In the past I have explained how Barry County Michigan Judge Michael L. Schipper deprives people of due process and poisons jury pools.
He can often be found complaining that sentencing guidelines are “man-made” and that “people in Lansing who don’t know how things really work.“
He claims to care about people, but disregards human rights and brain science. This behavior contributes to mass incarceration and inflicts collateral consequences, a well-documented destroyer of families and communities.
In recent months, the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) released some very telling case opinions on Judge Schipper’s rulings, coming around to one finding over and over again: Judge Michael Lee Schipper chronically abuses sentencing discretion, acting in a way that is unethical, unprofessional, and unconstitutional.
Consistently and wildly going above and beyond sentencing guidelines demonstrates how little he respects the law and the legislative branch of government (the branch responsible for Michigan’s Laws).
It is both confusing and concerning that he is now attempting to teach people about the law; something that he does not seem to believe in following.
He does not seem to be an independent actor, heavily siding with law enforcement, even after flawed investigations, and taking orders from the Board of Commissioners and being rewarded for it through special jail committee seats; a massive conflict of interest.
A History of Upward Departures
Judge Schipper regularly engages in Upward Departures, a sentence longer than what sentencing guidelines recommend. Judges may ONLY engage in upward departures when there is clear and compelling reason to do so.
The COA again and again finds that Judge Schipper fails to explain why his upward departures are appropriate and proportionate. Most of the time, he merely states the guidelines are insufficient.
Examine these cases where the COA had to step in and make Judge Schipper follow the law:
- People v. Lake: Sentencing Guidelines were 11.25 – 18.75 years imprisonment; Judge Schipper sentenced the person to 50-80 years.
- People v. Podbevsek: Sentencing Guidelines were 5-28 months. Assistant Prosecutor asked for 60 to 90 months; Judge gave him what he wanted (the prosecutor has no interest in following the law, either).
- People v. Evans: Sentencing Guidelines were 5-34 months; Judge Schipper sentenced the defendant to 10 years.
- People v. Arizola: Sentencing guidelines were 19-76 months. Judge Schipper sentenced him to 240 to 480 months. Listen to the Oral Argument here, where the defendant’s attorney calls the Barry County Prosecutor’s Office “intellectually dishonest.”
- People v. Handley: Sentencing Guidelines were scored at 29-57 months. Judge Schipper sentenced him to 120-180 months. Listen to the COA Oral Argument here.
- People v. Williams (pending Michigan Supreme Court decision): 90 days was recommended on a Pre-Sentencing Report. The Sentencing Guidelines were 12-20 months. Sentenced to 10-20 years for a non-violent crime.
People v. Velasquez
UPDATE 1/19/2025: The Court of Appeals has once again intervened because Judge Schipper refuses to follow the law. Read the article here.
- 0-6 months sentencing guidelines
- Judge Schipper sent him to prison for 36-60 months.
- During the appeal, the Assistant Prosecutor submitted a Confession of Error, acknowledging the government made a mistake.
- Per the appeal opinion, Mr. Velasquez is said to have had a plea deal, though I am unable to determine what it was from the documentation.Unfortunately, broken plea deals are another common occurrence in Schipper’s court.
- Listen to the Oral Argument here.
Examining People v. Huggins: A Veteran’s Experience in the 5th Circuit Court
A case most definitely worth further discussion, is that of People v. Huggins.
It involves Keith Huggins, a military veteran with brain trauma from serving in Iraq, who experienced a mental health emergency.
His traumatic brain injury, medical disability, and prior service to his country were not at all taken into account in the Assistant Prosecutor’s recommendation, nor did Schipper consider it during his sentencing decision. These are referred to as mitigating factors, and they are to be considered in a sentencing decision, as laid out by Michigan law.
The Huggins case is further problematic, as the Assistant Prosecutor made unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations during his allocution, accusing Huggins of trying to commit “suicide by cop,” something that the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct dictates lawyers should not do.
If he or the Assistant Prosecutor understood science rather than hatred, they would know prison is the last place a veteran with a traumatic-brain injury should be. The CSG Justice Center held a phenomenal webinar discussing the issues with moving already traumatized veterans through the incredibly flawed court and prison system.
The Assistant Prosecutor also asked for a sentence way outside of the guidelines; 120-360 months (10-30 years).
In reading the transcripts, neither seem to care that they disrespected and incarcerated someone who served overseas for their safety, freedoms, and country, only to come back unwell.
Taking cheap shots at defendants is something both do regularly.
Subpar Treatment for Veterans
Mental health care for US Veterans is not even close to where it needs to be, though people are trying everyday to make it better.
Barry County Michigan, does NOT have and expresses no interest in, developing a Veteran’s Diversion Court despite having a community with many veterans.
Putting aside humanity and lack of adequate treatment, a Judge is a fact-finder, not a political commentator, and should have challenged the Assistant Prosecutor’s unethical behavior.
