Transcription
On October 10th, 2025, 18-year-old Amanda Jones walked into Judge Hardel's courtroom expecting nothing more than a routine hearing.
Instead, she was about to face a judge who viewed her case very differently. Amanda appeared before the 84th District Court in Wexford County, Michigan on a misdemeanor assault and battery charge. The alleged victim was just 14 years old, but this wasn't a case built on conflicting stories or unanswered questions. What happened near an old dam had been caught on camera.
Then, according to the case, Amanda went home, opened TikTok, and posted another video. The caption read, "Round two." Just two words, but inside a courtroom, those words carried a lot more weight than she probably realized. Amanda expected a quick morning and a simple resolution. Judge Hardel had other plans.
"This case number 251740FM. Counsel, is this counsel?"
"May it please the court, Mr. Karnes on behalf of the people."
"And for her as Mrs. Jones, do you come over here?"
"Uh we are set for a pre-trial conference. Uh it appears we have a resolution in this matter, Mr. Karnes."
"Yes, your honor. It's my understanding the defendant will be pleading no contest as charged. Uh the people are supporting a delay of sentence with a full dismissal if the defendant is successful on the delay. Success on the delay would be uh whatever programming is recommended by probation and uh no violations of typical probation conditions."
"Is that a plea agreement?"
"Yes."
"Okay."
"And the reason for the no contest plea is uh potential civil liability, your honor."
"And so just so we're clear, the success is completion of programming and no violations."
"That's correct. Mr. Zell?"
"Exactly, your honor. Ms. Jones, have you heard what the attorneys have said the resolution in this case is?"
"Yes."
"And is that how you wish to resolve it?"
"Yes."
"Will you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you've given in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
"Yes."
"Uh Ms. Jones, it's my understanding that uh the agreement today is is that you will plead no contest to assault and or assault and battery. That is a 93-day misdemeanor and or a fine of $500, and consecutive sentencing may be imposed if the offense happened in the place of confinement. Now, along with that, there's a what's called a Killebrew agreement. And what that is is the prosecution and your attorney and you have reached an agreement that you'll be placed on a delay of sentence. And if you're successful with that delay of sentence, the case would be dismissed. Dismissal mean or I'm sorry, success means that you complete all the programming that your probation officer requests that you do, and uh you not have any violations. Do you understand that?"
"Yes."
"Now, if I decide that I do not want to go along with that agreement, you have the option to withdraw your plea. Do you understand that?"
"Yes."
"Additionally, this is going to be a no contest plea due to potential civil liability. What that means is that the alleged victim in this case could potentially sue you for any damages in which she's occurred incurred. A no contest plea allows me to read a document, looks like it's going to be a police report, and use that police report to determine whether or not there's a factual basis to accept the plea, and to use that for sentencing purposes. Do you understand that? Additionally, a no contest plea cannot be used against you. So, if you were going to uh plead guilty, and this person sued you, that guilty plea could be used against you. The no contest plea means that it's not. Essentially, you're accepting responsibility without saying that you did it. Do you understand that?"
"Yes."
"And is that how you wish to proceed?"
"Yes."
"Back on May, I'm sorry, March 31st of this year, were you on probation or parole?"
"No."
"Were you on bond in any other file?"
"No."
"Then, Ms. Jones, to the offense that on or about uh, March 31st, 2025, here in the city of Cadillac in Wexford County, how do you plead to committing the offense of assault and or assault and battery?"
"No contest."
"Counsel, I've been provided with a Cadillac Police Department, uh, report incident number 25000819. It's been marked as People's Exhibit number one. Mr. Carnes, do you move for its admission?"
"Yes, Your Honor."
"Mr. Cartel?"
"Yes, Your Honor."
"Uh, no objection, then. The People's Exhibit number one is received. Give me just a moment to review that. Here we are back on the record. I've uh, had the opportunity to review the People's Exhibit number one. Uh, do counsel believe that it forms a factual basis in which, uh, to accept the plea and that the court rules have been complied with?"
"Yes, Your Honor."
"Yes, Your Honor."
"As does the court, I find the plea is knowing, voluntary, and accurate. Uh, as such, Ms. Jones, I find you guilty of assault and or assault and battery. In particular, on March 31st, 2025, there is a video that shows, uh, Ms. Jones hitting, kicking, kneeing as the victim is lying in a fetal position by the old, what's commonly referred to as the old dam. Uh, the court can take judicial notice that is located here in the city of Cadillac and is between Haynes Street and uh River or Wright Street on the what's now known as uh something along the lines of the the green trail or the the green pathway. The victim is a 14-year-old middle schooler. Uh the victim reported that she had no injuries. Um It is alleged in the police report that Ms. Jones posted another video on Tik Tok captioned "Round 2". And this appeared to be all over some things that were said about another's deceased uh mother. As such, I find that the elements are made out for an assault and battery and that this would have been an unwanted, forceful, violent touching. Additionally, I believe the interests are just of justice are well uh established here in allowing the defendant to plead a no contest so as to um not have her guilty plea used against her should a case of civil liability arise, although I question what the civil liability would be since there's no injuries, but I guess that's not for me to determine."
