Evidence in Michigan Courts: A Guide to Rules 101-106

Evidence in Michigan Courts: A Guide to Rules 101-106

Jan 16, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Rules of Evidence

Navigating the legal system can be daunting, especially when it comes to understanding the rules governing evidence.

This article sheds light on the first six articles of the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE), providing a helpful summary for legal professionals, litigants, and anyone interested in gaining insights into how evidence is handled in Michigan courts.

Rule 101: Scope and Definitions

Firstly, MRE 101 establishes the scope of the rules, specifying that they apply to all proceedings in Michigan courts, with exceptions outlined in Rule 1101. It also clarifies key terms like “civil case” and “record,” ensuring consistent interpretation throughout.

Rule 102: Purpose

MRE 102 sets the guiding principle for interpreting the rules: fairness, efficiency, and truth-seeking. It emphasizes administering proceedings justly, minimizing unnecessary cost and delays, and ultimately, ensuring accurate outcomes.

Rule 103: Rulings on Evidence

This rule outlines how to preserve objections and offer proof. To challenge a ruling admitting evidence, a party must object promptly, state the specific reason, and offer a motion to strike. In case of exclusion, the party must inform the court of the evidence’s content through an offer of proof, unless already clear from the context.

Rule 104: Preliminary Questions

MRE 104 addresses situations where the judge must decide a preliminary question, such as witness competency or hearsay exceptions, before determining whether evidence is admissible. The rule allows both parties to present evidence on the preliminary issue, ensuring a fair and informed decision by the judge.

Rule 105: Limiting Admissibility

This rule acknowledges that some evidence, though relevant, might be prejudicial or confusing. MRE 105 empowers the judge to limit the admissibility of such evidence in various ways, like allowing only specific portions, instructing the jury, or imposing an “admonition” to disregard certain aspects. This ensures a balanced presentation of evidence that focuses on the relevant issues.

Rule 106: Remainder of or Related Writings

Finally, MRE 106 addresses situations where a party introduces part of a writing or recording. This rule grants the opposing party the right to introduce any other portion or related document that provides context and fairness. This prevents distortion and ensures the jury hears the complete picture.

Conclusion

These six initial rules of the MRE lay the foundation for a fair and efficient legal system in Michigan. By understanding their purpose and application, individuals can navigate the courtroom with greater confidence and contribute effectively to the pursuit of justice.

Important:

This article provides a simplified overview of MRE 101-106 for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance. It is suggested that you read the unsummarized rule. Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook

 

Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Have you been charged with a crime?

Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law  248-357-2550

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

Jan 15, 2024 | Blog, Supreme Court, USA news

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.

Organized crime, from the mafia to small-time money laundering schemes, often evades criminal prosecution. To bolster efforts to fight organized crime, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, more than 50 years ago.

In addition to the criminal penalties for violating RICO, the law also authorizes private individuals to bring civil lawsuits for an injury to their “business or property” as a result of the defendant’s “racketeering activity,” which the law defines broadly to include a wide range of criminal offenses.

This week, we highlight petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether someone can sue under RICO to recover lost earnings.

Marketed as “a revolution in medicinal hemp-powered wellness,” Dixie X is a CBD supplement that claims to offer a variety of health benefits. After learning about Dixie X in a magazine, Douglas Horn began using the supplement in 2012 to soothe pain and inflammation from a car accident. Although the ad claimed that the supplement does not contain any THC (the active ingredient in marijuana),

RESTORE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
RESTORE YOUR PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR DRIVER LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR PAST (Expungements)

Call our Office for a free case evaluation
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550

(tap here to call now)

Professional License Restoration / Rights Restoration / Record Expungments / Driver License Restoration

Satisfied, Horn began using Dixie X. Shortly after, he failed a random drug test at work and was fired. Suspecting the supplement, Horn sent a batch to an independent lab, which found that the product contained THC.

Horn went to federal court in New York, arguing that the company that sold Dixie X, Medical Marijuana, Inc. – which, despite its name, deals only in hemp-based CBD products – was responsible for his termination. Part of his lawsuit alleged violations of state law, including a claim that he was fraudulently induced to purchase the supplement while unaware of its risks. But Horn also argued that the company injured his “business or property” under RICO by conspiring to commit federal mail and wire fraud that resulted in the loss of his salary.

In Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, the maker of Dixie X asks the justices to grant review and reverse the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. The company argues that economic harm stemming from a personal injury has no business, so to speak, under RICO. “If quintessential personal injuries count as injuries to ‘business or property’ just because economic damage inevitably results,” the company writes, “Congress’ careful limitation on civil RICO claims would be toothless.”

Read the Rest here at ScotusBlog

Komorn Law – Federal Courts and All Michigan Courts

A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:

Yim v. City of Seattle, Washington
23-329
Issue: Whether Seattle’s restriction on private owners’ right to exclude potentially dangerous tenants from their property violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

Amer v. New Jersey
23-351
Issues: (1) Whether a defendant is always “unable to stand trial” under Article VI(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers while a pretrial motion is pending; and (2) whether a defendant has been “brought to trial” within 180 days of his request for final disposition of charges under Article III(a) of the agreement at the point when jury selection begins.

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn
23-365
Issue: Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Bhattacharya v. State Bank of India
23-390
Issue: Whether, to establish a “direct effect in the United States” under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), a plaintiff must make an extratextual showing that either the sovereign engaged in a U.S.-based “legally significant act,” or that the U.S. effects were “legally significant” in addition to being direct.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Examining Michigan’s Act 247 and the Publication of Notices

Examining Michigan’s Act 247 and the Publication of Notices

Jan 15, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Laws

Are Newspapers Still the Town Crier in a Digital Age?

Examining Michigan’s Act 247 and the Publication of Notices

In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, the role of traditional media like newspapers is constantly under scrutiny. Yet, in Michigan, a 1963 law, Act 247, still mandates the publication of certain legal notices in newspapers. This blog delves into the intricacies of Act 247 and its continued relevance in the 21st century.

Act 247: A Legacy of Public Awareness

Enacted in 1963, Act 247 governs the publication of legal notices in newspapers within the state of Michigan. These notices encompass a wide range of official matters, including:

  • Public hearings: Announcements of public hearings regarding zoning changes, construction projects, and other issues affecting local communities.
  • Estate matters: Probate notices, notifications of creditors, and changes in estate administration.
  • Tax information: Delinquent property tax notices, public auctions, and changes in tax rates.
  • Election information: Dates, deadlines, and candidate qualifications for upcoming elections.
  • Business formation: Notices of business incorporation, mergers, and dissolutions.

The rationale behind Act 247 is rooted in the principle of public access to information. Newspapers, with their widespread circulation and historical role as community hubs, were seen as the most effective means to ensure that all citizens were aware of important legal proceedings and decisions impacting their lives.

Have you been charged with a crime?
Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?

Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law  248-357-2550

The Digital Dilemma: Is Print Still King?

However, the digital revolution has challenged the primacy of newspapers. Online news platforms and social media have emerged as powerful alternatives for disseminating information.

Critics argue that relying on print publications for legal notices is outdated and inefficient, potentially excluding those who don’t regularly read newspapers or have limited internet access.

Furthermore, the cost of publishing legal notices in newspapers can be significant, especially for small businesses and individuals.

This raises concerns about accessibility and affordability, particularly for marginalized communities who do not have the desire to read a newspaper.

Finding a Balance: The Future of Legal Notices

Despite these challenges, Act 247 continues to hold value. Newspapers, with their established legal framework and editorial standards, offer a level of authenticity and accountability that online platforms may not always provide. Additionally, many local newspapers maintain strong ties to their communities, ensuring wider reach than solely online platforms.

Moving forward, the key lies in finding a balance between tradition and innovation. Exploring alternative publication methods, such as online government portals or designated community notice boards, could improve accessibility and reduce costs. However, it’s crucial to ensure these alternatives are equally reliable and reach the intended audiences.

—> Link to online public notices for Michigan.

