The case involved the discharge of partially contaminated water to a popular trout stream. In December, the court's liberal majority used the case to give more rights to people to challenge state regulators over certain environmental permits.
At issue is whether people have the right to sue the state over pollution concerns when the state issues things like pollution discharge permits.
The case that was argued involved the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Merit Energy, and the Anglers of the AuSable.
The Michigan Supreme Court is faced with the question of whether a work of fiction can be used against the author if they are charged with a crime.
A Bay County man was convicted of molesting his young granddaughter. Used against him during the trial was a fictionalized “sex manual” he wrote about incestuous sex between siblings and their father.
Chief Justice Robert Young summed up the question before the court during today's hearing.
“We’re now trying to determine the extent to which this incest fantasy is admissible, and why if it is.”
Sylvia Linton is the prosecuting attorney. She says the trial-court judge made a valid point about fictional works:
“Just because Sophocles wrote about incest doesn’t mean he would do that. Well that’s true, but if Sophocles was on trial for having incest with his mother, then I think it becomes extremely relative.”
To which Justice Stephen Markham asked:
“So if Agatha Christie is charged with murder, the fact that she wrote several first-person stories about murder would be relevant as evidence?”
The prosecutor says in some cases, yes, Agatha Christie’s stories could have been used against her.
The defense attorney says allowing works of fiction to be admitted as evidence would open the door for what could be used against a person, and prevent people from receiving fair trials.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case later this year.
The Michigan Supreme Court may soon hear its first case on the state’s medical marijuana law.
Larry King of Owosso has a medical marijuana license from the state. He was charged with a felony by the Shiawassee County prosecutor for growing marijuana in a locked dog kennel that did not have a roof. The Circuit Court dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the felony charges.
“Instead of simply telling Mr. King that he needed to move his plants inside, or put a roof over it, they’re now prosecuting him on felony drug charges for the same offense that he would be charged with if he never had any medical marijuana card at all.”
Korobkin said Michigan voters approved the medical marijuana act to protect patients that were approved to use marijuana for medical reasons.
“We’re representing him because the prosecution of a medical marijuana patient who is complying with the law is a gross injustice and thoroughly undermines the intent of the voters in passing the Medical Marijuana Act."
Politicians don’t like to flip flop. Going back on what they said before can be a big political headache.
The U.S. Supreme Court also takes flip flopping very seriously. The last time they overturned a decision was in 2003.
By comparison, the Michigan Supreme Court has flip-flopped a lot. Somewhere around thirty-eight times in the past decade.
All this flip flopping means that court keeps changing the law. One reason for the flip flops is because the judges on the court keep changing. Between elections and appointments there can be a lot of turnover on the bench. And new judges don’t necessarily agree with those who came before them.
Robert Sedler is a court watcher who says ideology is causing the back and forth on the Court. And he says things got bad about a decade ago. He teaches law at Wayne State University Law School.
"Around 1998 there were a series of appointments by former Governor Engler who were very ideological in their views. The majority took the position that, if they believed cases were wrongly decided, they were going to overrule those cases."
Conservative majorities, like the one appointed by Engler, aren’t the only ones overturning old decisions. In 2010 there was a more moderate court, and they also overturned cases.
Take marajuana, for example. In 2006 the court saw all marijuana use the same, it was illegal. Four years later the new court saw more nuance and interpreted the law in ways that impacts medical marijuana use.
Can a judge determine what happens when you flush your toilet? A case before the Supreme Court may decide that very question.From the AP:
The Michigan Supreme Court said Thursday it will decide if local governments can be ordered to install a sewer system when private septic systems fail and spoil a lake, a case that centers on Lake Huron and a five-mile stretch in the Thumb region.
State regulators want Worth Township to install a sewer system, but an appeals court last year said the township isn't responsible for the problems of private property owners.
Some septic systems are failing in an area between M-25 and Lake Huron in Sanilac County, 80 miles northeast of Detroit. Waste is being discharged into the lake and its tributaries, and the lots are too small to build new systems.
In a brief order, the Supreme Court narrowed the issue: Does state law allow regulators and the courts to demand that a township install a sewer system when a lake is contaminated?
Township attorney Michael Woodworth said he's not surprised that the justices agreed to take the state's appeal.
"The case is one of statewide significance," he said. "There have been (local governments) that did not challenge the authority of the Department of Environmental Quality. What surprised the DEQ in this case is the township stepped back and said, 'Wait a minute.'"
Worth Township seemed ready to build a new sewage system as recently as 2008, but the cost kept them from proceeding.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a murder conviction in the case Michigan v. Bryant. The case involved a Detroit man who identified his shooter as the victim lay dying, and whether or not that evidence could be considered in court. A Wayne County jury convicted Richard Bryant of murder based on the victim's statement. But the Michigan Supreme Court overturned that conviction, saying Bryant was denied his constitutional right to confront his accuser. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the initial conviction.
In the case going before the Michigan Supreme Court, an eight-year-old girl testified that her brother-in-law had repeatedly raped her over a period of years, and exposed her and her brother to pornography.
The jury did not believe the man’s defense that the girl made up the charges to break up his marriage.
The defendant says he was deprived of his right to confront the primary witness against him because she testified from behind a one-way screen.
The screen shielded her view of the defendant, although he could see her.
A therapist said that was the only way she could testify without risking serious emotional damage.
The defendant says the shield prejudiced the jury against him, and that the Constitution requires witnesses to look defendants in the eye when testifying against them.
The Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on the dispute around Jean Klock Park in Benton Harbor.
