By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee and the Democratic attorney general on Wednesday said they have areas of agreement on issues like prosecutor pay parity with their indigent defense counterparts and on transition periods for those resentenced on juvenile life without parole cases.
It was a sign of hope for a good working relationship between Rep. Sarah Lightner (R-Springport) and Attorney General Dana Nessel, the latter of whom appeared before the committee on Wednesday to discuss her office’s legislative priorities. Nessel also gave an overview of the department’s work for new members on the committee.
Nessel said she hoped the committee will revisit legislation aimed at protecting vulnerable adults from abusive guardianship or conservatorship arrangements after they failed to reach the finish line last session. The attorney general also asked the committee to take up legislation fighting human trafficking and asked for collaboration with her office’s consumer protection work.
A lengthy back and forth commenced between Nessel, Lightner and other members of the committee on areas where the Legislature and the attorney general could work together – and with few fireworks or jabs.
Lightner first addressed prosecutor pay. Nessel in her presentation said that prosecutors’ offices were significantly understaffed and underfunded. That has, for example, affected their bandwidth to file parole appeals when the Department of Attorney General’s found some people getting paroled too soon. Nessel said her office has supplemented some of the representation for victims speaking out against early parole for perpetrators whom they still deemed dangerous.
Nessel also said that her office is now handling all appeals for counties that have fewer than 75,000 people, which is most of the counties in Michigan, because they don’t have the capacity to handle them on their own. The attorney general said that wasn’t something that was legislatively mandated, but it was important work nonetheless.
A lot of that has to do with turnover in the county prosecutors’ offices throughout the state, exacerbated by some cases where elected prosecutors have left office early.
“Sometimes they get appointed to a judicial position. Sometimes I think they’re just overwhelmed, because they have a hard time hiring staff,” Nessel said. “It’s hard to compete with the private sector, and fewer and fewer people want to be prosecutors, in part, I think, because it requires you to actually be in court, sometimes five days a week.”
The pay was also a big factor, with some prosecutors leaving county offices to become defense attorneys because the pay is better. Nessel noted that young and older attorneys could both make a great living working as indigent defense counsels.
Lightner said she was happy Nessel addressed that in her presentation because that was a legislative priority for hers.
“I do believe Michigan Indigent Defense Counsel does need some changes, but I also believe that prosecutors handle obviously all cases, not just the select few with indigent,” Lightner said. “There needs to be some parity there, so we have safe communities and (to ensure) our clearance rates are good.”
Nessel noted that there were likely many cases to be reviewed again for resentencing given the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Taylor and People v. Czarnecki (MSC Docket Nos. 166428; 166654). The court held that subjecting 19- and 20-year-old criminal defendants to mandatory life without parole sentences represents cruel and unusual punishment and thus violates the Michigan Constitution.
The attorney general said she was hopeful the Legislature would consider additional funding for the prosecutor’s offices that are going to be handling those within a given 180-day time frame, adding that the period was extremely small window to do a lot of important work in.
“Forget the fact that it’s just excruciating to be a member of a family where you had a loved one that was murdered, and now to have to revisit the whole thing 10. 20 or 30 years later,” Nessel said. “It’s so much work.”
Lightner also said that was something she was working on. That said, there were important issues to consider before handing over the money.
Lightner said there needed to be some accompanying legislation with the process of resentencing those cases. She said a transition period should occur before a juvenile life without parole defendant who is resentenced on a heinous crime but then either given a clearer pathway to parole or if they walk free altogether.
Speaking on a case that affected a close friend of hers and the Supreme Court’s decision overall, Lightner said she was disappointed in the justice system because an automatic life without parole sentence does not occur lightly.
That bore out another point of agreement between Lightner and Nessel, as the attorney general mentioned that the state has to grapple with the fact that some of these individuals will likely be released from prison without an adequate number of parole officers to track them.
Lightner said there has to be a transitional process if people with life without parole sentences are immediately released upon resentencing or review. Nessel agreed but countered that those individuals were likely set up to fail without oversight or services to ensure they don’t recommit another crime.
