Judge Simpson SHUTS DOWN Defendant’s Courtroom Meltdown: “You’re Done!”

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]And then say your name, please.

[00:00:03]Your name, sir?

[00:00:06]Jerome Childs.

[00:00:07]>> Thank you.

[00:00:09]The matter today is the time and date set for the four probable cause conference, and it is my understanding that it's going to be a waiver to go forward.

[00:00:19]I've been in touch with Mr. Bernstein, and we've been talking about a resolution that will include count one, sexual conduct in the first degree, count two, the GBH, count three, the add GD, and count four, the larceny from a person. We do not have an agreement at this time, so the waiver will be on those four counts with an added count five of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, and an added count six of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree.

[00:00:47]The path >> So, count five and six of CSC one?

[00:00:51]Correct.

[00:00:53]And the path code for the added counts is 750.520B.

[00:00:59]Right out of the gate, this hearing takes a massive turn because what initially looked like a standard waiver discussion suddenly escalates into something far more serious. Prosecutors are not just moving forward on the original allegations. They are adding two more first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges to the case. And in Michigan, CSC one is no joke. These are life offense-level accusations, and you can already feel the courtroom tightening up the moment those added counts hit the record. What's especially important here is the strategy unfolding in real time. The prosecution is clearly building leverage while the defense is trying to preserve plea negotiation flexibility before this thing explodes into a full trial. Listen carefully to the language being used, raw workings of a deal, possible resolution if we don't reach a plea. That tells you both sides understand the stakes here are enormous.

[00:01:53]And notice Judge Simpson's tone, calm, direct, no theatrics. But underneath that calm delivery is a very serious procedural moment. Six total felony counts are now hanging over this defendant's head. Question for you watching this case unfold, when prosecutors add charges during negotiations like this, do you see it as pressure tactics or evidence they believe the case is getting stronger?

[00:02:16]Because this courtroom just shifted from dangerous to potentially life-changing in under a minute.

[00:02:23]It's a multiple variant and it reads exactly as count one that the defendant did engage in sexual penetration with Audrey Sheeran under the following circumstances during the commission of the felony of assault by strangulation and or defendant aided and abetted one another and affected sexual penetration through force or coercion and or defendant affected sexual penetration through force or coercion and the victim sustained personal injury.

[00:02:51]With the same penalty, uh, life offense.

[00:02:56]So, he's going to be bound over on six counts. That's right. Is that correct?

[00:03:02]And all right, very good. And if the case does proceed to trial, it would be on all six counts. It would not be amended for example, but the plea negotiation will involve, um, counts one through four. If we don't reach a plea and go to trial, it will be on one, two, three, four, five and six. And that's your understanding, Mr. Burton? Yes, your honor. We have the raw workings of a deal eventually be hopefully involving with just that one count. The two additional counts will be dismissed later. If we go to trial, they will be present though. So, we understand that.

[00:03:31]All right. Sir, you're waiving your right to preliminary examination? Yes, sir.

[00:03:36]You understand that a preliminary examination is a proceeding where the people would have to show by probable cause that the offenses alleged were committed and that you committed them.

[00:03:44]Yes, sir.

[00:03:45]Okay. And you understand you will not have that hearing and that you're proceeding to circuit court for further resolution. Yes, sir.

[00:03:51]All right. People also waive their right. We do, your honor. Preliminary examination having been waived, defendant is bound over to circuit court on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and the added counts 5 and 6. Your honor, can I'm sorry, for the waiver, your honor, could you just indicate what the penalties are on counts 1, 5, and 6 for the defendant?

[00:04:10]On counts what?

[00:04:13]On counts 5 and 6? 1, 5, and 6.

[00:04:16]Yeah, I did indicate I think it was indicated that the 5 and 6 certainly were indicated. You understand that those are life offenses, sir.

[00:04:27]Yes. All right. Thank [clears throat] you.

[00:04:30]This is one of those moments that courtroom viewers should never underestimate because legally this short exchange carries enormous weight. Judge Simpson is making absolutely sure the defendant understands the consequences attached to counts 5 and 6 before this case moves forward. And notice how precise the judge becomes here after the attorney interrupts to clarify penalties. That interruption matters.

