatically. At that point, the hearing shifts from can conditions work to why should the court trust this defendant at all? This is why bond hearings move fast but carry huge consequences. A few minutes of allegations can completely reshape how a defendant is viewed before trial even begins. I just wanted to make sure that I was clear, Your Honor. And again, I don't believe she has any reason to have contact with them and I think a GPS tether would be a no-go.

[00:05:18]>> I understand, she was told she was under investigation for a CSC, told not to have any contact with this specific individual as well as the spouse. And she denies those allegations, Your Honor.

[00:05:31]Understood, but the allegation is is that then the police were called back twice after she was informed of that and that there were threats, which as Ms. Rogers is indicating have led to the stalking charge. I'm actually given those allegations surprised that her bond is set so low. Motion for bond reduction is denied. Bond Your Honor, one one more thing, Your Honor. I apologize. Just be I was hopeful that Mr. Diakite would be released and then we could have an afternoon spot on the 31st. I do have a conflict in the morning.

[00:06:04]You can talk about this Well, it No, it's going to be in the morning. Right.

[00:06:08]No. Put it on the 7th. And that I That's what I'm asking for, Your Honor.

[00:06:12]All right. Pre-trial conference August 7th, 2025, 9:00 a.m.

[00:06:19]Bond will continue. Motion for bond reduction having been denied.

[00:06:22]Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:06:27]What are we doing?

[00:06:28]Sir, Mr. Diakite He's on He's still muted.

[00:06:33]>> [snorts] >> Mr. Diakite, why is he not responding?

[00:06:40]Oh, there he is. Sir, can you state your name, please?

[00:06:42]Uh Ibrahim Ousmane Diakite.

[00:06:45]Okay. I got it.

[00:06:47]What are we doing?

[00:06:49]Uh in the matters that I represent uh Mr. Diakite on 1232 and 1233, we would be requesting to set for a preliminary exam. To my knowledge, all discovery is complete in both of those cases.

[00:07:01]Same with 5153.

[00:07:03]You want an exam set? Yes, Your Honor.

[00:07:06]I did meet with him last night.

[00:07:09]Now the courtroom pivots into a completely different defendant, but the theme stays the same. Bond, risk, and whether the court believes supervision can actually protect the public. This time, the defense is trying to present Ibrahim Jack as someone with structure, employment opportunities, transportation, family ties, and no reason to contact the complaining witness. That's classic bond mitigation strategy. The attorney is stacking stability factors one by one, hoping the judge sees somebody manageable on tether instead of somebody dangerous in custody. But, here's where experienced courtroom watchers immediately tense up.

[00:07:46]Prosecutors love waiting until after those polished defense arguments before unloading the incident details. And once that response begins, the energy in the room changes completely.

[00:07:57]Suddenly, we're not just talking about tether requests anymore. We're talking threats toward officers, high-speed pursuits, a stolen motorcycle, alleged violence involving a dating partner, and prior convictions.

[00:08:09]The defense tried to frame this as rehabilitation and structure. The prosecution is about to frame it as escalating chaos across multiple separate incidents. And when judges hear multiple cases stacked together instead of one isolated event, it creates a cumulative effect that becomes extremely hard to overcome in bond discussions.

[00:08:29]You can already sense this hearing drifting toward another denial before the prosecutor even finishes his speaking.

[00:08:39]Will have their witnesses available the 29th? We'll do our best, Your Honor.

[00:08:43]Preliminary examination will be set in person.

[00:08:48]July 29th, 2025, 9:00 a.m. before Judge Judge Washington. Washington.

[00:08:56]Your Honor, we would like to inform my client would like me to address bond.

[00:09:00]Go ahead.

[00:09:02]Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Diakate would like me to request a release on tether. He does not reside reside at the same location as the complaining witness and the 1232 case.

[00:09:12]Prior to incarceration, he began working full-time as a caregiver. He would like to be able to return to that work. He does not have to be He has no reason to be in contact with the alleged complaining witness in this case. No children in common, no residence in common. He does have his own transportation. He will be able to return to court. He does have ties [clears throat] in the state of Michigan as he has family who resides within the state in different cities. So, he He will be requesting a tether with release on tether, personal recognizance bond with release on tether in these cases. Your Honor, just two things on my case.

[00:09:41]I I'm trying to figure out what the bond is. Does your record show what the bond is on on the 23 case? The 23 The bond on the 23 case bond is 1,000 and 10%.

