Wayne County judge on leave amid growing legal troubles
WXYZ News - Detroit
February 13, 2020
34th District Court Judge David Parrott is facing charges after an alleged assault with his partner.
Romulus judge charged with domestic violence, drunken driving 'stepping back' from duties
Detroit News
February 13, 2020
Romulus — A Wayne County judge is "stepping back from the bench and taking stock" of his life in the midst of domestic violence charges and a drunken driving case, his attorney announced Thursday.
Romulus Judge David Parrott, 59, was charged and arraigned via video Monday in 35th District Court on charges of domestic violent assault and battery in connection with an incident Saturday involving his 55-year-old girlfriend who lives with him in his Van Buren Township home.
In a separate case in Manistee County, Parrott was allegedly involved in a one-vehicle crash on Christmas Day 2018.
"We have arguments seeking to introduce important evidence of his innocence pending before the court of appeals," said his attorney, East Lansing lawyer Mike Nichols, about the drunken driving case pending in Manistee County.
Nichols made the statement Thursday in a tweet that was accompanied by a video.
"Judge Parrott is going through a crisis in his life with all of these allegations, as well as the fact that it is a very public forum," he said.
"Imagine yourself going through this under a very hot spotlight. ... He is going to take time and step away from the bench. He's also is going to undergo an evaluation to see what he may need in his life in terms of perhaps some treatment for various things."
In a Wednesday letter Parrott submitted to Chief 34th District Judge Brian Oakley of his plans to step back from the bench temporarily, the embattled judge wrote: "Regardless of the merits of both of these matters, the mere fact that the allegations were made, warrants a searching evaluation of my relationships, as well as my physical, emotional and mental state."
Parrott said he was "deeply disappointed" in himself "for being in the position of even responding to these embarrassing situations."
Parrott said while his time away from the court "may be indeterminate at this time," he hopes to be able to return to the bench within 45-60 days.
The 34th District Court will split Parrott's docket between the other two judges and the two magistrates at the court. When necessary, sitting judges in Wayne County will be asked to assist with the court's docket, said a spokesman for the Michigan Supreme Court. There will be no additional costs incurred to the court when other sitting judges are asked to fill in.
Parrott will maintain his salary.
In the Manistee County case, Parrott faces a Feb. 25 hearing on a motion to revoke his bond for the drunken driving case, according to Manistee County Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Jon Hauswirth.
Parrott was charged on Jan. 22, 2019, with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a 93-day misdemeanor.
Hauswirth said Parrott was charged after a blood-alcohol test came back confirming that Parrott was operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
In the Saturday incident, police were dispatched about 7:10 p.m. to the home Parrott shares with his girlfriend.
When police arrived, the woman told officers the judge had assaulted her, causing injuries, including a bump on her head, a cut on her right hand and pain to her tailbone. After an investigation at the home by police, the judge was arrested.
Judge James Plakas gave Parrott a $2,500 personal bond on Monday and ordered him to stay away from alcohol and be monitored for alcohol consumption.
Parrott also was ordered to surrender his weapons to police, including a Glock pistol that he said he keeps at his courtroom office. The judge was ordered to stay away from his girlfriend.
A not-guilty plea was entered on Parrott's behalf. His attorney who represented him at the arraignment, Robert Coutts, said the judge is “anxious for his day in court, and he will be vindicated.”
Body cam footage shows Wayne County Judge David Parrott’s drunken driving arrest in 2018
Incident brought to light during domestic violence case
Click On Detroit
February 24, 2020
MANISTEE COUNTY, Mich. – During court proceedings for a domestic assault charge this year, it was revealed that Wayne County Judge David Parrott was arrested for driving drunk in 2018.
Parrott has filed a 45-page appeal in an attempt to get the driving while intoxicated arrest thrown out, according to records. But case’s the file is more than a foot high -- a legal maneuver clearly designed to make the case disappear, experts said.
His pleadings showed that his breathalyzer result exceeded .10. The Manistee County Prosecutor said a blood draw also exceeded the legal limit of .08.
Police body cam shows judge's 2018 DUI arrest in Northern Michigan
Click On Detroit
February 25, 2020
Judge David Parrot’s legal problems continue to mount.
Manistee judge modifies Judge Parrott’s pretrial release conditions
Belleville Area Independent
February 27, 2020
After a bond hearing on Tuesday morning, Feb. 25, a Manistee County District Court Judge modified 34th District Court Judge David Parrott’s pretrial release order to allow him to be free as long as he continued to wear his Soberlink device.
