“I Was Homeless...” — Judge Simpson Delivers Tough Reality Check!

追加: 2026-06-08

[00:00:00]for the people.

[00:00:07]>> Good morning, your honor. Maisy Burgerer, requesting permission to practice pursuant to Michigan Code 8.120.

[00:00:14]>> Michigan rule >> court rule.

[00:00:16]>> Court rule 8.120 under the supervision of Mr. um J.

[00:00:21]Bellinger representing my client Nathaniel Gray. Right away, this hearing opens with procedure, and that matters more than viewers might think. Before the drama, before the excuses, before the bond arguments, Judge Simpson is making sure the record is clean. A defense representative is requesting permission to practice under Michigan court rules, and the judge grants it.

[00:00:44]That small moment tells us this is not chaos yet. It is court machinery warming up. But watch closely, because this docket is about to move fast. We are going from technical permission to bond requests to probation violations to defendants asking for second chances and finally to a serious bond fight involving allegations with minor children. So the question hanging over the courtroom is simple. Who is asking for mercy? Who has earned it? And who has simply run out of chances?

[00:01:12]>> Permission to practice is granted.

[00:01:14]>> Thank you your honor.

[00:01:16]>> All right. What are we doing?

[00:01:18]>> Your honor. We would like we are requesting a two-e adjournment so that we may consider going o continue going over discovery >> parable cause conference in this matter will be adjourned July 25th 2024.

[00:01:31]>> Thank you your honor. May we address bond?

[00:01:35]>> Yes.

[00:01:36]>> Thank you your honor.

[00:01:38]Your honor, my client is um seeking a lower bond if possible. He has three kids and another on the way. Um my client would like to continue working if possible so that he may continue to provide for his family. He has support of his family. Um he is a churchgoing man and he would just like to continue um being supported by his family.

[00:02:02]He is willing to do an um alcohol tether if need be so that he may continue to work while being monitored by the courts.

[00:02:12]I did want to note that he is being held on a probation violation in the 22nd, but um >> what's his bond in that case?

[00:02:23]>> I waited it until I finished with this to figure out what I was going through with this.

[00:02:28]>> He's only been arraigned in that matter.

[00:02:30]>> Pardon?

[00:02:31]>> He's only been arraigned in that matter.

[00:02:33]>> Okay. So, what's his bond in that case?

[00:02:36]>> I have no bond right now. I'll go Tuesday.

[00:02:38]>> So, it's no bond >> right now. Yes, sir.

[00:02:42]Okay.

[00:02:44]So, how did he come back into custody on this matter? Because he failed to appear back on March in March of 2024.

[00:02:55]>> I got stopped. You got stopped. So, he didn't turn himself in.

[00:02:58]>> No, your honor.

[00:02:59]>> Anything else?

[00:02:59]>> No, your honor.

[00:03:00]>> Bond redemption denied. Bond will continue.

[00:03:02]>> Thank you, your honor.

[00:03:04]>> That was quick, clean, and brutal. The defense came in asking for a lower bond, pointing to family, work, church support, children, and another child on the way. But Judge Simpson focuses on the one fact that cuts through the emotional appeal. The defendant did not turn himself in. He came back into custody because he got stopped. That distinction matters. Courts look at community ties, yes, but they also look at reliability. And when someone already failed to appear, the judge is not likely to reward that with a lighter bond. This is where courtroom sympathy meets courtroom accountability. Having children in a job may explain why someone wants release, but it does not erase a failure to appear. Viewers, would you lower bond for someone who only came back to court because police stopped him >> to get Mr. Howard um to complete the terms of his probation. At this time for probation is recommending 93 days of jail, credit for 8 days serve two to serve the balance, wave remaining terms, accept the financial obligations, and discharge them from probation without improvement.

[00:04:13]>> I did speak with Mr. um Howard yesterday in the jail. We did discuss the violation of probation. Um as for explanation of why he did not complete these things, Mr. Howard has been homeless um I guess since the last VOP.

[00:04:29]Um he was evicted from his home. He and his family were living in a a motel. Um his fiance [clears throat] and three children. Um he also has a child on the way that's due in December. Um he's just now getting back on his feet. He was able to secure housing through Hawk. Um he's also been um utilizing their social services through SOS. Um he even told me he just recently got a cell phone. Um and they all the family got new numbers because they've been um struggling so hard. He's also looking at getting back to work after finding housing and stabilizing um that area of his life at a plant [snorts] for Frasia.

