in Re Hon J Cedric Simpson, 150404

Background

Judge J. Cedric Simpson’s intern, Crystal Vargas, crashed her car early on Sept. 8, 2013; Vargas called Simpson and he arrived at the scene while officer Cole was conducting sobriety tests.
Simpson identified himself as a judge, spoke to Vargas without the officer’s permission, and asked whether she just needed a ride; a PBT and later breathalyzer tests showed Vargas’s BAC over the legal limit.
Simpson subsequently contacted Pittsfield Township Attorney Victor Lillich, disclosed that Vargas was his intern, noted a discrepancy between PBT and breathalyzer results, requested the police report, and later discussed potential defense counsel; Lillich delayed action and ultimately disqualified himself.
The Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) charged Simpson with (1) interfering with a police investigation, (2) interfering with a prosecution, and (3) making misrepresentations to the JTC; a master and the JTC found all three counts proved and recommended removal and costs.
The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo: it affirmed findings of interference and one finding of intentional misrepresentation (about the purpose of thousands of texts), rejected another misrepresentation finding (contact between midnight and 4 a.m.), and reduced the sanction to a nine‑month unpaid suspension plus costs of $7,565.54.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (JTC)	Defendant's Argument (Simpson)	Held
Whether Simpson interfered with the on‑scene police investigation	Simpson used his judicial status at the crash scene to influence and interrupt officer Cole’s sobriety testing	Simpson contended his conduct was to check on his intern’s welfare and did not improperly influence the investigation	Held: Proven — Simpson’s introduction as “Judge Simpson,” speaking to Vargas without permission, and asking if she needed a ride constituted misuse of judicial office to attempt to impede the investigation
Whether Simpson interfered with the prosecution	Simpson called the township attorney, advocated for Vargas, raised evidentiary questions, and delayed charging	Simpson argued he raised legitimate evidentiary concerns and sought information as a supervising judge	Held: Proven — Simpson improperly acted as an advocate, delayed prosecution, and caused the prosecutor’s recusal
Whether Simpson made intentional misrepresentations to the JTC about pre‑4:00 a.m. contacts	JTC alleged Simpson lied under oath denying contact between midnight and 4:00 a.m.	Simpson said he did not recall and equivocated; the communications record showed texts in that period	Held: Not proven as intentional — testimony was inaccurate/careless but insufficient to show intentional deceit
Whether Simpson made intentional misrepresentations about the purpose of voluminous communications with Vargas	JTC argued Simpson falsely claimed the bulk of messages related to court work (People v. Nassif)	Simpson claimed messages were mainly about a complex case; he also offered other explanations	Held: Proven — the timing, volume, and content contradicted Simpson’s explanation; JTC proved an intentional misrepresentation or misleading statement

Key Cases Cited

In re Brown, 461 Mich 1291 (2000) (sets out Brown factors for assessing judicial discipline)
In re Lawrence, 417 Mich 248 (1983) (approved nine‑month unpaid suspension for misuse of judicial office plus a nontestimonial misrepresentation)
In re Mikesell, 396 Mich 517 (1976) (limits Supreme Court review to JTC findings/recommendations)
In re Ferrara, 458 Mich 350 (1998) (considered respondent’s dishonest statements made to multiple fora, including this Court)
In re Adams, 494 Mich 162 (2013) (reaffirmed removal for testimony false under oath)
In re McCree, 495 Mich 51 (2014) (addressed pervasive dishonesty and considered supplemental findings in assessing discipline)