News & Commentary

A Pontiac lawsuit that could have far-reaching implications throughout Michigan was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati.

If I hadn’t gone to the Washtenaw County Clerk’s office on Saturday morning, I don’t think I could live with myself. I wanted to be able to tell my grandchildren that I was a part of history, and history was happening at 9 AM, March 22 as the first marriage licenses were issued to same sex couples in Michigan. There were hundreds of us. Couples waiting to be married, their parents, children and friends. Before the building opened the line snaked around the block. I took my place with the officiants, having obtained a non-denominational ordination several months ago in anticipation of this day. When the doors opened, the crowd crushed forward. Clergy and judges, almost two dozen of us, gathered in a downstairs conference room, ready to perform ceremonies as the licenses were issued. The first couple emerged from the clerk’s office to cheers and came to the conference room to be married by Judge Judith Levy, Michigan’s first openly gay judge. Judge Levy had been sworn in just four days before and was performing her first official act as a Federal judge. “Marriage is a civil right,” Judge Levy reminded us. The vows were said, rings exchanged, the couple kissed, the crowd cheered and Michigan had one more married couple – just the same as every other, yet so historically important. The crowd seemed to grow and grow. The conference room heated up. Donations began arriving – bouquets of flowers for anyone who didn’t have them. Cases of water. Cake. Rainbow confetti. A violinist began playing in the lobby. A photographer took pictures and collected emails to send them to the couples. Families milled around with their children, waiting to witness and celebrate the marriages of total strangers because they felt drawn to this place. The second ceremony, officiated by a local pastor, began. Two women approached the table. “We’re number 3,” they said. They had been together for 8 years and had 5 children, including twin babies waiting at home. They weren’t sure if they could have their ceremony because they had no officiant and brought no witnesses. Two people nearby volunteered as witnesses, and I started my first wedding ceremony, saying words I had rehearsed in my head for months. “Some will say what we do here today is revolutionary,” I began, “Some will say it is historic. But I have another word for what we are about to do... Redundant. Nothing we can do here today will add to or change in any way the fact that you are married. You did that long ago. We are here to play catch-up on behalf of the state of Michigan. And as the representative of the State in this ceremony, I want to say, thank you for not giving up on us.” I led the brides through the same vows that my husband and I made 21 years ago at our own wedding. The couple kissed, the crowd cheered, confetti flew. I officiated three ceremonies and served as a witness for another. My Rabbi arrived and a chupah – a Jewish wedding canopy -- was raised in the corner for two couples from my congregation. At one point, I could simultaneously hear a Hebrew prayer, an Apache blessing and a judge asking if a couple were there of their own free will. More than 70 licenses were issued. The Clerk’s office closed, and we were done for the day. Hours later, the sixth circuit issued a stay of the historic ruling that had made it all possible. Who knows when I will be able to officiate weddings – all weddings, without discrimination – again. This amazing day was not about me. But it was about people like me: a community – regardless of sexual orientation – putting together the pieces of a wedding and making it happen for our neighbors. That is what I will tell my grandchildren when I tell them about the day Michigan made history. To talk about the sweeping changes we've seen in the last decade and look at some upcoming challenges, we're talking about Marriage Matters. This series of blogs deals with the history of the fight for LGBT rights and takes an in-depth look at the DeBoer case, which could impact marriage equality in Michigan and beyond. 

