This piece was published in February 2023, documenting a 2017 Judicial Tenure Commission finding through independent analysis of public records, before any charges were filed against this publication’s founder.
Judge Michael Schipper has since been the subject of multiple Michigan Supreme Court remands of upward sentencing departures. Pending SCAO investigations have confirmed record inconsistencies in his court.
For the full record, see the Barry County investigative series, the Michigan Supreme Court remand analysis, and People v. Williams, currently before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The 2017 finding was not an anomaly. It was a pattern.
How This Finding Was Identified
The Judicial Tenure Commission publishes non-public summaries of its investigations. These summaries anonymize the judges involved. What they cannot anonymize is the combination of jurisdiction size, case type, timeframe, and conduct described, all of which, when cross-referenced with contemporaneous news reporting, can identify the subject with reasonable certainty.
In this case, a 2020 JTC summary describing public commentary by a Barry County judge on a pending criminal matter matched a contemporaneous WoodTV8 news article involving Judge Schipper in detail, geography, and timing. The incident was later incorporated into the Annotated Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct as an instructional example on public statements about pending matters, which further confirmed its factual basis.
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.
What the JTC Summary Found
The conduct described in the Commission’s 2020 summary is specific:
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.
The Commission found that the comments violated former Canon 3(A)(6), which prohibited public commentary on pending cases, as well as current Canon 3(A)(6), which prohibits statements that might reasonably affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a pending matter.
The Commission noted the language used, including describing the defendant’s situation as “crazy” and emphasizing the seriousness of the crime, exceeded an acceptable explanation of bond.
Barry County was described as lightly populated. The remarks were described as inflammatory. His comments could have influenced another judge’s decision-making, and statements released to media could have reached potential jurors.
The Due Process Problem
Public commentary by a presiding judge on a pending criminal matter raises core due process concerns. This is not a technicality. These are foundational constitutional protections.
A judge publicly characterizing a defendant’s conduct as dangerous before trial signals a predetermined view of guilt to anyone who hears it, including potential jurors.
A judge who has publicly expressed an opinion about a pending case has compromised the appearance of impartiality required by both the constitution and the code of judicial conduct.
In a lightly populated county, the risk of juror exposure to a presiding judge’s public statements about a pending case is not theoretical. The Commission acknowledged this directly.
The Commission characterized the violation as unintentional. Constitutional analysis does not turn solely on intent. It turns on whether fairness may have been impaired. In a rural jurisdiction where the same judge continues to preside over criminal matters, the absence of visible corrective action raises an uncomfortable question: if a public complaint had resulted in formal discipline rather than a private caution, would subsequent litigants have been better positioned to assert due process protections?
What Quiet Discipline Actually Costs
Schipper didn’t honor the legislative sentencing guidelines in 2017, 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 nonviolent crimes to six times the guidelines and offering 30-day sentences for deaths.
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. The system effectively resets without reform.
Public discipline serves three distinct purposes, and quiet discipline serves none of them:
It deters repetition, by the same judge and by others who understand that visible consequences exist for visible misconduct.
It informs the bar and the public, allowing defense counsel to raise pattern evidence and allowing voters to assess fitness for office.
It strengthens appellate review by establishing a documented pattern where relevant, giving appellate courts a factual record to work with.
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 address past conduct, but to prevent future harm. When enforcement is quiet, prevention is uncertain.
The Published Reference — and What It Reveals
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 for the legal community underscores its seriousness under judicial ethics standards.
The legal community learned from it. The public did not know who committed it. That imbalance is a design feature of Michigan’s current discipline structure, not an oversight. And it is exactly what needs to change.
Accountability and Elections
Judge Michael Schipper is an elected judicial officer, one with significant disdain for the Michigan Legislature and its sentencing guidelines. 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 a caution reflects proportional accountability, and 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. Schipper is in his seat partly because no one ran against him and partly because the public record of his conduct has been systematically suppressed through private discipline and anonymized summaries.
Remember this next election. Due process rights depend on who sits on that bench.
Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct — Canon 3(A)(6) — courts.michigan.gov →
Annotated Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct — Public Statements on Pending Matters
JTC RecordsMichigan Judicial Tenure Commission — 2020 Non-Public Summary (anonymized) — cross-referenced with contemporaneous news reporting
JTC 2023 Annual Report — private admonishment of Barry County judge (anonymized)
News ReportingWoodTV8 — Contemporaneous reporting on Schipper public comments, 2017
Related Clutch Justice InvestigationsBarry County Investigative Series — clutchjustice.com →
Michigan Judicial Misconduct Database — clutchjustice.com/judicial-misconduct →
People v. Williams — Michigan Court of Appeals — clutchjustice.com →
