Listen to the article
Former Michigan Coach’s Lawyer Claims False Statements Led to Arrest Warrant
The legal battle surrounding former Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore intensified Thursday as his attorney alleged that accusations against him were part of a calculated “litigation strategy” aimed at vilifying her client. In court filings, attorney Ellen Michaels claimed police obtained Moore’s arrest warrant based on “false statements fabricated by the complainant’s civil attorney.”
Michaels made these assertions while requesting an evidentiary hearing to quash the arrest warrant and ultimately dismiss the criminal charges against Moore. The former coach currently faces serious allegations including third-degree home invasion, a felony, alongside misdemeanor charges of stalking and breaking and entering stemming from an alleged incident on December 10—the same day Moore was terminated for having an inappropriate relationship with a female staff member.
During Thursday’s probable cause conference, Moore and his attorney asked the judge for additional time to gather records relevant to the case. The filing signals Moore’s intention to vigorously contest the criminal charges by characterizing them as an attempt by the staffer’s employment lawyer, Heidi Sharp, to secure a substantial settlement from what Michaels described as the “deep pockets of the University of Michigan.” When contacted Friday evening, Sharp declined to comment on the allegations.
Michaels specifically argued that Moore’s arrest warrant was issued based on misleading statements from Sharp, who allegedly “assumed control of the narrative” in her communications with police. According to prosecutors, Moore drove to the staffer’s apartment following his termination, entered through an unlocked front door, removed butter knives and kitchen scissors from a drawer, and made several threatening statements, including suicide threats.
Moore’s defense team presents a starkly different interpretation. They contend that Sharp, who made the 911 call alerting authorities to the incident, “characterized a mental health crisis involving self-harm as an attack” and portrayed Moore as “dangerous.” Michaels further claims that Sharp told police Moore had a “long history of domestic violence” against the staff member—allegations that Sharp allegedly later softened, telling police that “the historical things that happened may not meet our burden of what qualifies as abuse.”
At Moore’s December 12 arraignment, prosecutor Kati Rezmierski painted a picture of harassment, stating the staffer received numerous unwanted communications from Moore after attempting to end contact with him two days before his firing. According to Rezmierski, the woman had disclosed her relationship with Moore to university officials shortly before his termination and was preparing to leave town when Moore appeared at her apartment.
The defense disputes this characterization of events. Michaels contends that Moore’s communication with the woman was strictly professional, related to her responsibilities with the Michigan football program as it prepared for the Citrus Bowl. In her court filing, Michaels included a screenshot of text messages—which she says Sharp selected as evidence of stalking—showing messages saying “Please answer” at 8:31 p.m. and “Can you call when you get a chance” the following day at 10:16 a.m.
Michaels further alleges that Detective Jessica Welker “misled the magistrate” during the complaint authorization hearing by “omitting exculpatory facts.” If granted, the motion for an evidentiary hearing would allow Moore’s team to challenge the factual basis used to establish probable cause for his arrest.
The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for February 17, with Moore’s next probable cause conference set for March 19. The case continues to draw attention across collegiate sports as it unfolds against the backdrop of Michigan’s recent national championship season.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The allegations of false statements and a ‘litigation strategy’ to discredit the coach are quite serious. I’ll be following this case closely to see how the courts address these claims and determine the facts.
Agreed. The accusations of fabricated evidence are very concerning. A fair and transparent process is crucial to upholding the integrity of the legal system.
This is a complex case with competing claims. I’m curious to see what additional evidence and records Moore’s attorney is able to gather to challenge the validity of the arrest warrant. It’s important that the legal process plays out fairly for all parties involved.
Absolutely. The allegations against Coach Moore are serious, so it’s critical that the courts carefully examine all the facts before reaching any conclusions.
This is a high-profile case that could have significant ramifications, both for the individuals involved and the university. I hope the judge will take the time to carefully weigh all the evidence before making a ruling.
You make a good point. The stakes are high, and the outcome could have broader implications. A thorough, unbiased investigation is essential.
The timing of Moore’s termination and these criminal charges is certainly curious. I’ll be interested to see what the investigation uncovers and whether the allegations against him hold up under closer examination.
Agreed. The connection between the termination and criminal charges merits close scrutiny. A fair and impartial process is crucial in a case like this.
If the attorney’s claims of false statements and a ‘litigation strategy’ to vilify the client are accurate, then the integrity of the legal process is certainly in question. I hope the judge will closely scrutinize the evidence during the evidentiary hearing.
You raise a good point. It’s troubling if the arrest warrant was obtained through false information. A thorough review of the evidence is essential to ensure justice is served.