For the latest Michigan Supreme Court decision on Schipper’s upward departures, read my full analysis on the Schipper remand.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Michael Schipper sentenced a first-time offender in a fatal crash case to only six months, raising questions about sentencing disparity.
- In contrast, another first-time offender received a sentence of 10 to 15 years for a similar offense, demonstrating significant inconsistency in sentencing.
- Factors such as legal representation and community status appear to influence outcomes, as seen in differences between defendants Scott Handley and Ms. Cobb.
- The article highlights potential bias in Judge Schipper’s sentencing patterns, notably harsher treatment towards male defendants.
- Upcoming resentencing for Scott Handley may reveal whether Judge Schipper applies the same leniency seen in Ms. Cobb’s case, questioning the principle of Barry County sentencing disparity.
QuickFAQs
Yes. Sentencing guidelines are advisory after People v. Lockridge, but departures must still be proportionate and justified on the record.
A downward departure occurs when a judge imposes a sentence below the recommended guideline range, supported by individualized reasoning.
Michigan law does not permit sentencing based on financial status. However, disparities in representation quality may affect case presentation, mitigation development, and sentencing advocacy.
Under Michigan law, sentences must be proportionate to both the offense and the offender. Large disparities between similar cases may raise reviewable questions.
On March 11, 2025, Judge Michael Schipper sentenced a 19-year-old defendant in a fatal crash case to six months in jail and two years of probation. With good time and work credits, the jail time will be cut in half, making the sentence just three months.
In a prior fatal crash case involving a first-time offender with comparable guideline scoring, the same court imposed a sentence of 10 to 15 years in prison following an upward departure.
Both cases involved tragic loss of life. Both involved first-time offenders. The sentencing guidelines were comparable.
The “custom” of this court isn’t justice, but whim. When materially similar cases produce dramatically different outcomes, proportionality and consistency questions arise under Michigan law.
This analysis reviews the relevant legal standards and the implications for sentencing uniformity.
Case Comparison Overview
| Factor | March 2025 Case | Handley Case |
|---|---|---|
| Offense | Fatal crash | Fatal crash |
| First-time offender | Yes | Yes |
| Guideline Range | Comparable range | 29–57 months |
| Sentence Imposed | 6 months jail + probation | 120–180 months prison |
| Departure Type | Downward departure | Upward departure |
The Amish Community, as well as Mennonite offshoots, are champions of restorative justice, and a true testament to how the system could be better if we embraced justice differently.
While I am thrilled that in this case, Judge Michael Schipper appears to have been more understanding that this person’s brain is not finished developing and sometimes people make horrible mistakes, I do not believe that this is actually his stance; it hasn’t been before and I don’t see him changing anytime soon.
He has long taken pride in “hammering” regular people for substance abuse issues while being lenient on former prosecutors for drunk driving.
He also has had absolutely zero interest in listening to Victims’ wishes for leniency in the past.
…And this all takes place in a county that according to sources, not only looks the other way when those in power abuse substances, but does not have the capability, interest, or funding to properly address treatment.
While I believe Ms. Cobb does have a responsibility to tell her story, I am deeply concerned about the apparent quid pro quo by going on speaking engagements with Judge Schipper, when others are punished for speaking out against misconduct and endure unreasonable upward sentencing departures.
In fact, Judge Schipper’s comment violates Judicial Canon 2(C):
‘[al judge should not use the prestige of office to advance personal business interests or those of others.
No, this case is an outlier for very specific reasons I will get into below.
People v. Handley
I am greatly concerned and even more perplexed as to how Michael Schipper has many times over, failed to extend the same kindness to multiple first time offenders, especially that of Scott Handley.
According to Michigan Court Records, Mr. Handley was also a first time offender who was intoxicated at the time of an accident causing death. He did not receive the same kind of understanding or fair treatment that was afforded to the aforementioned defendant in the March 2025 case.
Mr. Handley’s guidelines were scored at 29 to 57 months; the same as what the Prosecutor asked for, presumably based on sentencing guidelines as a first time offender.
However, Judge Schipper’s demeanor in this sentencing is a dramatic contrast to his behavior in Mr. Handley’s case. There, Judge Michael Schipper chose a significant upward departure, sentencing him well over the statutory guidelines to 120 to 180 months in prison.
People v. Cobb is instead a downward departure. You may remember me discussing this concept on other posts, and that both downward and upward departures are allowable as a result of People v. Lockridge, albeit with reasoning, on the record.
So What Happened?
What’s different between these two cases?
As a reminder, same charges, both first time offenders. Ms. Cobb was also facing up to 15 years in prison, but their sentencing guidelines were exactly the same.
- Ms. Cobb received 6 months in jail and two years of probation for two deaths and an injury.
- Scott Handley received 10 – 15 years in prison for one death as a first time offender.
What’s Different? Hired vs. Court-Appointed Counsel
The defendant’s parents in the above case could afford a high-powered attorney.
Ms. Cobb’s father is the President of Knight Watch LLC., one of the largest security companies in West Michigan.
Heath Lynch is nothing short of phenomenal; I am still impressed by the work he did in People v. Loew. But that kind of high-quality representation does not come cheap.
Scott Handley had a court-appointed attorney; specifically Hastings-area attorney Kathryn Russell. He also has appointed counsel for his appeal.
Effective mitigation advocacy can significantly influence sentencing outcomes. Retained counsel often have greater resources for expert evaluations, character development, and structured mitigation presentations.
While Michigan law prohibits sentencing disparities based on wealth or status, the reality is that advocacy quality can impact how mitigating factors are presented.
Sources close to the situation inform me that in Mr. Handley’s most recent re-sentencing memorandum, issued just before Ms. Cobb’s sentencing, Schipper stated he believes there should be a “life for a life.”
It begs the question; if this is the case and part of his beliefs, why were these two cases handled so differently?
Clearly, a person’s status in the community, their financial situation, and the caliber of court representation make a big difference in Judge Schipper’s sentencing.
Harsher Sentencing for Men
Judge Schipper’s demeanor is also typically more abrasive and aggressive toward men, as he expects defendants to cry. Socially, it is less acceptable for men to cry, and as a result, they are sentenced more harshly by Schipper.
This is not the first case where Schipper gave a woman jail but sent a man to prison for upwards of 10 years.
Sentencing Guidelines are, as a reminder, written by the legislature to ensure uniformity in sentencing. Judge Michael Schipper failing to adhere to them disrupts this.
Schipper’s Problematic Media Control Continues
A review of court records finds that Hastings Banner author Dennis Mansfield was not required to complete the necessary court forms to record the hearing, outright violating Michigan Court Rule MCR 8.109(C) and Ms. Cobb’s right to due process and fair treatment.
Leopards do not change their spots, it seems.
Upcoming Resentencing
Scott Handley’s resentencing hearing was originally set for May 2025, but has since been moved to July 2025. It will be interesting to see whether he will extend the same treatment or mercy to someone who doesn’t have the money to pay for Heath Lynch.
It will also be interesting to see what mental gymnastics Michael Schipper employs to explain his vastly different approach in sentencing.
