One-man grand jury process could be banned under Michigan House bill
A Republican lawmaker is trying to strike the state's one-man grand jury process from law, a move that would prevent local prosecutors and the Department of Attorney General from bringing criminal charges against defendants with just one judge as the sole juror.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Luke Meerman (R-Coopersville), would repeal several sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowing just one judge to review evidence and greenlight charges as a grand juror.
The process was ruled unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court during the failed Flint water criminal prosecution against former Governor Rick Snyder and several other members of his administration.
The court specifically called out the prosecutorial team – led by Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy and former Michigan Solicitor General Fadwa Hammoud – for engaging in a type of 'Star Chamber,' a reference to the corrupt backroom English courts of the late 15th Century. That doomed the prosecution and the court eventually dismissed the charges.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Meerman's bill was up for testimony on Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee. He said the grand jury was a hallmark of the judicial process, one that helps decide probable cause of a crime, but the difference with a one-man grand jury is that it is not composed of several citizens or local officials, but rather one judge.
'A one-man grand jury violates due process, as evidence in these proceedings is not made available to the defense,' Meerman said, who also claimed that Michigan was one of the only states that maintains a one-man grand jury process under law. 'The use of this legal maneuver erodes public trust and confidence in the impartiality of the justice system.'
Touching on the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, Meerman said the main takeaway was that a single judge cannot currently issue an indictment authorizing charges against a defendant. His bill would remove the portion of the criminal code that allows for a one-man grand jury, preventing it from being reactivated if the high court somehow overturns its precedent founded in the Flint water cases. Laws that remain on the books even though there is a court precedent deeming them unconstitutional or void are sometimes referred to as zombie laws.
Rep. Brian BeGole (R-Perry) and Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi) both asked how often this process was used and in what kinds of cases, and how widely it was utilized by prosecutors across the state.
Meerman indicated that it happens infrequently. Although prosecutors did not give testimony before the committee on Wednesday, Meerman said it was his understanding through conversations with prosecutors that they would still like to keep it in their tool box, even though those prosecutors couldn't use it anyway, given the Supreme Court's ruling in 2022.
Rep. Sarah Lightner (R-Springport), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said it was her understanding that the process was mostly used in sensitive felony cases.
Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan said it supported the bill but did not wish to speak during committee.
A spokesperson for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan told Michigan Advance that it does not have a stance on the bill, and that the only county that had been using the law in any capacity was Wayne County.
As it stands, it does not appear that the bill is a priority for PAAM to weigh in on, support or oppose.
A spokesperson with Worthy's office deferred comment on the bill to PAAM. The office did not respond to additional questions posed by Michigan Advance regarding how often the county used the process prior to the Supreme Court's ruling or how difficult it is for the county to navigate complex cases without the use of a one-man grand jury.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Mike Collins rolls out 159-county organization in Georgia Senate bid
Rep. Mike Collins's (R-Ga.) campaign is rolling out a grassroots organization in all of Georgia's 159 counties in support of his Senate bid as he vies for the GOP nod to take on Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.). The news of the 159-county organization, which was first shared with The Hill, includes 413 county captains across the state and is aimed at turning out low-propensity voters. The campaign noted the last few Republicans to have county-level mobilization campaigns who were successful in statewide reelection bids were President Trump and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R). In a press release, the Collins campaign touted the initiative's creation, noting the Georgia Republican had only been in the race for two weeks, and calling it 'a testament to the appeal of Collins' message, authentic brand, and his team's experience in the state.' The Collins campaign noted it included leaders who had previously served on Trump's and Kemp's county-level mobilization efforts. Collins is vying against Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) and former football coach Derek Dooley, seen as Kemp's preferred candidate, for the Republican nomination to challenge Ossoff next year. Collins has gained several endorsements from his congressional delegation in addition to state legislative leaders, which include some of Kemp's allies. Meanwhile, Carter has a financial edge so far with more cash on hand than Collins. Carter ended the latest quarter with $4 million in the bank while Collins, who's been in the race for several weeks, ended the last quarter with $1 million. Carter loaned himself $2 million in the last quarter as he puts some of his own financial resources into the race. Dooley, meanwhile, enjoys connections to Kemp's political orbit. Collins and Carter have both hammered the former football coach hard since Dooley announced, setting up what's expected to be a hotly contested primary.