The Manistee County prosecutor had moved that Parrott’s bond be revoked for a violation of parole which would send him to jail to await trial on a drunk-driving charge that now is in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The judge said it would be too heavy-handed to put Parrott in jail to await word from the court of appeals in that he could serve more than the 93-day sentence he would get if he was found guilty of the charge.
The bond hearing was televised live by WXYZ.
The judge said since Parrott is already wearing Soberlink as part of his bond agreement for the Wayne County charge of domestic violence, he is ordered to submit Soberlink reports to his probation department four times a day as scheduled by their probation officer.
He emphasized that Parrott has a problem with alcohol that led to the two charges he is facing.
He was ordered not to possess, purchase or use any alcohol or other non-prescription drugs and not use medical marijuana and to comply with other orders in his Wayne County bond for his domestic violence charge.
Testifying by Polycom from Van Buren Township were VBT Officer Michael Rini, Sgt. Marc Abdilla, and Lt. Charles Bazzy. The first two told of the Feb. 8 domestic violence charge that started earlier that day at the Polar Plunge at the BYC and ended in the evening with an argument. Lt. Bazzy said Parrott’s ex-wife came to the police department on Feb. 14 to ask if one of Parrott’s guns that he turned over to police, a 44 magnum, was still registered to her and it was, a civil infraction.
The judge did not find this important to the motion before him.
Parrott’s pretrial on the domestic violence charge is set for 8:30 a.m., Feb. 28, at 35th District Court in Plymouth.
Parrott’s domestic violence charge pretrial adjourned until May 1
Belleville Area Independent
April 09, 2020
As one of the corona virus adjournments at 35th District Court in Plymouth, the pretrial for a domestic violence charge against David Mark Parrott, 59, of Van Buren Township that was scheduled for March 20 has been adjourned until 8:30 a.m., May 1.
Parrott, who is a sitting judge at 34th District Court in Romulus, had been before Judge James A. Plakas in Plymouth on Feb. 28 for his pre-trial, but that was adjourned until March 20 for a substitution of attorney.
Attorney Robert Coutts of Van Buren Township represented Parrott on Feb. 28 on the 93-day misdemeanor charge.
On March 17, Heather KS Nalley of the Howell law firm of Gentry Nalley, filed as Parrott’s new attorney and on March 18, the court removed from the calendar the March 20 appearance and rescheduled it for May 1.
Parrott has been charged with assaulting his live-in girlfriend on Feb. 8 at his Van Buren Township condo.
Parrott also had a misdemeanor drunk driving charge in Manistee County on Christmas Day 2018 and that conviction has been appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, with a decision pending. His attorney on that case is Mike Nichols of Lansing.
As part of the bond for both the Manistee and the Van Buren Township charges, Parrott has been ordered to wear Soberlink, a tether that reports any alcohol consumption four times a day to probation officers in both the Manistee and Wayne county courts.
In a Feb. 12 letter to 34th District Court Chief Judge Brian A. Oakley, Judge Parrott submitted his plans to step back from the bench temporarily.
“Regardless of the merits of both of these matters, the mere fact that the allegations were made, warrants a searching evaluation of my relations, as well as my physical, emotional and mental state,” he wrote.
Parrott said he was “deeply disappointed” in himself “for being in the position of even responding to these embarrassing situations.”
He said while his time away from the court “may be indeterminate at this time,” he hoped to be able to return to the bench in 45-60 days.
In the meantime, retired Monroe County District Judge Terrance Bronson is filling in for Parrott at the court.
Parrott, who is completing his 12th year on the bench, has filed for reelection as district court judge. Those who announced they also are running for that six-year position are Romulus attorney Alexandria Taylor, VBT attorney Robert Coutts, and former 34th District Court Magistrate Lisa Martin, also of VBT.
Candidates seeking a district court judgeship have until 4 p.m., April 21, to file.
Correction: Parrott yet to be tried on drunk-driving charge
Belleville Area Independent
April 16, 2020
In the April 9 edition of the Independent, on page three, it was stated that 34th District Court Judge David Parrott “… also had a misdemeanor drunk driving charge in Manistee County on Christmas Day 2018 and that conviction has been appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals with a decision pending.”
His attorney Mike Nichols of Lansing pointed out that it was not a “conviction” and Parrott has yet to go to trial. He said they are awaiting a ruling from the court of appeals to admit evidence that they believe will help clear his name of the OWI charge.