[00:05:15]>> Yeah.

[00:05:17]So, uh, SOS is helping me get social security.

[00:05:21]>> Okay. Um, he he did indicate SOS is attempting to help get him um, uh, social security as well. Um, he this is a a nonviolent crime. There is restitution that um, Mr. Howard um, said he's going to pay once he gets back to work. I'd ask the court to discharge him from from probation. um instruct him to pay that money that's owing um and and let him get keep working on getting stabilized um he and his family.

[00:05:55]>> Now the tone shifts. This is no longer just a bond argument. This is a probation violation with real hardship behind it. The defense is painting.

[00:06:03]Mister Howard is someone who has been homeless, living in motel, trying to support a fiance, three children, and another baby on the way. That is a heavy picture. The argument is not he did everything right. It is more like his life collapsed and he is finally stabilizing. Probation meanwhile wants jail, credit for time served, financial obligations accepted and discharged from probation without improvement. That phrase is important. Without improvement means the probation did not end successfully. The court can acknowledge the hardship while still concluding the probation terms were not completed. This is the tension. compassion for the circumstances, but consequences for the record.

[00:06:45]>> Mr. Howard, anything you want to say, sir?

[00:06:49]>> Uh, yes, your honor. Um, I just want to say that it's it's been a really rough hard time. Me and my family has been homeless. We've been in and out of motel. Even myself, I have I've had to sleep in the woods myself to make sure my family was good. Where SOS, they were in an alpha house. there wasn't enough room for me. So, I had to do what I had to do was sleep out there while they were, you know, safe to where they were. But, it it's been a long rough journey. We finally are getting back on track. We finally got housed. Um, everything is starting to go up and move forward. I'm trying to get my license back. Everything is just starting to go on now. And um I'm just asking for a little bit of lenience to so this can keep going forward and I can do the right thing and I will pay everything that I owe.

[00:07:45]And here's and I appreciate everything that's been said but the throughout this thing since 2020 I kept giving you a chance to just get things right. I get people running into difficulties. If at any point you had let probation know the difficulties then we would have been we would have probably done something else or tried to do that tried to work with you on this.

[00:08:15]But now we come down to here. How'd you end up in custody?

[00:08:20]>> Um I was with a friend that got pulled over and had >> That's what I'm saying. You've got time to do that, but you don't have time to just come down.

[00:08:28]>> It was actually work. I was actually working. So that's >> Okay, that's fine. I'm just saying you had time to do that and all it was going to take was for you just to stop into probation >> at any given point in time.

[00:08:45]>> I was trying everything I could. We didn't have phones. We lost our phones.

[00:08:50]I tried everything I could to do. I have babies. I've had I got >> Mr. Howard, >> if you took the same time or even a lot less time that it took for you to contact Hawk and SOS to just let probation know where what was going on with you. This goes differently.

[00:09:13]>> That line is the whole case in one sentence. Judge Simpson is not saying poverty is fake. He is not saying homelessness is easy. He is saying communication could have changed the outcome and that is the courtroom trap right here. Mister Howard had contact with services like Hawk and SOS. But according to the judge, he did not make the much simpler move of informing probation where he was and what was happening. This is why judges hammer communication so hard in probation cases. Probation is not just about finishing tasks. It is about staying reachable, reporting, and letting the court know before everything collapses.

[00:09:49]The judge is basically saying, "I could have worked with you, but you disappeared." That is devastating because it turns the defense strongest point into the judge's strongest response.

[00:10:00]>> I understand that your is there I mean, is there any way that I could be placed that maybe a tether till I can get everything paid off or something other bes could be with my kids and my family?

[00:10:19]out of time.

[00:10:21]>> I tried to work. I've tried, Mr. Howard.

[00:10:24]>> I tried to I >> Mr. Howard, I given you two.

[00:10:30]>> I've tried and then you and then you disappear.

[00:10:33]>> If at any point you had stepped in here and anybody knows how I work, if at any point you had stepped in here and said, "Here's where I am, judge." Even if you don't go to probation, and just say, "Here's where I am. Can I get another shot to do this? I I probably don't have a problem with that.

