SBM Blog

Judge James Ryan Makes The Case For Judicial Selection Reform in Michigan

 

On WKAR's Off the Record, former Michigan Supreme Court justice and federal 6th Circuit judge James Ryan responds to questions about the recommendations of the Judicial Selection Task Force, which he co-chaired with Justice Marilyn Kelly. (By clicking on the triangle in the video you can magically transform Michigan Radio's Rick Pluta into Ryan.)  Read the Judicial Selection Task Force Report here.

Michigan Supreme Court Seeks Comment on Five Court Rule Changes

In five orders released Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court has published for possible adoption revisions to the Michigan Court Rules on topics ranging from what the attorney grievance administrator must disclose to complainants to how to improve foreign language interpretation in courts. The links below are PDFs:

• MCR 2.116(C)(7) changes seek to clarify the procedure for bringing a motion for summary disposition on the grounds of a forum selection clause.
• MCR 9.113 changes seek to clarify that the grievance administrator is required to disclose an answer to the complainant in a Request for Investigation, but may decline to disclose supporting documents if there is good cause not to disclose the documents.
•  MCR 6.419 changes offer two possible alternatives concerning the court's options in response to a motion for directed verdict of acquittal.  Alternative A would fashion MCR 6.419 as a corollary to federal rule FR Crim P 29[b]), under which the trial court would be entitled to reserve judgment on a motion for directed verdict. Alternative B would allow the trial court to reconsider its decision to grant a directed verdict, as suggested by  Smith v Massachusetts, 543 US 462 (2005).
• MCR 7.118 changes, submitted in concept by the State Bar's Prisons & Corrections Section, address representation of indigent prisoners upon an appeal of a decision of the Michigan Parole Board to grant parole, and provides that a request for representation must occur within 14 days of notice of the appeal.
• MCR 1.111 changes address the procedure for the appointment of foreign language interpreters, and would establish the standards for appointment would occur. MCR 8.127 changes would create a board to oversee the certification of interpreters and other interpreter-related functions, and establish procedures for disciplining interpreters who commit misconduct. The structure and responsibilities of the proposed new board resemble those of the Court Reporting and Recording Board of Review as provided in MCR 8.108.

The comment period ends Sept. 1, 2012. Comments may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov. Make sure you include the ADM File No. in your comment. All comments are posted on the Court's website.

Supreme Court Oral Argument Scheduled for Judge Sylvia James Judicial Tenure Matter

In an order (PDF) issued today, the Michigan Supreme Court has set deadlines for further action in the misconduct proceedings against Inkster judge Sylvia James, concluding with a possible oral argument on July 25th. The oral argument will take place if a petition to reject or modify the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission is filed; the deadline for that filing is June 29, 2012. On April 23 the special master appointed by the Court found misconduct on several counts.  Judge James has been suspended with pay pending the resolution of Judicial Tenure Commission charges against her.

Breaking: Daniel C. Brubaker named Chief Commissioner of the Michigan Supreme Court

Daniel C. Brubaker has been named Chief Commissioner of the Michigan Supreme Court, and will oversee the work of the high court's permanent legal staff. The high court's legal staff reviews applications for appeals and provides research and recommendations to the high court.

Mr. Brubaker has served for nine years with the Supreme Court Commissioners Office, after spending 11 years focusing on family, labor, and local government law at Mika, Meyers, Becket & Jones P.L.C. in Grand Rapids. He earned his bachelors degree from Albion College in 1987, and his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1992.

Read more about Daniel C. Brubaker's appointment

Posted by Samantha Meinke

Portrait of Conrad Mallett, Jr. Joins Predecessors in Hall of Justice

Former Chief Justice Conrad Mallett, Jr., now head of Detroit's Sinai Grace hospital, returned to Lansing on Wednesday for the presentation of his official portrait by the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society. Former Governor James Blanchard, who appointed Mallett to the Court in December 1990 to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Dennis Archer, spoke at the ceremony. Mallett was subsequently re-elected to a two-year term and eight-year term, and In 1997 became the Court's first black chief justice. The portrait was painted by Simmie Knox, whose other notable portraits include Thurgood Marshall, Bill Clinton, and Muhammad Ali.

Judicial Selection Task Force Unveils Election Reform Recommendations

A broad-based Judicial Selection Task Force co-chaired by Michigan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kelly and senior federal circuit judge (and former Michigan Supreme Court justice) James Ryan issued its recommendations today, concluding a process that began in December 2010.  Contrary to the expectations of many, the Task Force did not call for changing Michigan's selection process to a non-elective process. Instead, the Report calls for a number of measures to reform the existing process.

