On Tuesday, April 11, 2023, the State of Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission granted the motion of 3rd Circuit Court Judge, Hon, Paul J. Cusick, to compel the production of witness statements.

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).

On November 23, 2022, a complaint was filed against the respondent alleging his misconduct of suborning perjury, obstructing/interfering with cross-examinations, and misrepresentation to the commission. This is during the respondent’s employment in the Office of the Michigan Attorney General (AG) as an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) from 2011 to 2016.

The complaint states:

“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.”

The complaint continues:

“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.”

On  January 4, 2023, an answer was filed by the respondent in response to the complaint. In the said response, the respondent denied all the allegations and branded them as a product of a deeply flawed investigation rooted in wrong assumptions and bias.

The Answer states:

“All of the allegations are denied as untrue. They are the product of a deeply flawed investigation that began with the wrong assumption that Judge Cusick engaged in misconduct and then proceeded by simply cherry-picking information that fit their biased notions. Further, evidence that was contrary to these notions was simply dismissed (the Kastigar Letter) or ignored (Ms. Loggie). Finally, evidence that could have been used by Judge Cusick to defend himself was purposely withheld from him (the Komorn tape).”

Following his answer, on March 3, 2023, the respondent filed a motion to compel the production of witness statements. According to the respondent, the Judicial Tenure Commission has employed a legal fiction to circumvent its obligations to permit full and fair discovery in the said matter. In response to the motion, the Disciplinary Counsel filed its answer requesting the court to deny the motion stating that it already provided all witness statements and other material possessions that are related to the charges.

In relation to this, the court decided to favor the respondent and granted the latter’s motion provided with conditions.

The order states:

“Considering the information above and in accordance with MCR 9.232(A), the Commission has concluded that the document should be provided to counsel and the Master and is granting the respondent’s motion, with the following conditions:

1. The RFI number shall be redacted from the document before it is produced in FC 104;

2. The document shall remain under seal, and will only be released to the Master and all counsel who have appeared in FC 104;

3. The Master and all counsel in FC 104 shall honor the confidentiality of the document and protect it from public view;

4. If the document is used in any way at the hearing in FC 104 (regardless of whether or not it is offered or admitted as an exhibit), the document shall remain under seal and the Master and all counsel in FC 104 shall take all actions necessary to protect the confidentiality of the document.”

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.