[00:10:52]But you did none of that.

[00:10:55]And quite frankly, had you not been stopped and picked up, you wouldn't be here now. Even >> I know that. Yeah.

[00:11:03]>> Sense of the court. 93 days in jail.

[00:11:05]Give him credit for a serve. Defendant is to serve the balance. I'll wave all other remaining terms. Accept his financial obligations. Discharge him from probation without Thank you.

[00:11:18]>> And there it is. 93 days in jail. Credit for 8 days served. Serve the balance.

[00:11:24]Remaining probation terms waved.

[00:11:26]Financial obligations still accepted.

[00:11:28]And discharge from probation without improvement. Translation: The court is done supervising him. Judge Simpson is not extending probation. He is not giving another structured chance. He is imposing jail time, wiping out the rest of the probation requirements, but keeping the money owed on the table.

[00:11:45]That is a legal cleanup move. The court closes the probation file, but not as a success story. And that matters because without improvement follows a person differently than a clean completion. The judge showed exactly where Mercy stopped. He waved remaining terms, but he did not wave accountability. That is the courtroom version of we tried and we are done.

[00:12:09]Teresa Claire on behalf of probation.

[00:12:10]Your honor, Mr. Olsen is before the court for a violation of probation hearing. Mr. Olsen um was sentenced in this case December of December 13, 2023.

[00:12:23]Mr. Olsen has done nothing with his probation. He failed to report after sentencing. He owes balance of $1,525.

[00:12:30]He's made no payments. He failed to sign and return his probation order. Failed to complete substance abuse treatment.

[00:12:37]um the assessment andor treatment, including um a mental health assessment andor treatment. He failed to report to community corrections for his random weekly drug testing. And he has also failed to report to this court prior violation of probation hearings in April, May, and in June. He would then um submit a bench warrant recall request again and again.

[00:13:03]Given all of that, probation is asking that the court sentence him to 93 days in jail, credit for 25 days served to serve the balance, complete the injarm program, wave remaining terms, accept his financial obligations, and discharge him for probation without improvement.

[00:13:23][clears throat] >> I did speak with Mr. Olsen regarding the the VOP. I think Mr. Olsson's issue has been that he tries to comp has tried to complete some of the terms but has not fully been able to get there.

[00:13:41]For example, when I was reading through what he hasn't done, he's he said, "Well, I did call probation, but he didn't show up in person." He when I read that he didn't do his treatment, he said, "Well, I did call Bear River, but I wasn't able to um get up there. Now we move into Mr. Olsen's probation violation and the pattern starts sounding familiar, but the judge immediately catches a weak point. The defense says Mr. Olsen called Bare River but could not get up there. Judge Simpsons cuts in with the fact that Bare River comes and gets you. That matters because it weakens the transportation excuse. If the program provides pickup, then I could not get there becomes a much harder argument to sell. Probation says he did nothing, did not report, did not pay, did not sign the order, did not complete assessments, missed drug testing, and missed multiple court dates. The defense tries to frame it as confusion and lack of support. But when the record shows repeated failures, confusion starts looking less like an explanation and more like a pattern.

[00:14:44]>> He has >> Air River comes and gets you, but go ahead.

[00:14:48]>> Or hasn't been able to to complete the intake or whatever happened. Yeah.

[00:14:53]>> Um he I think his limitations come from a he told me he's he's not working. He doesn't have um any transportation. He doesn't have a car. He doesn't have a license. Um he's been living with his mother and taking care of his pregnant um fiance. Um he's been um trying to keep his head above water. I will tell the court he's been >> How did he get picked up? his mother.

[00:15:23]>> My mother was going out of country to deliver a package. She's a package carrier. I had to wake her up to find out when she'll be there because I was planning on going to work and the police department, the state police picking up.

[00:15:37]Um he I I think he's been trying to keep his head above water, trying to care for his his again his pregnant partner. um trying to get work, trying to help support his mother. I do know he has the support of her, as the court may know, he's she's called probation, she's called the prosecutor's office, she's called my office, she's called the court trying to to get someone to help u Mr. Olsen. Um I do think um if he were in touch with Miss Polara, he would be successful in probation, but that connection hasn't been made, obviously.

