Judge Simpson SNAPS on Repeat Violator — “I Don’t Believe You!”

Added: 2026-05-18

[00:00:00]violation report. I would like to take them in that order.

[00:00:04]Um as for the evidentiary hearing um on April 5, the court made a finding of probable cause uh in this matter and denied the defense motion to Um invited some research and possible briefing on whether um the law required something more specific as to the intoxicating impairing substance than we appear to have in this case.

[00:00:33]Right out of the gate, this hearing already feels tense because the defense is trying to revisit a critical issue that could have completely changed the direction of the case. What you're hearing here is a legal battle over technical specificity. Essentially, whether the prosecution identified the intoxicating substance clearly enough for the court to proceed. And pay attention to the tone in this courtroom.

[00:00:56]Nobody is yelling. Nobody is grandstanding. But underneath the calm delivery is a very important message.

[00:01:02]The defense looked for a legal escape hatch and couldn't find one. Judge Simpson's courtroom is the kind where preparation matters. The defense openly admits they researched the issue, consulted other attorneys, five reviewed case law, and still could not locate authority strong enough to overturn the court's earlier probable cause finding.

[00:01:22]That is a major moment because once a judge believes the law supports the original ruling, momentum starts shifting heavily toward enforcement instead of leniency. And this is where courtroom reality hits hard. A lot of defendants think hearings are won with emotion, excuses, or personality. But judges operate on documentation, precedent, and compliance. If the law isn't on your side, the room changes fast. I have uh since um uh reading of uh case law, I have uh pulled uh defense colleagues, especially section 625 defense practitioners.

[00:01:57]Um and the result of that research is I have not turned up authority that would preclude the court from having made the finding that it made or that would compel the court to make a different decision in this matter.

[00:02:15]Um you may have gathered that from my not having submitted any any briefing in advance of today. Um accordingly, we are resolved to let the court's finding and decision stand as it was made.

[00:02:30]All right, very good.

[00:02:32]Okay.

[00:02:35]Then, where shall we proceed from here because well, we've got the bond violation that we have to deal with. I'm presuming there's no objection to the court's ruling standing.

[00:02:47]By the people?

[00:02:49]Of course not.

[00:02:50]All right.

[00:02:52]Um Now, the bond.

[00:02:57]This Your Honor, um if you recall um on February 22nd, um this court gave the defendant a shot.

[00:03:07]And um that's exactly what the court said. You said that he needed to go into an outpatient treatment um and that you would issue a bench warrant with no bond if he misses or there's a positive test. I had asked for a remand on the 15th and on the 22nd of February.

[00:03:27]Um and you stated if he he had tested positive again, then bond would be revoked and he would be um remanded. Now, the prosecution starts laying out the timeline. And honestly, this is where the situation begins collapsing in real time for the defendant. Notice how methodical this presentation is. Ms. Kirby isn't arguing emotionally. She's building a compliance record piece by piece. February warning, court instructions, positive tests, missed tests, another positive result, more missed tests. That pattern matters because in bond supervision cases, consistency is everything. And the prosecutor brings up something devastating here. The defendant was already given what the court considered a shot. That phrase carries weight.

[00:04:10]Judges remember when they extend grace.

[00:04:12]They remember when they warn someone directly. And according to this record, Judge Simpson apparently made it crystal clear months earlier. Missed tests or test positive again and bond is gone.

[00:04:24]This is why courtroom watchers always underestimate bond violations.

[00:04:28]People think the underlying criminal charge is the biggest problem. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the bigger issue becomes whether the defendant followed court orders after being trusted to remain out of custody. Once a judge believes somebody ignored conditions repeatedly, the conversation shifts from rehabilitation to accountability very quickly. So, we had our hearing on April 5th and on April 10th, the defendant had negative but abnormal creatinine. And then on the 11th, the defendant tested positive for cocaine.

[00:05:03]And then he missed tests on the 13th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 25th, 26th, 27th and um May 2nd. So, I would ask for this defendant to have to report to Washtenaw County Jail by 6:00 p.m. It honestly um it Mr. Davis might look intoxicated at this moment. Um so, I have very serious concerns for the defendant and um obviously all of the missed tests and the last one before the missed test was that he was positive for cocaine. This is an operating with the presence of a controlled substance cocaine case. So, I have serious concerns for himself and for the community.