Another piece of common ground was found in an unlikely arena between Lightner and Nessel: Her lawsuits against the federal government and President Donald Trump, namely in Nessel’s fight to get federal dollars already appropriated to states flowing again.
Nessel said her lawsuits have not come from a place of whether she agrees or disagrees with Trump’s policies, but whether they follow the law, and if there is a concrete legal injury to the state in the process.
“We are talking about not millions, but billions of dollars, potentially in money that is owed to the state of Michigan,” Nessel said. “Over $30 billion that Michigan residents pay to the federal government every single year, we get it back in the form of these programs and grants. We just want the federal government … to keep their commitments to give us the money that we’re owed.”
Although Lightner limited how much Nessel could address the lawsuits on a question from Rep. Helena Scott (D-Detroit), she did say she appreciated Nessel fighting for every dollar she could.
Gongwer News Service
The Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee and the Democratic attorney general on Wednesday said they have areas of agreement on issues like prosecutor pay parity with their indigent defense counterparts and on transition periods for those resentenced on juvenile life without parole cases.
It was a sign of hope for a good working relationship between Rep. Sarah Lightner (R-Springport) and Attorney General Dana Nessel, the latter of whom appeared before the committee on Wednesday to discuss her office’s legislative priorities. Nessel also gave an overview of the department’s work for new members on the committee.
Nessel said she hoped the committee will revisit legislation aimed at protecting vulnerable adults from abusive guardianship or conservatorship arrangements after they failed to reach the finish line last session. The attorney general also asked the committee to take up legislation fighting human trafficking and asked for collaboration with her office’s consumer protection work.
A lengthy back and forth commenced between Nessel, Lightner and other members of the committee on areas where the Legislature and the attorney general could work together – and with few fireworks or jabs.
Lightner first addressed prosecutor pay. Nessel in her presentation said that prosecutors’ offices were significantly understaffed and underfunded. That has, for example, affected their bandwidth to file parole appeals when the Department of Attorney General’s found some people getting paroled too soon. Nessel said her office has supplemented some of the representation for victims speaking out against early parole for perpetrators whom they still deemed dangerous.
Nessel also said that her office is now handling all appeals for counties that have fewer than 75,000 people, which is most of the counties in Michigan, because they don’t have the capacity to handle them on their own. The attorney general said that wasn’t something that was legislatively mandated, but it was important work nonetheless.
A lot of that has to do with turnover in the county prosecutors’ offices throughout the state, exacerbated by some cases where elected prosecutors have left office early.
“Sometimes they get appointed to a judicial position. Sometimes I think they’re just overwhelmed, because they have a hard time hiring staff,” Nessel said. “It’s hard to compete with the private sector, and fewer and fewer people want to be prosecutors, in part, I think, because it requires you to actually be in court, sometimes five days a week.”
The pay was also a big factor, with some prosecutors leaving county offices to become defense attorneys because the pay is better. Nessel noted that young and older attorneys could both make a great living working as indigent defense counsels.
Lightner said she was happy Nessel addressed that in her presentation because that was a legislative priority for hers.
“I do believe Michigan Indigent Defense Counsel does need some changes, but I also believe that prosecutors handle obviously all cases, not just the select few with indigent,” Lightner said. “There needs to be some parity there, so we have safe communities and (to ensure) our clearance rates are good.”
Nessel noted that there were likely many cases to be reviewed again for resentencing given the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Taylor and People v. Czarnecki (MSC Docket Nos. 166428; 166654). The court held that subjecting 19- and 20-year-old criminal defendants to mandatory life without parole sentences represents cruel and unusual punishment and thus violates the Michigan Constitution.
The attorney general said she was hopeful the Legislature would consider additional funding for the prosecutor’s offices that are going to be handling those within a given 180-day time frame, adding that the period was extremely small window to do a lot of important work in.
“Forget the fact that it’s just excruciating to be a member of a family where you had a loved one that was murdered, and now to have to revisit the whole thing 10. 20 or 30 years later,” