Michigan

Overview

Michigan represents a paradox in the national landscape of prosecutorial disclosure and law enforcement accountability. While the state constitution and judiciary firmly recognize the duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence under Brady and Giglio, Michigan has no statutory requirement for the creation or maintenance of Brady or Giglio lists. Law enforcement disciplinary records are often shielded from public view. Disclosure practices vary widely among the state’s 83 county prosecutors, and there is no centralized system or statewide mandate to ensure consistent tracking and disclosure of credibility-impaired officers. Despite recent momentum around transparency and police reform, systemic failures in information sharing and accountability continue to undermine the integrity of Michigan’s criminal justice system—particularly in jurisdictions where political loyalty, institutional secrecy, and under-resourced public defense amplify the risk of wrongful conviction.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Michigan’s criminal justice system is comprised of elected County Prosecutors, overseen loosely by the Michigan Attorney General, and a unified judiciary governed by the Michigan Supreme Court. The primary discovery rule is Michigan Court Rule 6.201, which obliges prosecutors to provide exculpatory evidence upon request, including information that may be used to impeach witnesses. Ethical duties are codified in Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8(d), which mirrors the ABA Model Rule.

Police officers are certified by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES). MCOLES has limited authority to suspend or revoke officer certifications for misconduct, including dishonesty, but there is no requirement that such actions be shared with prosecutors or memorialized in a manner consistent with Giglio. As a result, officers found to have engaged in deception may remain on the force and continue testifying—often without disclosure to defense counsel.

Historical Context

Michigan has faced numerous scandals involving police corruption, prosecutorial misconduct, and wrongful convictions—particularly in Detroit, Flint, and other urban centers. The wrongful conviction of Davontae Sanford, arrested at age 14 and held for nearly a decade after the true killer confessed, highlighted systemic failures in disclosure and officer accountability. In that case, both police and prosecutors failed to turn over key evidence, including a confession by another suspect and information that undermined the credibility of lead investigators.

In 2017, the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC) was established to improve defense services across the state. Yet despite its advances, Michigan has still not enacted legislative mandates requiring prosecutors to track Giglio material or disclose officer misconduct in a standardized manner. Localized initiatives—such as “Do Not Call” lists maintained by progressive prosecutors in Wayne, Washtenaw, and Ingham Counties—remain the exception rather than the rule.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Michigan guarantees due process and confrontation rights under Article 1, Sections 17 and 20 of its state constitution. Key legal authorities include:

• MCR 6.201(B)(1): Requires the prosecutor to disclose any material information within the possession or control of the prosecution that may negate guilt, support a defense, or affect sentencing.

• MRPC 3.8(d): Mandates that prosecutors disclose all evidence known to them that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment.

• MCL 15.231 et seq. (Michigan Freedom of Information Act): Allows public access to records, but police personnel and internal affairs files are frequently exempted under privacy or law enforcement exceptions.

No state law requires law enforcement agencies to share findings of dishonesty or misconduct with prosecutors, nor is there a mandate that prosecutors flag Giglio-impaired officers for future reference.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Michigan appellate courts have affirmed the scope of Brady and Giglio but have largely limited their holdings to case-specific reviews:

• People v. Chenault, 495 Mich. 142 (2014): The Michigan Supreme Court adopted the federal Brady materiality standard, affirming that nondisclosure of evidence undermining a witness's credibility could justify reversal if material.

• People v. Sawyer, 215 Mich. App. 183 (1996): Reiterated that Brady requires the disclosure of evidence affecting credibility and emphasized the prosecution’s duty to seek out and turn over such material.

• People v. Lester, 232 Mich. App. 262 (1998): Affirmed that the prosecution must disclose promises or deals made to key witnesses, especially when such promises relate to testimony in exchange for leniency.

Despite judicial acknowledgment, Michigan courts have not required prosecutors to maintain disclosure logs or institutionalize tracking of officer misconduct.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

MCOLES provides certification and training for law enforcement officers, including instruction on constitutional rights, but does not require modules on Brady/Giglio obligations. Officers found to have lied under oath or falsified records are not necessarily flagged for decertification unless criminally convicted.

Internal affairs investigations remain largely confidential. Michigan’s Public Employee Relations Act and police union contracts further limit public access and prosecutorial notification of officer misconduct. There is no statutory requirement for law enforcement to notify prosecutors when an officer is found to have credibility issues, and in many counties, such information is siloed or informally handled.