The key recommendations in the JSTF Report (PDF) are:

• Public disclosure of all judicial campaign spending.
• Implementation of an open primary system.
• Increased citizen involvement in judicial candidate screening and in nongovernmental oversight of judicial campaign conduct and advertising.
• Voter education guides on judicial candidates.
• Elimination of the mandatory retirement age for judges.

Full disclosure: this blogger served as a member of the Task Force.

'Swounds! Michigan Supreme Court Is Unanimous That Emergency Manager Oath Flap is Moot, But Not About Oath Itself

The issue in Davis v. Emergency Manager for Detroit Public Schools (PDF) was whether Roy Roberts, emergency manager for Detroit Public Schools, should be removed from office because, although he was appointed on May 16, 2011, he did not take the oath of office until August 30, 2011. The Court unanimously agreed that because the Governor reappointed Davis on March 30, 2012, the case is moot.  But the Chief Justice and Justice Markman disagreed about whether the emergency manager is a constitutional officer (and thus required to take an oath of office); the Chief is "not convinced," while Justice Markman says that "logic suggests" that he is.

First Amendment At Center Stage Before Michigan Supreme Court

The defendant in People v Rapp, argued today before the Michigan Supreme Court, was a law student whose vehicle had been ticketed in an MSU parking facility.  He confronted the enforcing parking officer in a manner the officer found threatening and was convicted of violating MSU Ordinance 15.05, a misdemeanor, which provides:

No person shall disrupt the normal activity or molest the property of any person, firm, or agency while that person, firm, or agency is carrying out service, activity or agreement for or with the University.

On appeal, the conviction was overturned in the circuit court, which found that the ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad on its face and ordered the prosecution to pay $833.65 in taxable costs. On appeal by the prosecutor, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the circuit court to consider whether the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied, and any other remaining claims of the defendant.  Here's the Court of Appeals opinion (PDF).

The defendant is arguing in part that the ordinance is overly broad and vague, while the prosecution contends that the ordinance focuses on disruption of MSU employees at their work rather than speech.

Rapp's attorney, Nick Bostic, told NPR that his hope is that the Court tells the MSU Board of Trustees, "this ordinance is off the books; if you need something that addresses this, write a new one, with these concepts in mind." Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings distinguished the case from a federal precedent dealing with the right of police to make arrests if they’re interrupted in their duties; legally, he said, the terms “interrupt” and “disrupt” have been interpreted differently.

 

Getting the Word Out: Michigan Supreme Court Seeks Printer

Under "Breaking News" on its website, the Michigan Supreme Court has announced that it is seeking proposals from qualified publishers to provide the printing and sale of the official reports of the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Court Rules. Here's the Request for Proposal (PDF).

 

Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Adopt Proposed Amendment on Judicial Advice in Response to Guilty Plea

The Michigan Supreme Court has closed a file on a proposed amendment described in a staff comment as follows:

This proposed amendment of MCR 6.302 would reinsert a requirement that a court advise a defendant who pleads guilty that the defendant’s maximum possible prison sentence may be longer than the maximum possible prison sentence for a particular offense if the defendant falls within the parameters of the habitual offender statute (MCL 769.13). The statute allows a prosecutor to notify the defendant that the prosecutor intends to seek an enhanced sentence after the defendant pleads guilty. Thus, the sentence range given by the court may not take into account any sentence enhancement at the plea hearing.

The State Bar of Michigan opposed the proposed published amendment, noting that the proposal prompted considerable debate within the criminal law community. Some attorneys were concerned that the proposed amendment could, in practice, prompt a defendant to delay his or her guilty plea until 22 days after arraignment in circuit court to preclude a subsequent habitual offender notice. Other attorneys want to afford stronger protections to a defendant if a habitual offender notice is filed after a guilty plea. Prosecutors and defense attorneys alike wanted to ensure that a defendant was fully aware of any plea implications. Everyone recognizes the statutory authority for a prosecutor to file a habitual offender notice up to 21 days after a defendant’s arraignment in circuit court. However, instances where a defendant enters a guilty plea and is subsequently charged as a habitual offender seem to occur infrequently.

Justices Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanagh said that they would amend the rule to require the trial court judge to advise a defendant who pleads guilty that the defendant’s maximum sentence may be longer than the maximum possible prison sentence for the offense if the defendant is subject to the habitual offender statute (MCL 769.13).