The debate surrounding Act 247 and the publication of legal notices in newspapers reflects a broader conversation about the evolving role of traditional media in a digital age. While embracing new technologies is essential, it’s equally important to recognize the strengths and value of established systems like newspapers. Finding a way to leverage both the reach of the digital world and the reliability of traditional media can ensure that all citizens have access to the information they need to participate actively in their communities.

Here’s the Michigan Law (Link)

PUBLICATION OF NOTICES IN NEWSPAPERS (EXCERPT)
Act 247 of 1963

691.1051 Newspaper; definition; publication of notices; duties of newspaper operator.

Sec. 1.

  (1) As used in any statute of this state in relation to the publication of a notice of any kind, unless the statute expressly provides otherwise, “newspaper” means a print publication published in the English language for the dissemination of local news of a general character or for the dissemination of legal news to which all of the following apply:
  (a) There is a bona fide list of paying subscribers to the publication or the publication has been published at not less than weekly intervals in the same community without interruption for at least 2 years.
  (b) The publication has been published and of general circulation at not less than weekly intervals without interruption for at least 1 year in the required area. A newspaper shall not lose eligibility for interruption of continuous publication due to any of the following:
  (i) An act of God.
  (ii) Labor disputes.
  (iii) The COVID-19 pandemic, for the period beginning March 10, 2020 through the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  (iv) Military service of the publisher for a period not to exceed 2 years and provided publication is resumed within 6 months following the termination of such military service.
  (c) The publication annually averages at least 25% news and editorial content per issue.
  (2) A person that operates a newspaper in which a notice is published under this section shall do both of the following, at no additional cost beyond what the person charges for the print publication:
  (a) Within 72 hours of receipt of a request to publish a notice, provide access to the notice on the website of the newspaper. The website must satisfy all of the following requirements:
  (i) The website homepage must have a link that takes a viewer to an area of the website where notices published under this section are available for viewing. This area of the website cannot be placed behind any sort of pay wall and the public must be able to read the notices at no charge.
  (ii) Notices published under this section must remain on the website during the full required publication period.
  (iii) Notices published under this section must remain searchable on the website as a permanent record of the publication.
  (b) Place the notice on a website that is established and maintained by a state association of newspapers that represents a majority of newspapers in this state as a comprehensive central repository for notices published under this section throughout this state. The website must do all of the following:
  (i) Provide for searching for a notice published under this section by criteria contained in the notice.
  (ii) Maintain all notices published under this section on a permanent basis.
  (iii) Provide access through standard computer browsers and mobile platforms, such as smartphones and tablets.
  (iv) Provide a method to alert the public of notices published under this section by text message or email notification, or both.
  (3) An error or omission in the posting of a notice on the internet under subsection (2) does not invalidate the notice published in the print version of the newspaper.
  (4) If there is no publication that meets the definition in subsection (1) in the required area, “newspaper” means a publication in an adjoining county, township, city, village, district, or other geographic territory, as applicable, that meets the definition in subsection (1).
  (5) A person that operates a newspaper that publishes a notice shall maintain a permanent and complete printed copy of each published edition that contains the notice for archival and verification purposes in the required area.
  (6) A publication that meets the definition under subsection (1) but that is controlled by the person on whose behalf the notice is published or by an officer, employee, agent, or affiliate of the person is not qualified to serve as a newspaper for publication of the notice.
  (7) As used in this section:
  (a) “Controlled” means that the person has 1 or more of the following:
  (i) Ownership of or the power to vote, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of a class of voting securities or voting interests of the person that operates the publication.
  (ii) Power by the person’s own action to elect or appoint a majority of executive officers, managers, directors, trustees, or other persons exercising managerial authority of the person that operates the publication.
  (iii) The legal right by the person’s own action to direct, restrict, regulate, govern, or administer the management or policies of the person that operates the publication.
  (b) “End of the COVID-19 pandemic” means the earliest date after March 10, 2020 on which none of the following are in effect:
  (i) A presidential declaration of national emergency under the national emergencies act, 50 USC 1601 to 1651, relating to COVID-19.
  (ii) An executive order issued by the governor during a state of disaster or emergency declared under the emergency management act, 1976 PA 390, MCL 30.401 to 30.421, or 1945 PA 302, MCL 10.31 to 10.33, relating to COVID-19.
  (iii) An emergency order issued under section 2253 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.2253, relating to COVID-19.
  (c) “Internet” means that term as defined in 47 USC 230.
  (d) “News and editorial content” means any content other than paid advertising.
  (e) “Notice” includes an order, ordinance, advertisement, report, and any other statement or information required by statute to be published.
  (f) “Required area” means the county, township, city, village, district, or other geographic territory where the statute requires the notice to be published or the newspaper to be published, circulated, or printed.
  (g) “Website” means a collection of pages of the internet, usually in html format, with clickable or hypertext links to enable navigation from 1 page or section to another, that often uses associated graphics files to provide illustration and may contain other clickable or hypertext links.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Second Amendment Restrictions and Restoration in Michigan