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
On gerrymandering, Democrats should fight fire with fire
If you want to understand how Congress became so polarized, look no further than Texas. Egged on by President Trump, Gov. Greg Abbot (R) and Republican leaders in the state are trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting, bucking the norm of waiting until the conclusion of the census every 10 years to redraw congressional maps to accommodate population changes. Both Democrats and Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering over the years. But only Texas Republicans have tried twice — in 2003 and now — to exercise the nuclear option of mid-decade redrawing of districts twice. I understand the motivations of these Republicans — and the desire of Democrats to take revenge. In 2012, I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and we had a score to settle with Republicans for eliminating six Democratic seats in Texas in their 2003 mid-decade assault. We might have tried to persuade Democratic governors and legislators to strike earlier than the typical redrawing of maps after the 2010 census, but we decided not to retaliate against Republican rule-breaking with rule-breaking of our own. Instead, we waited for the regular process to take place ahead of the 2012 election. Once the decennial census concluded, we quickly realized that our best opportunity to pick up more seats was in Illinois, where the House delegation had eight Democrats and 11 Republicans. Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic leaders in the statehouse became political Picassos, redrawing districts to create three more Democratic seats after the 2012 elections. That was not a one-off. Both parties have regularly engaged in designing their own abstract district art. Pennsylvania's old Seventh District — designed in 2011 to protect Republican incumbent Rep. Patrick Meehan — was famously called ' Goofy kicking Donald Duck ' for its bizarre resemblance to the Disney characters. In 2000, Arizona created a district that snaked oddly along the Colorado River so as to include the Hopi Reservation but not the surrounding Navajo Reservation, circumventing longstanding tensions between the two tribes. In 2022, a plan favored by Democrats in New York extended my former Third Congressional District across several bridges and the Long Island Sound, into the Bronx. But that gerrymandering plan backfired, as a state judge struck it down. The result of this map madness is that the moderate, competitive districts have shriveled, while the number of highly partisan districts has skyrocketed. When I first entered Congress in 2001, there were 29 districts with a partisan voting index within a range of four points, reliably swinging between a two-point Republican or Democratic advantage, depending on national trends. In other words, they were toss-ups, and the incumbents needed crossover voters to win reelection. Bipartisanship wasn't a fuzzy goal — it was an urgent strategic imperative. Today, the number of those districts is just 16. Most of the other districts have been drawn to be more red or blue. That means that many House members don't lay awake at night fretting about being defeated in the general election by someone in the other party. Instead, they lay awake thinking about being defeated by a fringe, extreme candidate in their next primary. The political gravity of Congress has shifted. Our system forces legislators to the ideological extremes, when most Americans fall closer to the center. That's without even accounting for the trend of partisan residential sorting, as Americans increasingly live with ideologically likeminded neighbors. We've divided ourselves into Fox News and MSNBC districts, where contradicting views are rarely found on any given block. Of course, some states have attempted redistricting reforms. California and Arizona adopted independent commissions. New York has a bipartisan redistricting commission that places guardrails on just how much Democrats can gerrymander. And that's part of the problem Democrats face: Republicans in Texas and elsewhere play to win by breaking the rules, while in Democratic controlled states, leaders often play to protect the rules, even when it costs them. Over the years, many have argued that Democrats need to fight fire with fire. Instead, Democrats have historically focused on writing a fair fire code even as arson consumes American bipartisanship. But this new Texas mid-decade redistricting push seems to have finally changed the Democratic mindset. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Kathy Hochul of New York and JB Pritzker of Illinois are teasing mutual assured gerrymandering destruction by threatening mid-decade redistricting in their own states if Texas Republicans go through with their plan. Each of these efforts faces an uphill legal climb, however, given that voters in two of those three states outlawed such practices. Democrats have realized that patiently waiting until the next redistricting cycle is not an option. Congressional majorities aren't won on a moral high ground but on the streets. Only when Republican members of Congress from New York, California and Illinois see their seats turn blue will national GOP leaders recognize that, in gerrymandering, 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole political system blind. And so to restore bipartisanship in the long run, Democrats may need to play by Texas Republican rules.
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
Mayes hints at possible legal action if Corporation Commission repeals renewable energy mandate
Attorney General Kris Mayes signaled she might take the Corporation Commission to court if it dismantles renewable energy standards she helped create nearly 20 years ago. Why it matters: The future of Arizona's renewable energy mandate is on the line. The big picture: The commission last year instructed staff to draft rules that would repeal its renewable energy standards, saying they're unnecessary and appear to drive up costs. The Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST) Rules require affected utilities to get 15% of the electricity they provide from renewable sources. Staff in late July issued a formal proposal to repeal the standards. Driving the news: Mayes on Monday sent a letter to the commission warning that repealing REST "isn't just nonsensical; it's unlawful." REST isn't perfect, the AG concedes, and she would "wholeheartedly support" efforts to modernize the rules, but she opposes outright repeal. A spokesperson for Mayes declined to comment on whether she'll sue the commission if it votes to repeal the standards. Flashback: Mayes was a Republican member of the commission — she's now a Democrat — when it passed the REST rules in 2006. She was part of the 4-1 majority that voted for the standards. Zoom in: A third-party economic analysis performed for the commission found that REST repeal "could marginally reduce monthly residential electric bills" by $1-$2 and result in minor administrative cost savings for utilities. But renewable energy-related costs for some utility customers would continue due to long-term financial obligations. And repeal would have indirect costs including "reduced transparency, regulatory certainty and potentially slower renewable energy adoption," the analysis said. Between the lines: Mayes argued in her letter that REST helps keep customer rates lower for millions of Arizonans and creates jobs in the renewable energy sector. She said rate-making decisions must legally be based on "high-quality evidence, not speculation and conjecture." "In addition to being bad policy, repealing the REST Rules as proposed here is an unlawful abdication of the Commission's duty to set just and reasonable rates," she wrote. The other side: Commission chair Kevin Thompson told Axios he's not surprised Mayes is "rattling her saber, considering she played a pivotal part in implementing this gravy train that has cost ratepayers billions of dollars." He said his focus is on protecting ratepayers and not pushing "costly ideological mandates." Commission vice chair Nick Myers said he's unconcerned about a lawsuit if the commission repeals REST. "We'll let her do what she thinks she needs to do, and if she has legal grounds, bring them up," he said. Reality check: Renewable energy accounts for about 19% of the energy that Arizona Public Service, the state's largest utility, provides its electric retail customers, the company tells Axios. What's next: The commission will vote at a Thursday meeting on whether to instruct staff to begin the repeal process.
