Defense attorney John Freeman (standing) questioning AG investigator Howard Shock (seated, facing Freeman). | Screenshot
One might be forgiven for thinking that Howard Shock, a special agent investigator with the Michigan Department of Attorney General, was the one on trial Monday as the exam continued in Ingham County District Court for six of the 15 people facing felony charges for submitting false electoral votes for former President Donald Trump in 2020.
On the stand for a fifth day, Shock spent nearly seven hours under a withering fire of defense questions, as well as criticism from the bench, about his competency and how he carried out the investigation. More importantly, the defense questioning sought to cast doubt that their clients, who are charged with a variety of felonies including conspiracy to commit election law forgery, knowingly broke the law when they signed the documents, which is a required element for conviction under that charge.
Leading the attack was John Freeman, the attorney representing defendant Marian Sheridan. Freeman questioned the motivation behind the investigation that delved into exactly what happened on Dec. 14, 2020, when the defendants met at the Michigan Republican Party headquarters in Lansing and signed a number of documents the prosecution contends were forgeries designed to illegally assign Michigan’s electoral votes to Trump.
“The attorney general of the state of Michigan, Dana Nessel, that’s your boss, fair to say?” Freeman asked Shock.
“Yes,” he replied.
“This is a politically driven department that you work for, isn’t it?” pressed Freeman, who asked Shock when was the last time he briefed Nessel, a Democrat, on the case.
Attorney General Dana Nessel speaks at the Michigan Democratic Party’s Election Day watch party in Detroit on Nov. 8, 2022. (Andrew Roth/Michigan Advance)
While Assistant Attorney General LaDonna Logan objected, arguing that the question lacked relevance to the case, Judge Kristen Simmons overruled the objection and expressed what appeared to be frustration with Shock’s inability to answer defense questions.
“I think it’s glaring that we have a concern in this courtroom about the investigation and his ability to put forth information from that investigation. I took the bench after 9 o’clock and twice within that hour, I’ve had to break for him to refresh his recollection on his investigation,” said Simmons. “We’re not getting a great presentation. And so I can understand why the questions are now starting to [ask] how this investigation went about. Because if you’re not presenting your investigation well, we now need to understand what happened during this investigation.”
Freeman then went directly after Shock’s competency as an investigator, noting his lack of experience in handling cases with more than 10 defendants, but was the lone investigator assigned by the AG’s office to this case.
“In your experience, is it fair to say that the amount of resources that are devoted to an investigation are directly proportional to the perceived seriousness of the investigation?” he asked Shock, who agreed that was true.
Freeman then noted that originally there had been three investigators, but once the warrants in the case were signed, Shock began working alone.
“Does that sound like a real search for the truth that the resources are continuing to get whittled down and whittled down?” asked Freeman. “There’s actually more assistant attorney generals assigned to the case presenting it in court than there are people like you actually continuing to investigate, fair to say?”
“Yes,” Shock said.
The questioning then turned to a series of emails between Sheridan and Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro that began on Dec. 10, 2020, four days before the defendants met and signed the documents at the heart of the prosecution. Shock had previously testified that Chesebro emailed a certificate alleging the former president won Michigan’s 16 electoral votes to Sheridan.
Chesebro has admitted to orchestrating a multi-state fake elector plot to present fake elector documents in favor of a Trump presidency, and pleaded guilty last October to a felony count in Georgia as part of that plot. He is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michigan case, along with Trump, and several others, including Trump lawyers Jenna Ellis and Rudy Giuliani; Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows; and Chris Velasco, who worked for Trump’s campaign in Michigan.
Prosecutors contend the email exchange, which was provided by Chesebro during a four-hour interview last December, included Sheridan writing “We did it!,” after trying to deliver the documents and that demonstrated the electors knew their attempt was to falsely portray Trump as the winner of Michigan’s electoral votes despite the Michigan Board of State Canvassers certifying Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote win more than two weeks earlier.
On Oct. 10, ex-Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro, left, conferred with his defense lawyer, Scott Grubman, during a Fulton County court hearing in the sweeping 2020 presidential election interference case. Two weeks later, Chesebro returned to court Oct. 20 to plead guilty to his role in trying to illegally overturn the 2020 election results. (Alyssa Pointer/Pool Photo via AP)
Under cross-examination Monday, Freeman asked Shock about portions of the exchange that occurred after she emailed “We did it!” but were not mentioned last week, including just minutes later where she mentions receiving “the Dominion report from Antrim County,” referring to a since-discredited report issued in December 2020 by Allied Security Operations Group on the election in northern Michigan’s Antrim County, which falsely claimed that voting machines had a 68% error rate, an allegation that Trump repeated on Twitter.
“Getting into the head of Marian Sheridan, she knows that there’s something going on in Antrim County,” askee Freeman. “And presumably, the other electors are aware of that because they all are talking in the basement [of GOP headquarters in Lansing]?”
When Shock agreed, Freeman followed up by asking whether any email evidence came from sources other than Chesebro.
“Your only evidence of email traffic comes from Chesebro himself … who you refer to as an unindicted co-conspirator … someone who’s actually pled guilty in the state of Georgia connected to the election. … That’s who you’re putting your eggs in, his basket?”
Freeman then referred to Shock’s testimony last week in which he said that there were no statements that the electors were being told what to do on Dec. 14, which Shock confirmed.
“That’s a lie,” said Freeman.
“I was looking for specific information about what they were told to do,” responded Shock.
“Well, we just went through the Chesebro emails, and in those Chesebro emails, there were very specific instructions on what they were to do, correct?” asked Freeman.
“Yeah,” said Shock.
“So when you said the electors were never told what to do, that was untruthful last week, wasn’t it?”
“No, sir,” said Shock.
Freeman then turned to comments made by Nessel last week to The Detroit News in which she said she was “concerned that it’s taking so long for any of these cases involving the 2020 election to get to a point where we’re actually seeing criminal trials.”
When Logan objected that it wasn’t relevant, Simmons overruled her.
“The court strongly disagrees that her opinion doesn’t matter, because she’s the one bringing the case, and you are acting as her agent here today,” said Simmons. “I think there’s a difference between the subjective facts derived by evidence and opinion.”
Exams begin for next group of people charged in fake electors scheme
The day closed with Freeman getting Shock to admit on the record that the defendants’ intent to commit a crime was not an absolute given.
“Fair to say that you found quite a bit since you swore to the complaint that suggests that these electors had no criminal intent. That’s fair to say, isn’t it?” he asked.
“Yes,” said Shock.
Logan will get a chance to present at least two additional prosecution witnesses Tuesday, when the exam continues for Sheridan, Rook, Kenneth Thompson, William Choate, Clifford Frost and Mayra Rodriguez.
However, Simmons made the unusual announcement that Shock, the prosecution’s key witness and sole investigator, is likely to return to the stand — as a defense witness.
Three other defendants, Stanley Grot, Timothy King and Kent Vandwerwood, had their cases continued to later dates, while six others had their exams held last month after Simmons split the defendants into two groups.
The hearings will result in her ruling whether or not prosecutors have enough evidence to send the case to trial.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The post Judge and defense attorneys criticize investigator in Michigan 2020 fake electors case appeared first on Michigan Advance.