Only a few counties maintain internal “Do Not Call” or Giglio lists—most notably in Wayne County (Detroit), Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), and Ingham County (Lansing). These lists are not shared across jurisdictions and are not required to be disclosed to defense attorneys unless the officers are actively testifying in a pending case.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

There is no independent prosecutorial oversight commission in Michigan. Complaints against prosecutors are handled by the Attorney Grievance Commission, but public discipline is exceedingly rare, and there is no data on complaints related specifically to Brady violations.

Similarly, MCOLES does not coordinate with prosecutorial offices to notify them of decertified officers or those under investigation for truthfulness-related misconduct. The lack of an integrated system means that both prosecutors and defense counsel often rely on luck or leaks to uncover impeachment evidence.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Davontae Sanford (2007–2016)
   Sanford, a 14-year-old boy with cognitive disabilities, falsely confessed to a quadruple homicide. Police and prosecutors withheld a confession by the actual killer and failed to disclose that the lead detective had credibility issues. Sanford was released after nearly 9 years in prison. No officers were disciplined for the misconduct.

2. Detroit Crime Lab Scandal (2008)
   An audit revealed systemic mishandling and falsification of forensic evidence at the Detroit Crime Lab. Hundreds of convictions were called into question, but there was no prosecutorial review mechanism for tracking which officers or analysts had previously testified with tainted evidence.

3. Washtenaw County “Do Not Call” List (2021–present)
   Prosecutor Eli Savit publicly committed to tracking and disclosing officers with credibility impairments. The office maintains a Giglio list but does not share it with other counties. The effort stands out as a model of voluntary transparency in a state otherwise lacking systemic disclosure.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases expose the fragility of Michigan’s reliance on discretion rather than structure. Prosecutorial nondisclosure, combined with police secrecy, has led to wrongful convictions, suppressed evidence, and repeated violations of defendants' constitutional rights. In jurisdictions without formal lists or information-sharing mechanisms, officers with known credibility issues can testify repeatedly, undetected, across multiple cases.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Central Giglio Registry: Each county handles disclosure individually, with no statewide standard or data-sharing.

• Siloed Law Enforcement Disciplinary Systems: MCOLES and police agencies do not coordinate with prosecutors or courts regarding misconduct.

• Exemptions under FOIA: Internal affairs files are routinely shielded under public records exemptions, limiting public and defense access.

• Discretion without Accountability: Disclosure decisions are made case-by-case, often without documentation or external review.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Prosecutorial resistance to mandated disclosures, combined with law enforcement union pressure, has stalled efforts to codify Giglio policies statewide. Efforts to amend FOIA to grant broader access to sustained misconduct records have been proposed but repeatedly blocked or diluted. Michigan’s decentralized prosecutorial model also complicates attempts at uniform reform.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Establish a Statewide Brady/Giglio Tracking System
   Require all county prosecutors to track and report officers with credibility-related misconduct and share this data in a central repository coordinated by the Attorney General.

2. Mandate Reporting from Law Enforcement to Prosecutors
   Amend state law to require police departments and MCOLES to notify prosecutors of any sustained findings related to dishonesty, bias, or constitutional violations.

3. Expand Prosecutor Training on Brady/Giglio
   Integrate mandatory disclosure training into Michigan’s continuing legal education requirements for all prosecutors and trial-level attorneys.

4. Reform Discovery Rule (MCR 6.201)
   Shift to an “open file” model with mandatory affirmative disclosure of all impeachment-related evidence prior to trial.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Amend FOIA for Public Access to Sustained Misconduct
   Ensure that findings related to truthfulness, bias, and civil rights violations are not exempt from disclosure under existing public records law.

2. Empower an Independent Disclosure Oversight Commission
   Create an entity with authority to audit Brady compliance, investigate systemic failures, and report publicly on prosecutorial disclosure practices.

3. Integrate MCOLES and Prosecutorial Systems
   Require real-time coordination between officer certification bodies and prosecutorial offices to ensure timely, automatic Giglio notifications.

4. Cross-County Disclosure Mandate
   Require prosecutors to share Brady/Giglio information across jurisdictions, especially when officers move between agencies or testify in multiple counties.

Conclusion

Michigan’s legal institutions profess commitment to justice, but its structural framework for enforcing truth in the courtroom is deeply underdeveloped. Without centralized systems, mandated transparency, and independent oversight, constitutional disclosure obligations risk being honored in the breach. Recent reforms in select counties show that better practices are possible—but until they are required, not requested, candor in Michigan will remain conditional and incomplete. For justice to prevail, the state must replace informal discretion with institutional design.