We all expect police to serve and protect. A new state law allows innocent people to be charged with a felony for statements made during a police investigation.The Lansing case of Kosgar Lado illustrates the risks to justice in the new law.Kosgar is a 21 year-old refugees from Sudan who was accused of a crime, pressured into making a confession and then found completely innocent.Police are encouraged to use high-pressure tactics to convince suspects to make incriminating statements and confess to crimes. It's no suprise that during his interrogation Kosgar made many conflicting statements.During court hearings on the new charges, Kosgar was assessed by a psychiatrist regarding his competence to stand trial. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, The police doubted the validity of Kosgar's confession and kept investigating, eventually charging four other men with the crime. One has pled guilty and the others are awaiting trials.Even though he had gone through a terrible experience, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunning charged him with “lying to police,” a felony under the new law.The new law specifically states that it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” make false statements to police officers in an investigation.The question is how could anyone believe that a person with paranoid schizophrenia could “knowingly and willfully” lie during a police interrogation?In July 2012, the ACLU of Michigan warned the Michigan Legislature against the law, pointing to a nonpartisan analysis which found that the proposed law could punish some witnesses yet protect others, even if they gave false statements. This confusion undermines trust between police and their public.Instead of encouraging the public to cooperate with police, this law discourages anyone from speaking to law enforcement, since words or omissions could send them to jail. Without knowing whether the police are going to protect you or prosecute you, who would risk speaking to the police at all?What’s not acknowledged by this dangerous law is that false confessions are often not the result of people intentionally misleading police officers, but the consequences of inappropriate police interrogation procedures.We know that false confessions are common and the basis for many wrongful convictions. In fact, as the New Yorker recently highlighted, police use sophisticated interrogation techniques that studies show encourage false confessions.After the law was passed, the Michigan Innocence Project advised that “under no circumstances should a prosecutor charge somebody with making a false statement to the police when the statement was extracted in police interrogation, because what we’ve learned, whether the person is mentally ill or not, is that it’s extraordinarily easy for the police to obtain confessions from innocent people.”As described by James Shonkwiler, the former executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, Kosgar's case is the perfect example of the law’s dangerous applications:As he spoke, did Lado maliciously or recklessly intend to divert or mislead police away from the truth or “pervert the pursuit of justice?” To the contrary, the facts strongly suggest that he was upset, confused and afraid and did not possess the requisite mens rea, or “guilty mind” required to form criminal intent. Kosgar's case drew attention from people across the state outraged at such an obvious miscarriage of justice.Two Lansing area attorneys offered pro bono assistance in Kosgar's case. Community people formed Justice for Kosgar and established a fund to help pay for court fees and mental health re-assessments.Over 550 people signed a Change.org petition demanding that Prosecutor Dunnings drop the charges. The Lansing State Journal and WLNS TV Channel 6 provided regular and in-depth coverage of the case and Lansing Community College Radio dedicated nearly one full hour program to the story.After all the attention and hard work by the Justice for Kosgar community, Prosecutor Dunnings ended his crusade against an innocent man.Kosgar's own words are a cautionary reminder to us all about speaking with law enforcement under the new law. During his interrogation, he mentioned to officers that other people accused of crimes “talk and then... they end up going for something they didn’t do. That’s what I’m saying.”Justice eventually prevailed for Kosgar. Yet we all remain at risk for aggressive police or prosecutors bolstered by this misguided state law.Lynne Martinez, Lansing Branch PresidentSofia Rahman, Legal Fellow

In a recent blog I, like a number of other reporters, wrote about Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr’s proposed pension cuts, which were outlined in the plan of adjustment he submitted to the bankruptcy court last month. And, like others, I made mention of the fact that cost of living allowances, or COLAs, would be eliminated if the plan gets approved.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reconsider its decision to not prosecute the Saginaw police officers involved in the shooting death of Milton Hall.On July 1, 2012, Saginaw police officers shot and killed Hall, a 49-year-old, mentally ill African American homeless man. During the standoff at a local shopping center, six officers discharged their weapons – 47 shots were fired, with eleven hitting Hall. The killing was video recorded, and footage shows that Hall was standing a significant distance away from officers and was armed with a three inch knife. Video footage shows that all shots were fired within a matter of seconds, and even after Hall collapsed, police continued to fire.In a press release issued late last month, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the FBI announced that Saginaw police officers who shot and killed Milton Hall won't face federal charges because “this tragic event does not present sufficient evidence of willful misconduct to lead to a federal criminal prosecution.”To prosecute the officers, it is necessary to prove not only that Hall’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the use of excessive force, but also that the officers “willfully” set out to deprive him of those rights.In its memo to U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade, the ACLU of Michigan disagrees with the DOJ’s conclusion that there is insufficient proof of the officers’ willfulness and cites Supreme Court precedent indicating that an officer “recklessly disregarding” a person’s rights can meet the “willfulness” standard regardless of the officer’s frame of mind.The following can be attributed to Mark P. Fancher, ACLU of Michigan Racial Justice staff attorney:“The fact that six armed police officers fired 47 bullets at a mentally impaired homeless man who held only a small knife a significant distance away from the officers amounts to a reckless disregard of Milton Hall’s right to be free from an unreasonable use of force. As a civilian, Mr. Hall had every right to expect that the police would protect his life, but instead, he was the target of what resembled in many ways a firing squad. Saginaw deserves justice not only for Milton Hall, but for the entire community that has been devastated by this inexplicable act of police violence.”