[00:04:54]Why? Because if a defendant later claims they didn't fully understand what they were waiving or what penalties existed, hearings like this become critically important. The court is creating a clean record. Everything is being locked in carefully, step-by-step, and the phrase life offenses lands like a hammer. Even though this is not a sentencing hearing, the gravity of the accusations suddenly becomes crystal clear to everyone watching. This is no longer abstract legal paperwork. This is potential life imprisonment being discussed openly in court. What also stands out is how procedural the atmosphere remains despite the severity of the allegations.

[00:05:33]No yelling. No emotional speeches. Just cold legal mechanics moving the case deeper into the system. That's how serious felony court often works.

[00:05:42]Life-altering consequences delivered in routine courtroom language. We We understand [clears throat] a waive any further reading, Your Honor. Uh Mr. Child stands mute and sure Miss Razo will send me an amended information.

[00:05:55]Defendant [clears throat] will waive formal reading, standing mute to all six counts. Court will enter not guilty.

[00:06:04]Bond is denied. We'll continue. Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:06:12]Mr. Franklin, can you state your name for the record? Thank you.

[00:06:15]Thank you, sir. Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:06:17]Um Your Honor, we are asking to set this matter for preliminary examination. We are also asking to make a quick bond argument. All discoveries complete? As far as we know it to be.

[00:06:27]People have their witnesses available the 21st?

[00:06:32]As to bond. As to bond, Your Honor, I have spoken with my client. He advises that he can live at a location that the complaining witness does not live at. Uh he's willing to do home confinement, GPS tether. He works for AATA in maintenance.

[00:06:50]He's been working there for a year now.

[00:06:52]He's not wanting to lose that source of income. He just had a child. He also has a daughter who just unfortunately broke both her legs in a playground incident.

[00:07:03]She's got some pretty bad medical needs right now that he'd like to get out and be able to take care of. So I'm asking for his release on on uh maximally home confinement. I'm just asking that he be able to to have an opportunity to be out. He's like I said, he's willing to do GPS tether and any other um conditions as set by the court.

[00:07:27]Respond.

[00:07:28]Your Honor, in this in this case, the people originally requested a $200,000 bond and we have great concerns on if he would have done any bond modification.

[00:07:37]In this case, our information from the 22nd Circuit Court up to March 28th, 2025 for an RNO, animal possession by felon, weapon possession by felon. He also has previous intimidation, breaking and entering.

[00:07:50]Now, the bond argument starts getting extremely uncomfortable for the defense because prosecutors are stacking concern after concern onto the record. The defense tried to humanize the defendant here, talking about employment, family responsibilities, a newborn child, and even a daughter recovering from serious injuries. That's the classic bond strategy. Show stability, show community ties, show reasons to return to court.

[00:08:15]But then the prosecution counters hard.

[00:08:17]Prior criminal history, probation status, allegations involving strangulation, a pregnant victim, prior weapons-related convictions, and possibly most damaging of all, the argument that the alleged incident escalated after the defendant returned following an earlier confrontation. That combination is exactly the kind of thing judges take very seriously during bond considerations because bond hearings are not about determining guilt or innocence. They're about risk assessment. Risk to the public, risk to alleged victims, risk of reoffending, risk of non-compliance. And you can almost feel the momentum shifting away from the defense in real time as the prosecutor keeps layering details onto the record one after another. One thing courtroom watchers constantly debate is this: Should judges heavily weigh prior criminal history during bond decisions before a case is proven? Or does that unfairly prejudice the accused before trial even begins? This hearing is a perfect example of that tension playing out live.

[00:09:19]OWI And in this case specifically, uh when the victim got to the argument, he got upset. He then strangled her with both hands, grabbed her by the throat, and slammed her to the ground.

[00:09:30]And their children were present for the incident. And then after he left from the first incident, came back and pulled me by the hair. at the time of this incident she was also pregnant at the time of the incident. She did have a charge she's facing on Palm Beach Department. And you're indicating he was on bond at the time of this incident?

