Free wi-fi available at Eastern District Bankruptcy Court

The Eastern District of Michigan's bankruptcy court bar is tipping its collective hat to three chapter 13 trustees, Krispen Carroll, David Ruskin and Tammy Terry, and technology wizard Rich Collins, for making free wireless internet access available at the court's West Fort Street location in Detroit.

The trustees are footing the bill, and Collins arranged and supervised the installation, says Chief Judge Steven Rhodes.

The wi-fi covers courtrooms and conference rooms on 18th and 19th floors of the courthouse.

Rhodes says the court okayed "this service to provide the bar and the public with access to internet sites that may be needed while attending court, such as office networks and servers, ECF, the Court's order processing program, the chapter 13 trustee's websites and legal research websites."

Log on and other information here.

$1.1M proposed for mental health court program

The Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency's overview of the Granholm administration's new budget notes a $1.1 million appropriation for a pilot mental health courts program.

The funding proposal may help move SB 199 and SB 200, which were introduced by Sen. Liz Brater (D-Ann Arbor) a year ago and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where, so far, nothing has happened.

Michigan Senate Democrats describe the mental health courts program this way:

"Modeled after the successful Drug Courts system, Mental Health Courts would allow judges to direct people with mental illness charged with minor offenses to treatment rather than jail. As lawmakers strive to control Michigan's soaring corrections costs, this proposal will ensure the best use of limited resources and the most appropriate sentencing for offenders."

The bills are backed by, among others, Michigan Partners in Crisis, a broad coalition of judges, law enforcement officials and mental health care activists. The Lansing State Journal recently printed an overview story about the group and its efforts.

There is an overabundance of mentally ill people incarcerated in this state's many prisons. The prison system is ill-equipped to appropriately respond to them.

The mental health court legislation and the governor's funding proposal could be part of the cure.

Eastern District Bankruptcy Court: PDA paradise

Now, here's something you don't run across everyday: a chief judge who doesn't care if folks in the courtroom tap away on computers, calculators and Blackberries.

Or, get this, chat on a cell phone.

Just keep it down.

That's the word from Steven W. Rhodes, chief judge of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

You can only guess what prompted the judge's Feb. 4 memo to security officers in the court's Detroit, Flint and Bay City facilities. But his message is clear:

"It is the policy of the Bankruptcy Court that electronic devices may be used in court facilities in our building, including courtrooms, as long as their use is quiet and does not disrupt court proceedings."

The judge hasn't forgotten about the Luddites out there. Rhodes' memo also permits newspaper reading.

Just keep it down.

Macomb prosecutor, district court judge settle drug court differences

Michigan is one of the states that has led the way in establishing drug courts, which focus on supervised treatment for drug and alcohol abusers.

A drug court is a diversion program that offers offenders the carrot of treatment, education and employment, backed up with the stick of weekends in jail and other punishments for missteps along the way.

There are many drug courts statewide but the one in Warren headed by 37th District Court Judge Dawnn Gruenberg hasn't seen much activity in the last year. The judge and Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith haven't seen eye-to-eye on how the court was being administered, reports the Detroit Free Press.

Smith, concerned that Gruenberg's drug court was becoming a "revolving door" for repeat offenders who should be jailed through the regular court system, only referred nine offenders to the judge's drug court last year, compared to 75 in 2006.

Chief Circuit Court Judge Richard Caretti, acutely aware that drug offenders were being denied a chance to turn their lives around, and that $200,000 in state funding might evaporate, was eager for a resolution.

He got one last week when Gruenberg and Smith agreed to a sanction system that spells out the number of chances participants get before they are booted from the drug court and sent back to the regular court system. The judge also agreed to provide the prosecutor with information about participants' miscues.

Everybody's happy now.

Another side of immunizing med-tech companies from suit

There has been a renewed clamor in Michigan to repeal the state's drug-manufacturer immunity law in the wake of Merck's agreement to a multi-billion dollar settlement of claims that one of its drugs, Vioxx, may have had the troublesome side effect of causing often-fatal heart attacks or strokes.

