Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office has been ordered to release records it previously withheld and may have to pay a journalist’s legal fees after denying a Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Independent journalist Eric VanDussen filed the FOIA request last September, seeking all exhibits entered into evidence during preliminary examinations in Antrim and Jackson counties for eight defendants charged in connection with a plot to abduct Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, along with exhibit lists. However, Nessel’s office denied the request, citing FOIA exemptions related to law enforcement proceedings, fair trial rights, and personal privacy.
In response, VanDussen sued the attorney general, arguing that the exemptions did not apply in this case. Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Robert Redford agreed with VanDussen in a 13-page ruling released on Wednesday. Redford ordered Nessel to release the exhibits, stating that they were presented in open court during public hearings and trials, and no measures were taken to limit public access to them. He also granted “summary disposition” to VanDussen, meaning the ruling was made in the journalist’s favor without the need for a trial.
Redford called for briefs from both parties on whether VanDussen should be awarded attorney fees. VanDussen plans to request at least $20,000 in attorney fees and court costs. Nessel’s office has not yet responded to the ruling or indicated whether they will appeal the case.
The judge highlighted Nessel’s previous championing of FOIA and government transparency in public statements. However, he noted that she has also sought secrecy in other high-profile cases. Nessel’s office abandoned its arguments related to the privacy exemption during the hearing, and Redford emphasized that VanDussen was only seeking the exhibits, not the underlying investigative materials. Once presented in court, the exhibits serve the purpose of “adjudication” and are essential for a defendant’s due process and fair trial.
The attorney general’s office expressed concerns that releasing the exhibits could lead to additional media coverage that might impact jurors. However, Redford questioned how viewing exhibits introduced in court would affect jurors any differently than any other media coverage.
The ruling signifies a victory for transparency and the public’s right to access information related to criminal proceedings. It sets a precedent that exhibits presented in open court should be made available to the public unless there are specific reasons to withhold them.
As the case progresses, the question of attorney fees will be further examined. VanDussen is seeking reimbursement for his legal expenses, which could amount to a significant sum.
For now, Nessel’s office must comply with the court’s order and release the exhibits as requested by VanDussen. The outcome of this case reinforces the importance of upholding the principles of transparency and accountability in the justice system.
Original Story at www.freep.com – 2023-08-09 20:47:25
Comments are closed.