An office does not go from fully staffed to fully empty overnight without something underneath it giving way first. In Cass County, what gave way was a pay dispute that officials on both sides say could have been resolved for a fraction of what the county now faces in transition costs, institutional memory loss, and public confidence. What replaced it was a courthouse that, for a stretch of days, had no prosecutor at all, and a neighboring county that inherited the man at the center of it, along with the questions that came with him.
A 23 Year Office Emptied in Three Weeks
Fitz’s resignation letter, dated May 11, 2026, set his final day for May 19. What followed was not a quiet handoff. At a press conference in Cassopolis in the final days before the office cleared out, Fitz publicly blamed county leadership for the exodus, describing the administration as toxic and accusing commissioners of ignoring repeated warnings that his staff would leave without a pay solution. He said it plainly: the entire situation, the loss of six attorneys and a functioning prosecutor’s office, “could have been solved with a few thousand dollars.”
The immediate trigger, according to Fitz and county reporting, was a retention resolution that would have allowed step level pay increases to keep assistant prosecutors from leaving for better paying jobs elsewhere. Commissioners had reportedly supported the measure days earlier, then reversed course roughly an hour before the vote after County Clerk Monica McMichael, Sheriff Clint Roach, and Treasurer Hope Anderson sent commissioners a memo raising concerns that the raises would function less as targeted retention and more as a broader, harder to control pay increase. Fitz named Chair Jeremiah Jones and Commissioners Sam Barrera, Roseann Marchetti, and Michael Grice, along with County Administrator Jennifer Rentfrow, as officials he holds responsible for letting the warnings go unanswered.
Cass County’s official response, issued through Rentfrow, framed the record differently: that the county had already approved multiple retention measures over the years, that Fitz had participated in and supported a countywide compensation study, and that further requests beyond what the study recommended were the ones commissioners ultimately declined. Both accounts agree on the outcome. By June 1, every attorney in the Cass County prosecutor’s office was gone.
That history matters. Fitz had been pressing the county over prosecutor compensation since at least May 2024, at one point telling commissioners his office was down as much as 40 percent in attorney staffing and had lost five assistant prosecutors in two years. By 2026, however, county officials said they had created new assistant prosecutor classifications, added another prosecutor position, instituted on call stipends, and repeatedly authorized special retention increases. According to the county, the prosecutor’s office was the only elected office to use that retention mechanism, and two APA III attorneys had already received increases of 22.8 percent and 18.4 percent.
The vote on Resolution 08-2026 makes the distrust unusually explicit. The proposal would have permitted one, two, or three step retention increases. Roughly an hour before the vote, Sheriff Clint Roach, Clerk Monica McMichael, and Treasurer Hope Anderson warned commissioners that the policy could become a broader vehicle for raises. Commissioner James Lawrence later described the message he received this way: “I do not hate Victor Fitz, but he’s the only one that will use this.” The resolution failed 7-1. That does not prove that county officials were reacting to Fitz’s prosecution decisions. It does show that this was not merely a fight over whether Cass County could afford another $10,000. Other elected officials were openly warning commissioners not to give this prosecutor more discretion.
The press conference itself turned into its own flashpoint. County administration staff and elected officials, including Treasurer Anderson and Sheriff Roach, were reportedly denied entry to the event before it began, and Fitz threatened to call the Michigan State Police to remove Roach and the undersheriff. Roach later disputed the characterization of the gathering as a private event, saying he understood it to be a public press conference and describing being physically told to leave. Judge Herman has since appointed Sarah Scoggin, an attorney with 19 years of experience including 13 years running her own practice, to serve as interim prosecutor while the county sorts out a longer term appointment to cover the remainder of Fitz’s term, which runs through 2028.
