SBM Blog would like to commend the Michigan Supreme Court for doing something that many people in Lansing found it nearly impossible to do this morning -- show up. All seven Justices were on the bench, on time and unfazed by Lansing's 9.5" of heavy snow, for today's administrative public hearing. Also to be commended, of course, are the far-travelling members of the bar who offered input on the agenda items (PDF). Wayne County chief appellate prosecutor Tim Baughman and SADO's deputy director Jonathan Sacks were the morning's principal actors, trading mostly competing views on three items:
- Whether to adopt one of the published alternatives, including Alternative A, which would establish that an order suppressing material and substantial evidence is considered a final order and therefore is subject to an appeal by right, or Alternative B, which would establish a right to a mandatory stay while a prosecutor pursues interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s decision to suppress a prosecutor’s evidence.
- Whether to adopt the proposed amendments of MRE 606 and MCR 2.512 that would provide guidance about the scope of inquiry that jurors may be subject to following a verdict and would establish a procedure by which postverdict contact with jurors may be sought. 4. 2010-13 Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.001 of the Michigan Court Rules.Published at 489 Mich 1246-1247 (2011).Whether to adopt the proposed amendment of MCR 6.001 that is intended to clarify the discovery procedures in district court.
- Whether to adopt the proposed amendment of MCR 6.001 that is intended to clarify the discovery procedures in district court.
Partners Steven Matz and Sam Pietsch offered a free market perspective on attorney advertising, in opposition to proposed amendments to MCR 7.3 that would reformat the rule, require the inclusion of the designation "Advertising Material" for written materials (including e-mail communications), but not for radio or television advertisements, and require that a 30-day period pass before an attorney could contact a potential client after a death, injury, or accident. The State Bar also reiterated its opposition to the proposed changes.
Liisa Speaker, on behalf of the Appellate Practice section, spoke in favor of the Court's adoption of a decade-long project, an omnibus rewrite of the appellate subchapter of the MCRs. At the Court's urging, she supported an effective date of May, 2012 for the changes.
