Judges & Attorneys Lose Control—Judge Gives Mr. Magoo 28 Years!

for today is an arraignment. The purpose of an arraignment is to inform you what you are being charged with and to make sure that you understand the charges. I am not going to be asking if you agree with the charges. I am not even going to be asking if you understand why you are being charged with them. The purpose is to make sure that you understand what the charges mean and that you understand what the potential maximum penalties are. So, what I have here is a misdemeanor com- Hello, can I have your name, please? Uh, my name is Daniel Magoo. Okay. Just a moment. You can look at that. You may need to the site for my notes. Okay. Home address. Okay, you said your last name is pronounced Magoo? Yes, ma'am. And generally speaking, I appoint the public defender's office to represent at least at the arraignment stage, but I was informed that you didn't want to speak with the public defender, so uh are you intending to represent yourself for the arraignment? Um, I'm here to figure out what the charges are. What am I being charged with? Now calling case number 25S00289. This is the state of Michigan versus Daniel Ryan Magoo. Can you please state your name for the record? I'm trying to figure out what the charge is. Yes, that is the purpose of the hearing today. So, as Who's Who's the complaining victim? As part of the proceedings, can I have you please state your name for the record? My name is Daniel Magoo. Okay. >> And I am not a surety of the state. I'm not a ward of the state. Okay. Can I ask what the charges are? Yes, I am getting there. Please give me a moment. So, what we are here for today is an arraignment. The purpose of an arraignment is to inform you what you are being charged with and to make sure that you understand the charges. I am not going to be asking if you agree with the charges. I am not even going to be asking if you understand why you are being charged with them. The purpose is to make sure that you understand what the charges mean and that you understand what the potential maximum penalties are. So, what I have here is a misdemeanor complaint that charges that on or about or between the dates of February 15th, 2025 and June 23rd, 2025 at 6988 McKean, lot 72, you did maliciously use a service provided by a telecommunications service provider with the intent to terrorize, frighten, intimidate, threaten, harass, molest, annoy, or disturb the peace and quiet of Alyssa McCloskey, an individual with whom you have a child in common by using any vulgar, indecent, obscene, or offensive language or suggesting any lewd or lascivious act in the course of a conversation or message through the use of a telecommunications service or device. This is otherwise known as malicious use of a telecommunications service. Do you understand what Do you understand what the charge means? I do not understand that. I do not understand malicious use of a telephone service. Do you uh comprehend that what I am saying is that you uh allegedly maliciously used a telecommunications service device that would generally be a cell phone. I suppose it could also be a computer or something else that >> happen. Okay. And again, I will state that >> dates? What dates? Between February 15th and June 23rd. Of this year? >> year. Yes. Okay. Now, as I stated at the beginning, I'm not asking you if you agree with the charge. I'm not asking you if you understand why you are being charged with them. What I want to know, basically, is do you know what the words coming out of my mouth mean? The way that this is going to work is this. If I am not able to arraign you on the charges because I can't tell if you understand what I am saying, >> [clears throat] >> then the next thing that happens is that you get referred for a competency evaluation. At this point, I do not know how long that will take and that means that you will stay where you are until we are able to either arraign you or you are determined to be incompetent. So, I don't have um I'm not a Like I said before, I'm not a surety. >> Yeah, that's it. I'm not a ward. Um, I'm actually a protected individual. And I have did no crime. There has been no body of a crime, no corpus delicti. I have committed no crime at all. Mr. Magoo, if I cannot determine whether or not you can understand what you are being charged with, then I cannot arraign you. Good. >> So, if there is not a body of a crime, if I have not harmed anybody, then you can't arraign me. That's corpus delicti. It can't happen. If you do try to enter in a plea of uh competency or or I don't know what the What is that? What do You're going to You're going to hold me here hostage until until what? A body of a crime happens? When is the crime going to happen? Okay. So, Mr. Magoo, we will not be proceeding today with the arraignment. You are free to go to the door and tell the jail that you are finished. Thank you. I grant a personal recognizance um on my behalf. And um for both of these charges, being that we're looking really just uh misdemeanors. $500 misdemeanors. So. I think he's requesting, Your Honor, a minute's bond. That is requesting a release, Your Honor, PR bond. I will respond to the people regarding his bond. Okay. The people would ask a bond to be either 80/20 or 10% failed to appear before judge. May I answer? Yes. >> also, we just expect the other count I'll wait till our pleadings filed by bond for value to be And I guess my one remaining point would be do should But if the court appoints Eastern Michigan Public Defender's office, I will make sure that any initial discovery that I have is served upon the Public Defender's office. Yes. But if the judge we will review that with our client once we receive So, he asked for a preliminary examination and I realize where this may be. My understanding is is that he is still held regardless of what the bond would in this