[00:05:48]Mr. Davis.

[00:05:49]Thank you.

[00:05:51]I don't have much to disagree with Miss Kirby's recitation of the history of bond conditions and compliance with those. We also we have received the latest bond violation report from community corrections. I have shared it with Mr. Davis.

[00:06:09]And I understand from my discussion with him both I have explained to him his rights as to process on a bond violation. I understand from those discussions that he is resolved to acknowledge and admit the violations and accept the court's sanction.

[00:06:27]Very good.

[00:06:28]Is that correct, Mr. Davis, that you don't wish to have a hearing and you admit to the violations?

[00:06:35]That is correct, sir.

[00:06:37]>> [clears throat] >> Anything you want to say to me?

[00:06:43]Um Not Not exactly other than Mr. Davis, when was the last time you used?

[00:06:54]Uh last week.

[00:06:59]You haven't used anything this week?

[00:07:02]No, I'm sober right now.

[00:07:04]This exchange right here is incredibly important because sometimes a courtroom turns on a single sentence. The defendant says, "I'm sober right now."

[00:07:13]And you can almost feel Judge Simpson evaluating not just the words, but the credibility behind them. Five judges do this constantly. They watch body language, speech patterns, eye contact, pacing, posture, everything. I five, and when substance abuse allegations are involved, credibility becomes currency.

[00:07:31]What also stands out here is that the defendant admitted recent use almost immediately beforehand. He says the last use was last week. Then follows it with a firm denial about using today. That might sound simple, but in a courtroom setting, timing matters enormously. The judge is already reviewing missed tests, a coke cocaine positive, abnormal creatinine levels suggesting masking attempts, and repeated non-compliance.

[00:07:56]So, when the defendant insists he is sober right now, the judge is measuring that statement against an entire pattern of conduct already laid out by five the prosecution, and then defense counsel shifts the conversation toward addiction rather than disrespect. That's a strategic move. Lawyers know judges react differently when behavior is framed as dependency instead of deliberate defiance. They're trying to preserve humanity in the middle of a compliance disaster.

[00:08:23]>> [clears throat] >> Go ahead. What else did you want to tell me?

[00:08:28]Um I I have something when there's a turn when there's a chance to switch.

[00:08:37]Go go ahead, Mr. Davis. Thank you. Um the also from discussion with Mr. Davis, uh I wanted to um make note that the problem on our side is one of dependence and and probably addiction um deeper going longer lasting than than we recognize.

[00:08:57]And it's not one of disrespect for the court or incivility, um but it's the the format that I described and we have to look into it as the as the as the process allows.

[00:09:13]Anything else, Mr. Davis?

[00:09:17]Uh no, Your Honor.

[00:09:18]>> [clears throat] >> All right. Um with these violations, and it was clear back in February what I had indicated, and the Ms. Kirby correctly points out that on the 10th, 5 days after the last hearing that we were here, it was negative, but you had an abnormal creatinine, which this court considers a positive test in any event because it typically will mean that you're attempting to try to mask any substance.

[00:09:50]You go in the next day, the masking is off, and you test positive for cocaine.

[00:09:56]And then ever since then you've missed tests.

[00:10:00]>> [clears throat] >> This court's order that your bond is hereby ordered revoked. Defendant is to surrender to the Washtenaw County Jail.

[00:10:09]Uh quite frankly, in looking at you, sir, right now, I don't believe you that you haven't used since um last week.

[00:10:20]Um I believe that you've used today.

[00:10:23]And therefore, I'm not giving you till 6:00 p.m. You're to report to the Washtenaw County Jail by 1:00 p.m.

[00:10:28]You've got about an hour and 50 minutes, and you need to be at the jail. If not, I'm going to issue a bench warrant for your arrest, actually.

[00:10:35]Um quite frankly, if necessary, I will be sending sheriff deputies out to get you.

[00:10:40]And there it is. The moment the courtroom completely changes. Judge Simpson revokes the bond and more importantly, makes it painfully clear that he does not believe the defendant's explanation. That is the key turning point. The judge openly states he believes the defendant used today despite the denial moments earlier. Once a judge says on the record that they do not find a defendant credible, the chances of immediate leniency shrink dramatically. What makes this especially intense is how quickly the timeline tightens. The prosecutor originally requested surrender by 6:00 p.m., but the judge cuts that window down aggressively to 1:00 p.m. That tells you the court views the situation as urgent, not administrative. Judges don't usually accelerate surrender deadlines unless they believe there's a real risk of continued use, non-compliance, or disappearance. And then comes the warning that really lands. If the defendant doesn't show up, deputies may be sent to get him. That's the moment where courtroom language stops sounding procedural and starts sounding personal.

