A female staff member with whom ex-Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore had a two-year affair provided police with more than enough evidence to justify criminal charges, Washtenaw County prosecutors argued in a new filing this week where they asked a judge to toss Moore’s latest motion.
The arguments from Moore’s legal team challenging the validity of his arrest warrant are not only wrong, they do not change the fact the staff member herself told police multiple times that Moore barged into her apartment, picked up knives and threatened her, writes First Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kati Rezmierski.
Moore’s lawyer, Ellen Michaels, recently filed a motion arguing a Pittsfield Township Police Department detective relied on information she clearly should have known to be false when asking a judge to approve criminal charges against Moore. Michaels also suggested the staff member’s lawyer, Heidi Sharp, made false comments about Moore being dangerous and having a history of domestic violence to bolster a potential lawsuit against the University of Michigan.
Moore’s team wants a hearing to discuss these issues, and eventually for 14A District Court Judge J. Cedric Simpson to toss the case altogether.
Moore hasn’t proven such a hearing is warranted, prosecutors argue.
“(Moore) has merely called an attorney and a detective liars, and spun his own litigation strategy,” reads one part of the motion.
“Ms. Sharp’s statement that (Moore) is dangerous seems fairly obviously truthful on its face following the events in question. Ms. Sharp appears to have been doing nothing more than acting to protect and assist her client, as she is sworn to do,” prosecutors wrote later in the filing.
The woman with whom Moore had the affair is not named in the prosecutor’s motion. The Free Press generally does not identify people described as victims of a domestic crime without their consent.
In a statement provided Wednesday, Feb. 4, Michaels said the prosecution’s arguments highlight the need for the hearing they’ve requested. Last month, she said her client is innocent and that the truth will come out in court, without providing additional details.
A spokeswoman for Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit declined to offer comment beyond information included in the response to Michaels’ motion.
‘Misses the forest for the trees’
The former football coach lost his job Dec. 10, after the woman with whom he had the longstanding affair provided information to the university athletic department. Prosecutors say the same day Moore traveled to her apartment, forced his way in, pointed two butter knives at her and said, “You ruined my life.” After the woman called Sharp, Moore allegedly pointed the knives at his own neck before leaving.
Prosecutors left out the fact they were butter knives in their latest motion.
Moore was arrested the same day, and charged that week with felony third-degree home invasion, misdemeanor stalking and misdemeanor breaking and entering-illegal entry without the owner’s permission.
In Rezmierski’s filing, she outlines Moore’s alleged criminal conduct, how it fits with the charges he faces and what sources law enforcement used to bring the charges.
She notes the woman spoke with police at least three times, providing multiple statements about Moore’s actions at her apartment and the texts and phone calls used to justify the stalking charge. In his filing, Moore suggests the texts and calls were work related, noting she has a job that required him to frequently communicate with her.
That’s false, prosecutors argue.
“To limit (Moore’s) stalking to two text messages, that (Moore) alone, through a pleading, characterizes as legitimate work communication, misses the forest for the trees,” Rezmierski writes.
“Not only is this characterization merely (unproven), it also fails to acknowledge the remaining unconsented contact that (Moore) engaged in over the course of two days, to including calling the (woman) a dozen times, barging into her home, terrorizing her, and then continuing his phone harassment even after he left.”
In her previous filing, Michaels lambasts statements from Sharp that the detective included in her comments made to the judge who signed off on charges.
“This case was driven not by facts, but by her litigation strategy designed to villainize Mr. Moore and maximize the chances of obtaining a large settlement from the deep pockets of the University of Michigan,” Michaels wrote in her motion.
Michaels says the information from Sharp and other details used to justify charging Moore are so prejudicial that the judge should suppress the arrest warrant issued against Moore. That would essentially end the current case; prosecutors could bring charges again, but Michaels also wants the court to ban them from future actions in the case.
Sharp told police Moore had a “long history of domestic violence” against her client and stalked her “for months.” Michaels said both statements are false, and that comments both from Sharp and the woman undermine those allegations that ultimately made it into police arguments presented to a judge.
Police provided more than enough evidence from the woman with whom Moore had the affair to issue charges, and Moore fails to demonstrate either that Sharp’s comments were false or that police knew they were false, prosecutors argue.
A Franks hearing
Michaels asked Simpson for a Franks hearing. That’s a reference to a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows people charged with crimes to challenge the truthfulness of information used to secure an arrest and charges.
During such a hearing, Michaels would have to prove “a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included” by police in the communications used to secure Moore’s arrest and ultimately his charges.
Last month, Pittsfield Township Police Chief Patrick Gray broadly defended his department while noting the comments made about his detective in the filing “are common in serious court proceedings.”
Prosecutors want Simpson to both dismiss Michaels’ request to toss the arrest warrant and to not grant a Franks hearing.
Both sides are due back in court on Feb. 17 to discuss Michaels’ motion and the prosecution’s response.
Reach Dave Boucher at dboucher@freepress.com.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Sherrone Moore charges based on key info from accuser, prosecutors say
Reporting by Dave Boucher, Detroit Free Press / Detroit Free Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