Before we go any further, there's something important you need to understand because it explains everything that happened next. Both sides had reached what Michigan courts call a Killebrew agreement. To most people, that term means absolutely nothing. But in Amanda's case, it meant everything. The prosecution agreed to recommend a delayed sentence in exchange for her plea. In practical terms, Amanda would be placed on probation, complete court-ordered programs, stay out of trouble. And if she successfully finished everything, the case could eventually be dismissed. No conviction. No criminal record. A fresh start. For Amanda, it likely sounded like the perfect outcome. But there was one problem. The agreement was only a recommendation. There was still one person whose approval mattered more than anyone else's, and that person was Judge Hardell.
"Mr. Karnes, are we able to sentence today?"
"Yes, your honor."
"Mr. Hartel, any allocution?"
"Yes, thank you, your honor. Anytime it's uh no contest, especially for civil liability, I'm cautious to overly allocate for obvious reasons, but what I will say is my client has, to my knowledge, done well on bond. She's stayed in constant contact with the defender's office, been very cooperative. Uh she does have strong ties to the community. I have no doubt she'll do well on probation. She's highly motivated to do well and receive the benefit of the delay. I, in these situations, always advise my clients if they don't do well, there is the risk of jail later, the loss of the delay, the public adult record. She's a relatively young adult. She wants to be able to pursue uh various careers and ambitions. At the moment, she's working at QDOBA. She's aware she owes some money on some older files, but she is going to uh be on a wage assignment. Do I understand that correctly? She also has some friends with her in the courtroom, been supportive throughout these procedures, and I don't doubt will continue to be supportive of her as well. I ask the court to uphold the killer. Thank you."
"Karnes?"
"Thank you, your honor. Um this is a disturbing incident involving the defendant and a 14-year-old. Um it really shows some lack of judgment, lack of maturity. Um however, the defendant does not have um prior convictions, and I think ultimately this is a fair resolution of the file. I ask the court to place Ms. Jones on a delay of sentence. So, I'll leave it there."
"Mr. Karnes, I I know the CCH is relatively blank because she's just now 18, but um there's some juvenile history, is there not?"
"Your honor, I don't have I don't show that on my Can I not um with Miss Jones on some other things but not where she was the defendant."
"So I if the court has Has has Well, I'm just trying to remember. I remember seems like climbing on top of the school for the 4th of July. Was there Were there charges on that?"
"That was resolved with a civil infraction. I believe I'm just going purely off of memory."
"All right. I'm going to be very honest with everybody. I I don't plan on following this killer girl agreement. She's an 18-year-old who literally kicked and beat a 14-year-old in a fetal position on the ground because of something that was said about somebody else's deceased mother and then had the gall to post another video of it on TikTok. That's not somebody who's making a mistake. That's not what hide or or this type of thing is designed for. The delay of sentences is to allow the court to determine whether or not the person should will be successful on a term of delay in sentence and hopefully um follow through with with the plans. From what I've seen from Miss Jones and Mr. Karnes, if you tell me that charges were weren't brought, that's I I I trust you on that, but I can tell you and I'm not using any of my prior knowledge because clearly it's not full, but I do know from my time as the elected prosecutor here and as judge, and I believe she has another case coming up that she has to be arraigned on with Judge Van Als because I had a conflict on that because I was the elected prosecutor when that was arose. This is not a one-time mistake. Miss Jones has been in and out of this whether it's this court or the probate court or somehow tied with other events. I'm not going to make a decision today. Uh what I'm going to do is I'm going to set this over for sentencing and I'll allow both parties the opportunity to do sentencing memorandums and try to convince me why I'm wrong in my thought process. But I I as I sit here today with the information I have, I cannot in good conscience let this just get for all intents and purposes swept under the rug."
Assume that once the prosecution and defense reach a deal, the judge simply signs off and moves on. This case shows why that assumption is wrong. A judge doesn't work for the prosecution. And a judge doesn't work for the defense. A judge's responsibility is to the law and to the public. When Judge Hardesty reviewed Amanda's case, he wasn't convinced that the proposed deal matched the conduct being discussed. The attorneys had negotiated, reached an agreement, and presented what appeared to be a clean resolution. But the judge looked beyond the paperwork. He looked at the age of the alleged victim. He looked at the video evidence. And he looked at the TikTok post that appeared to celebrate what had happened. From his perspective, this wasn't something that could simply be brushed aside. What Amanda may not have realized is that every social media post can become evidence. Every caption can tell a story and every online action can follow someone into a courtroom. Judge Hardesty was paying attention and Amanda was about to learn just how much that mattered.