In 1917, some land along Lake Michigan was given to the city of Benton Harbor. The "Friends of Jean Klock Park" describe the gift this way:
In 1917, John and Carrie Klock deeded a half mile of lake Michigan frontage to the City of Benton Harbor Michigan in memory of their deceased daughter Jean. Their gift consisted of 90 acres of globally rare natural resources that included Great Lakes Dunes, a Great Lakes Marsh and interdunal wetlands. The donated land was named Jean Klock Park and was dedicated "FOR THE CHILDREN" - "in perpetuity" - "FOREVER."
Today, the city of Benton Harbor has leased part of the park to the Harbor Shores Community Redevelop Corporation. The Redevelop Corporation used the land, including sand dunes along the Lake Michigan shoreline for 3 holes of an 18 hole golf course.
Residents didn't like it and they filed a lawsuit. The case made it to the Michigan Supreme Court yesterday.
On May 6, 2007, firefighters were called to the residence of Kathleen Tunner at 3206 Coolidge, Royal Oak, Michigan. Ms. Tunner testified that she suspected that water was running down the wall of her basement in her unit over her electrical box. Ms. Tunner contacted 911 and the fire department arrived...even though the unit in which called for assistance was Ms. Tunner's unit, Lieutenant Schunck never entered or inspected Ms. Tunner's unit...[Schunck] testified that they entered Defendant's unit, absent any signs of leaking water or hearing water running from outside Defendant's unit...Upon entering Defendants unit, the firefighters observed suspected marijuana plants...and subsequently contacted the police."
This Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that may determine if police officers have an expectation of privacy when they are doing their jobs.
It all started with a video.
Detroit city police and members of former Mayor Dennis Archer’s staff wanted to prevent a sexually explicit video from being played at a Dr. Dre concert in July 2000.
A camera crew for the rapper videotaped police officers saying they would pull the plug on the concert.
Former police officer, and current Detroit City Council president pro-tem Gary Brown, is seen on the video saying "we're going to shut this show down."
Eventually, Dr Dre decided not to show the video police were concerned about.
But the video of the police officers making their threats was put onto a concert DVD.
Thanks to YouTube user "snoopfroggydogg," you can see the "Detroit Controversy" videos here (WARNING: they contain images and words not suitable for younger viewers):
Detroit city officials sued, claiming the DVD makers violated Michigan’s anti-eavesdropping law by putting the video on the DVD without their permission.
The city officials and police officers claim their privacy was invaded by being videotaped and the video being shown publicly.
Attorney Herschel Fink represents the DVD’s producers. He says police officers have no 'right to privacy when they’re doing their job:
"I think the very essence of law enforcement is transparency...and I think this case has implications for mainstream news gathering and not just private citizens who are videotaping police berating them which was the case here."
Lower courts have tended to side with the DVD producers.
Michigan Radio has learned that Judge Zahra's appointment will take effect on Friday, January 14th at noon. In a release sent out this morning, Governor Snyder said Zahra's, "legal reasoning abilities and depth of understanding of Michigan law are virtually unmatched." Snyder also noted:
Judge Zahra’s sixteen years of judicial experience and his razor sharp intelligence will make him an outstanding addition to the court. His integrity and consistent legal philosophy that judges are to interpret laws, not make them, gives me confidence that he will respect our system of checks and balances while upholding the rule of law.”
Governor Rick Snyder has named Appeals Court Judge Brian Zahra to the Michigan Supreme Court, Michigan Public Radio's Rick Pluta reports. Zahra was appointed to the appeals court in 1999 by former Republican Governor John Engler. He was then elected to the court in 2000 and 2006.
There's been no word yet on who will replace her, but the Associated Press reports:
Appeals Court Judge Jane Markey of Grand Rapids wants Snyder to name her to the court because she'd bring a west Michigan perspective. The 59-year-old sent out an unusual release late Saturday asking for the appointment and noting that the court hasn't had a justice from Grand Rapids since 1946. Appeals Court Judge Brian Zahra of Northville may be higher on Snyder's list. He turned 51 Sunday and ran unsuccessfully for the high court in 2004.
Pluta reports that Chief Justice Young "says he will call for combining courts and cutting judges in areas where there are fewer people and fewer cases." Young said:
"The Legislature will either do something rational to reduce the size and cost of the judiciary, or it will do something irrational. I think it is most rational to reduce redundancy rather than to cut into the judiciary in ways that will disable it from fulfilling its constitutional duties."
Pluta says "a 2009 report by the State Court Administrator says the state could save $2 million by eliminating more than a dozen judgeships in metro Detroit and northern Michigan."
Rick Pluta, Michigan Public Radio's Lansing Bureau Chief just filed this breaking news report:
Justice Robert Young has been selected as the new chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Young was chosen by his fellow justices in a closed-door vote. The decision reflects the change in control of the court from Democrats to Republicans in the last election.
The seven justices of the Michigan Supreme Court will meet today to select a new chief justice. After this past November's election, Republicans are in the majority of the court with four members; three justices are Democrats.
Justice Robert Young Junior was re-elected to an eight year term in 2010. He said yesterday that he has four votes to become the next Chief Justice. Young, who has been on the Michigan Supreme Court since 1999, is a Republican from the Detroit-area. The current Chief Justice is Marilyn Kelly, a Democrat.
Introducing Robert Young, who won another term as a Michigan Supreme Court justice, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson says ads run against Young were "below the belt," and funded by Detroit attorney Geoffrey Fieger.
To applause, Young says he will uphold the constitution of the United States, along with his three fellow "rule of law" justices on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court race is ostensibly non-partisan, but candidates are nominated by the state parties.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth "Betty" Weaver is resigning. Weaver is a Republican, but she was expected to run for re-election this November as an independent. Justice Weaver openly feuded with some of her Republic colleagues on the court.