Also, Judge Parrott is in his 18th year on the bench, not his 12th year.
And, Soberlink is a hand-held cellular-based device that also captures an image of the subject while he is delivering a sample. It is not a “tether” as stated in the April 9 story.
We regret the mistakes and apologize.
Attorney Nichols also gave an update on Judge Parrott continuing to take the opportunity to work on his mental and emotional health. He has been having telephone conferences with his therapist. When in-person group sessions were suspended after March 13, he did telephone conferences three times per week and then resumed two times weekly zoom meetings as of last week.
“David is feeling a lot better about himself and about things,” Nichols said. “On the one hand these are very anxious times but he is striving to achieve an inner peace.”
Wayne County Judge David Parrott - Court Order To Suspend
Michigan Supreme Court
June 17, 2020
Michigan Supreme Court suspends Judge Parrott with pay
Belleville Area Independent
June 25, 2020
On June 17, the Michigan Supreme Court announced it has suspended two judges with pay. Judge David Parrott is a 34th District Court judge in Romulus and Judge Kahlilia Davis is at 36th District Court in Detroit.
Judge Parrott was charged in February with assaulting a woman at their Van Buren Township home and he took a leave from the bench to get counseling since then and has yet to return.
The misdemeanor domestic violence charge was moved from the 34th District Court to 35th District Court in Plymouth. Judge James A. Plakas is scheduled to preside over Parrott’s pretrial exam on July 6. The exam was delayed because of the coronavirus.
Parrott also is awaiting a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals on a Dec. 25, 2018, drunk driving charge in Manistee County. His attorney Mike Nichols of Lansing said they are awaiting a ruling from the court of appeals to admit evidence that they believe will help clear his name of the OWI charge.
The other judge suspended, Judge Davis, was accused by the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission of not using official recording equipment while hearing cases in early 2019.
Commission investigators said Davis recorded hearings with her personal phone and posted some on the internet. In response, Davis’ attorney said she was not trained by court staff to use courtroom technology.
Five file for 34th District Court Judge seat in Aug. 4 primary election
Belleville Area Independent
July 02, 2020
Five attorneys filed for 34th District Court Judge in the Aug. 4 election. The top two will proceed to the Nov. 6 ballot.
David M. Parrott, incumbent
David M. Parrott, 60, of 42156 N. Cumberland Dr., Van Buren Township, has filed for reelection to the six-year term on the 34th District Court. He is completing his 18th year of service to the court.
He has lived in the district court district for 34 years and was elected judge in 2002, 2008, and 2014.
He attained his Juris Doctor degree in 1985 from Wayne State University Law School after earning a bachelor’s degree in general studies degree at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1982.
He served on the Van Buren Township Water and Sewer Commission, 1992-2002.
His hobbies are boating and water sports, cycling, golfing, hunting and fishing, and skiing.
He is a longtime member and past president of the Belleville Rotary Club, vice president of the Charles B. Cozadd Rotary Foundation, and president of the Belleville-Donahey Boys and Girls Club Advisory Council. He is a DNR-certified Hunter Safety Instructor and is the Hunter Safety Education chairman for the Huron Valley Conservation Association. He also is a member of the Belleville Area Chamber of Commerce, a life member of both the Friends of the Belleville Area District Library and the Belleville Area Historical Society and an avid supporter of the Belleville Area Council for the Arts. He was named Member of the Year by the Huron Valley Conservation Association and selected as a Belleville Boys and Girls Outstanding Volunteer Leader.
He belongs to 26 clubs and organizations and ten professional organizations.
“After living in our community for 34 years and with 18 years of judicial experience, I want to continue serving the residents of the 34th District Court in the best way I can – as part of our team of dedicated judges,” Parrott said. “Together we have developed problem-solving dockets to address specific needs in our community.
“My professional activities locally and nationally as a member of the Michigan Court Forms Committee and officer in the Wayne District Judges Association and American Judges Association demonstrate my devotion to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
“Likewise, my civic and charitable activities such as Rotary show that I am active in and committed to the well-being of our community. My last evaluation by the Detroit Bar Association was ‘Outstanding.’ I look forward to continuing to serve our residents as one of their trusted 34th District Court judges,” Parrott said.