[00:16:17]um I think Mr. Olsen is someone who needs a little bit more um support um to to complete the terms. I mean he expressed a lot of confusion to me about what he needed to do and what was going on. I think he's um been struggling with um with like I said completing the things he needs to do without without someone kind of ushering him through it. Um he does have more time on probation. Um I'd ask the court to to give him a chance to complete the terms that he needs to complete.

[00:17:00]Anything you want to say, sir?

[00:17:03]>> This is the defense making the last push for patience. The argument is that Mr. Olsen needs support, guidance, and another chance to complete probation.

[00:17:12]But here is the problem. Probation only works if the person is present enough to be helped. You cannot guide someone who repeatedly misses hearings. You cannot monitor someone who does not report. And you cannot build a compliance plan when the defendant keeps breaking contact with the court itself. The defense is not wrong that some people need more structure. But Judge Simpson is looking at the calendar, not just the explanation. April, May, June missed hearings keep stacking up. At some point, the court stops asking what help does he need and starts asking will he even show up to receive it.

[00:17:47]>> Um, I apologize for anything I've done wrong.

[00:17:53]Um, >> April 20, April 10th of 2024, I had to issue a bench warrant because you didn't show up at your violation of probation hearing. You submitted a recall. We reset it. May, same thing. Didn't show up and issued a recall. You say we wouldn't recall it. We recalled it. We reset it in June.

[00:18:18]June 12th comes around, what happens?

[00:18:21]you don't show up.

[00:18:25]>> I would agree with everything Miss Pony says in terms of yeah, you might need help getting through some of this. Maybe I don't know, but it's impossible for us to determine because anytime that we're setting a hearing for you, you're not here.

[00:18:41]>> Yes, sir. That's why I was apologizing, sir. Your honor >> sent to the court 93 days in jail.

[00:18:48]Credit 25 defendant to serve the balance. He's to complete the dawn farm in jail program. I'll wave remaining terms to accept his financial obligation. Discharge him from probation without improvement. Thank you.

[00:19:01]>> Same ending, different defendant. Judge Simpson sentences Mr. Olsen to 93 days in jail, gives him credit for 25 days served, orders him to serve the balance, complete the Dawn Farm in jail program, waves remaining probation terms, accepts financial obligations, and discharges him from probation without improvement.

[00:19:20]This ruling is a message. The court is not extending endless chances when the basic requirement showing up keeps failing. The inj program is also important because it shows the court is still a sad treatment needs. But under custody, not freedom. That is the legal shift. Help is still available, but trust has been lost. And once trust is gone in probation court, every future request for mercy lands with much less force. Viewers, is this fair consequence or did the court move too fast?

[00:19:51]>> I'm not really seeing I never saw my probation officer and told me 10 days.

[00:19:56]What? They told me 10 days the last time I spoke to >> They told you 10 days for what?

[00:20:01]>> I think >> first assistant public defender Anderson within on behalf of Mr. Powen who's approaching >> Mr. Who is that at Ann's window? Is that somebody from the PD? Sorry.

[00:20:29]>> Turning. Okay. Not properly attired, but okay. I understand.

[00:20:33]>> Go ahead.

[00:20:34]>> Did you need me to do something, Judge?

[00:20:36]>> Oh, >> unless you have a jacket, clothing for someone. Go ahead.

[00:20:42][laughter] >> You don't have to speak. Uh, oh, I'm sorry, Mr. K. Can you put your name on the record?

[00:20:47]>> Say your name.

[00:20:49]>> Thank you, sir.

[00:20:50]>> You're spoken with the prosecutor about this. It's my understanding that the investigation is still ongoing on this and that there may be additional charges. Based on that, I'm asking to adjourn the probable cause conference for that purpose. I would defer to the prosecutor as to the length of time required. Um, and then I'd ask for the opportunity to address this bond.

[00:21:07]>> There was an additional forensic interview done on Monday. So, that should be submitted and I would anticipate having that charge next week.

[00:21:18]>> The chart.

[00:21:20]Got it. So two weeks out. All right.

[00:21:23]>> So probable cause conference July 25th 2024 9 am briefly.

