MI Supreme Court.jpg

Attorney Kenneth Mogill on Wednesday, Oct. 6 argues before the Michigan Supreme Court in the Judicial Tenure Commission case, which recommends the court remove Washtenaw County 14A-1 District Court Judge J. Cedric Simpson from office.

(Lindsay Knake | MLive.com)

LANSING, MI - If the Michigan Supreme Court rules a Washtenaw County judge lied under oath, he'll be off the bench.

Attorneys argued the Judicial Tenure Commission case, which recommends the court remove Washtenaw County 14A-1 District Court Judge J. Cedric Simpson from office, before the seven justices on Thursday, Oct. 6 in Lansing.

The case's origins date back to September 2013 when Simpson arrived on the scene of a traffic stop involving his intern Crystal Vargas, who was being arrested for drunk driving at 4:30 a.m. in Pittsfield Township. Simpson spoke with both the arresting officer and Vargas at the scene, shows video of the arrest.

The Judicial Tenure Commission filed a three-count complaint against Simpson in November 2014, claiming he interfered with Vargas's arrest and subsequent prosecution and later lied to the commission about 14,000 text messages he and Vargas exchanged in a four-month period before and after her arrest.

Simpson's attorney Kenneth Mogill argued Simpson's presence and discussion did not interfere with the arrest, and his text messages with Vargas were about an unrelated case Vargas was working on.

If the court determines Simpson lied under oath, it's a fatal offense for a judge, said Chief Justice Robert P. Young.

"When a judge lies under oath, it makes it hard to turn to someone else and expect them to tell the truth," he said.

The arguments

Judicial Tenure Commission Associate Examiner Margaret Rynier said Simpson's relationship with his intern showed his intent in making an appearance at the scene was to get her out of trouble.

But Mogill argued the record shows Simpson didn't interfere with or delay the police investigation into Vargas's drunken driving arrest. The arresting officer from Pittsfield Township testified Simpson didn't do or say anything to persuade the officer to do something he shouldn't, Mogill added.

Simpson's behavior was an isolated incident, and he has since said he wouldn't do it again, Mogill said.

The justices questioned the volume of the text messages Simpson and Vargas sent to one another and how that pertained to the case. Justice David F. Viviano said Simpson and Mogill's reasoning for the number of text messages doesn't make sense.

Vargas had to review an extraordinary number of text messages for a separate case she was working on for Simpson, which explains why Simpson and Vargas exchanged so many messages of their own, Mogill said.

Simpson, also a faculty member at Cooley Law School in Ann Arbor, makes himself available to his students and was helping Vargas with both her work and a difficult relationship she was in, Mogill said.

Young said he doesn't care what the underlying relationship between Simpson and Vargas was.

"There was some kind of emotional relationship that would prompt 15,000 communications that might explain why he showed up that morning. It's trying to gloss over that motivation that is the biggest problem for (Simpson)," he said.

During Rynier's arguments, the justices pushed her to explain why the nature of the relationship between Simpson and Vargas and why the number of text messages were relevant to the commission's assertion Simpson lied under oath.

Rynier said the relationship gave Simpson motivation to interfere with the investigation and prosecution.

A misleading statement, she said, is judicial misconduct.

Simpson initially told the commission his only contact with Vargas was through social settings, and then the commission found the 14,000 text messages the two had exchanged in a four-month period, Rynier said.

"His responses to commission were false," she said.

Simpson also contacted the Pittsfield Township attorney eight days after Vargas's arrest to get the police report and discuss which defense attorney should represent Vargas, she said. However, Simpson already had a copy of the police report.

Mogill argued Simpson asked for the police report to determine whether Vargas should have remained in his office.

But Rynier said there was no reason for Simpson to ask for the report or discuss attorneys unless he was interfering with the investigation.

She acknowledged it wasn't an easy case, but she says it's a clear one.

"Sometimes circumstantial evidence is stronger than direct evidence," she said.

The justices also touched on the propriety of a judge appearing at the scene of an incident, and what constitutes misconduct.

Justice Richard Bernstein asked whether it would be inappropriate for a judge to talk to an officer about a parking ticket.

Rynier said she believed it would be if he announced his title and asserted his office to influence the officer.

The Michigan Supreme Court will consider the briefs and arguments and make a ruling on the case.

The decision, Bernstein noted, will affect all judges in the state.