[00:09:51]I think he's on probation. I I'm probation. I'm sorry.

[00:09:54]>> probation currently. And was he on at the time that this offense occurred?

[00:09:58]Yes, your honor. All right. Anything else? Um we would just provide to the court that those are just allegations at this time, your honor.

[00:10:06]Motion for bond reduction is denied.

[00:10:07]Bond will continue.

[00:10:09]Thank you.

[00:10:12]Seven Johnson was here. Yes. Is that You know, you got to watch Alan, did you see him sitting over there in the corner? He was hiding.

[00:10:21]He comes in here to hide.

[00:10:23]Go ahead.

[00:10:25]>> [laughter] >> Good morning, Miss Please. This audible court Karim Johnson will be out for Carlton Tinsley.

[00:10:30]Who's approaching from custody. They're bringing Your name, sir?

[00:10:43]Carlton Tinsley. Thank you.

[00:10:45]Yeah. Just step over. Yeah. There you go. All right.

[00:10:49]Okay. What are we doing? Your honor, we ask this matter be set for jury trial.

[00:10:53]All right.

[00:10:54]Um Jury final settlement conference June 6th, 2025.

[00:11:03]9:00 a.m.

[00:11:05]Jury selection if necessary June 9th, 2025 at 8:30. Both of those proceedings are in person. Thank you, your Your honor, I'm sorry. I'd like to speak with my client. Okay. Hold on. Yeah. Counsel first. I have jury selection Lawrence Buckner uh [snorts] in the Ypsilanti District Court on June 9th.

[00:11:27]Jury selection? Yes, your honor. Before Judge Barr. Yes, your honor. It'll be here. Okay. We all select on the same day. All right.

[00:11:36]What starts as a routine scheduling discussion is about to turn into one of the most awkward and explosive attorney-client exchanges in this entire hearing. And these moments are always fascinating because they pull back the curtain on something viewers rarely see publicly. The breakdown of trust between a defendant and defense counsel. Up to this point, the courtroom atmosphere has been procedural and controlled.

[00:12:00]Dates are being scheduled. Jury selection logistics are being discussed.

[00:12:05]Everybody's moving through normal courtroom business. Then suddenly, the defendant interrupts and signals that there's a fundamental difference in defense strategy with his attorney. That is a huge statement to make in open court because once a defendant publicly accuses their own lawyer of being uninterested in the case, everything instantly becomes tense.

[00:12:26]Judges generally take attorney-client conflict seriously, but they also hear plenty of complaints from frustrated defendants, especially in long-running criminal matters. So now, the courtroom is about to enter dangerous territory where credibility, frustration, and courtroom authority all collide at once.

[00:12:44]And watch carefully how Judge Simpson handles this. Veteran judges can usually tell within seconds whether they're hearing a legitimate breakdown in representation or a defendant trying to manipulate or delay proceedings. This next exchange gets personal fast. So.

[00:13:03]Your honor, if I may uh Um and so, Mr. Mr. Johnson and I have a fundamental like difference in um defense strategy. Um there's no point in us moving forward together on this on this case. Mr. Johnson is uh representing me in circuit court. I've submitted a motion to have uh Mr. Johnson um removed counsel in that case. Uh >> All Excuse me? Why? Why? Because Mr. Johnson is un fully uninterested in this case in that case in this case as well. Mr. Johnson, you've been before me before and I'm just going to tell you this.

[00:13:42]Okay. I haven't known Mr. Johnson necessarily all that long. Okay, but I'm going to tell you for maybe about the past year plus that he's been appearing before this court, there has not been a client that he has walked into this court where he has not been interested in their case and zealously representing his defense. And there so I don't I don't believe you. I you coming before telling me that about this attorney?

[00:14:10]I don't believe it for 1 minute. Not 1 minute. I think because you've been before you before is that you're probably not listening to him.

[00:14:20]He is advising you. He I can I can guarantee he's protecting every right you have.