As to his goals, once reelected: “My goal is to dispense justice fairly and firmly, but with compassion and understanding by providing guidance to help people get back on track. I believe each defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, but if proven guilty is entitled to an individualized sentence based upon his or her particular circumstances, such as prior criminal history and substance abuse or mental health issues.
“Most important to me is to determine whether a defendant has deliberately and consciously broken the law, or rather has made a poor choice or mistake not likely to be repeated. My most rewarding and enjoyable moments on the bench are when I can be a part of someone’s solution. Accountability is important to me and I am a no-nonsense judge who follows the law. I continue to rely upon my 18 years of experience, constant training, and commitment to continuing judicial education to meet these goals,” Parrott said.
Two well-known attorneys make their case for judgeship in 34th District Court in Romulus
News Herald
September 30, 2020
Lisa Martin (left) and Alexandria Taylor
Voters in the Nov. 3 election are set to decide which candidate they believe will be the best choice for judgeship in the Romulus-based 34th District Court.
Attorneys Lisa Martin and Alexandria Taylor are vying to win the judgeship.
The six-year seat was previously held by former Judge David Parrott, who placed third in the primary and was eliminated from the campaign to retain his judgeship there.
Parrott was embattled in controversy after a drunken driving incident, as well as a suspension with pay following a domestic violence assault and battery charge.
Martin and Taylor are well-known attorneys in the Romulus community, as well as Belleville, Van Buren, Sumpter and Huron townships, which all make up the areas served by the court.
Both candidates were asked to provide some background information and answer the same questions detailing why they should be elected to the judgeship.
Martin, 48, is a staff attorney with Lakeshore Legal Aid in Warren.
She was appointed as attorney magistrate in the 34th District Court from June 2018 until February 2020.
She and her husband, Kevin, have resided in the Van Buren Township area for more than 13 years.
Taylor, 39, is the managing attorney of her own firm, Taylor Law Firm. It is located in Downtown Detroit.
She is the chairwoman of the Charter Commission in Romulus.
Taylor has three children.
The following are the questions asked of the candidates and their responses:
Q: What makes you a better candidate for this seat than your opponent?
A: Martin: I prefer to assert that my educational experiences at Harvard University and University of Michigan Law School, 21 years of legal experience practicing primarily in Michigan’s district courts, time as attorney magistrate with the 34th District Court and my lifetime of volunteer service to community support programs makes me the best candidate to serve the residents in the position of 34th District Court judge.
Taylor: What makes me a better candidate is a mix of experience and character. I am a trial attorney. I have spent my entire career as a litigator, including working as an assistant city attorney in Woodhaven and Allen Park. While being a magistrate puts you in the court doing traffic matters and landlord/tenant; it lacks the perspective one gains from actually practicing law. I have held trials in district and circuit courts around the state. I have also practiced appellate law, arguing in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Practicing law gives perspective. I am not saying this cannot be learned; however, it is a steep learning curve at the expense of the community/litigants. Working as an assistant city attorney, I learned to cross the aisle. I learned collaboration and had a positive working relationship with local law enforcement.
I am coming to the table with not just the experience, but the character and temperament that is needed in our court. The endorsements I have are largely judicial endorsements from judges that I have practiced in front of and can attest to my preparedness and passion.
Q: How can you assure voters that you will bring a sense of trust and accountability to the court?
Martin: I pledge to the voters that as their next district court judge, I would continue to act as I have during my more than 21 years as an attorney by being courteous, respectful and staying current in changes to the laws and court rules. Further, I assure the voters that I recognize and appreciate the value and importance of being entrusted with their vote and I will remain mindful of the weight of that responsibility by faithfully performing my duties. Finally, I have strived to live a life that is worthy of the sacrifices that my parents made to provide the best possible upbringing for my sisters and I and would continue to honor them by keeping my promise to serve the voters in the manner that is expected and demanded for the office that I seek.
Taylor: I can assure voters that I will bring a sense of trust and accountability because I have built my legal career on trust and accountability. One can tell a tree by the fruit that it bears. The fruit in my life is plentiful. I am deeply committed to fairness and justice; however, I know that I am only one person. Through my work with Wayne State University, I have provided internships to many students, teaching them what it is like to be a lawyer. I am vested in a strong legal community.
Voters can be assured that I will bring a sense of trust because I have run, and will continue to run, a clean race. I don’t want any position that requires a compromising of my integrity. Throughout this race I have been faced with negative anonymous mailings sent in a poor attempt to dissuade voters from supporting my campaign. I want voters to know and trust that when I am on the bench, I will not be swayed by political pressure, but instead, grounded in the law.
