Find the latest on Judge Michael Schipper’s Supreme Court remands here.
Key Takeaways
- Research on the Judicial Tenure Commission revealed non-public summaries of investigations.
- Analysis of 2020 cases shows a match with a WoodTV8 article regarding judge Michael schipper.
- The investigation details later appeared in the Annotated Michigan Judicial Code of Conduct, highlighting due process issues.
- Concerns arise as judge Michael schipper is up for reelection soon.
While reviewing disciplinary materials published by the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, a 2020 non-public summary concerning improper public commentary on a pending criminal case caught my eye.
Although the original summary did not name the judge, the timeframe, jurisdiction size, and case details align perfectly with contemporaneous reporting involving Judge Michael Schipper of the Barry County Trial Court.
The conduct described in the Commission’s 2020 summary states:
- The judge made comments to a reporter about a pending case over which he was presiding.
- He referenced the number of times the defendant had appeared before him for the same offense.
- He expressed the opinion that Michigan law was too lenient for that category of crime.
- He publicly stated that he set bond high because of the danger the defendant posed to the community.
At the time of the comments, former Canon 3(A)(6) prohibited judges from making public comments about pending cases.
The Commission determined the remarks violated that canon.
It also found that the comments violated current Canon 3(A)(6), which prohibits public statements that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a pending matter.
The Commission’s Findings
According to the 2020 summary:
- Barry County was lightly populated.
- Schipper’s remarks were described as inflammatory.
- His comments could have influenced another judge’s decision-making in the case.
- The statements released to the media could have reached potential jurors.
The Commission noted that judges are permitted under current Canon 3(A)(9) and 3(A)(10) to explain procedures, discuss their holdings, or respond to allegations about their own conduct.
However, the summary concluded that the language used, including referring to the defendant’s situation as “crazy” and emphasizing the seriousness of the crime, exceeded an acceptable explanation of bond.
The matter was dismissed with a caution, citing the judge’s acknowledgment of the violation and lack of prior disciplinary history. In 2017, he had only been a judge for 6 years. By 2020, he had three years to report his misconduct, but never did.
Due Process Implications
Public commentary by a presiding judge on a pending criminal matter raises core due process concerns:
- Presumption of innocence
- Neutral adjudication
- Protection against prejudicial pretrial influence
In a smaller jurisdiction such as Barry County, the risk of juror exposure to public statements is heightened. The Commission characterized the violation as unintentional, but constitutional analysis does not turn solely on intent.
It turns on whether fairness may have been impaired.
Published Reference
The matter was later incorporated into the Annotated Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct as an instructional example regarding public statements about pending cases.
The fact that the incident became educational material underscores its seriousness under judicial ethics standards.
Systemic Risk and the Cost of Quiet Discipline
The 2020 matter was dismissed with a caution rather than formal public discipline. But that 2017 article told us everything we needed to know about what was to come; he was telling everyone his agenda and what he was about. Schipper didn’t honor the legislative sentencing guidelines then, and he still doesn’t now. It has only gotten worse with multiple Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court sentences remanded for correction.
And yet he continues sentencing non-violent crimes to 6x the guidelines, and offering 30 day sentences for deaths.
In rural jurisdictions where the same judge continues to preside over criminal matters, the absence of visible corrective action raises an uncomfortable question:
If a public Judicial Tenure Commission complaint had resulted in formal discipline rather than a caution, would subsequent litigants have been better positioned to assert due process protections?
What would have happened if he had received public reprimand, or if someone had recognized the potential harm he could cause with disproportionately high sentences?
When a judicial ethics violation involving public commentary on a pending case is handled quietly, the broader system receives little corrective signal. There is no formal public record of reprimand. There is no published discipline that alerts defense counsel, litigants, or voters to exercise heightened scrutiny. It is a perfect case study of what you allow will not only continue, but it will get worse.
Due process is not only about individual cases. It is about structural safeguards.
Public discipline serves three purposes:
- It deters repetition.
- It informs the bar and the public.
- It strengthens appellate review by establishing a documented pattern where relevant.
When misconduct findings remain non-public or minimally sanctioned, the system effectively resets without reform. And for Schipper, his blatant lack of uniform judicial discretion not only continued, but escalated.
In a court where discretion shapes bond, plea leverage, and sentencing outcomes, transparency is not cosmetic. It is protective.
Judicial ethics enforcement is designed not only to punish past conduct, but to prevent future harm. When enforcement is quiet, prevention is uncertain.
Accountability and Elections
Judge Michael Schipper is an elected judicial officer. One with significant distain for the Michigan Legislature. When disciplinary matters involve public commentary that could affect the fairness of proceedings, voters are entitled to examine:
- The nature of the violation
- The Commission’s reasoning
- Whether dismissal with caution reflects proportional accountability
- Whether similar issues have arisen since
Transparency allows voters to make informed decisions, but all too often Barry County prefers opacity to sunlight.
Judicial elections are one of the only direct accountability mechanisms available to the public. Remember this next election, because due process rights depend on it.