Schipper couldn’t be bothered to do that.
Another Upward Departure
For Mr. Huggins’ sentence, the probation department recommended a 10 month sentence and two years probation.
The sentencing guidelines were 9-46 months.
Once again, Judge Michael Schipper departed from the guidelines, sentencing Mr. Huggins to 10-30 years in prison, giving the assistant prosecutor – who lied multiple times on the record – exactly what he asked for.
The Michigan Court of Appeals found Mr. Huggins sentence to be inappropriate. But just like Judge John McBain, Judge Schipper refuses to take orders from a higher court.
In May 2024, rather than resentence Mr. Higgins within guidelines as required by law and the court of appeals, Schipper went with a second upward departure of 76 to 360 months.
If a trial judge is unable to follow the law as determined by a higher appellate court, the trial judge is in the wrong line of work
People v. Dixon-Bey, Michigan Court of Appeals
Why Does Any of This Matter?
Judge Schipper renders the Pre-Sentencing Investigation Report (PSIR) useless, wasting taxpayer dollars.
PSIRs are for more than instilling a false sense of security and checking a box. His refusal to adhere to the reports suggest the probation department’s opinions do not matter to him. Considering traumatic events and life history are included in a PSI, it also suggests he either doesn’t read them, or he enjoys inflicting additional trauma on defendants and their families.
His actions put unnecessary strain on the court and prison systems
Trials are costly but appeals are even more expensive. Inappropriate sentencing forces appellate courts to rectify mistakes made by a Judge. There are multiple cases where Schipper has had the opportunity to touch a case 2-3 times; he’s getting paid multiple times to fix his mistakes rather than get it right the first time.
Michigan DOC is already facing a staffing shortage.
Sending people there is only making it worse. I could easily go on about it, but luckily, I have a post that you can read here.
It’s costing Taxpayers twice through both Court and Prison tax dollars.
The Brennan Center for Justice makes an excellent argument for why judges should consider the costs of their sentencing:
An impressive body of economic research … finds for example that forgoing imprisonment as punishment of criminals whose crimes inflict little harm may save more in costs of imprisonment than the cost in increased crime that it creates.
“Should Judges Consider the Cost of Sentences?” – Brennan Center for Justice
Most incarcerated individuals will in fact rejoin their communities. And if the defendant is released and finds themselves indigent, it will cost the state again in health care and social assistance programs.
Incarceration removes tax revenue from communities when rehabilitation could have been sought, keeping families intact and thriving.
Work programs, also called Job Court, are in place all over the country, but Barry County doesn’t have one. Instead, it chooses costly prosecution efforts and contributes to poverty in communities and families to keep the courthouse operating.
We Have Three Separate Branches of Government for a Reason.
The US Constitution created three branches for a reason; to keep any one branch from being too powerful on its own.
Judge Schipper either doesn’t understand the Sentencing Guidelines or has a reading and/or math disability.
Michael Schipper is grossly unprofessional, railing on record about guidelines being “unaccounted for, ” “insufficient,” even as he scores them twice and miscalculates them entirely.
He never properly calculates the guidelines, or makes completely false claims that the Sentencing Guidelines “do not account” for a defendant’s circumstances.
What Does This Behavior Tell Us About Barry County Michigan Judge Michael Schipper?
This pattern of behavior tells us multiple things about Judge Schipper:
- He believes he is above the law and does not demonstrate respect Michigan Sentencing Guidelines, prepared by the Michigan Justice Institute.
- His docket is always full meaning his severe punishment doesn’t work and is not a deterrent for crime. I repeat, prison and harsh sentencing are NOT deterrents.
- He has no interest in rehabilitation. In fact, he consistently objects to rehabilitative measures such as Michigan DOC bootcamp. I have no doubt that if hanging people in the public square were still legal in Michigan, Judge Michael Schipper would eagerly do it at the fairgrounds and sell popcorn for the revenue. Excessive sentences and lack of diversion initiatives never address the underlying causes of crime.
- He’s not using his significant power to court-order what ACTUALLY prevents crime: rehabilitation. Crime does not happen because people are evil or bad. Crime occurs for a multitude of issues: mental health issues, poverty, desperation, trauma. He ignores this entirely and refuses to believe in data and science.
Why Does Judge Michael Schipper Believe He is Above the Law?
In case after case, Judge Schipper states the legislature “doesn’t account” for the circumstances of a case during sentencing.
Across multiple cases, he complains about the legislature referring to them as “people in Lansing” who individuals who “don’t understand how things really work.” These people have had careers much longer than his; he’s only been a judge for 12 agonizing years.
By his own account in transcripts, he believes that every case he touches is unique compared to that of the hundreds, if not thousands of judges across Michigan.
This simply isn’t true; the sentencing laws and guidelines exist to create uniformity in the Michigan system, ensuring justice is carried out in a similar way for similarly situation defendants throughout the state.