case. He's being held without bond in Judge Slay's case. That's my understanding. That bond has been denied. So, >> That's what I >> what I would >> Mr. Chavis said In any event, but also given the fact that one of the charges is the escape from lawful custody that in and of itself um in this court's mind makes the defendant a danger at for a risk of flight. Also, the nature of the charges they fleeing and eluding uh police officers as well as the operating while intoxicated now at least alleged is their third time around also this court might the defendant this court would consider a danger to the public so the extent that he is asking that I modify his bond conditions in this his bond in this case. I have That motion is denied. Bond will continue as it is. Your Honor, I have a 14th Amendment due process to uh the presumption of innocence. >> I understand the presumption of innocence. Well, and a lot of these are facially invalid, Your Honor. Excuse me? A lot of these charges, especially lawful custody escape from lawful lawful custody, it's facially invalid. I was at a hospital, not a jail. If you were under the custody of the Washtenaw County Sheriff >> I was not. >> I understand. I was not. custody [clears throat] of the I was dropped off at the hospital and they later tacked on charges just like the fleeing and eluding charge. >> We'll beat that out and that if that's true and the people can't sustain that element and the charge will be dismissed, but I'm not dismissing it upon your representation today. Thank you very much, Judge. The preliminary examination in this matter will be set August 19th, 2025 12:00 noon. That is before me on that date for both of these cases. Um I will apprise the parties also that one of the I will call it one of the activities and I think it is a maneuver to have the court do something that it normally would not do. The defendant has elected and I will disclose it to file a civil complaint as against me and a slew of other parties. Oh, yeah. In that regard, Your Honor, I would many of those do not interrupt me. Well, including many that I don't even know the connection. Court has This judge if on receiving this um two things. I read through the complaints to determine whether or not it would on its face create a conflict or I consider it quite frankly to be frivolous. The complaint itself um do not see that as a necessity for me to excuse myself from this gentleman's proceedings because I think that's precisely what he wants to have happen. And that is attempting to manipulate He will be dealt with by me as I would deal with any other defendant and so um that is there. It has been turned over to the office of general counsel for the Washtenaw in Washtenaw [clears throat] County. They will deal with for me and as well as the others that I see that are listed there. They will deal with that. They have also filed it appears um and again, this is all part of his what I will call shenanigans to shape this. He has filed against people of individuals without specific reference in the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office. Um I don't as I view what I read would not consider that any jeopardy upon their objectivity and handling this case. So Your Honor, I'm aware of these such maneuvers such filings were to be received meeting yesterday. Um And at this point at least the attorney is proceeding with this case Unless until I hear otherwise from the elected prosecutor. Can I speak on that note, Your Honor? I will let you talk, but I'm not going to let you go on in some diatribe. I've got other things to do. I I've stood on my rights and I've stood on my beliefs this whole entire time especially in previous case, Your Honor. Uh that complaint is well pleaded. Um it it does affect multiple um parties of this jurisdiction. Uh Washtenaw County is a named party and I do believe that my um impartiality and bias uh will be affected here um as it was in the past before this complaint. Um and I do uh request a change of venue on that note for both these matters. If you wish to raise change of venue, you may file that in writing, but to the extent you are raising new no motion for change of venue denied. Thank you very much, Judge. Bond will continue. >> Thank you. Somebody will continue. examination I would expect I would set it for the 19th and then If well If you have them well in advance and I'll just I'll do it that way. Um prior to setting the preliminary examination being a critical process, couple of things that the court wants to do. Mr. McGrew, starting in case ending in 0979 McGrew, you are before the court on a felony complaint that alleges four different counts or five different counts, excuse me. Fleeing and eluding fourth degree, which is a felony punishable by up to two incarceration and $2,000 fine plus court costs. Count two is operating an unregistered vehicle, which is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days. Operating without security uh which is a misdemeanor punishable by not more than one year or less than a $200 no more than $500 fine plus court costs. Count four, operating with a license suspended, denied, and or revoked. That is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days $500 fine plus court costs and your vehicle would be subject to immobilization. Count five is refused refusal to obey a lawful traffic order of a police officer. That's a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days, $100 fine plus court costs. Those events are alleged to have occurred on July 3rd, 2025 I-94 near Parker Road in Scio Township. That is on the one case. On the other case, which is a three-count complaint that three-count complaint alleges that on March 27th, 2024 location of Dexter near Arkona in the city of Milan Washtenaw County, State of Michigan that you did operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated. That's