DISTRICT  COURT  UPDATE

The following is a reprint of Chief Judge Kyle Higgs Tarrant’s “My View” article published in the June 3, 2005 edition of the Saginaw News.

© The Saginaw News.  All rights reserved.  Used with permission of The Saginaw News.

     On May 11, 2005, Attorney General Michael Cox unveiled a proposal entitled “More Cops on the Street”.  Subsequently this proposal was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives and is contained in HB 4796, 4797, 4798, 4799, and 4800.  It is proposed to take effect on January 1, 2006.  This proposal seeks to eliminate preliminary examinations except for specified felonies.  The reason stated for eliminating preliminary examinations is to save both time and money.

      I disagree with this assessment.

     Currently, both the prosecutor and the defendant have the right to a preliminary examination held in the District Court within 14 days of an arraignment on all felony charges.  This is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding.  During the preliminary examination, the attorneys, prosecutor, and witnesses meet for the first time.  This provides the opportunity for a case to be evaluated, plea agreements to be reached, bonds to be reconsidered, and evidence to be heard.  It is also the time to address the defendant’s competency to stand trial.

     The publicity to date decries the value of the preliminary examination while ignoring the timeliness of this process and the value associated with the dispositions that are reached.  It shifts the burden to the Circuit Court to resolve all issues which the District Court now resolves.  No corollary proceeding in the Circuit Court has been proposed to achieve an expeditious result.  It would appear to delay to the trial date decisions regarding disposition which cannot be made without the victim’s and the witnesses’ presence.  This would result in persons who are incarcerated prior to trial being detained for longer periods of time.

     The proposal contains many cost savings claims and data in support of these claims which need to be questioned.  For example, it is claimed that the adoption of this proposal will decrease the average inmate’s incarceration by a period of two weeks.  It does not state how this will happen.  One could conclude that if the majority of cases are resolved by plea, and the proposal eliminates the hearing at which they are reached, it follows that persons will be detained longer pending disposition in Circuit Court.

     I am writing to you because I want the public to be aware that the witnesses, the defendant, and the public may be better served by the retaining the current criminal procedure. 

#   #   #