On Tuesday, December 10, 2024, Atlanta Black Star reported that Washtenaw County District Court Judge Cedric Simpson gained significant attention online for his firm handling of a defense attorney’s attempts to have him removed from a case. A video clip from a preliminary hearing presided over by Judge Simpson went viral, highlighting the attorney’s controversial claims and the judge’s straightforward refutation of those claims.
The incident unfolded during a preliminary hearing involving two defendants. The defense attorney initiated the proceedings by requesting Judge Simpson’s recusal, alleging that he had previously overseen the co-defendant’s preliminary examination and had signed off on two search warrants related to the case. The attorney argued that these prior involvements could bias the judge’s decision-making in the current proceedings.
Judge Simpson, visibly surprised by the defense attorney’s assertions, stated that he did not recall presiding over the co-defendant’s hearing. This prompted the prosecutor to affirm the judge’s statement, indicating that Simpson had not previously overseen any hearings related to the co-defendant.
Despite the prosecutor’s clarification, the defense attorney persisted with his argument, claiming that Judge Simpson’s earlier findings of probable cause unfairly prejudiced his client’s case. The judge responded with incredulity, questioning how the attorney arrived at such a conclusion. He emphasized that preliminary hearings, or “probable cause hearings,” are essential for determining whether sufficient evidence exists to bind a felony case over to circuit court.
As the hearing progressed, the defense attorney cited a legal precedent suggesting that a judge who has received ex parte testimony about a case should recuse themselves. Judge Simpson refuted this claim, asserting that he had not heard any testimony from outside witnesses regarding the case. He accused the attorney of being “fast and loose with words” and requested a written motion outlining the defense’s recusal argument.
After a brief recess, Judge Simpson returned with findings from his staff, who had reviewed the case during the break. He informed the court that a different judge had presided over the co-defendant’s preliminary examination, directly contradicting the attorney’s initial claim. “You lied to me at the very beginning of your argument,” Simpson stated, emphasizing that the attorney’s assertion was a “falsehood and misrepresentation.”
Continuing to dismantle the attorney’s argument, Judge Simpson pointed out that the attorney had selectively quoted a previous case, omitting critical details that would have undermined his argument for recusal. When the attorney attempted to clarify his statements, Judge Simpson insisted on the inaccuracy of the attorney’s claims.
The defense attorney later acknowledged his misstep, stating, “Then I stand corrected, judge,” and maintained that he had not intended to mislead the court. However, he expressed his desire to pursue the motion for Judge Simpson’s recusal, requesting two weeks to file a written motion.
The prosecutor, upon being asked for her assessment, noted that the defense did not present any evidence that contested the charges against the defendant. Judge Simpson then pressed the defense attorney on why he sought to mislead the court, suggesting it was an attempt at “forum shopping,” a practice where a party seeks a court they believe will yield a favorable outcome.
The exchange between Judge Simpson and the defense attorney generated widespread reactions on social media
Source: Atlanta Black Star