[00:14:26]>> be absolutely wrong.

[00:14:27]I have not seen this gentleman has told me he's going to show up to see me countless times at the county jail. He has not. I've been waiting over 2 years for specific for discovery in in another case at all. This gentleman doesn't answer his phone. You're you're you're making these assertions without having personal experience.

[00:14:46]>> done. He [snorts] he he he he he he >> If you want to file a If you want to file a If you want to file Mr. Johnson You're done.

[00:14:56]You're done. YOU ARE DONE.

[00:14:59]WOW. THIS EXCHANGE completely boils over and you can see Judge Simpson hit the point where courtroom patience runs out entirely. The defendant is trying to argue that his attorney has ignored him, failed to communicate, and hasn't properly handled discovery issues connected to another case. But the moment he starts repeatedly talking over the judge and pushing the argument further, the entire tone changes. And notice something important here. Judge Simpson doesn't just defend the attorney casually. He strongly vouches for him on the record. That's rare language. The judge basically says he has personally observed this lawyer zealously represent clients in court and openly rejects the defendant's accusations. That tells you the judge believes this is less about ineffective representation and more about a defendant refusing to accept legal advice he doesn't want to hear.

[00:15:51]Then comes the key line. This is a game he plays. That is devastating courtroom language. Once a judge publicly signals they believe a defendant is manipulating proceedings, it becomes much harder for future complaints to gain traction. At the same time, this hearing also highlights a real issue that happens constantly in criminal court. Defendants feeling disconnected, unheard, or mistrustful of appointed counsel during high-stakes cases. Whether justified or not, that frustration can completely fracture defense strategy. And once trust collapses between lawyer and client, trials can become absolute chaos.

[00:16:29]Yeah, I think I need to respond to the two-year comment. Mr. Tinsley does have a matter that's been pending for two years. I'm the fourth attorney on that matter.

[00:16:38]I have only been representing him since April.

[00:16:42]When I go to speak to him, he doesn't want to talk about what I want to talk about, Yancey.

[00:16:46]I just want to clear it up for the record. And I And Mr. Yancey, I meant my words sincerely. I've dealt with Mr. Tinsley before. This is a game he plays.

[00:16:57]So, I'm done. [clears throat] All right.

[00:17:00]You're still on this case, regrettably.

[00:17:01]But You're still on this All right. Take care, sir.

[00:17:08]Should be unmuted now. Can you hear me?

[00:17:09]Yeah.

[00:17:10]Yes, we we can hear you. Thank you.

[00:17:15]Mohammed Diane.

[00:17:18]Yes, you're on.

[00:17:19]All right.

[00:17:20]Mr. Diane, you're This is an arraignment. You are before the court on a two-count complaint that alleges that on or about October 13th, 2023, location in Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, State of Michigan, that you did commit an assault and battery upon a Michael Sabados, contrary to Michigan statutes. Do you understand what you're charged with?

[00:17:48]Your honor, I have not been notified none about none of this. I didn't get no court papers or none of that. I don't I don't even know why I'm here. And I think I got y'all probably got Hey, I'm trying to I'm Mr. Diane, I'm trying to tell you you're being arraigned on these charges.

[00:18:05]You know, I'm trying to tell you, I've been in prison since uh April 30th of 2024, and you know, I got other people in my family that got the same exact name, too, so I think y'all got the wrong person.

[00:18:20]Um What's your date of birth?

[00:18:24]9/21/97.

[00:18:29]We've got the right person.

[00:18:31]Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm not I'm not even been getting no paperwork talking to the Okay. This arraignment becomes incredibly [snorts] chaotic almost immediately because the defendant clearly believes there has been some kind of mistake or misunderstanding about why he's even in court. He's saying he never received paperwork. He's already incarcerated on another matter, and he even raises the possibility that authorities may have confused him with family members who share the same name.

[00:19:00]Now, from the judge's perspective, arraignments are supposed to accomplish something very simple: formally advise the defendant of the charges and confirm they understand them.