The Prosecution Record Now Deserves a Closer Look
Once the compensation dispute is understood as a fight over trust and discretion, Fitz’s prosecution record becomes relevant to investigate, not as proof of misconduct but as a source of testable questions. Clutch Justice found no public attorney discipline decision against Fitz. He also held significant institutional roles, including service on the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and the state Crime Victim Services Commission. The cases below are therefore not presented as misconduct findings. They are examples in which Fitz’s office pursued aggressive or disputed theories, encountered evidence or procedure concerns, or generated appellate scrutiny.
Joseph Lorello’s case is one place to start. Lorello, a licensed medical marijuana caregiver, was charged with criminal enterprise and marijuana manufacturing over what he described as a collective grow. ABC57 reported that Lorello, his son, and his son’s 18-year-old girlfriend faced potential sentences of up to 35 years. Lorello said the arrangement involved multiple licensed caregivers and accused the office of dramatically overcharging the case. A later ABC57 report said the trial was delayed for 90 days after the defense said it still had not received requested evidence. Fitz continued prosecuting pending marijuana cases after recreational legalization, telling the station that the charged conduct was criminal when it occurred and that some of it would remain criminal under the new law. Lorello sought intervention from Attorney General Dana Nessel. Those facts do not resolve whether the charges were legally justified, but they make the charging decisions and discovery history worth reviewing in the actual court file.
The missing discovery also raises a constitutional disclosure question. Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the accused when it is material to guilt or punishment. Under Giglio v. United States, that obligation includes material that could impeach a government witness, such as credibility problems, bias, benefits, promises, inconsistent accounts, or reasons to question an investigator’s reliability. The public reporting does not identify precisely what evidence Lorello’s defense was still waiting for, so it does not establish a Brady or Giglio violation. It does establish a reason to obtain the discovery motions, production record, police reports, witness material, and hearing transcript to determine whether favorable or impeachment evidence was delayed or withheld.
People v. Deweerd provides a documented appellate example. Cass County assessed 10 points under Offense Variable 19 based on Deweerd’s initial denial of culpability to police. The Michigan Supreme Court ultimately vacated the sentence and held that a defendant’s denial of culpability, standing alone, does not constitute interference with the administration of justice. Fitz appeared for the prosecution in the appellate litigation. That is not a finding of prosecutorial misconduct. It is a concrete example of Cass County advancing an expansive punitive theory that the state’s highest court rejected.
The 2019 prosecution in People v. Travell Maurice-Lynn Weakley raises a different procedural question. After the prosecution rested, the prosecutor’s office directed Detective Tim Schuur to interview defense witnesses. When the witnesses had left the courthouse, Schuur reviewed Weakley’s recorded jail calls with people on the defense witness list, developed new evidence involving a Ford Mustang and a witness, and the prosecution was allowed to reopen its proofs the next morning. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, noting in part that the constitutional objection had not been preserved and that Weakley had not demonstrated prejudice. The appellate ruling is not a misconduct finding. But the sequence—prosecution rests, a detective pursues information tied to defense witnesses, new evidence is developed overnight, and the prosecution reopens—warrants scrutiny, particularly because Schuur later became undersheriff and stood with Roach during the public collapse of his relationship with Fitz.
There is also the 2014 Darren Robbins case. WBEZ reported that Robbins used temporary marking chalk to write “I love you Jolene” on a vacant building for a woman undergoing cancer treatment and was prosecuted for malicious destruction of property, an offense that reportedly exposed him to as much as a year in jail. Officials portrayed Robbins as a stalker and questioned whether the woman had cancer; the woman told WBEZ that she did have cancer and appreciated the message. Fitz declined substantive comment while the case was pending. Here again, the reporting is not an adjudication. The appropriate next step is to obtain the court file and determine the complete charging basis and disposition.
What did Cass County officials know about Victor Fitz that made them unwilling to give him more discretion? Public records currently support a narrow conclusion: officials had become specifically distrustful of Fitz’s use of compensation authority amid a broader breakdown in his relationships with commissioners and sheriff’s leadership. They do not yet establish that the county’s funding decision was driven by charging practices, discovery problems, or any particular case. Internal communications and the underlying case files are the records most likely to test that hypothesis.
