A Washtenaw County judge ruled in favor of a hearing that likely helps former University of Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore and his legal team’s effort to dismiss criminal charges tied to what happened inside the apartment of a woman with whom he had a roughly two-year affair.
While Moore still faces the three criminal charges, 14A District Court Judge J. Cedric Simpson said he was “very worried” that law enforcement did not indicate the woman worked for Moore and did include other comments her lawyer gave to police alleging sweeping misconduct by Moore when securing charges from a magistrate.
Former University of Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore makes an appearance at the 14A-1 District Court in Ann Arbor on Tuesday, February 17, 2026. Moore returned to court to continue fighting criminal charges stemming from actions he took at the apartment of a woman with whom he had a two-year affair.
“What worries me is the magistrate did not get that opportunity [to hear more information],” Simpson said.
Advertisement
“And if the magistrate didn’t get that opportunity, that means what the people got may not have been a validly sworn out complaint…and that the defendant’s due process rights may have been violated. That’s my problem, or my concern.”
While providing his decision, Simpson said it’s important any court to have a complete picture of what law enforcement knows before deciding whether to issue charges.
“What is clear from this court’s perspective is that an omission in certain contexts can be more damaging, more problematic, more troublesome, than what might be an intentional misrepresentation,” Simpson said.
He later said he thought law enforcement left out or included these key details as part of “an intentional misdirection to the court.” He also repeatedly called the information police presented “one-sided.” These and other comments appear to show Simpson has serious concerns with how prosecutors and police obtained the charges in this case.
Advertisement
The hearing is scheduled for March 2 at 9 a.m. It is anticipated the Pittsfield Township detective who gave the comments leading to the charges and the woman’s lawyer would appear and testify, potentially along with other officers.
The hearing, called a Franks hearing, will in part examine testimony provided by a Pittsfield Township detective to a magistrate who ultimately approved charges against Moore.
More: Sherrone Moore charges based on ‘inaccurate’ info, lawyer says
More: Sherrone Moore charges based on key info from accuser, prosecutors say
Moore’s lawyer, Ellen Michaels, said the detective knowingly included reckless, misleading information. She wants the judge to ultimately toss all charges against Moore. Simpson asked if he did that, why wouldn’t prosecutors just bring new charges that do not have the same issues Michaels raises with these charges.
Advertisement
She said she does not believe prosecutors would have evidence for any charges − a sentiment prosecutors refuted during the hearing.
Moore returned to an Ann Arbor courthouse on Tuesday, Feb. 17 to argue in support of their motion to toss the case. Wearing a blue suit, Moore identified himself in court but did not give a statement before or after the hearing. His wife did not join him in court this week, although she accompanied him to his hearing in January.
He is charged with third-degree felony home invasion, misdemeanor stalking and misdemeanor breaking and entering. The Free Press generally does not identify people described as domestic crime victims without their consent.
Michaels wanted Simpson to agree to grant a hearing to discuss her motion. Prosecutors argued their ask had no legal backing while reiterating the other evidence that is not under question by the defense is more than enough to support the charges in this case.
Advertisement
The judge decided to delve into the contents of the arguments during the roughly 90-minute hearing, at various points seeming to question the positions of both the prosecutor and Moore’s lawyer.
But he acknowledged a seemingly key point for Moore’s defense: he said he “had a concern” that the police statement that secured the charges did not say the woman making the allegation worked for Moore.
In January, Michaels said Moore is innocent and argued law enforcement knowingly used “false and misleading statements” to secure charges against the former coach.
Law enforcement records indicate Moore admitted being in the relationship and going to the apartment but denied threatening or assaulting the woman.
Advertisement
Washtenaw County prosecutors called the suggestion about police statements baseless, noting investigators spoke repeatedly with the woman at the center of case and used her comments to form the foundation for the charges.
But Michaels argued a Pittsfield Township detective “recklessly” did not tell a magistrate the woman with whom Moore had the affair was also his assistant. This professional connection explains why Moore would need to send texts, Michaels said in a recent filing, suggesting it directly undercuts the basis for the stalking charge.
“It’s not stalking if the communication has a legitimate purpose,” Michaels said.
Going further, Michaels said Pittsfield Township Detective Jessica Welker including comments from the woman’s lawyer instead of the woman herself amount to knowingly included inaccurate information.
Advertisement
“A detective is an officer of the court. It is their job to investigate. It is their job to present truthful information to a magistrate…in order for the magistrate to make a determination,” Michaels said.
“In this case, the picture that [the detective] painted was inaccurate, not supported by the facts of the person who was present.”
Kati Rezmierski, first assistant prosecutor for Washtenaw County, said even if Simpson agreed with some of the underlying arguments from Michaels, it didn’t have the authority to dismiss charges altogether.
In their own filing ahead of the hearing, prosecutors said, “(Moore) has merely called an attorney and a detective liars, and spun his own litigation strategy.”
Advertisement
Amid arguments from both lawyers, Simpson regularly asked questions.
He pushed Michaels on the timing and contents of text messages and phone calls leading up to the events that prompted Moore’s arrest. He also asked Michaels whether she thinks police intentionally left out the professional connection between Moore and the woman when asking a magistrate to affirm charges.
Michaels said she believes it was intentional. But Simpson repeatedly pushed back on the idea the detective knowingly included false information in her request for charges.
Simpson asked Rezmierski why it wasn’t a problem the police statement did not include the employment connection between the woman and Moore.
Advertisement
“It’s almost like a CEO and the executive assistant to the CEO. The closeness of that relationship, I just don’t know how the court wasn’t informed,” Simpson said.
Rezmierski said if she had to guess, she would think the detective assumed the magistrate knew the nature of the connection between Moore and the woman.
She said even when there was no longer any employment relationship after Moore’s firing, there were two unanswered calls to the woman with whom Moore had the affair, then calling and texting after he left her apartment. She said that is more than enough to constitute stalking.
Rezmierski also addressed issues Michaels raised about comments police cited from the woman’s lawyer in the statements used to secure the charges. The lawyer, Heidi Sharp, told police Moore had a history of domestic violence against the woman, had harassed the woman for months and was dangerous, among other allegations.
Advertisement
More: Michigan football shakes up recruiting and personnel department
Michaels called these statements lies.
“At that time, for whatever reason or number of reasons, she was ready, willing or able to talk about,” Rezmierski said, about the woman with whom Moore had the affair speaking with police immediately after Moore left her apartment.
Rezmierski said the woman has given additional statements since then.
U-M fired Moore in December, citing an “inappropriate relationship” and dishonesty about that conduct. The same day, he went to the apartment of a university employee with whom he had a two-year affair.
Advertisement
That he was there, or that he had the relationship, is not disputed. The woman told police Moore barged into her home, grabbed two butter knives and backed her into a corner. He eventually left without physically hurting her, but prosecutors say the woman told them she never felt more fear in her life.
U-M previously hired outside law firm Jenner & Block to investigate allegations around Moore. The university opted to expand the scope of that investigation in December in order to evaluate the “culture, conduct and procedures throughout our athletics department,” then-U-M President Domenico Grasso said at the time.
That investigation is ongoing, confirmed U-M spokesman Paul Corliss.
Reach Dave Boucher at dboucher@freepress.com.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Sherrone Moore’s legal team gets early win, judge agrees to key hearing