It’s 2014. It’s the future! Still, every day I'm shocked that parts of our nation still seem trapped in a time warp.

April and Jayne just wanted to jointly adopt three special needs children they were foster parenting, providing the kids with the legal protection of both parents. Yet they discovered many Michigan judges discriminate against LGBT couples, interpreting the state's adoption law to mean only married couples can adopt together. April and Jayne filed a federal lawsuit, DeBoer v. Snyder, challenging the State’s refusal to allow them to legally marry and be parents to their children . For the last two weeks, the State of Michigan has been in court to defending this discriminatory policy in court, presenting witnesses who used flawed science to attempt to justify discrimination.  As closing arguments take place, here's a quick summary of the witnesses for and against marriage equality for same-sex couples. Plaintiffs’ Witnesses Michael Rosenfeld, a sociology professor at Stanford University, testified about a study he had conducted which indicated that there was no significant difference between the educational outcomes of children from same-sex headed families and those of heterosexual parents. Rosenfeld also argued that if one were to follow the logic that same-sex couples should be prevented from raising families because of any statistical potential for worse outcomes, one must also conclude that couples who experience poverty, reside in urban areas, or lack higher education should also be barred from parenting. David Brodzinsky, a psychologist and nationally recognized expert on adoption, preemptively testified in court that the several studies that State experts would present, which conclude that children of same-sex parents are less likely to achieve positive outcomes, are seriously flawed because they neglect to take into account an array of factors which considerably affect child outcomes. Additionally, Brodzinsky maintained that it is the quality of parenting is paramount, and not the gender of the parents. Vivek Sankaran, a law professor at the University of Michigan and director of the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy, explained that despite LGBT individuals’ ability to designate custody in the event of their death, there is actually no legal guarantee that the guardianship would be upheld by a court. Additionally, Sankaran explained that there is a significant need for same-sex couples to adopt and foster the 14,000 children who are currently part of Michigan’s foster care system. Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute, informed the court about the national and statewide prevalence of both LGBT individuals and families. Gates also contended that LGBT couples and families would benefit economically from the institution of marriage. Nancy Cott, a history professor at Harvard University, testified about the historic and legal requirements for marriage. She noted that marriage has never required a couple’s ability and commitment to procreation. If this was or ever had been a requirement for marriage, Cott contended that neither the elderly nor those who experience sterility would be eligible for marriage. Cott also compared the current bans on same-sex marriage to anti-miscegenation laws, which were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Lisa Brown, Oakland County Clerk, explained her opposition to the State’s stance. Though she is an official of the state, Brown testified that she believes Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage is discriminatory and plans on issuing marriage licenses if the judge rules in the favor of the plaintiffs, rather than following orders from the Attorney General who had emailed her, along with the other 82 County Clerks, in October demanding that they did not issue marriage licenses had Judge Friedman ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. George Chauncey, a history and American studies professor at Harvard University, was unable to testify in court but sent a report instead. The report outlined the history of discrimination, hostility, and violence against the LGBT community. It also summarized the historic and current legal policies which enforce this wholesale discrimination. Defendants' Witnesses Loren Marks, a family studies professor at Louisiana State University, denounced the American Psychological Association’s study which concluded that there was no difference between families headed by same-sex and opposite-sex parents. He contended the study was flawed because its sample size was too small, but conceded that it would be extremely difficult to find a more substantial sample. He also admitted, during cross-examination, that he was “neutral” on whether there was a difference in child outcomes between the two groups of families. Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, testified that his research had shown that children of same-sex parents experienced many more issues in later life, including poverty and drug use. However, Regnerus’ study, prior to this case, had already come under academic fire for its flaws, and was publicly denounced by the University of Texas at Austin on its website the day of his testimony. Joseph Price, an economics professor at Brigham Young University, explained his analysis of Rosenfeld’s study. He criticized the study for putting too many restrictions on the sample and, after having lifted the restrictions and re-crunching the numbers, Price and his co-authors concluded that children of same-sex parents were 35% less likely to attain normal progress in school. However, Price was unable to explain what that statistic meant in real-life numbers and acknowledged that same-sex couples would likely benefit from the ability to legally marry. Douglas Allen, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University, as well as one of Price’s co-authors, took the stand in defense of the same-sex marriage ban on the basis that children of same-sex parents are less likely to achieve positive educational outcomes. Like Price, he criticized Rosenfeld’s study. Allen, citing his own research based on Canadian census data, alleged that children of same-sex parents were only 65% as likely as their counterparts to graduate high school. Allen also testified that he holds the belief that “unrepentant” homosexuals will face “eternal separation from God,” but maintained that his personal religious beliefs did not affect his research. To talk about the sweeping changes we've seen in the last decade and look at some upcoming challenges, we're talking about Marriage Matters . This series of blogs takes a look at history of the fight for LGBT rights in Michigan to an in-depth look at the DeBoer case, which could impact marriage equality in Michigan.  Key News & Documents Marriage Matters LGBT Rights    

