On November 23, 2022, a complaint was filed against Hon. Paul J. Cusick, Third Circuit Court Judge from Detroit, Michigan before the Judicial Tenure Commission of the State of Michigan for alleged conduct of suborning perjury, obstructing/interfering with cross-examinations, and misrepresentation to the Commission.
The case is entitled “In the matter of Hon. Paul J. Cusick” with Complaint no. 104.
The charges cited the Michigan Constitution Article 6, Section 30, MCR 9.104(1), 9.103(A), 9.104(2), 9.104(3), 9.104(4), 9.104(5); Criminal Laws of the State of Michigan, 750.424 and 750. 505; Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(A) and MCJCC 2(B); Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.3, 3.8, 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4 (c) which state:
Conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Conduct in violation of the standards imposed on members of the bar as a condition of the privilege to the practice of law.
Conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach.
Conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals.
Conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court.
Prohibits a lawyer from committing misconduct in office.
Prohibits a lawyer from suborning perjury.
Prohibits a lawyer from committing misconduct in office.
Requires a prosecuting attorney to disclose and provide the defense with names of res gestae witnesses.
Conduct that is irresponsible and/or improper.
Conduct that undermines public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
Prohibits a lawyer from providing false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal and requires a lawyer to correct false statements of material fact previously provided to a tribunal.
Requires a prosecuting attorney to make “timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the degree of the offense.
Prohibits conduct that violates or attempts to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.
Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
Hon. Paul J. Cusick was employed by the Office of the Michigan Attorney General (AG) as an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) from 2011 to 2016. During his employment in the office, the respondent was the “lead attorney” in several investigations/Prosecutions. Allegedly, the respondent committed several violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct on different Counts as stated above. But the central conducts are as follows but not limited to: suborning perjury, obstructing/interfering with cross-examinations, and misrepresentation to the Commission.
The filing states:
“During Detective Zinser’s direct examination on the preliminary examination in People v Joslin, 35th District Court case no. 15A161, Respondent limited his questions primarily to a. Detective Zinser’s observations during Brandy Loggie’s controlled buys, Detective Zinser’s actions during the March 19, 2015 execution of search warrants issued in the Joslin investigation, Respondent knowingly and intentionally did not elicit from Ms. Loggie or from Detective Zinser any information regarding a) Ms. Loggie’s relationship with Thomas McCully, b) Ms. Loggie’s involvement in the McCully organization, c) The Third Circuit Court forfeiture case then pending against Brandy Loggie, d) The circumstances under which Ms. Loggie became a CI, e) The fact that Ms. Loggie’s CI work was serving as a benefit in Thomas McCully’s sentence.
Also, despite his knowledge that Brandy Loggie’s testimony was materially false, inaccurate, incomplete, and/or misleading, the respondent: Permitted and/or caused Ms. Loggie’s perjured testimony to remain as part of the record, permitted and/or caused Judge Gerou unknowingly to rely on, at least in part, on Brandy Loggie’s perjured testimony when determining the sufficiency of the evidence for a bind over.”
The filing continues:
“While aware that Ms. Loggie’s testimony was materially false or misleading with respect to her motive for testifying, the respondent knowingly and/or intentionally interfered with and obstructed Mr. Komorn’s attempts to determine Ms. Loggie’s true motive for testifying. During Mr. Komorn’s cross-examination of Brandy Loggie, the respondent repeatedly objected to Mr. Komorn’s questions/inquiries regarding; The circumstances under which Brandy Loggie became a CI, Brandy Loggie’s role, and/or involvement in any other police investigations, Brandy Loggie’s motivation for working with the Task Force as a CI, Brandy Loggie’s contacts with Amanda Joslin and the Pure Wellness Center prior to September 4, 2014.
During Mr. Komorn’s cross-examination of Detective Zinser, re respondent repeatedly objected to questions/inquiries regarding The circumstances under which Brandy Loggie became a CI, Brandy Loggie’s role, and/or involvement in any other police investigations, Ms. Loggie’s motivation for working with the Task Force as a CI, the accuracy of Ms. Loggie’s testimony, Respondent objected to the questions described in the preceding two paragraphs to prevent Mr. Komorn learning that Ms. Loggie became a CI to 38 help her boyfriend, Mr. McCully, which information was material to Ms . Loggie’s credibility as a witness.”
The filing further states:
“Despite his knowledge that Brandy Loggie’s November 3, 2015, preliminary examination testimony was false, inaccurate, incomplete, and/or misleading in Third Circuit Court respondent subpoenaed and presented Brandy L doggie as a credible witness for an evidentiary hearing conducted before Judge Kenny on June 27, 2016. 40, utilized and relied on Ms. Loggie’s testimony in various pleadings and arguments he filed, made, and/or responded to before Judge Kenny, including, but not limited to, the June 27, 2016, evidentiary hearing.
The Respondent also permitted and/or caused Judge Kenny unknowingly to rely on Brandy Loggie’s untruthful, incomplete, and/or inaccurate testimony when making his rulings/decisions on various objections and/or motions including, but not limited to Motion to Quash and Evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss was conducted on June 27, 2016.”
This complaint requests that the respondent be charged with appropriate sanctions in violation of the aforementioned rules and laws.
The Judge earned a law degree from Wayne State University.
The Judge’s Courtroom is located at 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226, and can be reached at (313) 224-2461. His bio can be found on ballotpedia.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.