People Of The State Of Michigan v David Mark Parrots
Opinion - Trial court's decision to include Judge Parrott's statements at time of arrest
State Of Michigan Court Of Appeals
February 04, 2021
During pretrial proceedings, defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude the prosecution from introducing evidence that defendant “wanted to ‘get out of’ getting arrested by informing the law enforcement officers/others at the scene that he [wa]s a court officer or even a judge in the Wayne County area.” In his motion, defendant noted that evidence supported that he had displayed a “badge.”...
Thus, it appears that the district court held that defendant’s statements and actions at the scene—including displaying his badge—are admissible...
We conclude that, contrary to defendant’s assertions, his statements and actions are relevant to proving his consciousness of guilt. In this case, a jury could infer from defendant’s conduct that defendant knew he was unlawfully operating a vehicle while under the influence. Defendant’s conduct and statements could also support an argument that he was attempting to curry favor with law enforcement and influence the investigation’s outcome to avoid arrest. Therefore, we conclude that defendant’s conduct of displaying his badge and his statement whether “something could be done” are relevant...
Defendant’s prearrest statement and conduct are also admissible under MRE 403...Thus, trial court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.
Ex-judge loses decision as he fights drunken driving case
Detroit News
February 05, 2021
Manistee – A former Detroit-area judge lost a key decision in his aggressive defense against a drunken driving case in northern Michigan.
David Parrott doesn’t want jurors to hear what he said to a sheriff’s officer after his car slid off a road in Manistee County on Christmas 2018. A test showed a blood-alcohol level of 0.15, which is nearly twice the legal limit.
Parrott is accused of asking “if anything could be done” and showing a badge to the officer and a tow truck driver, apparently related to his job in Romulus District Court. He was a judge at the time.
The Michigan Court of Appeals said they’re admissible as evidence.
“It is highly probative in that it reflects his consciousness of guilt,” the court said Thursday.
The appeals court also ruled against Parrott on other evidence challenges.
Parrott lost his bid for reelection last year, weeks after he was suspended by the Michigan Supreme Court. Separately, he’s charged with assaulting a woman at his home. The case is pending.
Former judge David Parrott loses appeal in drunk driving case
Click On Detroit
February 8, 2021
Former southeast Michigan judge David Parrott loses appeal in drunk driving case
Video footage captured drunk driving arrest
Click On Detroit
February 8, 2021
DETROIT – Former southeast Michigan judge, David Parrott, is fighting to the bitter end to remake Michigan drunk driving law.
A Manistee County sheriff’s deputy arrested Parrott over the holidays in 2018 on drunk driving charges. To this day the case remains unresolved.
This may be the most hotly contested misdemeanor drunk driving case in the state’s history.
The prosecution stalled while Parrott appeals his legal theory. One that could require changing the drunk driving evidence rules.
A three person appeals panel gave that a thumbs down on Friday. Christmas night 2018, former judge Parrott’s car mired in a snowy ditch after missing a turn.
A tow truck driver called the sheriff’s office believing Parrott was drunk. The officer’s body camera showed the breathalyzer at the heart of his appeal.
“Ok sir, you’re a .10. so, you’ve had something to drink,” said an officer featured in the video.
Parrott was heard responding, “It must have been in the Christmas punch, I didn’t realize that.”
The appeal paperwork shows the then judge flashed his officer of the court badge trying to avoid arrest and a blood test.
The blood test taken an hour or so later showed a .15 blood alcohol level.
Parrott’s appeal theory attempts to have the breathalyzer results included in his prosecution because he has an expert who will say his blood alcohol level was rising throughout the night, but was below .08 when he put his car in the ditch.
But the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on Friday there are specific times when a breathalyzer is admissible and this case didn’t meet the standard giving the thumbs down to Parrott’s appeal.
The court pointed out breathalyzers aren’t included and sometimes not particularly reliable.
So what’s next?
Judge Parrott’s attorney Mike Nichols of Lansing told Local 4 News they are now going to take this case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
That means the prosecution of his drunk driving case will remain on hold.
He was last in Manistee County on this case just about a year ago.
Parrott loses appeal on evidence to go before jury in Manistee case
Belleville Area Independent
February 11, 2021
On Feb. 4, the Michigan Court of Appeals announced it has ruled against an appeal filed by former 34th District Court Judge David M. Parrott concerning evidence to be used in a 2018 misdemeanor drunk driving charge in Manistee County.