All eyes are on the DeBoer trial, a potentially groundbreaking case for marriage equality and families across Michigan. However, coverage of the case can be peppered with legal mumbo jumbo. While we patiently follow the DeBoer case, we may find ourselves wondering what it all means and asking ourselves questions like, “What is a deposition and why is it important?” Well, we are here to help clarify. Depositions are the precursor to trial testimony. When a trial date is set, both parties are required to submit lists of the witnesses they plan on calling to the stand to testify. Each side receives the opponent’s list and then has the right and ability to examine the witnesses, ensuring that each side is equally prepared for trial and that the process is fair. Despite the sensationalization of the legal system on television and in movies, there are no surprises in real life trials. Depositions make sure of that. How? Well, after each side receives the lists of witnesses, they depose those them. Depositions most often take place in an attorney’s office, with attorneys, the witness being deposed (deponent), and a court reported who transcribes the entire deposition for the record. The parties involved may also be present, but it is not necessary to the process. Judges rarely attend the depositions, except under special circumstances. What happens? First, the deponent is sworn under oath. This ensures the veracity of the testimony being given, so that it cannot be revoked on the stand. Deponents face the same consequences for perjury during a deposition as they do during trial testimony. Next, the attorneys ask as many questions as they believe to be relevant to the case. Depending on the case, the witness, and the testimony being given, depositions can take as little as fifteen minutes or as long as several days. Why take a deposition? Depositions are extremely important to all trials. They give attorneys for both sides the opportunity to determine what damaging testimony they will be up against in court during the trial. By eliciting this information during a deposition, attorneys then have the opportunity to find ways to strengthen their argument for court or find strategies to undermine the potentially damaging testimony. Additionally, depositions eliminate any chance that opposing sides will bring a surprise witness to the stand and leaving the other side unprepared for cross examination. In the DeBoer case, the deposition process was extremely important. Because so much of the case rests on the testimony of expert witnesses regarding LGBT families, depositions gave the plaintiffs’ attorneys the opportunity to find out what experts and what studies the State would be using to argue against adoption and marriage equality. Through depositions, the plaintiffs’ attorneys gained an understanding of the State’s arguments and could get ready to dismantle these arguments detail by detail. Since witness testimony concluded today, we will be posting a summary of each witnesses' testimony before closing arguents begin tomorrow.

Anyone at all familiar with Michigan’s emergency manager law knows that the people handed control of municipalities and school districts facing financial crises have extraordinary power.In fact, the law goes even further than many realize, creating the possibility that residents of cities under emergency management may emerge from state control with a completely revamped form of local government imposed on them by the governor.