|
No. 139345, 139346, 139347
| Christopher Lee Duncan, Billy Joe Burr, Jr., Steven |
|
Michael J. Steinberg |
| Connor, Antonio Taylor, Jose Davila, Jennifer O'Sullivan, |
|
Mark R. Granzotto |
| Christopher Manies, and Brian Secrest, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Ingham - Baird, L.) |
|
|
| State of Michigan and Governor of Michigan, |
|
Ann Sherman |
Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| ______________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Brennan Center for Justice, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, and the Constitution Project's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Retired Judges Giovan, O'Hair, and Burress's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
State Bar of Michigan, Criminal Law Section's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
University of Michigan Innocence Clinic's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
The named plaintiffs in this lawsuit are eight indigent criminal defendants arrested in 2006 or 2007 who, at the time they filed suit, were under prosecution, but not convicted, in the counties of Berrien, Genesee and Muskegon. They sued the state of Michigan and the governor, alleging constitutional violations of their right to effective or adequate legal representation and their right to due process, citing the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, §§ 17 and 20 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963. The plaintiffs assert that the state has a constitutional obligation to provide indigent criminal defendants with adequate counsel, and that the state, rather than local county funding units, must provide increased funding, oversight, and training for the attorneys who represent these defendants. The plaintiffs claim that the current system for proving indigent defense is poorly funded and inadequate, and has harmed them and others in various ways, including improperly denied representation, wrongful convictions, unnecessary detentions, factually unwarranted guilty pleas, and introduction of inadmissible evidence that could have been barred by pre-trial motions. The plaintiffs ask for a court ruling that the state’s failure to provide adequate funding, supervision, and training has produced a system that is unconstitutional and unlawful. They also seek an injunction against the provision of inadequate counsel services, and they request an order requiring the state to “provide indigent defense programs and representation consistent with the requirements of the United States and Michigan Constitutions.” Pursuant to MCR 3.501(B), the plaintiffs moved for class certification for all indigent criminal defendants in the three identified counties.
The defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit. They argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were not ripe for adjudication. They also argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this matter because the legislature was the only proper entity to appropriate funds. Moreover, the defendants argued, the plaintiffs were improperly seeking prospective injunctive relief given their failure to show the absence of an adequate remedy at law and their failure to allege facts establishing a viable due process claim. In addition, the plaintiffs should have sued the respective counties and circuit courts where they were being prosecuted, not the state and governor, the defendants maintained. Finally, the defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief against the governor, that governmental immunity barred the relief sought against the governor as to the plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims, and that governmental immunity barred the claims brought against the state.
But the trial court ruled that the plaintiffs had the standing to make their claims and that the claims were ripe for judicial review. Because the claims sought prospective equitable relief, said the judge, the circuit court was the proper court to review them. The state was not “off the hook” just because it had delegated the responsibility for funding and administering indigent defense programs to the counties, the judge stated. The judge held that Michigan law cannot immunize the governor from state law claims for equitable relief, and that governmental immunity is not available in a state court action where it is alleged that the state has violated a right conferred by the Michigan Constitution. The judge also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, defining the class as “[a]ll indigent adults who have been charged or will be charged with felonies in the District and Circuit Courts of Berrien, Genesee, and Muskegon Counties and who rely or will rely on the State to provide them with counsel for their defense.”
The defendants appealed. In a split published decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings of the trial court. The majority held that the plaintiffs had stated claims that the judiciary had the authority to address and that class certification was appropriate for these claims. The defendants were not shielded by governmental immunity, but were proper parties to the lawsuit; the circuit court has jurisdiction and authority to order declaratory and injunctive relief if the plaintiffs succeed in proving their allegations, the majority said. The dissenting judge concluded that the majority’s pronouncements violated clear separation of powers dictates. “I am not a member of the Legislature,” said the dissenting judge. “I am a member of an intermediate error-correcting court, not a policy-setting one.” The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