[00:09:57]>> All right, thank you, judge.

[00:09:59]Um I would just echo that judge request for bond and again, this is a 23 case that happened in the jail.

[00:10:07]Response? Your honor, I object to any modification of bond.

[00:10:11]This defendant is looking at three cases here and I'll focus on each. One of my one in his R&O cases, the officer tried to stop the defendant and told the officer that he was going to kill him when he got out of jail. In his next case, he was throwing rocks at someone who was Officers arrived on a motorcycle leaving, confirmed it was the defendant, and a pursuit began where he reached speeds of over 100 mph 100 mph in a 45 mph posted zone. Uh he was caught after the motorcycle had stalled and the motorcycle turned out to be stolen. And then in his third case, him and the victim who were who were working together uh had a dating relationship, an employee at that restaurant called 911 to report that the victim had been dragged from the women's restroom kicking and screaming to a car. And the colleagues that work at saw visible scratches on her face. And after being put in the car, the defendant then drove away and the victim jumped from the car and officers stopped her in the middle of the roadway and also wanted to know her That prosecution summary was absolutely devastating from a bond perspective. Look at how the state structured it. They didn't just list charges, they built a progression of danger. Threats toward an officer, a pursuit allegedly exceeding 100 mph, a stolen motorcycle. Then an emotionally explosive domestic violence allegation ending with a woman jumping from a moving vehicle into a roadway.

[00:11:30]Prosecutors know exactly what they're doing when they present facts in escalating sequence like that. And then comes the final punch. Prior convictions and another active hold from a different county. That matters because courts evaluate not just the current allegations, but the defendant's overall pattern of behavior and compliance history. By the time the prosecutor finishes, the defense's tether request almost feels disconnected from the severity of the allegations now sitting in front of Judge Simpson. What stands out here is how quickly bond hearings become credibility battles. The defense talks about stability and employment.

[00:12:07]The prosecution talks about risk, fear, violence, and public safety. Judges then have to decide which future scenario seems more believable. And honestly, once the phrase 100 miles per hour in a 45 enters the hearing, combined with threats and multiple pending matters, the courtroom momentum shifts hard. But that he has a previous DUI condition from 2023, and he currently has a hold from Delta County with bond denied. So, I would be asking that bond remain as set, your honor.

[00:12:36]Anything else?

[00:12:38]>> [snorts] >> No, your honor. All right.

[00:12:39]>> Nothing from me, sir. Under all those circumstances, motion for bond reduction is denied. Bond will continue in all three matters. Thank you, your honor.

[00:12:46]Thank you, your honor.

[00:12:49]Court goes called the case.

[00:12:54]Good afternoon, your honor. Whitney Bol.

[00:12:56]And good afternoon, your honor. Yaggi, assistant public defender, with none behalf of this. So, um your honor, I do have a green sheet. Um I apologize. I am seeking an adjournment for further discussions regarding the case.

[00:13:07]And your honor, I did want to address that.

[00:13:18]Probable cause conference, August the 7th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Yes, assistant Bol. Your honor, simply wanted to request there is no sentencing order whatsoever on this file. I provided the court you may have the hard copy of Miss Hill's I think it started with Sobriety and Alcohol Monitoring Program vice versa in her circuit court case. I just wanted to ask that we have an order here to accompany that so that we get those results cuz currently they're only being sent to me.

[00:13:48]Oh, you guys don't you know I get them because I'm a gang member. I got you.

[00:13:57]You're on a SCRAM SCRAM now.

[00:14:05]When did you go on a SCRAM?

[00:14:07]Uh they put it on me before I got out of jail July 8th or 9th.

[00:14:14]All right.

[00:14:15]What I will do is I'll continue the defendant's bond um and we'll order a SCRAM tether on this case.

[00:14:24]Um We don't have to put another one on her.

[00:14:27]Thank god. We're out of space. What are you saying? We're out of space.

[00:14:31]>> [laughter] >> We got two left. This section is fascinating because the mood suddenly changes from intense bond arguments into something awkwardly human and procedural. After all the serious allegations earlier, the courtroom briefly turns into a discussion about SCRAM tether logistics, paperwork confusion, and even literal equipment space. That tiny thank god we're out of space joke from Judge Simpson cuts through the tension for a second and reminds you how chaotic busy criminal dockets can become behind the scenes.