Michigan's immunity law, conceived and enacted in the hubris resulting from Republican domination of all three branches of the state government in the mid-1990s, gave pharmaceutical manufacturers a free pass on civil liability claims in Michigan courts if the federal Food and Drug Administration approved the complained-of drug.

Legislation to repeal this much-criticized special-interest law - a Detroit Free Press editorial recently labeled it as "easily one of the worst legacies of former Gov. John Engler" - has been stalled in the Michigan Senate for most of this year. And it may stay there longer still.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Riegel v. Medtronic, (click here for a Dow Jones Newswire report), in which the medical equipment manufacturer proposes a slightly less draconian but nationwide version of legal immunity for med-tech companies.

Medtronic, the world's largest med-tech company, is defending a product liability case filed after the balloon on one of its catheters burst during an angioplasty, which required emergency bypass surgery to save the patient's life. Medtronic is arguing that federal regulation of sophisticated medical equipment pre-empts claims under state law by patients who say such equipment injured them. Both lower courts have agreed with Medtronic's position.

The Dow Jones report suggests that Medtronic's argument got a friendly reception in the Supreme Court as well. But the tenor of oral arguments is not always a reliable predictor of how a case turns out.

Keep your eye on the Medtronic case. It will be powerful medicine, no matter which way the Court goes.

Shocking evidence: Oakland County program helps jurors with trial trauma

Television police dramas routinely feature gruesome crime scenes and postmortems performed in the clinical hush of the autopsy lab.

The small-screen version of violent crime and its gory aftermath is portrayed with a graphic frankness that most of us absorb without blinking. We remind ourselves that it's just actors playing corpses, assisted by skilled makeup artists and remarkably realistic special effects. We sometimes wish they weren't quite so good at their craft.

But the storyline and the actors playing the detectives, scientists and suspects are intriguing. We get frequent breaks to focus on other things, like the newest cars, fashions and personal care products, or to make two-minute runs to the bathroom and the fridge.

All of this helps us overcome our natural aversion to blood and gore and to instead accept it as entertainment. And if we can't handle it, there's always something else to watch.

In the harsh reality of a criminal courtroom, however, the blood and gore are not illusions. The crime-scene and autopsy photos are real. The testimony is real. The dead, the survivors and the horrific details, are real.

And the everyday citizens drafted to be jurors can't change the channel.

In Oakland County this week, reports the Detroit Free Press, a jury will hear a case in which the defendant is accused of shooting his ex-girlfriend in the head while she was sleeping with their baby. He then allegedly returned to scene, soaked the bed with gasoline where the dead woman and the still-alive child lay and set it on fire, killing the child.

Jurors in that case, however, will have the benefit of Oakland County's Juror Debriefing Program. Run by the Common Ground Sanctuary in Royal Oak, trained counselors will be available to help jurors who want help coping with the stress and trauma of dealing with disturbing evidence.

For years, Common Ground has provided assistance to individuals and families in crisis. Program coordinator Margo Eby, writes the Free Press's L.L. Braiser, felt that "[h]elping jurors seemed like the next logical step."

Juror debriefing programs are becoming a national trend as more and more jurors report stress and trauma associated with hearing emotionally grinding cases. The National Center for State Courts has been researching the problem and has a reading list available.

Voter photo ID law gets first test next Tuesday

Michigan's not-so-new law requiring voters to show photo identification gets its first test this Tuesday, Nov. 6, in local elections around the state.

The long, conflicting road to a photo ID law The law was one of several 1996 amendments to the Michigan Election Law. Before the law took effect, then-Attorney General Frank Kelly issued an opinion, in which he said the photo ID requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause. The law lay dormant for eight years. In 2005, it was revived, unchanged, by other election law amendments, effective Jan. 1, 2007. With Frank Kelly's opinion lurking in the background, the House asked the Michigan Supreme Court to answer this question in an advisory opinion: "Do the photo identification requirements contained in 2005 PA 71 violate either the Michigan Constitution or the United States Constitution?" In an order issued in April 2006, on a 5-2 vote, the question the court chose to answer was, "Do the photo identification requirements of Section 523 of 2005 PA 71, MCL 168.523, on their face, violate either the Michigan Constitution or the United States Constitution?" Justice Marilyn Kelly dissented for two reasons. First, the House framed the question too broadly. Second, the question the majority agreed to answer was not the question asked. Justice Michael Cavanagh also dissented. The court issued a 5-2 opinion, which held "that the photo identification requirement contained in the statute is facially constitutional under the balancing test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Burdick v Takushi." Information from "Michigan's Photo ID Requirement for Voters"

If you don't have such ID, or you do and you left it at home, you can still get a ballot but you must sign an affidavit to that effect.

