Lori Palmer, an assistant prosecutor for Wayne County, knows what it's like to make history.
In 2006 she sat second-chair in an argument before the U.S. Supreme Court to her father, Timothy Baughman, who is also an assistant prosecutor for Wayne County. Prosecutor Kym Worthy stepped aside in the case, Hudson v Michigan, and gave the duo a chance at making familial history at the high court. The court re-ordered argument four months later, and the duo got two chances at what they expected to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
In an even more rare twist of fate, Palmer and Baughman got yet another chance to make history on Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2010. This time Palmer took the reins while her father sat second-chair as she made the argument in Michigan v Bryant, a Confrontation Clause case.
Palmer has never been more nervous.
"I do think the word 'overwhelming' fits the experience," she said. "Of course, I wanted to represent our office and the State of Michigan to the best of my abilities, but I also had an extra motivation: I wanted to make my father proud. ... Some of my earliest memories are of accompanying him to the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice. As I matured, I realized his job enabled him to do what he thought was right, both in individual cases and for the law as a whole. He has always been my hero. He makes me want to strive to be a better person and a better attorney."
Baughman was also nervous.
"It was more nervewracking for me than when I've argued myself!" he said. "One is so anxious to be sure we have done everything to prepare for every possible question, that it keeps one on edge, particularly when it's your daughter that's going to be hammered with questions. But it was also a terrific experience. We (my wife, Faith, and I) couldn't be prouder. ... It was quite a thrill for us to watch her handle herself so well before the highest court in the land."
No decision has been made in the case, but you can look at a transcript of the hearing here. The opposing side of the case was argued by the State Appellate Defender’s Office attorney, Peter Van Hoek, whose family was also present at the Court to (silently) cheer him on. Briefs can be found here.
The case involves police questioning a shooting victim at the scene about the identity and location of the shooter and whether the answers were “testimonial” in nature, and whether police officers can testify about what the victim said.
Only eight of the justices will decide the case. Newly-minted Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself because, as solicitor general, her office submitted an amicus brief supporting the prosecution. [Kagan will recuse herself from a number of cases this term, increasing the chances of ties and rehearings].
The Detroit News also published a story about the case.
See previous SBM Blog post about this case: U.S. Supreme Court October Calendar Announced: One Michigan Case
Posted by Samantha Meinke