[00:11:41]Judge Simpson is essentially saying, "You still have one final opportunity to cooperate voluntarily." Um you need to get to the Washoe County Jail.

[00:11:52]I'll set a pre-trial Uh where were we in this?

[00:11:56]I'll set a pre-trial hearing next week.

[00:11:59]Yes, but for May 15th.

[00:12:03]Okay.

[00:12:03]>> [clears throat] >> 10:00 a.m. At what?

[00:12:06]At 10:00 a.m.

[00:12:09]And sir I will tell you you can take your chances on trying to see whether or not you should turn yourself in by 1:00.

[00:12:18]Uh one thing that you can bet with me we're going to get you.

[00:12:24]So, I'd suggest that you be there because if you go in the hard way, I don't know when necessarily I'm going to ever let you out.

[00:12:31]Treatment or not.

[00:12:33]Am I understood?

[00:12:35]Understood, Your Honor.

[00:12:40]Anything further?

[00:12:41]No, Your Honor.

[00:12:43]No, Your Honor. Thank you.

[00:12:45]Thank you.

[00:12:46]Miss Curvey, I'll see to be in touch.

[00:12:55]All right.

[00:13:05]Court is called the case people versus Susanna Williams.

[00:13:10]I'm Mary Sinsky on behalf of the people.

[00:13:13]Alana Reed, assistant public defender with and on behalf of Ms. Williams.

[00:13:16]Could you unmute and state your name for the record, ma'am?

[00:13:19]Uh yes, Susanna Amanda Marie Williams.

[00:13:22]Thank you. Your Honor, in this matter we did adjourn in order to receive um some video um, from inside the store. We were provided with a disc. At this point, we're not able to view what is on the disc. So, I would need an adjournment so that I can coordinate with the prosecutor to see if we can get a working copy.

[00:13:41]>> Question.

[00:13:42]Now, the courtroom pivots into an entirely different case, but the frustration level stays high. This second matter revolves around delays, you know, five, missing evidence access, and a defendant who clearly feels trapped inside a system moving slower than her life can afford. And you can already hear tension building around one word, adjournment. The defense says they received video evidence from inside the store, but the copy apparently cannot be viewed properly. That may sound minor to viewers at home, but in criminal court, discoverable evidence, especially video, can completely reshape negotiations, credibility assessments, and trial strategy. Defense attorneys cannot responsibly move forward if they can't even review what prosecutors handed it over. At the same time, Judge Simpson immediately points out something important. This case has already been adjourned multiple times, and it's a 93-day misdemeanor matter. Translation, the clock matters. Lower-level cases are still constitutionally tied to timelines, and repeated continuances can create pressure on the court system.

[00:14:45]Then, Ms. Williams jumps in emotionally saying she has already served around 90 days and expected release after completing a jail program.

[00:14:53]You can hear the desperation there. To her, this isn't a scheduling issue anymore. It's time lost, expectations broken, and confusion about why she's still incarcerated.

[00:15:03]Okay. I mean, this is We've adjourned it like three times, and this is um, 93-day misdemeanor. I've already served 90 days in jail. And I was just Well, we've adjourned it two two times, and they haven't provided the video. I had a letter I wanted to read to you and if we could get it >> Ma'am, Ms. Williams So you're you're being held on other matters. So because of that and because of the fact that you wanted to see the video from in the store, I think it's in our best interest to adjourn so that we can receive that video given that you're already going to be in custody and this case itself is not going to extend your time All right, I completed the Don Farms and jail program. I thought I would be released after that.

[00:15:53]That's why I was You're considered for release.

[00:15:56]Okay, so Can I read this letter?

[00:16:01]I I would advise you not to at this point.

[00:16:05]I'll come meet with you and and see if we can clear things up, okay?

[00:16:10]We'll we'll see that if if you're able to be released on your other cases, I'll make sure to coordinate the bond in this this matter for you, okay?