We’ve Seen This Film Before
The echo of Barry County is not simply that county officials are fighting. It is the prosecutorial posture underneath the fight: charge hard, stretch the available theory as far as it will go, force the accused to absorb the cost and risk of resisting, and treat an eventual appellate correction as somebody else’s problem.
That is why Fitz’s cases matter together. Joseph Lorello said Fitz’s office turned a disputed medical marijuana collective grow into criminal enterprise charges carrying decades of exposure, while the defense was still waiting for requested discovery. In People v. Deweerd, Cass County sought additional punishment because the accused initially denied culpability, a theory the Michigan Supreme Court rejected. In People v. Weakley, the prosecution rested, sent a detective to pursue information connected to defense witnesses, developed new evidence through the accused’s jail calls, and reopened its case the next morning. Darren Robbins faced as much as a year in jail over a temporary chalk message. No single one of those matters proves that Fitz set out to railroad innocent people. Together, however, they document a recurring willingness to use the broadest charge, the harshest available exposure, or an unusually expansive procedural theory against the person standing across from the state.
Clutch Justice has seen that machinery in Barry County. There, the documented record includes uneven charging questions, cases involving undisclosed law enforcement credibility material, extreme plea pressure, service and notice problems, and appellate intervention after defendants had already carried the consequences. The disclosure piece is especially important: when prosecutors possess information that could undermine the credibility of a police officer or another government witness and do not provide it to the defense, that is a Giglio concern, not a paperwork technicality. The pattern does not require a prosecutor to announce an intent to railroad anyone. It works through leverage: stack the exposure, control the evidence, narrow the defendant’s safe options, and make going to trial so dangerous that the state’s version rarely has to survive a jury.
That is the comparison Cass County should trigger. Not that Fitz and Barry County officials committed identical acts, and not that every person Fitz prosecuted was innocent. The comparison is that prosecutorial power can become punitive before guilt is fairly tested. When aggressive charging is paired with delayed discovery, late-developed evidence, disputed witness practices, and sentencing theories that must be corrected on appeal, the process itself can become the punishment. By the time a higher court draws a boundary, the accused may already have lost years, money, employment, family stability, or the ability to mount a defense on equal footing.
Barry County’s record teaches reporters and families not to evaluate these cases one at a time. A prosecutor’s inclination becomes visible across charging decisions: who receives the maximum theory, who gets leniency, when evidence arrives, how plea offers track the threatened sentence, which officers generate recurring credibility questions, and how often appellate courts have to pull the office back. Cass County now deserves that same cross-case examination of Fitz’s tenure.
Railroading is rarely documented in one memo or one dramatic ruling. If a pattern exists, it will appear across charging enhancements, plea offers, discovery timelines, jail call use, witness contacts, officer credibility disclosures, sentencing requests, and appellate reversals. Every Fitz-era case involving delayed discovery or a recurring police witness should be checked for Brady material and for Giglio information bearing on that witness’s credibility. That is the audit Clutch Justice’s Barry County work points toward in Cass.
Fitz Had Already Landed in Branch County
Here is the detail that got lost in the noise of the Cassopolis press conference: Fitz was not searching for his next job when he stood up and called out Cass County’s leadership. He already had one. Branch County Circuit Judge Zachary Stempien appointed Fitz temporary prosecuting attorney there on May 19, 2026, the same date his Cass County resignation took effect. The vacancy existed because Stempien himself had just moved from the Branch County prosecutor’s chair to the circuit court bench, following the January resignation of prior prosecutor Bill O’Grady.
Fitz brought over 40 years of prosecuting experience to the appointment, including his 23 years in Cass County and roughly 15 years earlier in Muskegon County. But the arrangement was built to be temporary from the start. Because Fitz lives outside Branch County, he was ineligible to run for the seat permanently. That question is already settled. On August 5, 2026, Terri Norris, the county’s current public defender and a former Branch County prosecutor herself, defeated assistant public defender John Vincent in the Republican primary, 54.79 percent to 45.21 percent. With no Democrat on the ballot, Norris faces no opponent in November and will be sworn in to complete the final two years of Stempien’s term. Fitz’s run in Branch County, in other words, was never going to last past this fall regardless of how it went.