[00:15:02]But beneath the lighter moment is still a very important issue, monitoring compliance. The defense wants confirmation that testing and tether conditions are coordinated correctly across cases so records don't fall through the cracks. That sounds administrative, but in criminal court administrative gaps can can major problems. If testing results are not shared properly, violations may go unnoticed or defendants may end up accused unfairly because agencies are not communicating clearly. Then the hearing shifts again into the civil standby issue, and honestly, this exchange perfectly captures courtroom frustration. The defendant says police told her a judge had to order assistance so she could retrieve belongings while the court seems confused why officers refused without written authorization.

[00:15:50]These moments matter because real life doesn't pause while cases move through the system. Housing issues, property access, and restrictions all collide with bond conditions in messy ways.

[00:16:01]>> [laughter] >> We can put one on each line. I think we've done that before. Your Honor, I I'm so sorry. Um I'm just asking for civil standby. I I think it was an oversight at arraignment at arraignment, but she we just need a civil standby for her to um get her belongings. To do what? For her to get her belongings from her residence. She's um been evicted, but um it is the uh location that she's not allowed to go back to, but um she was told that she could get her belongings with a civil standby, and for some I don't need to order a civil standby. You called me. They wouldn't come out when I tried to do that. They said I had to be ordered by a judge. I'm not allowed on the property.

[00:16:38]So I don't know if Sheriff's Department told you that? Yes.

[00:16:42]>> [clears throat] >> If I scream loud enough, is that an order?

[00:16:50]Really? I I've I've never Miss Yaghi, craft an order. Okay.

[00:17:01]That's not how that works. I was going to say I'm happy to just send them JIS if the court just indicates like okay for civil >> They want an order?

[00:17:10]Do an order. Got it. Give me a lot of room. I'll put a big signature on it.

[00:17:14]Thank you, Honor.

[00:17:15]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:17:25]Roba Handan I'm here with and on behalf of Justin Hodge. Can you please say your name for the record? Justin Paul Hodge. Thank you. Um your honor, we would like to set preliminary examination at this time.

[00:17:38]All right. Is all discovery complete? To the best of my knowledge. All right.

[00:17:43]You will have your witnesses available the 29th? Judge Barr.

[00:17:48]Preliminary examination in person, July 29th, 2025, 9:00 a.m. before Judge Judge Barr. Judge Barr.

[00:17:59]And then um when appropriate we would like to address bond as well. Of course you would. Go ahead. Um your honor, my client is asking for contact with his two children to be reinstated. Um he advises that he would not need to be in contact with the claiming witness um in order to do so.

[00:18:20]Response?

[00:18:21]Your honor, we would object to any modification of bond. The defendant was on probation when this case occurred for another domestic violence case in Wayne County. He's currently being held out of Wayne for that. He currently has a hold out of Wayne for that DV with bond being set at $1,570.

[00:18:38]And this current case involves the defendant having an argument with his girlfriend, taking her phone and smashing it, and his admitted prior felony. So at this point we believe bond is set at $10,000.

[00:18:49]Were the children there at the time?

[00:18:58]They were.

[00:18:59]They They were present at the time of The 2-year-old was present. The 2-year-old. So one of the children was there. Any other corroborating facts?

[00:19:08]No, your honor. All right.

[00:19:10]Motion for bond modification is denied at this time. Bond will continue with the conditions.

[00:19:18]Thank you.

[00:19:19]And the hearing closes with yet another defendant trying to modify bond conditions. This time specifically asking for contact with children to be reinstated. The defense carefully argues that communication with the children could happen without contact with the complaining witness, which is an important distinction legally. But prosecutors immediately counter with prior domestic violence history, active probation issues, another hold from Wayne County, and allegations involving the destruction of the victim's phone during an argument. Then Judge Simpson asks the key question, "Were the children there?" That single question changes the emotional weight of the hearing instantly. Once the court hears that one of the children was present during the alleged incident, the possibility of bond modification becomes dramatically less likely. Judges take exposure of children to domestic conflict extremely seriously, even when the children are not direct victims.

[00:20:16]Across this entire docket, one theme kept repeating itself. Bond decisions are not just about charges. They're about behavior patterns, compliance, escalation, prior history, and whether the court believes future restrictions will actually be followed. Judge Simpson consistently leaned toward caution, denying reductions when allegations suggested repeated violations, public safety concerns, or instability. 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.