‘You Lied to Me!’: Viral Michigan Judge Shuts Down ‘Grandstanding’ Attorney Who Tries to Have Him Removed from a Case
A Michigan judge who went viral earlier this year after he caught a man driving with a suspended license drew massive attention online once again for exposing a defense attorney’s far-fetched argument to remove him from a case.
A recording showing part of a preliminary hearing that Washtenaw County District Court Judge Cedric Simpson presided over recently drew tens of thousands of views online.
The video starts with the defendant’s attorney calling for Simpson to recuse himself from a case that involves two defendants. The lawyer alleges several discrepancies in the court proceedings, stating that Simpson previously oversaw a preliminary examination for one of the co-defendants, heard ex parte testimony, and signed off on two search warrants for both defendants before his client’s preliminary hearing ever began.
Simpson, confounded by the argument, states he doesn’t recall presiding over the co-defendant’s hearing. The prosecutor chimes in to let the judge know he didn’t.
The attorney, undaunted while presenting his claim, goes on to state that because Simpson had already found probable cause in the case before his client’s preliminary hearing, it unfairly impacted his client.
“How the hell do you jump to that conclusion?” a bewildered Simpson asks.
In Michigan, preliminary hearings, also known as “probable cause hearings,” are for district court judges to decide whether there’s enough evidence to bind a felony case over to circuit court for further proceedings, including trial. As Simpson later explained, judges will sign off on search warrants, arrest affidavits, or other court filings to approve the documents that support the state’s probable cause argument that a crime did occur and the defendant is connected to it.
The defense states that Simpson already signed two search warrants for both defendants, which Simpson asserted that he hadn’t.
The attorney then mentioned a case that cites that if a judge has heard from an ex parte witness about a case the judge is presiding over, a defendant can reasonably request a different person oversee the case. Simpson also denied hearing from any witnesses in the case at all and then challenged the veracity of the lawyer’s overall claim, saying he’s playing “fast and loose with words.”
Simpson requests a written motion with the defense’s argument for recusal and asks how soon the attorney can file it before calling for the court to take a brief recess.
When the court restarts the hearing, Simpson returns and exposes the attorney. He tells the defense attorney that he had his staff review the case during the recess and they confirmed that Simpson never held a preliminary examination on the case’s co-defendant.
“You lied to me at the very beginning of your argument,” Simpson asserts. “You said that I held a preliminary examination on the co-defendant. I couldn’t recall it, but it’s not true. That was an absolute falsehood and misrepresentation of this court.”
Simpson said his staff double-checked the case and saw that a different judge presided over the co-defendant’s exam.
“So your initial argument regarding recusal started with a — and I hate using the word, but it’s true — it started with a lie,” Simpson said.
Simpson continued chipping away at the attorney’s argument, stating that he only partly cited a previous case to bolster his verbal motion for recusal but “intentionally skipped over” one portion that is integral to proving his argument.
“Judge, respectfully — ” the hesitating attorney started.
“No, you lied to me,” Simpson said.
“I think the record will reflect that when I cited, or I spoke about a preliminary examination, I didn’t speak directly as to this court having held it, but it having been previously held,” the attorney states. “I was not present for the previous examination; however, judge, certainly I make no false representations as to who held it or who didn’t hold it. I think I just provided that for context.”
Simpson offers to play back a recording of the hearing to show when the attorney makes the accusation.
“Then I stand corrected, judge,” the attorney concedes, adding, “but I certainly intend to make no misrepresentations. The main argument is what it is.”
The lawyer still expresses his desire to move forward with his motion requesting the judge’s recusal.
Simpson then turns to the prosecutor for her assessment and she states that nothing the defense presented in court contested the crime that’s being alleged against the defendant.
The judge then questions the defense attorney about why he endeavored to mislead the court and have him recused for the purposes of forum shopping, a legal term that refers to the practice of choosing a court to hear a case with the desire of producing the most favorable outcome.
The attorney reiterates that he had no intention of misleading the court and repeats that he would like to move forward with the motion to recuse, telling the judge it would take him two weeks to file a written motion.
“This Attorney is Grandstanding like he’s a TV Lawyer from Hollywood,” one person commented.
“A judge telling a lawyer he lied is HUGE. Very rare. Wow,” another comment read.
“The motion to recuse was disingenuous theatrics,” another person wrote. “He backpedaled SO fast when the judge asked him to provide a written motion.”