There are concerns with Oakland County Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig’s cognition, a neuropsychologist says. And the problems she’s believed to have would make it hard for someone to serve as a judge.

Attorneys for the state body holding an ongoing judicial misconduct hearing for the 52-4 District Court judge on Wednesday, March 4, called neuropsychologist Michael Wolff to the stand in a borrowed Wayne County courtroom to go over a series of reports by doctors who tested Hartig’s cognition — and to face scrutiny from Hartig’s attorneys over his conclusions. Hartig, 59, is fighting accusations by the state body, the Judicial Tenure Commission, that she is mentally unable to serve, has treated people at her courthouse so poorly that it obstructed work, and more.

Her legal team is expected to call its own expert in the field of neuropsychology at a later date.

But in Wolff’s time on the stand, he said Hartig’s testing results, when taken into consideration of her level of education, are consistent with mild cognitive impairment.

That’s not Alzheimer’s or another form of dementia, but it’s a gray area between such major levels of impairment and what would be considered normal, by his description.

Mild cognitive impairment in a judge

In an average person, the concerns at hand may manifest in that individual having trouble coordinating their schedule and doctor’s appointments without written aids, being unable to resequence and execute a change in plans, taking shortcuts to fix things and not knowing where they put something, for example, he said.

They may get more easily overwhelmed, frustrated and irritable, he said.

In a judge, he would expect such issues to manifest in confusion on how to apply case law in certain circumstances, tracking or taking in testimony that isn’t given in a linear way, and trouble remembering visual exhibits.

One example he gave: In a case regarding a car crash where visuals were shown, he could imagine a judge having issues remembering or tracking which car was coming from a certain direction and who hit whom.

It may be necessary for them to rewatch a video of the incident or get a redo of visual exhibits, he said.

“It’s my opinion that the areas of vulnerability would make it exceedingly difficult for an individual to perform the duties of a judge,” Wolff said, adding that because of the irritability and frustration this creates, “there will be challenges in being able to work with others effectively.”

Wolff also clarified information in previously publicly released statements about dementia concerns regarding the judge. That information was included in recent filings from the state body.

Wolff testified that Hartig has not been diagnosed with dementia, but a recent evaluator — who came to the conclusion she had the mild cognitive issue — projected that frontotemporal dementia may be down the line.

Hartig’s father and a grandparent had Alzheimer’s, testimony also revealed.  

A joke about a lawyer

Given the chance, one of Hartig’s attorneys raised that Wolff hadn’t reviewed such reports for a judge before, isn’t a neurologist or psychiatrist, and can’t prescribe medicine in the state. He highlighted testing in which his client did well, like when taking in information with context.

Wolff had testified that some of Hartig’s other cognitive test results may seem fine, but aren’t when taking into account her level of education and the fact that she was among those at the top of her class in law school.

But Campbell sought to show that Wolff’s conclusion was based more on his presumption of cognition for lawyers.

Campbell offered a sort-of joke that has been said about lawyers while trying to make his point. He offered the first part of it: Do you know what they call the person with the lowest passing score on the bar exam?

The answer is “a lawyer,” according to Campbell.

Wolff also testified that there were certain tests Hartig repeated 14 months apart, in which she got the same results or did just a smidge worse.

But Hartig was expected to do better the second time, having learned and practiced on the first test, Wolff said.

In one test, where a series of rules are given surrounding a task, Hartig broke a stated rule. A singular violation might not seem like a big deal, but Wolff said data shows most people in her age group don’t do that.

Hartig also reportedly struggled with tasks that included saying a list of numbers backward, and she took long pauses to recall certain words.

The expert’s mistake

Campbell did get Wolff to identify one apparent mistake he made during his review of Hartig’s psychological case.

Attorneys for the Judicial Tenure Commission had in recent days called 52nd District Court Chief Judge Travis Reeds to the stand, where he discussed legal concepts and procedures with which he believes Hartig struggled. As part of this, he discussed a case in which a woman was accused of aiding and abetting shoplifting and Hartig dismissed the case.

Reeds testified he rewatched a hearing and didn’t think Hartig understood the concept of aiding and abetting.

Wolff, who referenced statements from witnesses like Reeds in his own findings, also watched the video and said the judge didn’t remember a detail given within a roughly 30-minute span and had to review it.

But Campbell had Wolff review transcripts of that hearing. Wolff eventually testified that the transcript appeared to show that Hartig got the detail right, and it was an attorney in the case who was wrong.

Who is the president?

When Hartig was previously on the stand, Judicial Tenure Commission attorney Molly Kettler asked whether Hartig spoke to any medical professional about why, in cognitive testing, she was unable to remember who the president was or her age.

The part about being unable to remember her age or the name of the president was not given with context or detail, and Campbell didn’t bring it up when he got the chance to question Hartig.

But with Wolff on the stand, Campbell dived in. Based on the testimony, it appears that a doctor in 2024 wrote that, amid testing, Hartig paused on these questions but gave the right answers.

The hearing remains underway. In the most severe cases, the Michigan Supreme Court can choose to remove or suspend a judge at the end of such a process.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Psych expert weighs in on Oakland judge accused of mental disability

Reporting by Darcie Moran, Detroit Free Press / Detroit Free Press

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect