Holland Judge Bradley Knoll Charged With Courthouse Assault — A Second Documented Incident in Three Years

Holland District Court Judge Bradley Knoll was first charged with a crime in December 2023, when he faced a domestic violence count after an altercation with his wife at their Grand Haven home. He pleaded guilty. He completed what appears to have been approximately six months of probation. Under Michigan’s deferred judgment structure, the charge was never formally entered on his record. The Judicial Tenure Commission opened an investigation. In March 2026, that investigation produced a consent agreement requiring Knoll to retire. He had already submitted his resignation. By all official accounts, the matter was resolved.

Then February 13, 2026 happened.

According to WOOD TV8, Knoll allegedly assaulted a man who appeared before him in his own courtroom. Michigan State Police investigated. On May 29, 2026, four months after the incident, Knoll waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge. He is 74 years old. He has now been charged with a crime twice in three years, both times involving alleged physical conduct toward another person.

What the Pattern Shows

Two incidents in three years does not constitute a lifetime pattern. It also does not arise from nowhere. The relevant question, and one the public record as of this writing cannot fully answer, is whether there is something structural or medical driving the escalation, or whether the 2023 disposition created the conditions for a second incident by resolving the first one without public accountability.

On the structural point: Knoll served on the Holland District Court bench from 2002 until his retirement in 2026. That is 24 years. There is no public record at this writing of prior JTC complaints, prior disciplinary proceedings, or prior criminal charges during that period. That is not confirmation that no complaints existed; JTC proceedings are not fully public. But the absence of documented prior conduct shifts the analytical weight toward the question of what changed, rather than the question of what was always there.

On the 2023 disposition: Knoll pleaded guilty to domestic violence. He served probation. The charge was deferred, meaning it does not appear on his criminal record. He remained on the bench for more than two years after that charge was filed. The JTC investigation ran its course. The consent agreement secured his retirement. From a systemic perspective, that process worked the way it is designed to work: a judge with a documented conduct problem was eventually removed from the bench through the accountability structure that exists for that purpose.

What the process did not do is create any public transparency about whether Knoll’s conduct was an isolated incident or part of a developing pattern. The deferred judgment structure that kept the 2023 charge off his record is the same structure that routinely applies to first-time domestic violence offenders in Michigan. It is not specific to judges. But the application of that structure to a sitting judge who remained in a position of authority over litigants raises a question the process is not designed to answer: what did the people who appeared before him in 2024 and 2025 know about the man presiding over their cases?

The Courtroom Setting Is the Key Distinction

The 2023 incident occurred at Knoll’s home, between Knoll and his wife, in a context that has no formal relationship to his judicial function. That remains a serious matter, and the JTC took it seriously. But the February 2026 incident is categorically different.

An alleged assault in a courtroom, against a litigant appearing before a sitting judge, is not a personal matter that happened to involve a judge. It is an alleged abuse of the courtroom itself. The man who appeared before Knoll that day had no choice about being there. He was subject to Knoll’s authority. Whatever occurred on February 13, it occurred in a space where Knoll held institutional power over the person he allegedly assaulted.

Michigan State Police investigated, which means the matter was treated as a criminal incident, not an internal court administrative question. The case was assigned to a judge from a different county, which is standard procedure when venue conflicts would compromise the appearance of impartiality. The system recognized that a Holland judge could not preside over a case involving a Holland judge.

The Medical and Age Question

Knoll is 74 years old. State standards in Michigan prevent judges from beginning new elected terms after age 70, which is why the JTC consent agreement formalized his retirement rather than simply ordering him to leave. He was already term-limited by age. The consent agreement moved the timeline up from the end of 2026 to July 1; Knoll’s own resignation moved it further to May 1.

Age-related changes that can affect impulse control and aggression are documented in the medical literature. This is not a claim that age caused the alleged February assault. The record does not support that conclusion, and it would not be appropriate to draw it from the available facts. What it is worth noting, directly, is that the public record does not include any indication that Knoll’s fitness for continued judicial service was evaluated on health grounds following the 2023 incident. The JTC’s published mandate covers misconduct. It does not routinely conduct medical fitness evaluations.

If the 2026 incident reflects something about Knoll’s capacity rather than his character, the accountability structures that govern Michigan judges are not designed to distinguish between the two. Both produce the same outcome: removal from the bench. Neither produces a public finding on the underlying cause.

What Remains Unknown

The public record as of May 30, 2026 does not answer several questions material to understanding this case. The identity of the alleged assault victim has not been made public. The nature of the alleged assault has not been described in detail in any publicly available source. It is not known whether any court staff witnessed the incident, whether it was captured on courthouse security footage, or whether any prior complaints about Knoll’s courtroom conduct were made through official channels and what disposition, if any, those complaints received.

It is also not publicly known whether the JTC was made aware of the February 2026 incident before the consent agreement was finalized in March, or whether the consent agreement was negotiated with knowledge of the pending criminal matter. The timeline is tight: the alleged assault occurred February 13, and the consent agreement was reached in March. Whether those two events are connected in the JTC record is not established by the available public information.

What the record does show is this: a judge who presided over a Michigan court for 24 years faces a second criminal charge in three years, both involving alleged physical conduct. The second incident allegedly occurred against a litigant in his courtroom. He has retired. A criminal proceeding is pending. The pre-trial hearing is June 24, 2026.

The system produced a result. It is worth paying attention to how.