Clutch Confidential members help fund independent reporting, vote on upcoming investigations, and receive members-only briefings, behind-the-scenes research updates, and early access to new work.
Join Clutch Confidential ?The Confirmed Incoming Prosecutor Is Already Raising Flags
Branch County did not have to wait long to get a preview of how Fitz’s decisions would be received by the woman about to take over for him. In August, weeks after Norris had already locked up the seat in the primary, Fitz told Branch County commissioners the office had been awarded a $436,000 federal grant to fund an assistant prosecutor who would work out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Grand Rapids, focused on drug trafficking, human trafficking, and fraud cases involving non-citizens. Fitz asked commissioners to accept the fully reimbursed grant and begin hiring immediately.
Norris was not on board without more scrutiny. She warned that Branch County could retain liability because the grant-funded attorney would remain a county employee even while working under federal direction and handling federal cases. Commissioners did not reject the grant outright. They declined to approve Fitz’s request immediately and tabled it for further review, with formal action rescheduled for September 8, roughly a month before Norris takes the office over entirely. That distinction matters: the county did not say the federal work had no value; it said Fitz had not yet answered who would bear the risk. The delay is also a signal that the person set to inherit the office was not willing to accept the outgoing temporary prosecutor’s proposal at face value.
The timing makes the proposal look less neutral than Fitz presented it. By then, he knew he could not run to keep the Branch County prosecutor’s seat because he did not live in the county. Yet he was urging commissioners to move quickly on a $436,000 grant that would create a new, federally reimbursed assistant prosecutor position and place that lawyer inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The public record does not show that Fitz intended the position for himself, and Clutch Justice is not asserting that he did. But the obvious question cannot be ignored: was Fitz merely bringing Branch County a grant opportunity, or was he helping create a salaried prosecutorial landing place that could preserve his own career and paycheck after Norris took office?
That question is especially fair because the person who would ordinarily decide whether the position served the incoming office—Norris—was asking commissioners to stop until the county’s liability was understood. Fitz was a temporary officeholder pushing for immediate acceptance and hiring shortly before a confirmed successor assumed control. If Branch County would remain legally responsible for an attorney operating under federal direction, then this was never simply “free federal money.” It was a proposed county job carrying county risk, advanced by an outgoing prosecutor who could not keep his own position. At minimum, commissioners should require disclosure of who identified the grant, when Fitz began pursuing it, who discussed possible candidates, whether Fitz had any conversations about taking or supervising the position, and whether the grant permits the outgoing temporary prosecutor to become its funded employee. Until those records are produced, the proposal should be reported as both a claimed law-enforcement opportunity and a potential personal-interest question.
None of this amounts to a finding of misconduct against Victor Fitz, and Clutch Justice is not asserting one. But the pattern is worth naming plainly. A 23 year prosecutorial record in Cass County closed out in three weeks, with the entire office cleared before an interim replacement had time to review, let alone continue, whatever was in progress. A neighboring county then handed the same person the top prosecutorial seat on a temporary basis, one he cannot keep past this year, and is already fielding pushback from his own successor over a decision he made while there. Two counties, back to back, running through prosecutorial leadership faster than either can build institutional continuity. For anyone whose case moved through the Cass County prosecutor’s office in the past two decades, or whose case is currently sitting in a file cabinet waiting on whoever comes next, that instability is not an abstraction. It is a legitimate basis to ask who is actually accountable for how those cases were and are being handled, and to ask it out loud.
What Families Are Already Telling Us
Since this story broke, families have reached out to Clutch Justice directly with concerns about how the Cass County prosecutor’s office handled their cases during Fitz’s tenure. These are not findings. They are unadjudicated accounts, and Clutch Justice is naming them as such while it works to review what documentation exists.