a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days, $500 fine plus court costs. There is, however, a third offense notice which transforms this into a felony charge punishable by up to $500 $500 to $5,000 fine plus court costs, 1 to 5 years in jail, probation with 30 days or 1 year in jail or at least 48 hours to be served consecutively. And 60 to 180 days community service any rehabilitative programs the court deems necessary. Court could order you to pay the costs of the prosecution and the costs of any emergency governmental services and your vehicle would be subject to immobilization. Count two is operating while your driver's license was suspended, denied, and or revoked. That's a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail, $500 fine plus court costs. Count three is lawful escape from custody or escape from lawful custody, excuse me. That's a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year, $1,000 fine plus court costs. Mr. McGrew, you all just asked do you still wish on representing yourself, sir? Uh Your Honor, I >> [snorts] >> I do I will I I have requested assistance given that I am incarcerated and I have no way to He wishes to be represented by an attorney, so I would I would like legal assistance. What do you mean by that? Would you like to be >> Well, I've I've called the prosecutor >> McGrew, we go through this every time. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to advise you that there are great perils in representing oneself. I've told you about that before on numerous occasions. That I would treat you the same as I would treat anybody else. You would be You would have to know the Michigan court rules. You'd have to know court room procedure. And that you would just you would be treated the same. Not any more favorably, not any worse as you would go through these proceedings. If you wish to represent yourself, you may proceed with the court's admonishment. I advise you as to the penalty of your charges, the maximum penalties. I will now ask you the question and I'm not going to just keep going around and around in circles when I ask you this question. Do you wish to be represented by counsel? If you wish to be represented by counsel, this court will ensure that counsel is appointed to represent you. Uh if if >> That is a yes or no. I would like legal assistance, yes, your honor. I'm going to take that as your request for counsel is how I'm going to take that. And so, the this now becomes these two cases now become public record. Thank you, Judge. Torchio for the system public uh public defender on behalf of the defendant. I believe your honor has already uh agreed to set this for examination. I will set he's asked for examination in the case, and so I will set it. I will set these for preliminary examination. Okay. Well, um your honor, I would I I would ask that given that one of these um cases um in regards to the March 27th, 2024 case, uh there was an uh there is an undue delay. Um it's been over uh I think uh 390 some days since the uh warrant was requested, and uh this triggers uh due process violations under uh US versus Levasco, People versus Bessard, People versus Rosengreen, um and procedural unfairness, um sixth amendment violations, and I do request that the prosecutor provide um or pass the uh or provide information in regards to the three-prong test under People versus Hernandez. Uh one of them, first test being explanation for the undue delay for 390 some days. Uh the second part of that test being uh which prove that the delay was not deliberate. And then the third part of the delay uh or the prong test is to um make sure that there was no undue burden on or prejudice on the defendant. And um that regards, your honor, I also am requesting that uh I do have due process 14th Amendment um rights as well as eighth amendment rights, and a lot of these are facially invalid. A lot of these charges are facially invalid, and I'm just requesting that uh the court uh Let's break down exactly what just happened here. This was an arraignment, not a trial, not a constitutional debate, not a First Amendment hearing. The judge's only job at the stage was to inform of the misdemeanor charge. Malicious use of a telecommunication service, allegedly sending harassing or threatening communications to Alyssa McCloskey, someone he shares a child with. She clearly explained the elements, the time frame, February 15th to June 23rd, 2025, and the purpose of the proceeding. But instead of confirming he understood the meaning of the charge, Daniel pivoted to arguments about constitutionality, corpus delicti, and whether there was a body of a crime. Here's the key legal point. At arraignment, the court does not need to prove guilt. The judge is simply ensuring the defendant comprehends the accusation and potential penalties. When he repeatedly said he did not understand, even after clarification, that triggered a major issue, competency. And that's where this became serious. If a court cannot determine whether a defendant understands the proceedings, the law requires a competency evaluation. That can mean delays, custody holds, and significant procedural consequences. Ironically, by refusing to acknowledge understanding, he risked prolonging the situation far more than simply entering a plea and challenging the charge later. So, here's the big question for you. Was this a strategic move, or did it backfire completely? Should he have saved his constitutional arguments for a motion to dismiss instead of fighting the arraignment itself? At the end of the day, the judge made the correct procedural call. She cannot proceed without confirming comprehension. No arraignment, no plea, no forward movement. If you found this case as shocking as we did, make sure to hit that like button, share your thoughts in the comments, and don't forget to subscribe for more jaw-dropping courtroom breakdowns.