Columns

A judge has vacated the double murder conviction and sentence of Michigan Innocence Clinic (MIC) client LaVone Hill, providing him the relief he has been seeking for more than 22 years.
Hill was convicted in 2002—in part due to the police corruption—of two murders he did not commit.

By Michigan Law

A judge has vacated the double murder conviction and sentence of Michigan Innocence Clinic (MIC) client LaVone Hill, providing him the relief he has been seeking for more than 22 years.
Hill was convicted in 2002—in part due to the police corruption—of two murders he did not commit. Wayne County Judge Patricia Fresard dismissed the charges on October 23 following an investigation by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Conviction Integrity Unit.

The prosecutor’s office has said that it will not retry Hill.

“For almost 23 years, I’ve had to live with the reality of the nightmare that I may die in prison, an innocent man, based on misconduct and corruption in the Detroit Police Department, namely Sergeant Walter Bates,” Hill said.

“I am happy today to be a free man, but so sad for all of the innocent men I am leaving in prison behind me. I am also very sad that the families of the victims lost their loved ones and were lied to about me being the guy who killed them.”

Hill is the 44th wrongfully convicted person who has been freed by the work of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, housed at the University of Michigan Law School.

Michigan Innocence Clinic Co-Director Jenna Cobb said, “We thank the Wayne County Conviction Integrity Unit for recognizing this awful injustice and agreeing to release Mr. Hill after more than 22 years of wrongful incarceration for a murder that he did not commit.

“This is a remarkable case involving a recanting witness, extreme instances of witness coercion by police, other witnesses who later confirmed that Mr. Hill was not present on the night of the shooting, and an apology from the true perpetrator. While Mr. Hill will never get back the many years he lost in prison, today we join Mr. Hill in celebrating his release and looking forward to the impact he will make outside of prison walls.”

A false statement and a life sentence

On September 8, 2001, two people were shot and killed following a dice game in Detroit.

A few nights later, police picked up a supposed witness to the shooting on unrelated drug charges. The witness—who could neither read nor write proficiently—was detained for seven days, during which Sergeant Walter Bates of the Detroit Police Department wrote a false statement for him to sign. The false statement said that the witness saw Hill shoot the victims with a handgun while walking down the street.

No other witness ever implicated LaVone Hill in the crime.

During the 2002 trial, the witness recanted his false statement implicating Hill. He testified that Hill had not been present on the night of the shooting and that Bates had coerced his false statement. Bates testified that he had not.

On September 6, 2002, Hill was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

New evidence led to vacated decision

The decision to vacate Hill’s convictions comes after the discovery of several pieces of new evidence by Hill’s attorneys at the Michigan Innocence Clinic, including:

• Two independent witnesses who had been present the night of the shooting swore that Hill had not been present at the dice game where the shooting took place.

• New ballistics evidence confirmed that a high-powered rifle was used in the killings rather than a handgun, as stated in the prior witness’s recanted statement.

• The son of one of the victims of the crime said that another man had confessed to killing his father.

• New evidence also showed that Bates was suspended from the police force multiple times during Hill’s case—including while he testified in the case, a fact that was not disclosed to either the defense or the jury at the time of trial.

Moreover, Bates, who had amassed significant gambling debt, was using his experience in the Detroit Police Department to mastermind a string of bank robberies while this case was pending. Bates was later convicted of bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery.

The recent proceeding resulted in Hill’s immediate release from state custody in Muskegon, where his family, friends, and MIC advocates excitedly greeted him.

The Michigan Innocence Clinic is the first non-DNA innocence clinic in the country. In its 15-year history, the MIC has achieved 44 victories on behalf of its wrongfully convicted clients. MIC exonerees have served anywhere from a few months to 46 years in prison.

Bob Woodward, Wash-ington Post associate editor, journalistic hustler, and huckster is back.
This time with a book titled “War,” in which he claims Donald Trump, after leaving the White House, called Vladimir Putin seven times and sent him COVID kits which would protect the Russian leader.

Bob Woodward, Wash-ington Post associate editor, journalistic hustler, and huckster is back.

This time with a book titled “War,” in which he claims Donald Trump, after leaving the White House, called Vladimir Putin seven times and sent him COVID kits which would protect the Russian leader.