Several readers describe what they characterize as shoddy casework and dishonesty from the office, language more than one has used to draw a direct comparison to patterns Clutch Justice has documented in its ongoing Barry County coverage. At least some of these accounts arrive with supporting documentation, including case numbers and appeal records, which Clutch Justice is in the process of reviewing.
Clutch Justice is not treating these accounts as established fact. They are allegations relayed by the families involved, not adjudicated findings, and they are being logged as a lead to investigate further rather than a conclusion already reached. If your family’s case moved through this office and you believe something went wrong, Clutch Justice wants to hear about it, documentation included if you have it.
The public record does not establish that commissioners withheld funding because of any particular prosecution. It does show that elected officials and commissioners specifically distrusted Victor Fitz’s use of discretionary retention raises, making the rupture broader than a simple disagreement over roughly $10,000.
A months long dispute over a proposed retention pay increase, pulled off the agenda after other elected officials intervened, led Victor Fitz to resign effective May 19, 2026. All five assistant prosecutors followed, leaving the office fully vacant by June 1.
Circuit Judge Mark Herman appointed attorney Sarah E. Scoggin as interim prosecutor while the county works toward a longer term appointment covering the remainder of Fitz’s unexpired term through 2028.
Branch County Circuit Judge Zachary Stempien appointed him temporary prosecuting attorney there, filling a vacancy created when Stempien moved from that office to the bench. Fitz cannot run to keep the job permanently because he lives outside the county.
Yes. Norris defeated John Vincent in the August 5, 2026 Republican primary, 54.79 percent to 45.21 percent. With no Democrat on the ballot, she will be sworn in this November to complete the final two years of Stempien’s term.
Terri Norris flagged liability concerns over a $436,000 federal grant Fitz pushed commissioners to accept, prompting them to table the vote until September 8, 2026, about a month before she takes office.
Yes. Families have reached out directly with concerns about casework and honesty in the office, some with supporting documentation. These are unadjudicated accounts, not established findings, and they are being reviewed as a lead for further reporting.
The office that handled prosecutions in Cass County for the past 23 years is gone, and the people now responsible for what happens next are the Board of Commissioners overseeing this transition. If you believe a case involving you or someone you love was mishandled, rushed, or mismanaged by that office, this is the moment to put it in writing and send it to the people who are accountable for how the office is staffed, supervised, and rebuilt. Clutch Justice is also collecting accounts directly from families with concerns about this office, documentation included if you have it.
Cass County Board of Commissioners: Chair Jeremiah Jones (District 4), Vice Chair James Lawrence (District 2), Tom Langley (District 1), Al Northrop (District 3), Michael Grice (District 5), Sam Barrera (District 6), Roseann Marchetti (District 7), RJ Lee (District 8).
Bluebook: Williams, Rita. Cass County Prosecutor’s Office Empties Out as Victor Fitz Lands in Branch County, Where Trouble Is Already Brewing, Clutch Justice (Aug. 30, 2026), https://clutchjustice.com/cass-county-prosecutor-exodus-branch-county-warning-signs/.
APA 7: Williams, R. (2026, August 30). Cass County prosecutor’s office empties out as Victor Fitz lands in Branch County, where trouble is already brewing. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/cass-county-prosecutor-exodus-branch-county-warning-signs/
MLA 9: Williams, Rita. “Cass County Prosecutor’s Office Empties Out as Victor Fitz Lands in Branch County, Where Trouble Is Already Brewing.” Clutch Justice, 30 Aug. 2026, clutchjustice.com/cass-county-prosecutor-exodus-branch-county-warning-signs/.
Chicago: Williams, Rita. “Cass County Prosecutor’s Office Empties Out as Victor Fitz Lands in Branch County, Where Trouble Is Already Brewing.” Clutch Justice, August 30, 2026. https://clutchjustice.com/cass-county-prosecutor-exodus-branch-county-warning-signs/.
