By ELIZABETH FERSZT
Contributing Writer
4th Circuit Court Judge, Thomas Wilson, who is under review by the Judicial Tenure Commission of the State of Michigan, filed an answer to the complaint, FC 110, on Oct. 22.
The complaint, filed on Sept. 11, included eight counts of alleged misconduct or conflict of interest, including drinking or being drunk on the job; interfering with a criminal proceeding; attempting to manipulate or influence venue, attorneys, and property ownership; as well as sexual harassment of female fellow judges in the 4th Circuit and the 12th District courts of Jackson County, as well as female prosecutors and attorneys.
Wilson and his attorney, Thomas Cranmer, submitted a 40-page document that responds to the complaints, as well as offering affirmative defenses.
In Count 1, Abuse of Alcohol and Public Intoxication, Wilson “admits that he began a period of heavy consumption of alcohol between 2013 and 2015, continuing to 2020 or 2021.” But in more specific allegations in this count, such as being drunk in a courthouse elevator with Chief Prosecuting Attorney Kate Rezmierski in 2016, Wilson “neither admits nor denies” this because he “lacks sufficient knowledge or information” or “does not recall the circumstances.” This was a common phrase used in response to many of the claims in Count 1.
In Count 2, Failure to Obtain Substance Abuse Assessment, in May 2019, the JTC had asked Wilson to get an official alcohol assessment by the State Bar of Michigan’s Lawyer and Judges Assistance Program. Wilson admits that he did not get the assessment, and that “he was aware that he was consuming excessive amounts of alcohol” at the time.
In Count 3, Wilson is accused of several allegations of sexual harassment between 2016 and 2018. These details include describing his sexual activities to a female judge on several occasions; joking about characteristics of his sexual organ; observing the size of a female judge’s breasts while she was pregnant; and stating that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with a female judge.
To these allegations, Wilson in part “neither denies or admits;” “lacks knowledge or information;” “denies the allegations as untrue;” or “admits” but said “he believed to have had a relationship with the female judge such that the comment would not be offensive to her.”
In 2018, Wilson allegedly yelled at an assistant prosecuting attorney about her legs. Wilson again “neither admits nor denies…lacks knowledge…or does not recall making the remark.” He also allegedly used physical closeness and tone of voice harassment to pursue the same attorney in her office, commenting on her weight loss. Again, Wilson provided a mixture of yes, no, IDK, maybe, and “as untrue” responses. The JTC argued that these alleged actions were violations of the ABA Canons of Professional Conduct.
In Count 4, Wilson is accused of failure to disclose professional conflicts of interest, involving seven local attorneys that he should have disclosed when they appeared before him in court. To these charges, Wilson largely admits to the facts and to having not disclosed.
In Count 5, Wilson is accused of accepting prohibited gifts, such as de facto free legal services from local attorneys. Wilson admits to retaining yet not paying the attorneys; but also “neither admits nor denies… the appearance of impropriety.”
Count 6 involves Interference in Case Proceedings, in the 2018 criminal case of People v. Phillip Dawson — where Dawson was re-arrested for violation of the no contact order on March 21, 2019; he came before Judge Wilson, who set a $5,000 bond on March 22, and ordered Dawson to wear a tether. On March 24, Dawson again violated the order — Judge Wilson learned of his imminent arrest, and “then called 911 without knowledge of counsel” (either Dawson’s or the Prosecution), and “identified himself as ‘Judge Wilson’” — “he stated that he had instructed Dawson to go to the prohibited location to pick up his medication; [he] asserted that Dawson did not understand how the [tether] monitoring process worked; [and] that there was no need to arrest Dawson.”
To these charges, Wilson admits fully to the facts and to his subsequent affirmative responses to them that he made to the JTC in January and April 2025, including the admission that he violated rules of ex parte communication, per Canon 3(A)(4).
Other interference in case proceedings allegations involved his divorce, including asking Judge Diane Rappleye (ex parte) to have his child support balance being reduced to zero in 2016. Rappleye had tried to disqualify herself but Wilson again attempted to interfere with that process. In his answer, Wilson stated “has no recollection of whether he took such action.”
Wilson also is accused of interfering in a 12th District Court case involving a relative who was charged with Minor in Possession, in which Wilson allegedly asked the assistant prosecuting attorney to drop the charges. Wilson “neither admits nor denies,” and “further states that he does not recall” this incident.
Count 7 involves the procedural issue of delaying decisions — in cases that he did not rule from the bench, but rather took his decision under advisement. For example in a July 2019 divorce proceeding Wilson did not provide a ruling until over a year later. To this as well as other cases, Wilson answered that “he had no explanation for the delay,” or he ”neither admits or denies.”
Count 8 involves not reporting those case decision delays to the State Court Administration Office within the required 56 days. Wilson instead instructed his staff to miscode the cases so the time delay would not be noted in the JIS computer system.
Wilson admits to some of this but does not “specifically recall the first time he gave such as instruction” to his staff.
In his affirmative defenses, Wilson argues that the “JTC is without jurisdiction or authority to enforce violations of MCR 9.100” — referring to Michigan Court Rules, Chapter 9, regarding professional disciplinary proceedings.
And that the “JTC has failed to allege conduct violative” of several of the ABA Canons of Professional Responsibility. Wilson further argues that he “acted in good faith” in testifying before the JTC in January and April, and “had reasonable grounds for believing his actions were not in violation of any canon or statute.”
Wilson said that he “did not give any statements with an intent to mislead” — including statements where he failed to recall specific facts or dates.
Wilson also argues that the JTC has failed to allow “inspection of exculpatory evidence,” evidence that would exonerate him from wrongdoing.
On Oct. 2, the Michigan Supreme Court appointed Hon. Peter D. Houk as special master assigned to Wilson’s case. A date is required to be set for a public hearing within 182 days. A special master provides impartial oversight to a complex or technical case such as Wilson’s.
The full text of Wilson’s answer is available at https://jtc.courts.mi.gov/newsdetail_T2_R262.php.