As usual, Woodward uses anonymous sources, except this time he mentions only one source and admits, according to The New York Times, he could not confirm the information with anyone else.

The Times stated 20 members of the career intelligence community as well as President Biden and former Trump administration officials had no knowledge of any contacts between Trump and Putin.

In the book, as he always does, Woodward uses direct quotes to report on controversial issues when no official transcripts are available. He has never explained this violation of journalistic ethics.

At one point, when President Biden’s son, Hunter, came into the room and chatted with his father, the President just “leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes and sighed.”  We can assume Woodward uncovered this information from a secret vault in the White House.

The book also “reveals” profane-laced statements made by Biden when discussing Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Net-nyahu. At one point, we are told, he called Netanyahu a “f---- liar.”
We will have to take Woodward at his word.

This book follows one called “Peril” (co-authored with Robert Costa) in which Woodward states Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called his counterpart in China, General Le Zuocheng, to assure him that he (Milley) would alert him if the U.S. planned to attack China.

Before I go on, is there anyone reading this who believes that the highest-ranking U.S. military official who spent 40 years in the military, would undermine the president and the country by providing such a warning and vital secret information of a surprise attack to an arch-enemy?

I did not think so. Indeed, when asked during a congressional hearing if he would do that, Milley responded under oath, “Of course, I wouldn’t,” adding, “My oath is to support the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Woodward also tell us that despite Milley’s assurances, General Li “remained unusually rattled.” Since no source is cited, we must assume that Woodward was sitting in Li’s office in China when Milley made the call.

Throughout the years, Woodward has violated journalistic ethics, not only with his use of anonymous sources or direct quotes that cannot be proven, but also he frequently reported on what officials were “thinking” in meetings they attended decades earlier. At night, I cannot even remember what I “thought” at breakfast.

But I must give Woodward credit for being shrewd in convincing officials to talk to him off-the-record. His sources understand if they answer his questions, they will not have to worry about being implicated in the subjects Woodward explores because he cannot divulge their identities. Woodward cannot criticize his sources even if they are responsible for the very crises Woodward investigates. They have protection.

Woodward knows all that and he exploits this relationship expertly.

In one case, Woodward did reveal a source. In 1985, he said that the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart was his primary source for his book, “The Brethren,” which dealt with the court.

Woodward did so after Stewart died, when the man could not defend himself.  Not only did Woodward violate the ethic of keeping sources secret -- you never reveal sources -- but his revelation can only be described as ugly, mean-spirited and self-serving. How does one point a finger at a man after his death?  What does that say about character?
Woodward’s career has been rampant with his questionable reporting.

Let’s review another major case involving Woodward’s book, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987.”

In the book, published in 1987, Woodward claimed that the late CIA Director William Casey confessed to him about illegal arms sales to Iran in what was called the Iran-Contra scandal.

Casey, at the time, was in the hospital, paralyzed and gravely ill following brain surgery, but Woodward claimed he managed to visit Casey in his hospital room despite strict security.

“You knew, didn’t you?” Woodward wrote, inquiring whether Casey was aware that funds from the sale of arms to Iran were being diverted to the Nicaraguan contras.

“His head jerked up hard,” Woodward wrote. “He stared, and finally nodded yes.”

“Why?” Woodward said he asked.  Casey replied faintly, “I believed.”

Casey’s family and intelligence officials all said it was impossible for Woodward to have avoided security to gain access into Casey’s hospital room.

At the time, Time Magazine observed: “It was a perfect ending for Woodward’s dramatic spy saga. Too perfect in the view of some…In familiar Woodward style, ‘Veil’ reads as much like a novel as a work of journalism, with scenes, dialogue and characters’ thoughts re-created. Woodward says he talked to more than 250 people, but his revelations are not directly attributed to specific sources.”

When Woodward’s boss, the late Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, spoke at the Detroit Press Club years ago, I asked him how Woodward gets away with his “journalistic compromises.”

Bradlee admitted, “He [Woodward] takes some liberties.”

The major question is: How did Woodward become such a hero in journalism? Newsweek Magazine, in examining Woodward’s work, asked that question in a 2013 article headlined: “The Myth of Bob Woodward: Why Is this Man an American Icon?”