The 18-page ruling turned down Parrott’s appeal of three district court orders that: (1) prohibited the defendant from using his preliminary breath test (PBT) at trial; (2) held that the area in which defendant’s vehicle was stuck was, as a matter of law, generally accessible to motor vehicles; and (3) denied defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding his occupation and display of his “badge.”
Parrott appealed the orders to the Circuit Court, which denied his application for leave to appeal. The Appeals Court granted leave to appeal and scheduled oral arguments.
On June 3, 2020 the Michigan Court of Appeals heard the oral arguments in the operating while intoxicated case against then-Judge Parrott.
His attorney and a co-attorney were allowed to give their arguments in a session that lasted about 53 minutes.
Attorneys Liisa Speaker and Michael Nichols spoke on behalf of Judge Parrott, who was charged with driving while intoxicated on Dec. 25, 2018 in Manistee County, after he slid off the roadway at an intersection at about 6:28 p.m. and ended up stuck in an uncultivated field.
The attorneys told the court that Parrott had been able to drive in the field and hoped to get out himself. After working about 35 minutes, he called for a tow truck and the police got involved.
He was given a personal breath test at 7:26 p.m. which registered 0.109, which was leveled off at 0.10 according to police procedure. Michigan’s level is 0.08 to be considered intoxicated for driving. Police took him into custody and at 8:08 p.m. a blood draw by the Michigan State Police showed blood alcohol content of 0.152.
Speaker said time had passed from the time he ate his mashed potatoes and turkey meal, three minutes away from the accident.
She told the court the Manistee prosecutor has convinced the court to not allow an expert to mention the PBT test given at 7:26 p.m., and this being inadmissible denies Parrott a complete defense.
“The prosecutor has to bring up the PBT or it won’t be in the case,” Speaker said.
Nichols agreed this is a denial for Parrott to present a complete defense.
Nichols told of a report that shows how the alcohol level slowly rises in a body after a meal. The Appeals Court judge noted he was aware of the report.
Also, Parrott wanted a bench trial, but the prosecution wanted a jury trial and a jury trial was to be scheduled.
Gordon Miller of the Manistee County Prosecutor’s Office was present at the session before the Court of Appeals.
He said Parrott displayed his badge, which meant he had a culpable state of mind, Assistant Prosecutor Miller said.
Miller said when Parrott asked, “Can anything be done?” it was an attempt to influence the arresting officer.
It was noted Parrott identified himself as a judge to the tow truck driver but said nothing like that to the officer.
Miller said that the defense might say that Parrott was just joking with his question and just wanted to be treated with fairness.
Nichols asked if the “badge” Miller noted was different from “identification” and Miller said he didn’t know, but the police report refers to it as a badge.
“Some sort of ID?” Miller asked. “I could live with that.”
“He spent 35 minutes trying to get out of the field and he was not over the limit then,” Nichols said.
Miller said it was unclear to him whether Parrott was in the ditch or off the roadway.
Speaker gave citations of Supreme Court decisions on whether the field should be considered a roadway, in light of the charge of driving while intoxicated on a public road.
She questioned whether the field had “general accessibility” as required for a roadway and would an open field be generally accessible by a motor vehicle? She said the ditch was a steep embankment, deeper than most ditches, and the field was uncultivated and undeveloped. He was more than 33 and 38 feet from the two roads at the intersection, Speaker said.
The appeals judge noted one road ends in a field.
Speaker said her client had to call a tow truck and he had driven through trees and shrubs and a steep embankment.
Nichols pointed out the preliminary breath test that was low was taken at the time of the driving and the blood test at the police department or the hospital taken later was higher.
Miller said this was his first driving while intoxicated case and he would not be the one prosecuting the case in Circuit Judge David A. Thompson’s courtroom.
Parrott’s case has been put on hold in Manistee Circuit Court until the appeals court decision was announced.
The appeals court judges hearing the case were Thomas C. Cameron, Mark T. Boonstra, and Anica Letica.
The audio of this Zoom oral argument before the Michigan Court of Appeals is available by going online to the Michigan Court of Appeals and putting in David Parrott’s name or court of appeals case #350380.
In another case, Parrott is scheduled for an April 8 and 9 jury trial on a misdemeanor domestic violence assault and battery charge before 35th District Court Judge James A. Plakas in Plymouth.
