By Ben Solis
Staff Writer
Posted: June 4, 2024 12:31 PM

The inability of the lead investigator for the Department of Attorney General to remember key details in the criminal case against the Trump electors from 2016 who allegedly fraudulently acted as the legitimate electors brought scathing criticism Monday from the judge overseeing the case.

Special Agent Howard Shock at various times said he either didn't remember key pieces of his investigation, that he needed to time to refresh his memory or that he couldn't say one way or another on questions regarding the case.

54-A Lansing District Judge Kristen Simmons said Shock had poorly presented the state's case on the witness stand.

"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," Simmons said. "I took the bench after 9 a.m. and twice within that hour, I've had to break for him to refresh his recollection on his investigation. I've given an analogy about 'giving a dissertation,' and you working and then doing an investigation; you're gathering research and it's your responsibility to be able to disseminate that when you go to give your presentation on that information."

Simmons added that the court was "not getting a great presentation."

"I can understand why the questions are now steering to how this investigation went about, because if you're not presenting your investigation well, we now need to understand what happened during this investigation that turns to this point that you can't even tell us or remember half of the things that you claim that you discovered in your investigation," Simmons said.

The unusually sharp criticism from the judge highlighted Monday's action in court.

In all, the day's cross examination of Shock with the Department of Attorney General by John Freeman, an attorney for defendant Marian Sheridan, attempted to further argue that the 15 defendants charged with forgery and conspiracy to commit forgery were told their actions on December 14, 2020, were legal and would only come into play if Trump had won a recount or convinced various courts that the election was marred by instances of fraud.

The argument undercuts the prosecution's claim that Sheridan, Republican National Committeewoman Kathy Berden, former Michigan Republican Party co-chair Meshawn Maddock and additional defendants knowingly engaged in scheme to falsely act as Trump's duly qualified electors, which also aimed to dupe the state Senate, the U.S. Senate and the National Archives into believing that Trump had won the election.

Monday's hearing also saw the presiding judge say that the main investigator's testimony was lacking and that he had done a poor job of presenting his investigation at a critical stage in the prosecution.

Proceedings over the past few weeks have focused on preliminary examinations for Sheridan, Henry Choate, Clifford Frost, Mayra Rodriguez, Rose Rook, Marian Sheridan and Ken Thompson. The proceedings will determine whether the Department of Attorney General has enough evidence to persuade to bind the lot over for trial.

Preliminary examinations for Berden, Maddock, Amy Facchinello, John Haggard, Mari-Ann Henry and Michele Lundgren – had preliminary examinations that concluded in April (See Gongwer Michigan Report, April 24, 2024).

As the proceedings wind down – Simmons said she hopes to have examinations completed by Wednesday – Freeman and other attorneys have grilled Shock on the stand.

A hearing last week focused entirely on Shock, with the investigator relaying much of his earlier testimony to Logan on direct examination continued from Tuesday (See Gongwer Michigan Report, May 29, 2024).

Shock continued being grilled during a hearing where Rodriguez attorney Wright Blake and Choate attorney David Kallman took a crack at the investigator to parse and impugn the investigation that led to the charges (See Gongwer Michigan Report, May 30, 2024).

Freeman, who spent large parts of last week going toe to toe with Shock, continued Monday.

The attorney pressed Shock on the unindicted co-conspirators in the case, why the department didn't authorize video records or other evidence that could have been gathered from the former MIGOP headquarters in Lansing, and the political dynamics of the case.

Freeman also attempted to use Nessel's own statements against Shock's investigatory affidavits, which led to charges authorized by the Assistant Attorney General LaDonna Logan.

Regarding unindicted co-conspirators, Freeman repeatedly asked about the attorneys from the Trump campaign and others, like those from the Amistad Project, who he argued led his client and others to believe that their actions were lawful, supported by past precedent and that their votes for Trump would only be used if some contingent situation – a successful recount or lawsuit finding in the campaign's favor – had emerged.

Freeman asked specifically why the department did not authorize charges against Trump campaign aide Shawn Flynn and Amistad Project attorney Ian Northon, whom Shock alleged mailed the documents to the U.S. Senate and National Archives and walked with the electors to the state Capitol on December 14, 2020, respectively.

Shock said in response that he had limited evidence of their involvement to firmly say they had committed a crime, but the investigation remained open.

Asked if he at the onset of his investigation considered the MIGOP headquarters to be a crime scene, Shock said yes.

Freeman asked Shock if he was aware that the MIGOP headquarters had video surveillance and that he could have gotten that evidence through a search warrant. Shock said he was aware of that and that it was obtained because the department didn't authorize the search of the party's former capital-area outpost.

Shock later said on the witness stand that he had near weekly meetings with Nessel as the investigation was carried out, with Freeman saying those conversations were at the heart of the political nature of the case.

The defendants have long called the charges a political witch hunt from Nessel, one of the state's top elected officials from the Democratic Party.

Freeman also argued the conversations were relevant as Nessel last year claimed that defendants had been brainwashed, by the Trump campaign and the former president himself, into believing that Trump had indeed won.

The attorney said this all spoke to the state of mind Sheridan and others were in during the final month of 2020, and that the state of mind was not one of malicious intent to defraud the nation on behalf of the former president.

Freeman asserted that examination on that subject would further show that politics, and not a true crime, led to the charges.

Freeman's line of questioning continued for the entire Monday session, showing video of Sheridan from press conferences where she repeatedly used the term "back up" when referring to the slate of electors, insinuating that she, too, knew the electors would only be activated if a future situation arose where Trump had successfully contested the election results.

The attorney also noted several instances where Shock's testimony changed upon refreshing his recollection or if he had a moment to rethink an answer.

Proceedings are to continue before Simmons on Tuesday.