No one in the business has ever answered that.

(Full disclosure: I have not read “War.” I don’t read much fiction. This column is based on news stories discussing the book’s release).

But I must confess that I am indebted to Woodward. When I was still teaching at Wayne State University, he provided me with lots of material for my classes on ethics in journalism.

Auto accident victims continue to feel the devastating impact of the 2019 Automobile No-Fault Reform Act (“Reform Act”). While “fee schedules,” caps on medical expenses, and limitations on home attendant care have caused problems for injured motorists and health care providers, the “option menu” drivers are given when applying for auto insurance has left many people with either limited access to medical care or none at all.

Auto accident victims continue to feel the devastating impact of the 2019 Automobile No-Fault Reform Act (“Reform Act”). While “fee schedules,” caps on medical expenses, and limitations on home attendant care have caused problems for injured motorists and health care providers, the “option menu” drivers are given when applying for auto insurance has left many people with either limited access to medical care or none at all.

Today, Michigan auto policy applications contain an option for drivers to exclude family members in their home from Personal Injury Protection (PIP) medical expense coverage, including attendant care benefits. Under the not-so-new law, drivers may elect to waive or reduce their medical coverage in consideration for a reduced premium payment. However, while the selection may be a personal choice for the named insured on the policy, the impact on other persons in their home, including, a driver’s spouse, can be devastating. The amended provisions of the Reform Act allow an “applicant or named insured” to decline medical expense coverage if they are Medicare eligible, or select minimum medical coverage under the policy if they (and every family member of their home) are covered by a qualified health care (QHC) plan. To make this election, the applicant must simply “certify” that all family members living with them are covered under a qualified health insurance plan.

However, there is nothing in the Reform Act that requires the applicant or named insured to produce a copy of the qualified health plan, declaration page or other proof that health care coverage exists when selecting the lower coverage limit and excluding family members from medical coverage under the policy.

Nor does the law require certification or proof from the spouse or resident relatives that they are covered under a qualified plan. What is most concerning is that the applicant or named insured may exclude their spouse or resident relatives without their knowledge or consent.

While the legislature certainly did not foresee this problem when it hastily passed the Reform Act, the Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS) has issued guidelines in an effort to prevent insurance companies from blindly ripping away coverage to family members who do not have a policy of their own.

The DIFS bulletin states, “If an applicant or named insured has made an ‘effective selection’ under MCL 500.3107c (1)(b) ($250k of coverage), but seeks an exclusion under MCL 500.3109a(2) for any or all eligible household members and then fails to provide the requisite proof of QHC for any or all household members to qualify for the exclusion, the insurer must issue a policy with $250,000 in PIP medical benefits for any or all household members that fail to provide the requisite proof of QHC; and must offer the exclusion to any or all household members that provide proof of QHC.” Of course, not all Michigan auto insurance companies make this a requirement for a driver to obtain coverage. Therein lies the problem.

The danger of allowing a named insured to exclude resident relatives from PIP medical coverage without proof that they are covered under a qualified health care plan is self-evident. An example of the devastating medical and economic impact of allowing insurance companies to issue policies excluding resident family members is ever present in the event of a pedestrian motor vehicle accident whereby an excluded family member sustains serious injury. While courts have recognized an insured’s limited right to elect bodily injury coverage limits under the default minimum where the insured does not “waive, release or compromise a claim or defense” belonging to a minor (See Clark v State Farm Mut Auto Insurance, 2022 U.S. Dist LEXIS 233476), it has not weighed in on the exclusion of a spouse or resident family member from PIP medical expense coverage.

Forecasting how the Michigan courts will address what appears to be a growing issue in prevalence, stare decisis suggests that the DIFS “model” will be treated like a bulletin. In cases where DIFS has provided clear direction on insurance law and regulation, courts — while acknowledging they are not required to follow them — have regarded the bulletins as persuasive authority. From a public policy standpoint, it seems counterintuitive to allow innocent third party beneficiaries of the no fault system to suffer the consequences of losing insurance coverage simply because a named insured either mistakenly believed them to be covered under a qualified health plan or fraudulently certified coverage when none exists. The purpose and intent of the Michigan “no fault” system is precisely as the name suggests, to protect victims of automobile accidents from the insufferable pain and expenses that grow out of an accident. Offering reduced premiums to drivers in exchange for excluding family members from the policy without proof they are covered by a qualified health plan is bad for families and should be addressed by state law makers or corrected by the courts.
––––––
A.Vince Colella is a founding partner of personal injury and civil rights law firm Moss & Colella. 