There's a stiff penalty for lying about the status of your ID, or the lack of one: you could be convicted of perjury, pay a fine of up to $1,000 or spend up to five years in prison, or both.

They're not fooling around.

What's acceptable photo ID? The Secretary of State's office has provided a helpful list.

There's been much speculation about what effect the law will have on voter participation and whether it prevent the evil it was designed to cure - election fraud.

Here's the take of Suzanne Lowe, Michigan Senate Bill Analysis Coordinator, in her article, "Michigan's Photo ID Requirement for Voters." It's in the latest issue of "State Notes: Topics of Legislative Interest."

According to the Secretary of State's office, approximately 370,000 registered voters in Michigan (or about 5.0 percent of all registered voters in the State) do not have either a driver license or an official State identification card. There are no data on the number of voters who also do not have any of the other types of photo ID that the Secretary of State considers acceptable. Of the voters who do have photo ID, there is no way of knowing how many will not bring it to the polls because they forget to or do not know about the law's requirement. It also is not possible to predict how many voters who do not have photo ID, or have it but do not bring it to the polls, will be unable to sign an affidavit because they cannot read or understand the document, or will be unwilling to sign one because they feel intimidated or embarrassed or simply do not want to take the time.

Whether the photo ID requirement actually represents a "barrier to the ballot box," as critics contend, may be known only after the requirement is implemented, and perhaps only after it is enforced during the November 2008 general election. Whether the requirement serves to prevent voter fraud may never be know. Although there have been convictions in Michigan for illegal activity during voter registration drives, there does not appear to be any evidence of the type of in-person polling place voter impersonation that the photo ID requirement might deter. As some contend, this may be because of the difficulty of detecting such activity and catching the offenders. On the other hand, to the extent that such fraud does occur, it is questionable whether the penalty for signing a false affidavit will deter someone who is willing to commit a felony by voting under a false name or impersonating another elector.

Ohio Supreme Court pans Fieger client's $30M verdict

It was the Ohio Supreme Court's turn last week to do what Michigan appellate courts have done several times over the past few years - wipe out a multi-million dollar verdict for one of Geoffrey Fieger's clients.

This time, it was a $30 million jury award for a 20-year-old man who was born with a damaged brain and other serious problems.

The reason the OSC brought the curtain down on the verdict? In part, it was Fieger's "theatrics" in the courtroom.

Now, the trial judge wasn't exactly blame-free either. As recounted by the OSC, the trial judge let Fieger's expert testify, over defense counsel's objection, about medical-care costs far in excess of the figure the expert provided in a written report. And then there was the judge's in-the-hallway off-the-record instruction to jurors, some of whom admitted they saw a newspaper article about the trial. The judge's on-the-spot attempt to unring the bell: he told the jury to disregard what they had read.

When the defense team demanded a new trial, the judge readily agreed. The OSC noted the trial judge's acknowledgement that his miscue with the expert allowed the jury to think about, and award, $15 million in economic damages. And the newspaper article? The judge said he had read it, too, and he could easily see how some of the jurors may have been itching to give Fieger's client a record-breaking award.

Another big influence on the jury, the trial court and the OSC agreed, was the man from Oakland County, Michigan and the way he conducted himself in court.

Some Michigan judges have seen it, said it before Michigan's appellate courts, on occasion, have been extremely critical of Geoffrey Fieger's trial tactics, and have taken him to task for many of the same things discussed in the Ohio courts' opinions. See, Powell v. St. John Hosp., Badalamenti v. William Beaumont Hosp., and Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler.