[00:19:10]But notice how difficult that process becomes when the defendant keeps trying to argue facts instead of answering the narrow legal questions being asked.

[00:19:19]Judge Simpson repeatedly redirects him back to the same issue. Do you understand the charges? That's it. Not whether he agrees, not whether he committed the acts, just whether he understands what he's accused of. This is actually a really important courtroom distinction that many viewers miss.

[00:19:36]Early hearings are heavily procedural.

[00:19:39]Judges are not litigating guilt during arraignment. They are establishing legal notice and preserving due process. And despite the confusion and interruptions, the judge keeps the hearing moving steadily forward without letting it spiral completely off track. Which is harder than it looks in live courtroom settings like this. But I need you to I I'm trying to do the arraignment.

[00:20:02]So, do you understand Do you understand what you're charged with?

[00:20:06]No, what did you say what I'm being charged with?

[00:20:10]Two counts of assault and or assault battery.

[00:20:14]>> [clears throat] >> Okay.

[00:20:17]Okay. One of those occurred against a Michael Sabados. I'm not asking if you did it or not. I just need to know that you know what you're charged with. Do you understand that?

[00:20:28]Yeah, I've heard the charges you read, all I'm saying but what day was that assault that they they're accusing me of doing? October 13th, 2023.

[00:20:40]Yeah, I don't even know nothing about none of that. Okay. I'm not asking about that. I'm just asking do you understand what you're charged with?

[00:20:49]Yeah, I understand the charges, your honor. Okay. Count two alleges that same offense of assault and or assault and battery against a Brooke Lesseig. Do you understand what you're charged with?

[00:21:03]Yes, I understand what I'm charged with.

[00:21:05]Okay. Both of those are misdemeanors punishable by up to 93 days in jail, $500 fine plus court costs. You understand that?

[00:21:15]Yes, your honor.

[00:21:16]Okay. And my first question to you is do you wish to be represented by an attorney?

[00:21:23]Yes, your honor.

[00:21:25]All right, this is a public defender case.

[00:21:31]Assistant public defender Natalie Payne with and on behalf of Diane, we would waive any further reading, stand mute, and ask for an adjourned pretrial date, please.

[00:21:39]>> All right. Defendant having waived formal reading, standing mute, the court will enter a not guilty plea in this matter.

[00:21:47]I'll set the defendant's bond at a $1,000 10% bond since he's in custody at this point. Standard conditions including no assaultive behavior, no alcohol, recreational marijuana, or any illegal drugs, and no contact with the victims in the case.

[00:22:07]Alleged victims in the case.

[00:22:09]And then I will adjourn this matter to April 2nd, 2025, 9:00 a.m.

[00:22:17]All right.

[00:22:18]Thank you. Mr. Diane, thank you. Thank you, your honor.

[00:22:22]Thank you, Mr. Diane. I'll try to either set up a visit or send a message and we'll be in touch, sir.

[00:22:28]And just like that, this hearing closes with another reminder of how rapidly courtroom proceedings can swing between high-stakes felony negotiations, heated attorney conflicts, bond battles, and procedural misdemeanor arraignments, all inside the same courtroom session. Judge Simpson ultimately sets a $1,000 10% bond while attaching multiple behavioral conditions, including no contact with the alleged victims and restrictions involving alcohol and drugs. Those conditions are extremely common in assault-related cases because courts are focused heavily on preventing escalation while the matter remains pending. But looking back across this entire hearing, several moments stand out. The massive escalation involving additional CSE first-degree charges carrying potential life offense consequences, the denied bond reduction after prosecutors emphasized probation status and violent allegations, and of course, the explosive confrontation between the defendant and his attorney that completely shifted the courtroom atmosphere. What really makes hearings like this compelling is that they reveal how criminal court is not just about verdicts. It's about pressure, strategy, credibility, procedure, and human behavior colliding in real time under judicial supervision.

[00:23:45]Judge Simpson maintained tight control throughout multiple difficult moments, repeatedly steering emotionally charged situations back into procedural order.

[00:23:55]And in busy criminal courtrooms, that control matters more than people realize. 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.