At about 6:35 p.m. (EDT) on September 20, 2024, the State of South Carolina plunged an IV into the veins of Khalil Divine Black Sun Allah, known as Freddie Owens, and injected the deadly drug pentobarbital into his veins. Within minutes he was dead.

At about 6:35 p.m. (EDT) on September 20, 2024, the State of South Carolina plunged an IV into the veins of Khalil Divine Black Sun Allah, known as Freddie Owens, and injected the deadly drug pentobarbital into his veins. Within minutes he was dead.

Four days later, the State of Missouri injected five grams of the same drug into the bloodstream of Marcellus “Khaliifah” Williams. He was dead in minutes as well.

Owens, 46, and Williams, 55, had three other things in common: Both had been convicted of murder, both might very well have been innocent, and, in both cases, the appellate powers to be, including the U.S. Supreme Court, rejected pleas to stay the executions to permit investigations into new evidence.

Thus, works our “justice” system.

Let’s look at Owens first.

Owens was convicted of killing a Speedway gas station clerk, Irene Graves, a 41-year-old single mother of three, during a string of robberies by two masked men on Halloween night in 1997.

Owens, then only 19, allegedly fired a single shot to Graves’s head, killing her because she couldn’t open the safe. The two robbers escaped with $37.29 from the cash register.

Prosecutors had no forensic evidence implicating Owens and surveillance footage showed two masked men but they were not identifiable. The only evidence against Owens came from Owens’ accomplice and co-defendant, Steven Golden, who testified that Owens fired the fatal shot.

Not revealed to the jury during the trial was that Golden had a secret deal with prosecutors that he would not face the death penalty if he testified against Owens.

But two days before the execution, Golden made public a signed affidavit in which he said that Owens was innocent. He wrote:

“I’m coming forward now because I know Freddie’s execution date is September 20 and I don’t want Freddie to be executed for something he didn’t do. This has weighed heavily on my mind and I want to have a clear conscience.”  

Golden added that Owens was not even in the store at the time of the murder/robbery.

Goden said he was high when police questioned him and was pressured to point the finger at Owens.

“I substituted [Owens] for the person who was really with me,” Golden said, concealing the identity of the real murderer because he feared his associates “might kill me.” He still did not want to name the shooter out of fear of retaliation.

The governor, Henry McMaster, prosecutors and appeals courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court (with Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting), rejected last minute appeals to save his life, stating that despite new evidence, they were all convinced other evidence proved Owens guilty. They stated there was “nothing exceptional” -- the legal standard to approve a stay of execution -- about his case.

Now, to Williams.

Williams was convicted of killing Felicia Gayle, a former reporter for The St. Louis Post-Dispatch on August 11, 1998.

Citing problems with jury selection (possible racism), ineffective defense representation, DNA which did not match forensic evidence, the St. Louis prosecutor --- please read “prosecutor” --- called for overturning the conviction. That office was joined by relatives of the victim as well as jurors who found Williams guilty. All called for giving Williams a life sentence so further investigations could be conducted.

Again, like in the Owens case, the U.S. Supreme Court, a few hours before the execution, denied Williams’ appeal.  This time Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Elena Kagan and Kentanji Brown Jackson.

Here is the major point:

What possible negative consequences could result if the courts had issued stays and permitted investigations to continue in these cases?

At the worst, the executions would be delayed by a few months and, at best, innocent lives might have been spared.  

(I am not arguing the case for or against capital punishment, although, in the interest of full disclosure, I am opposed to it.)

These cases remind me of the institutional obstinacy of the legal profession in another injustice which I worked on intensely.

I wrote a book about Alton Logan, an African-American Chicago man, who did 26-½ years in prison for a murder he did not commit. After finding Logan guilty, the 12-member jury had to consider the death penalty but its vote had to be unanimous. It voted 10-2 to put Logan to death. Two votes saved him from death row.