[00:21:32]>> Mr. Von, this is the only man that's holding Mr. Cohen in custody case. He does not have any prior criminal history. He's concerned about his housing. He's unsure whether or not rent has been paid. Um or not he still has a home at this point. Um he's retired. We did go over the bond conditions of the no contact and no ghost would be able to abide by that. I've spoken with his sister and confirmed that he can reside with her in Detroit while this matter is pending. Mr. Cowan does suffer from some uh medical issues as well. Uh kidney stones. Um he also has an inflamed colon and those services um at the jail and he is receiving Moltrin but that's really not helping with the the pain. Um he's asking for the court to um reduce the bond. Currently his bond I believe is 100,000. That's a bond that he's not able to post. He has been in since June 26th. He does have the support of his family, which I believe some of his family members are here in the courtroom um in support of him. Um we understand that the court's unlikely to um give him a personal bond, but he's asking if the court will um reduce the bond or at least allow a 10% privilege uh on the bond that's currently set.

[00:22:48]>> Now, the docket turns much darker. Cowan is asking for a bond reduction on a $100,000 bond or at least a 10% privilege. The defense points to no prior criminal history, medical issues, family support, housing concerns, and a proposed place to stay with his sister in Detroit. On paper, that is a standard bond reduction argument. Lower flight risk, family support, medical needs, and a stable release address. But bond is not only about whether someone will come back to court. It is also about public safety. And the prosecutor is about to argue danger in the strongest possible terms involving minor children, ongoing investigation, forensic interviews, and possible additional charges. So, this is not just can he afford bond. It becomes what risk does release create?

[00:23:34]>> Response.

[00:23:35]>> And your honor, we would ask that the bond continue until the time of preliminary exam. There are eight minor children living at this residence. um the victim in this case in addition to uh another minor child have been interviewed. Um and at the time that CPS came to the residence um the allegations um when CPS was called up to the residence for the allegations of sexual assault, the defendant had nowhere to go and he was left in the residence um to be you know only have supervised visit with these eight minor children. Um the victim in this particular charge um case is 9 years old and the allegations are that he rubbed her so hard in her while she was in the shower that he scratched her and she was bleeding. And so I believe he is a danger not only to the community but to these children. the um 12-year-old, one of the 12-year-old boys that was interviewed um said that they he watched um pornography on a regular basis with his dad observed his dad having 14-year-old sister. So, I think the allegations are very serious and we would ask that the bond continue until the time of the exam when that is set. And the new or the forensic evaluation, does that involve someone different than >> a different victim? Another minor child.

[00:25:01]>> Another minor child other than the one in this one.

[00:25:04]>> May I address part of that argument?

[00:25:06]>> Sure.

[00:25:07]>> Your honor, one uh the prosecutor stated that at the time he didn't have somewhere to go. As I stated to the court, he does now have somewhere where he can go and stay with family. It's also my understanding that the U complainant in this case was taken to the hospital and that um the the allegations were not substantiated. I'm expecting the prosecutor will be providing me with copies of medical records to show that >> in which >> in this case the original >> in this case then I have potentially either a new case or other charges coming regarding another child.

[00:25:38][laughter] My understanding >> contain indicate that there should be no third party concept >> that it it indicates that.

[00:25:54]>> Okay.

[00:25:55]>> So, but based upon that there are other charges coming. I I get Miss Anderson what you're saying but the court at this time is going to deny you a motion for bond reduction. Bond in this case will continue. Thank you, honor.

[00:26:14]>> Thank you.

[00:26:17]>> Court does call the case people.

[00:26:19]>> Judge Simpson denies the bond reduction and keeps the existing bond in place.

[00:26:23]That final ruling follows the court's concern that more allegations or charges may be coming involving another minor child. The defense argued medical issues, lack of criminal history, family support, and an alternative residence.

[00:26:36]But the prosecution highlighted serious allegations, minor children in the residence, CPS involvement, interviews, and public safety concerns. The key takeaway is simple. Affordability alone does not control bond. A defendant may have fa family support and medical issues, but when the court sees possible danger to children and an ongoing investigation, release becomes a much harder cell. Across this hearing, Judge Simpson repeatedly focused on accountability, communication, public safety, and whether defendants had used prior chances responsibly. 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.