Second Amendment Restrictions and Restoration in Michigan

Jan 13, 2024 | Blog, Your Rights

Michigan cherishes the Second Amendment, but it’s important to remember that this right isn’t absolute. Certain actions or circumstances can lead to its temporary or permanent loss. Understanding these situations and potential avenues for restoration is crucial for responsible gun ownership.

Losing Your Second Amendment Rights in Michigan:

    • Felony Convictions: Committing a felony automatically disarms you under both state and federal law (MCL 750.223c). The types of felonies affecting gun rights vary, encompassing violent crimes, drug offenses, and even some white-collar misdeeds.
    • Domestic Violence Convictions: A misdemeanor domestic violence conviction can strip you of your gun rights for three years (MCL 750.223c(1)(c)). While a first-time misdemeanor offense with deferred sentencing might not result in a conviction, it still triggers a gun rights suspension.
    • Mental Health Adjudications: Being involuntarily committed for mental illness or deemed a danger to yourself or others can also lead to temporary gun rights loss (MCL 330.1463). This typically involves legal proceedings and evaluations by qualified professionals.
    • Protective Orders: A judge issuing a personal protection order (PPO) against you due to domestic violence or stalking can also temporarily suspend your gun rights (MCL 600.8455).

Restoring Your Second Amendment Rights:

    • Felony Conviction Restoration: While federal law offers limited restoration options, Michigan allows individuals to petition the court for gun rights restoration five years after completing sentences for most felonies (MCL 750.223c(5)). The court considers various factors like rehabilitation and public safety concerns before making a decision.
    • Domestic Violence Restoration: Restoration after a domestic violence conviction requires waiting three years and demonstrating the absence of further domestic violence incidents (MCL 750.223c(1)(c)). Additionally, completing anger management or domestic violence treatment programs may strengthen your case.
    • Mental Health Adjudication Restoration: Once the underlying mental health concerns are addressed and deemed no longer a risk, individuals can petition the court to reinstate their gun rights (MCL 330.1463). This typically involves providing medical documentation and expert evaluations.
    • Protective Order Restoration: If the PPO against you expires or is lifted by the court, your gun rights are automatically restored. However, violating a PPO can have serious legal consequences, including additional gun rights restrictions.

This post provides a general overview and isn’t a substitute for legal advice.

If you face gun rights restriction or seek restoration, consulting with a qualified attorney familiar with Michigan gun laws is highly recommended.

By understanding the potential limitations and restoration processes, responsible gun owners in Michigan can safeguard their Second Amendment rights and exercise them safely and lawfully.

Restore Your Rights

Driver License
Gun License
Professional License
Record Expungement

Call Our Office for a Free Case Evaluation

Call 248-357-2550.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Can employers test for weed in 2024?

Can employers test for weed in 2024?

Jan 10, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Laws

A bill enacted into California law in 2024 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on their off-duty and off-site use of cannabis, as it relates to their employment.

The bill provides an extra level of safeguard for marijuana users in California, but does it suggest a full prohibition on employers conducting marijuana tests in the state?

Testing

The new law, Assembly Bill 2188, clearly states that employers cannot terminate employees based on the presence of cannabis in their hair, blood, or urine. Furthermore, it is now against the law for employers to inquire about an applicant’s consumption of cannabis or marijuana.

This means that individuals who have previously used marijuana cannot face penalties for their past use. Furthermore, individuals are protected from any penalties for using marijuana outside of the workplace and during non-working hours.