The OSC echoed the trial judge's observations that: Fieger was discourteous; there were plenty of theatrics; he interrupted defense counsel; he put his own words into the witnesses' mouths; he mischaracterized evidence to mislead the jury and he brought the forbidden issue of attorney fees into play.

In closing argument, the OSC said, Fieger dwelled on a spoliation-of-evidence claim, even though the trial judge had earlier thrown it out. And he cast the case as an epic struggle between a poor black guy and rich, powerful corporate interests.

In the end, the OSC said the jury did pretty much what Fieger asked: it looked at its $15 million economic damages award on the verdict form and wrote another $15 million in the space for punitive damages.

After the trial judge entered the order for a new trial, the plaintiff's team moved to disqualify him. Apparently, the trial judge had had enough and voluntarily recused himself from further proceedings.

Up in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, the majority and dissenting opinions reveal that none of the judges were concerned about the trial judge's extracurricular handling of the newspaper article. The majority said Fieger hadn't objected and defense counsel apparently had a private chat with the trial judge about the article. They weren't about to reward a claimed error that defense counsel instigated.

The majority characterized Fieger's performance as zealous representation. "While we agree that plaintiff's attorney does not appear in the transcript to be the most likeable person, we do not find that his conduct rises to the level to justify the granting of a new trial." In contrast, the dissenting judge spent 27 pages detailing what she called Fieger's "manipulative trial technique" and "the extent of his outrageous melodrama" in his closing argument, which, she said, was enough by itself to warrant a new trial.

The majority said the defense team was not contesting liability on appeal, only the super-sized verdict. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's liability finding, there was no need for a new trial. The majority conceded that there were problems with the expert testimony on damages. Remittitur would be the correct remedy. And, "the trial court is in the best position to determine whether a damages award is excessive."

The OSC said the appeals court was looking at the wrong thing. It's not about whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. It's all about the trial court being in the best position to determine whether the jury's verdict "was excessive and given under the influence of passion or prejudice" and whether counsel's misconduct "tainted the verdict." The OSC ruled that if there's competent, credible evidence to answer "yes" to these inquiries, as there was in this case, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial, and that decision "should remain undisturbed."

A dissenting justice sided with the lower appeals court majority on the issue of remittitur.

He also had this to say:

To order a retrial because of the obnoxious behavior of an attorney does our system of justice no favors - such behavior must be dealt with as it occurs, not after a judge decides that a party may have benefited from it.

The verdict should be knocked down to $10 million, the dissenter said. That's a lot closer to the evidence of economic damages.

And he closed with this zinger:

Should the plaintiff refuse the remittitur, he would be entitled to a new trial. Before that trial, it would be wise for the trial judge to deny any motion for admission pro hac vice filed on behalf of Mr. Fieger.

The case is Harris v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center.

It's not legit: jury duty calls are scam

You're fairly certain that you haven't received a jury duty summons, but the person on the phone, who claims to be a court official, says that you have, you didn't show up and now the judge is angry enough to issue an arrest warrant.

This can all be cleared up, the caller continues, if you'll just provide your date of birth, your Social Security number and some credit card information.

Hang up! Call the cops and the court the caller claimed to represent, warns State Court Administrator Carl Gromek, pictured on the left.

It's a scam.

The only way Michigan state courts contact prospective jurors is by mail, Gromek said. "Be aware: prospective jurors can call courts, but courts don't initiate those calls. And courts never call prospective jurors to get their financial information."

The Niles Daily Star reports that this scam is currently being run in Berrien County, in the southwest part of the state.

Gromek has these pointers to avoid have your pocket electronically picked:

• Courts do not contact citizens by phone regarding jury duty. Be suspicious if a person calls claiming to be a court official or staff person.
  
• Be skeptical if you are told, "In order to avoid prosecution for missing jury duty, you must provide your social security number now so we can verify your information."
  
• Be suspicious if the person pressures you for immediate action or refuses to send written information for you to review.
  
• Never give out your bank, credit card, or social security information over the phone to someone who calls you.
  
• If you are uncomfortable, hang up, even if the caller threatens prosecution.
  
• Report suspicious calls to local police.