Tagged: public defense

This week in Michigan politics, Christina Shockley and Jack Lessenberry discuss the possibility of improving Michigan’s public defense system, and lawsuits challenging the state’s emergency manager law and right to work law for violating Michigan’s open meetings act. They also talk about the potential for a rapid transit system in southeast Michigan.

Lawmakers hoping to change the state’s public defense system say the plan is gaining momentum, thanks to a state Court of Appeals decision.

The court this week said a class action lawsuit against three Michigan counties can go forward. The suit says the counties failed to offer adequate legal counsel to people who could not afford lawyers.

State Representative Ellen Lipton is working on legislation to overhaul the state’s public defense system.

“This, I think, will actually focus the issue, not ‘this is a legislative priority,’ but now we’ve got a Court of Appeals decision saying, ‘this is now a priority for our courts.”

The state House passed similar legislation last year, but it stalled in the Senate. Lipton says she hopes new bills will be introduced this month.

Michigan Supreme Court to consider city ban on medical marijuana

The Michigan Supreme Court will consider the legality of a zoning ordinance that prohibits the use, manufacture or cultivation of medical marijuana in the city of Wyoming.

“Justices want to know if the zoning ordinance is superseded by Michigan's 2008 voter-approved medical marijuana law,” according to the Associated Press.

Right to work lawsuit allowed to move forward

“An Ingham County judge says a lawsuit seeking to repeal the state’s new right-to-work law can proceed. The suit says the Legislature violated the Open Meetings Act when it closed the Capitol as the bills were debated,” Jake Neher reports.

Lawsuit over criminal defense system proceeds

The Michigan Court of Appeals will allow a long-running lawsuit challenging the system of appointing lawyers for poor criminal defendants to continue.  

“In a 2-1 decision released Wednesday, the court says a lower judge was okay to reject the state's contention that the case shouldn't be granted class-action status. The suit says the rights of poor people have been violated because of the paltry pay for court-appointed lawyers,” the Associated Press reports.