Affects Mental Processes

AB 2188 often mentions the “psychoactive” properties of cannabis Defined by the World Health Organization as this -> Definition <.

While the bill provides certain protections, it remains illegal to be under the influence of marijuana or bring it into the workplace.

AB 2188 mandates drug tests that specifically target impairing effects. It is crucial to note that standard marijuana tests do not identify any factors that could negatively impact an employee’s performance.

While it is widely acknowledged that employees should not arrive at a worksite while under the influence or impaired, it is important to note that most cannabis tests only indicate the presence of the nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolite.

These test results do not demonstrate any correlation with job impairment. However, it is crucial to maintain a responsible and safe working environment by prioritizing employee well-being and adhering to workplace policies regarding substance use and impairment.

However, it should be noted that there are additional types of tests that are allowed and these tests do not assess the existence of nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites.

The purpose of drug tests is to identify potentially impaired employees. These tests include impairment tests that measure an individual employee’s performance against their own baseline, as well as tests that detect the presence of THC in an individual’s bodily fluids, as indicated by the bill.

Exemption

This law does not apply to employers in the building and construction trades or employees hired for “positions that require a federal government background investigation.”

Additionally, state and federal laws remain that test applicants and employees for controlled substances. 

What about Michigan?

Michigan dropping marijuana drug testing for some new-hires

Michigan dropping marijuana drug testing for some new-hires on Oct. 1

Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Have you been charged with a crime?

Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law  248-357-2550

Here’s the California Law below and the link here

Assembly Bill No. 2188
CHAPTER 392

An act to add Section 12954 to the Government Code, relating to employment.

[ Approved by Governor September 18, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 18, 2022. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 2188, Quirk. Discrimination in employment: use of cannabis.

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination, abridgment, or harassment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. The act prohibits various forms of employment discrimination and empowers the Civil Rights Department to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging unlawful practices.

This bill, on and after January 1, 2024, would also make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person’s use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace, except for preemployment drug screening, as specified, or upon an employer-required drug screening test that has found the person to have nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine, or other bodily fluids. The bill would exempt certain applicants and employees from the bill’s provisions, including employees in the building and construction trades and applicants and employees in positions requiring a federal background investigation or clearance, as specified. The bill would specify that the bill does not preempt state or federal laws requiring applicants or employees to be tested for controlled substances as a condition of employment, receiving federal funding or federal licensing-related benefits, or entering into a federal contract.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no

BILL TEXT

THE “PEOPLE” OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

The Legislature finds and declares both of the following:
(a) Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical compound in cannabis that can indicate impairment and cause psychoactive effects. After tetrahydrocannabinol is metabolized, it is stored in the body as a nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolite. These metabolites do not indicate impairment, only that an individual has consumed cannabis in the last few weeks.
(b) The intent of drug tests is to identify employees who may be impaired. While there is consensus that an employee should not arrive at a worksite high or impaired, when most tests are conducted for cannabis, the results only show the presence of the nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolite and have no correlation to impairment on the job.
(c) As science has improved, employers now have access to multiple types of tests that do not rely on the presence of nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites. These alternative tests include impairment tests, which measure an individual employee against their own baseline performance and tests that identify the presence of THC in an individual’s bodily fluids.

SEC. 2. Section 12954 is added to the Government Code, to read:

12954. (a) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalizing a person, if the discrimination is based upon any of the following:
(1) The person’s use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace. This paragraph does not prohibit an employer from discriminating in hiring, or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalize a person based on scientifically valid preemployment drug screening conducted through methods that do not screen for nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites.
(2) An employer-required drug screening test that has found the person to have nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine, or other bodily fluids.
(b) Nothing in this section permits an employee to possess, to be impaired by, or to use, cannabis on the job, or affects the rights or obligations of an employer to maintain a drug- and alcohol-free workplace, as specified in Section 11362.45 of the Health and Safety Code, or any other rights or obligations of an employer specified by federal law or regulation.
(c) This section does not apply to an employee in the building and construction trades.
(d) This section does not apply to applicants or employees hired for positions that require a federal government background investigation or security clearance in accordance with regulations issued by the United States Department of Defense pursuant to Part 117 of Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or equivalent regulations applicable to other agencies.
(e) This section does not preempt state or federal laws requiring applicants or employees to be tested for controlled substances, including laws and regulations requiring applicants or employees to be tested, or the manner in which they are tested, as a condition of employment, receiving federal funding or federal licensing-related benefits, or entering into a federal contract.