The issue: Four attorneys knew from the start that Logan was innocent because their client committed the murder. He confessed to them.  

Not wanting to violate the “ethical” code of lawyer-client confidentiality, the attorneys wrote an affidavit that Logan was innocent, locked it in a strong box for more than 26 years, but came forward after their client died in prison where he was serving time for two other murders. After several court hearings, all charges against Logan were dropped and he was released.

In a sense, Logan was “lucky.” Another man, Lee Wayne Hunt, in North Carolina, was imprisoned under similar circumstances -- for a double murder he did not commit. When the real murderer died, his lawyer voluntarily went to court and testified that Hunt was innocent. Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Jack A. Thompson not only would not accept the testimony but reported the attorney to the bar for violating lawyer-client confidentiality.

I called Judge Thompson several times to interview him, but he did not return my phone calls. I understood that perfectly. Under the circumstances, I would not have talked to me either.
I was just starting the process of writing a book on Hunt when his lawyers contacted me with the news that he had died in prison after serving 30 years. Justice!

I find the callous reasoning on this issue unconscionable. We can’t let an innocent person knowingly -- the key word being “knowingly” -- rot in prison when the guilty party has been identified. It is bad enough to make mistakes and cause unbelievable and condemnable injustices -- and these numbers are in the thousands. I was told by experts during my research on the book that between 10,000 and 30,000 innocent people were serving prison sentences. Or consider: At least 200 people sentenced to death since 1973 were later exonerated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

I started a one-person campaign to change the legal ethic on this issue. Over several years, I contacted bar associations, legal committees, judges, legal grievance committees, even the Michigan Supreme Court which, I was told, debated my petition “robustly” but decided to do nothing. The justices are obviously comfortable with letting the innocent languish in prison.

My point is that the code can be changed -- and changed very easily -- without compromising lawyer-client confidentiality. Logan and I make recommendations in the book which would eliminate the risks of letting the guilty go free without punishing the innocent.

Now, I understand the symbolism of having Lady Justice with a blindfold. But perhaps we ought to remove it to let her see what the hell is going on in our so-called justice system.
–––––––
Berl Falbaum is the author of “Justice Failed: How ‘Legal Ethics’ Kept Me in Prison for 26 Years.”

Professor Sherman Clark knows the power of arguing well and the risks of arguing poorly.

By Bob Needham
Michigan Law

Professor Sherman Clark knows the power of arguing well and the risks of arguing poorly.

Clark recently introduced a six-episode video series, Arguably Better, which explores “empathy, efficacy, and ethics in argumentation.” In the series, he discusses how we might argue more persuasively while also being thoughtful about the implications and impact of our arguments.

Clark—the Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law—recently answered five questions about the series.

1. What prompted you to create Arguably Better?

Persuasion is one of the central themes in my research and teaching. By persuasion, I mean not just argument narrowly, but all forms of coming to terms.

One reason I did this series is that persuasion is central to our profession. We’re constantly trying to come to terms with someone—a jury, a judge, constituents, a person with whom we are negotiating. So persuasion is ubiquitous as a professional capacity. I also think it’s a valuable human individual skill and a valuable civic or public capacity.

So as lawyers, in our individual lives and in our public lives as citizens, persuasion is an important skill.

The second reason is that we don’t do it well. We often fail to persuade and come to terms, and that has big costs to our professional work and to our public life. Over the years, I have been reading and studying and thinking about persuasion, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to express some of these themes in this context.

2. How do you describe what the series is about?

It is about why persuasion is so difficult, how we might get better at it, and what sort of ethical considerations ought to attend our getting better at it. If we’re going to get better, we ought to be doing it ethically as well as effectively.

One of the key insights will not strike experienced lawyers as surprising at all. It is simply that we must put ourselves in the shoes of those we try to reach, to see things from their perspective. That’s a starting point for my teaching and my research and for this series, but it turns out to be much harder than it seems.

We all know at some level that we should put ourselves in the shoes of others, but we rarely do. Instead, we seem to be trying to score points or look clever or get likes on social media.
In this series, I explore how we might get better at that—how we might put that seemingly straightforward insight to work in actually reaching people.