Parrott is charged with assaulting his live-in girlfriend on Feb. 8, 2020 in his Van Buren Township condo. The case was in the 34th District Court venue but it was moved to 35th District Court to avoid a conflict of interest because Parrott was a sitting judge at 34th District Court.
In 2020, Judge Plakas gave Parrott permission to be out of state Feb. 15-22 and March 6-14, after being convinced Parrott was not a flight risk.
This year, Parrott was permitted to travel to Winter Park, CO, Feb. 1-7.
People Of The State Of Michigan v David Mark Parrott
Supreme Court denied Parrott's application for leave to appeal Court Of Appeals 02042021 decision
Michigan Supreme Court
December 22, 2021
Parrott loses appeal on evidence to go before jury in Manistee case
Belleville Area Independent
January 13, 2022
On Dec. 22, the Michigan Supreme Court denied former 34th District Court Judge David M. Parrott’s application for leave to appeal the Feb. 4 ruling of the Court of Appeals.
On Feb. 4, the Michigan Court of Appeals announced it had ruled against an appeal Parrott filed concerning evidence to be used in a 2018 misdemeanor drunk driving charge in Manistee County.
The 18-page Feb. 4 ruling turned down Parrott’s appeal of three district court orders that: (1) prohibited the defendant from using his preliminary breath test (PBT) at trial; (2) held that the area in which defendant’s vehicle was stuck was, as a matter of law, generally accessible to motor vehicles; and (3) denied defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding his occupation and display of his “badge.”
Parrott appealed the orders to the Circuit Court, which denied his application for leave to appeal. The Appeals Court granted leave to appeal and scheduled oral arguments.
On June 3, 2020 the Michigan Court of Appeals heard the oral arguments in the operating while intoxicated case against then-Judge Parrott.
His attorney and a co-attorney were allowed to give their arguments in a session that lasted about 53 minutes.
Attorneys Liisa Speaker and Michael Nichols spoke on behalf of Judge Parrott, who was charged with driving while intoxicated on Dec. 25, 2018 in Manistee County, after he slid off the roadway at an intersection at about 6:28 p.m. and ended up stuck in an uncultivated field.
The attorneys told the court that Parrott had been able to drive in the field and hoped to get out himself. After working about 35 minutes, he called for a tow truck and the police got involved.
He was given a personal breath test at 7:26 p.m. which registered 0.109, which was leveled off at 0.10 according to police procedure. Michigan’s level is 0.08 to be considered intoxicated for driving. Police took him into custody and at 8:08 p.m. a blood draw by the Michigan State Police showed blood alcohol content of 0.152.
Speaker said time had passed from the time he ate his mashed potatoes and turkey meal, three minutes away from the accident.
She told the court the Manistee prosecutor has convinced the court to not allow an expert to mention the PBT test given at 7:26 p.m., and this being inadmissible denies Parrott a complete defense.
“The prosecutor has to bring up the PBT or it won’t be in the case,” Speaker said.
Nichols agreed this is a denial for Parrott to present a complete defense.
Nichols told of a report that shows how the alcohol level slowly rises in a body after a meal. The Appeals Court judge noted he was aware of the report.
Also, Parrott wanted a bench trial, but the prosecution wanted a jury trial and a jury trial was to be scheduled.
Gordon Miller of the Manistee County Prosecutor’s Office was present at the session before the Court of Appeals.
He said Parrott displayed his badge, which meant he had a culpable state of mind, Assistant Prosecutor Miller said.
Miller said when Parrott asked, “Can anything be done?” it was an attempt to influence the arresting officer.
It was noted Parrott identified himself as a judge to the tow truck driver but said nothing like that to the officer.
Miller said that the defense might say that Parrott was just joking with his question and just wanted to be treated with fairness.
Nichols asked if the “badge” Miller noted was different from “identification” and Miller said he didn’t know, but the police report refers to it as a badge.
“Some sort of ID?” Miller asked. “I could live with that.”
“He spent 35 minutes trying to get out of the field and he was not over the limit then,” Nichols said.
Miller said it was unclear to him whether Parrott was in the ditch or off the roadway.
Speaker gave citations of Supreme Court decisions on whether the field should be considered a roadway, in light of the charge of driving while intoxicated on a public road.