(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Understanding the Process and Rules of Impeachment in Michigan

Understanding the Process and Rules of Impeachment in Michigan

Jan 9, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Laws

Understanding the Process and Rules of Impeachment in Michigan

Michigan’s history with impeachment is relatively short, with the first and only instance occurring in 1975 against Governor William Milliken.

However, the process outlined in the state’s constitution and further detailed in the Michigan Compiled Laws Act 62 of 1872 remains a relevant and important safeguard against misconduct by public officials.

Take a dive into the impeachment rules and laws in Michigan

Grounds for Impeachment:

As per MCL Act 62, impeachment in Michigan can be initiated against any state officer, including the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and justices of the supreme court.

The grounds for impeachment are outlined in the Michigan Constitution, Article IX, Section 7, and encompass a range of offenses, including:

 

  • Treason: Betraying the state or aiding its enemies.
  • Bribery: Accepting or offering bribes in exchange for official action.
  • Misconduct in office: Any act that constitutes a violation of the public trust or a breach of duty by an official.
  • High crimes and misdemeanors: This catch-all category encompasses serious offenses that, while not specifically defined, are deemed to be detrimental to the state and its citizen

The Impeachment Process:

The impeachment process in Michigan is a two-stage procedure:

1. House of Representatives:

The process begins in the House of Representatives, where a majority vote is required to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

If the inquiry finds sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, the House can vote to impeach the official by a two-thirds majority.

Upon impeachment, the official is suspended from office until the Senate trial.

2. Senate Trial:

The Senate then conducts a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Both the House and the impeached official are represented by counsel and have the right to present evidence and witnesses.

A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is required to convict the official and remove them from office.

MCL Act 62 and the Impeachment Process:

MCL Act 62 provides further details and procedures related to the impeachment process. It outlines:

The specific steps involved in forming an impeachment inquiry committee in the House.

The rules of evidence and procedure during the Senate trial.

The potential consequences of conviction, including removal from office and disqualification from holding future public office.

 

Michigan Laws

IMPEACHMENTS

Act 62 of 1872
AN ACT regulating trials of impeachment and providing for the expenses thereof.
History: 1872, Act 62, Imd. Eff. Mar. 30, 1872

6.1 Impeachment of civil officers; power of house, suspension; vacancies.

Sec. 1.

   That the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeaching civil officers for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors, but a majority of the members elected shall be necessary to direct an impeachment. Every officer impeached may by the governor be suspended in the exercise of his office until his acquittal, and the governor may make a provisional appointment to a vacancy occasioned by the suspension of an officer until he shall be acquitted, or until after the election and qualification of a successor.

6.2 Impeachment; trial by senate, judgment.

Sec. 2.

   Every impeachment shall be tried by the senate. When the governor or lieutenant governor is tried the chief justice of the supreme court shall preside. When an impeachment is directed the senate shall take an oath or affirmation truly and impartially to try and determine the same according to the evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 2/3 of the members elected. Judgment, in case of impeachment, shall not extend further than removal from office, but the party convicted shall be liable to punishment according to law.

 

6.3 Impeachment; prosecution by house.

Sec. 3.

   When an impeachment is directed, the house of representatives shall elect from their own body 3 members, whose duty it shall be to prosecute such impeachment, and the house of representatives are hereby authorized to empower the said managers to prepare and present articles of impeachment in accordance with resolutions of said house.

6.5 Impeachment; appearance and answer of accused.

Sec. 5.

   The senate when so organized shall forthwith cause the person impeached to appear and to answer the charge exhibited against him and upon his appearance, he shall be entitled to a copy of the articles of impeachment, and to a reasonable time to answer the same.