Instead, Schipper attempts a tactic called legislating from the bench, where a judge attempts to shape laws by making it of his own accord through his rulings.
Thankfully, he’s failing, because the Court of Appeals keeps remanding his rulings.
Violating Federal Constitutional Rights
Schipper doesn’t just struggle in understanding the legislative branch; he violates constitutional rights, too.
Less than two months apart, the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered Judge Schipper to remove language that indefinitely blocked a person from any outside contact with the world. It’s a cruel and unusual measure intending to destroy someone’s mental health.
That person suffered a mental breakdown.
Then, on December 4, 2024 oral argument in another case described another person receiving the same unconstitutional punishments. The COA concurred in this case as well.
Judge Schipper Intentionally Destroys Mental Health
At every session, prison psychologists ask an incarcerated person if they have a support system because it is IMPORTANT; it helps people rehabilitate and avoid recidivism. Judge Michael Schipper instead tries to destroy people’s mental health and rip away any support they may have.
This behavior willfully violates the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Empathy Impairment
Empathy Impairment is the inability to understand another person’s thoughts or feelings. Empathy has a strong impact on the relationship and interactions between criminal justice system practitioners and their communities.
Failing to understand the downstream effects of incarceration, as well as its impacts on a family, suggests empathy impairment.
Mass incarceration has multiple impacts, notably interfering with reproductive rights. Schipper regularly makes threatening statements on the record, often saying a person should be “taken out of commission.”
This behavior not only breeds mass incarceration and creates intergenerational trauma and poverty, but is reminiscent of the flawed and ignorant pseudo-science of the long disproven eugenics movement.
If anything should be “taken out of commission,” it is Judge Schipper’s inappropriate and horrific behavior.
Separate Branches of Government
Judges and prosecutors are separate branches of government.
They are not to be in cahoots; they are to be autonomous decision makers to create a fair and balanced system.
This blatant disinterest in creating separation and fairness most likely stems from Schipper himself being a former prosecutor.
He was allegedly selected by Former Governor Rick Snyder based on his prosecution of a “Ponzi scheme case” as his claim to fame. Federal Court documentation in PACER reveals that statement is grossly misrepresented and exaggerative; it was not a ponzi scheme case at all, and a judge on the case later admitted this.
As Barry County is a small community, he runs uncontested; he hasn’t had to truly campaign since his appointment by Rick Snyder. As a result, he is allowed to continue bad behavior unchecked.
Over dozens of cases, he never goes under the guidelines, even though People v. Lockridge, his go-to case law citation for his constant pattern of abusive and traumatic over-sentencing and upward departures, offers discretion in not just upward, but downward judicial sentencing, too.
Instead, Schipper always gives the Prosecutors exactly what they ask for: the maximum sentence, always outside of sentencing guidelines.
The Tail (The Prosecutor) is Wagging the Dog (Schipper)
Thankfully, I am not the first or only person to notice this.
Around the 7 minute mark of this oral argument, the Appellate Attorney points out that Judge Michael Schipper gave the exact sentence the prosecutor asked for.
In that case, a mentally ill man was charged with falsely reporting a felony against corrections staff.
“Prison Doesn’t Work.” – Judge Michael Schipper, December 2023.
Judge Schipper himself has stated on court record that prison “doesn’t work,” and that people come out worse.
Among the hundreds of false or misleading statements he makes on the record in court, this one is actually true.
Yet he continues exceeding sentencing guidelines and trapping people in the system, traumatizing people with no remorse.
By this own admission, he KNOWS what he is doing.
Judge Michael Schipper’s Behavior at Resentencing
When he actually grants resentencing (which is rare), he never admits he’s wrong.
Instead, his signature move is asking how someone “is doing in prison” and then cutting the sentence in half, still outside of sentencing guidelines.…Even after acknowledging that prison does not work.
He complains that probation doesn’t work, but probation is not synonymous with rehabilitation. In fact, the extent of a probation visit in Barry County is going down a checklist; it is not therapy.
There are multiple options available to him; he picks prison and opposes rehabilitation every time because he has no interest in rehabilitation, or championing alternative courts like other successful, evidence-focused candidates in neighboring counties, such as newly elected and highly anticipated Judge Emily Jipp in Allegan, or the Kalamazoo Prosecuting Attorney’s Office with its multiple Problem Solving Courts.
Unfit to Serve
It is said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Until the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, Michigan Supreme Court, or voters remove him, what is allowed is what will continue because Michael Lee Schipper doesn’t care about people. Only about destroying their lives and the community in the process.
A group of concerned citizens have sent a request for investigation to the Michigan Supreme Court and it is now pending.
But until this issue is handled, one thing is for certain: Barry County is not a trauma-informed placed to live, nor does it appreciate the Rule of Law.
Proceed with caution.
That was heavy. Need a laugh?