3. Persuasion can be seen as getting someone to do something that they really don’t want to do. What is the role of ethics in persuasion?

My emphasis is on thriving rather than moral judgment. I want to think about what is good for us as human beings. So when in this series I talk about the ethics of argument, I don’t so much talk about what you should do morally or what kind of arguments are right or wrong. Instead, I talk about what approach to arguing might be good—for both the arguer and the person with whom we are arguing.

“Empathetic engagement” is the term I used for the very familiar idea of putting yourself into the shoes of another. In one episode, I talk about why that’s good for those who do it. The thumbnail version is that seeing the world from the perspective of others helps us see the world better, and seeing the world better helps us navigate it better. The bottom line is, if you’re interested in thriving and figuring out how to live your own life, the capacity for empathetic engagement with other people is a very valuable way to grow and learn.

4. You spend some time in the series discussing what not to do when arguing. What’s an example of a pitfall to avoid?

In episodes four and five, I talk about the fact that if we appeal to something that is not good for the other party, that may be problematic.

The key concern is that we nurture what we appeal to. For example, if I engage with you empathetically and I recognize that you are very fearful, I can appeal to that and nurture that in order to persuade you to vote for me or buy a gun or whatever I’m trying to do. The ethical consideration suggests we should think about what we’re appealing to because we may be nurturing it.

5. The last episode develops the idea of “arguments that heal”—that persuasion can be a true win-win. What is the genesis of that idea?

That’s where I talk about my grandfather and my father and other folks I’ve seen who have the capacity to persuade in ways that nurture good things, the better angels of our nature.
Sometimes if we look at a person with the right attitude, we can find things to appeal to that might help us persuade.

It’s my hope that if we get good at persuasion, which is good for us, then maybe we can figure out how to argue in ways that are also good for those we are persuading—and for our whole community.

Watch Arguably Better on Youtube

Family law requires a lot of patience, both for attorneys and clients. Knowing when and where you can file and how long the process takes keeps it moving smoothly.

By Marie E. Matyjaszek

Family law requires a lot of patience, both for attorneys and clients. Knowing when and where you can file and how long the process takes keeps it moving smoothly.

To file for divorce in Michigan, a party must have resided in Michigan for 180 days and in the county of filing for 10 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint (see MCL 552.9). The only exception to the 10-day requirement is if all of the following apply: “the defendant was born in, or is a citizen of, a country other than the United States of America,” the parties have a child together, and “there is information that would allow the court to reasonably conclude that the minor child or children are at risk of being taken out of the United States of America and retained in another country by the defendant.”

For most people, there’s no residency issue as they’ve lived in Michigan for years. However, I have seen people file in a county other than where either one resides, which is problematic unless all the above exceptions are met (spoiler alert: they usually aren’t). It is exceptionally depressing to tell parties they must start all over again in the correct county and pay more filing fees.

If the divorce is filed properly, 60 days is the bare minimum amount of time from start to finish (see MCL 552.9f). Naturally there are exceptions – if the cause for divorce is desertion, or “when the testimony is taken conditionally for the purpose of perpetuating such testimony.” Gotta love that lawyer lingo.

If you have kiddos, your minimum time frame is extended to 6 months, which is where patience comes in handy. Most divorcing couples want it over and done with ASAP, and 6 months can seem like a lifetime. However, if the divorce is contested, you can easily surpass the 6-month mark, with or without children.

I’ve already addressed two exceptions in this article, and you guessed it, there is a third – an exception to the 6-month rule! If you can show the court that you have “unusual hardship” or “compelling necessity,” you can accelerate your divorce finalization time to 60 days. Depending on how stringent your judge is, this may not be an easy task. Examples of “unusual hardship” are one party leaving for active military duty, bankruptcy filing, refinancing, or other financial concerns. While it may be true, telling the judge “I’m over it” doesn’t usually work.

Most people want their divorce finalized in record time, but it’s important to understand the minimum legal timelines to stay grounded in reality. A lot of planning and time went into your wedding – expect the same for your divorce.

The author is a Judicial Attorney at the Washtenaw County Trial Court; however, the views expressed in this column are her own.