6.6 Impeachment; counsel for accused.

Sec. 6.

   The person accused shall be allowed counsel on the trial of the impeachment.

6.7 Impeachment; trial, time, place, adjournment.

Sec. 7.

   When issue shall be joined in an impeachment, the senate, sitting as a court for the trial of the same shall appoint a time and place for the trial thereof. At the time and place so appointed, the senate, as a court, shall proceed to hear, try and determine the impeachment, and may from time to time, if necessary, adjourn the trial to any other time or place at the state capital.

6.8 Impeachment; acquittal.

Sec. 8.

   If 2/3 of all the members elected to the senate shall not assent to a conviction, the person impeached shall be declared acquitted.

 

Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Have you been charged with a crime?

Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law  248-357-2550

6.9 Impeachment; president of senate, notice to senate.

Sec. 9.

   If the president of the senate shall be impeached, notice thereof shall be immediately given to the senate by the house of representatives, that another president may be chosen.

 

6.11 Impeachment; duties of secretary; record of proceedings, oaths.

Sec. 11.

   It shall be the duty of the secretary of the senate in all cases of impeachment to keep a full and accurate record of the proceedings which shall be taken and held as a public record, and he shall have power to administer all requisite oaths or affirmations.

 

6.12 Impeachment; senate appointment and removal of subordinate officers.

Sec. 12.

   The senate sitting as a court of impeachment shall have power from time to time to appoint such subordinate officers or clerks and reporters as may be necessary for the convenient transaction of business, and at any time to remove such officers.

 

6.13 Impeachment; powers of managers, rights of process.

Sec. 13.

   The managers elected by the house of representatives, shall have all necessary powers for conducting the trial of impeachments before the senate, and they, and also the person impeached, shall severally be entitled to process for compelling the attendance of persons, or the production of papers and records required for the trial of the impeachment.

6.14 Impeachment; senate rules and regulations.

Sec. 14.

   The senate sitting as a court of impeachment, shall have full power and authority to establish such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the trials of impeachment.

6.15 Impeachment; compensation of members of court, managers, and other officers; payment.

Sec. 15.

   The presiding officer and members of the senate, while sitting as a court of impeachment, and the managers elected by the house, shall receive the sum of 5 dollars each per day, and mileage at the rate of 10 cents per mile in going from and returning to their places of residence by the ordinarily traveled routes; and the compensation of the secretary, sergeant-at-arms, and all subordinate officers, clerks, and reporters, shall be an amount as shall be established by the vote of the members of the court. The state treasurer shall, upon presentation of a certificate or certificates signed by the presiding officer and secretary of the senate pay all the expenses of the senate and managers elected by the house, which may be incurred under this act.

6.16 Application of act.

Sec. 16.

   The provisions of this act shall apply to all resolutions and proceedings heretofore had, or hereafter to be had, to impeach any civil officer of this state.

Index

Index and Information Source

History: 1872, Act 62, Imd. Eff. Mar. 30, 1872

The “People” of the State of Michigan enact:

Document Type Description
Section 6.1 Section Impeachment of civil officers; power of house, suspension; vacancies.
Section 6.2 Section Impeachment; trial by senate, judgment.
Section 6.3 Section Impeachment; prosecution by house.
Section 6.4 Section Impeachment; organization of senate as court, oaths, attendance of members.
Section 6.5 Section Impeachment; appearance and answer of accused.
Section 6.6 Section Impeachment; counsel for accused.
Section 6.7 Section Impeachment; trial, time, place, adjournment.
Section 6.8 Section Impeachment; acquittal.
Section 6.9 Section Impeachment; president of senate, notice to senate.
Section 6.10 Section Impeachment; writs and process, signing and testing, enforcement.
Section 6.11 Section Impeachment; duties of secretary; record of proceedings, oaths.
Section 6.12 Section Impeachment; senate appointment and removal of subordinate officers.
Section 6.13 Section Impeachment; powers of managers, rights of process.
Section 6.14 Section Impeachment; senate rules and regulations.
Section 6.15 Section Impeachment; compensation of members of court, managers, and other officers; payment.
Section 6.16 Section Application of act.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.