[00:16:19]All right.

[00:16:21]Ma'am Yes.

[00:16:24]Was there something that you wanted to tell the court? I just want to let you know that you haven't been held you may think you may have been in jail more than 90 days.

[00:16:37]You haven't been held on this case more than 90 days. Okay, I understand.

[00:16:45]>> Okay, so I I need you to know that, okay? So you don't have that much credit on this case.

[00:16:52]Okay, I didn't commit the crime but I'm just I was under the impression that after Don Farms I would be considered for release which I I completed that yesterday and I just had a letter to read to you.

[00:17:03]>> Okay, hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

[00:17:06]I got you. But let me just ask you this.

[00:17:09]You've got other things holding you, right? No, just just this case. The other one from from what you said I could be released after Don Farms just for you.

[00:17:24]And you are being held on that one presently. The The documentation needs to be provided to the judge for consideration if he'll release you on that matter. So, he has not made a determination in that case yet.

[00:17:37]This section perfectly captures one of the biggest communication breakdowns that happens in criminal court every single day. Defendants often believe all their cases operate as one situation, while the court treats every file separately.

[00:17:51]Ms. Williams clearly thinks completing the Don Farms program should immediately translate into release. But Judge Simpson and defense counsel are explaining that another judge still has to review documentation and make an independent determination. And honestly, you can tell the defendant is overwhelmed. She keeps trying to return to the same issue. Will I be released?

[00:18:12]While the attorneys keep redirecting her back to court procedure and pending to 55 review, that disconnect creates tension because from the defendant's perspective, she already did the work.

[00:18:23]She completed the program. She expected movement. Instead, she's hearing more waiting, more coordination, more process. Judge Simpson also steps in more firmly here, essentially telling her to listen to her attorneys. Some viewers may interpret that as harsh, but judges often intervene when they believe a defendant is talking past legal reality instead of understanding it. The court is trying to explain that this specific misdemeanor case is not currently the reason she remains in custody. So, then I do I have a bond on this one if he does release me?

[00:18:55]That's what I said. If If he releases you on that other matter, I'll make sure that this case is updated appropriately, okay? But since right now you're still being held on that matter, we don't want to change anything in this case.

[00:19:08]>> just I provided it yesterday, but okay.

[00:19:12]And hopefully you'll hear back soon.

[00:19:14]So then I won't I can't uh read the civil judgment?

[00:19:21]Given that I don't know what it is that you're trying to state, I think it's safe not to. I don't want to see me in the two weeks like other [clears throat] people lawyers go into them four or five times.

[00:19:32]Well, we're we're still waiting for video.

[00:19:35]And then I'll have been here over 93 days. So why don't I just squash it out and You ma'am, no you won't.

[00:19:43]You will not be on this case.

[00:19:46]You have not been held over 93 days.

[00:19:49]Okay, well, I didn't Okay.

[00:19:53]Maybe what you ought to do is listen to your attorneys.

[00:19:59]She's trying to tell you that there's another matter.

[00:20:03]Once the Don form comes in, we'll take a look at that. If you're released on that one, she's going to coordinate it so that this one doesn't hold you.

[00:20:13]Okay. Thank you.

[00:20:15]>> need to let them do their work. All right, I appreciate that. I All right.

[00:20:20]Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day.

[00:20:23]What makes this entire hearing so compelling is that both cases revolved around the same core issue. Trust between the court and the defendant.

[00:20:31]In the first matter, Judge Simpson concluded that repeated failed compliance, missed tests, and suspected continued substance use destroyed the credibility necessary to remain free on bond. The result was immediate bond revocation, a surrender order, and a direct warning that law enforcement would intervene if the defendant failed to comply. In the second case, the conflict wasn't explosive, but it revealed another side of the justice system, procedural frustration. Ms. Williams believed she had earned consideration for release after completing a jail program. While the court emphasized that multiple cases and pending judicial decisions still controlled the outcome. It became a lesson in how confusing overlapping legal matters can become for defendants trying to navigate the system in real time. Throughout this hearing, Judge Simpson maintained a firm but highly procedural approach. He repeatedly focused on compliance records, timelines, five court orders, and factual status updates rather than emotional arguments. And whether viewers agree with every decision or not, one thing is undeniable. Once a court believes its orders are being ignored, consequences escalate fast. 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.