She questioned whether the field had “general accessibility” as required for a roadway and would an open field be generally accessible by a motor vehicle? She said the ditch was a steep embankment, deeper than most ditches, and the field was uncultivated and undeveloped. He was more than 33 and 38 feet from the two roads at the intersection, Speaker said.
The appeals judge noted one road ends in a field.
Speaker said her client had to call a tow truck and he had driven through trees and shrubs and a steep embankment.
Nichols pointed out the preliminary breath test that was low was taken at the time of the driving and the blood test at the police department or the hospital taken later was higher.
Miller said this was his first driving while intoxicated case and he would not be the one prosecuting the case in district court.
Parrott’s case has been put on hold in Manistee District Court until the appeals court decision was announced.
It was on hold again until the Michigan Supreme Court considered and denied his application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling.
The brief order on Dec. 22, 2021 read: “On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Feb. 4, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.” It was signed by the Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court Larry S. Royster who certified this was a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
Attorney Nichols said last week that his team is meeting with Parrott to consider their options.
Meanwhile a pretrial has been set for March 23 at 85th District Court in Manistee County.
Former Romulus judge’s Manistee County court case ends in plea
Chief assistant prosecutor: Case serves as example of accountability
Manistee News Advocate
May 4, 2022
MANISTEE COUNTY — A former judge’s Manistee County court case has come to an end nearly three and a half years after a call to a tow truck left the 62-year-old man with a misdemeanor charge.
David Parrott, former 34th District Court judge of Romulus, pleaded no contest during a status conference on Tuesday to the 93-day misdemeanor of operating while being visibly impaired.
For the purposes of sentencing, a plea of no contest is treated much the same the same as if the defendant had pleaded guilty.
Jordan Miller, Manistee County chief assistant prosecutor, explained in an email that the original charge was operating while intoxicated, which is also a 93-day misdemeanor but one that carries less severe consequences with the Secretary of State office.
Miller said Parrott was given two days jail time with credit for two days served, as well as fines and costs totaling $926.
“Given that he was subjected to pretrial release conditions for two-plus years while his case worked its way through the appellate system, the judge declined to impose a term of probation,” Miller said.
The case proceeded in the 85th District Court before Judge Thomas Brunner.
What happened?
Among the conditions of Parrott’s pretrial release, he was ordered to use a Soberlink Remote Alcohol Monitoring device for about a year, Miller said.
A Soberlink device is a portable breathalyzer that requires the user to blow into the device up to four times in a day and the results are transmitted and monitored by the probation department, he said.
Parrott successfully completed that requirement with no reported violations.
Parrott was also subjected to standard conditions of pretrial release, including restrictions on his ability to travel out of state. He also attended outpatient alcohol treatment during the case.
Parrott ends Manistee County court case with no-contest plea
Belleville Area Independent
May 19, 2022
Former 34th District Court Judge David M. Parrott ended his 2018 misdemeanor case in Manistee County with a no-contest plea on May 3.
The original charge was operating while intoxicated, a 93-day misdemeanor. He pled no-contest to the 93-day misdemeanor of operating while being visibly impaired, which carries less severe consequences with the Secretary of State’s office.
Parrott, 62, was sentenced to two days jail time with credit for two days served, as well as fines and costs totaling $926.
Jordan Miller, Manistee County chief assistant prosecutor, said that given Parrott was subjected to pretrial release conditions for two-plus years while his case worked its way through the appellate system, the judge declined to impose a term of probation.
Among the conditions of Parrott’s pretrial was the wearing of a Soberlink Remote Alcohol Monitoring device. A Soberlink device is a portable breathalyzer that requires the user to blow into the device up to four times a day and the results are transmitted and monitored by the probation department, Miller said.
Parrott was also subjected to standard conditions of pretrial release, including restrictions on his ability to travel out of state. He also attended outpatient alcohol treatment during the case.
Parrott’s case had been put on hold in Manistee’s 85th District Court until the appeals court decision was announced.
It was on hold again until the Michigan Supreme Court considered and on Dec. 22, 2021 denied his application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling.
When all his appeals were exhausted, a pretrial was set for March 23 at the district court, putting the case back in movement.
A domestic violence charge filed against him by his girlfriend on Feb. 8, 2020 in Van Buren Township was dismissed by 35th District Court Judge James Plakas in Plymouth on a motion of the prosecution on Sept. 23, 2021.
Parrott lost his bid for reelection in 2020, weeks after he was suspended by the Michigan Supreme Court.
He recently said he had retired from the practice of law.
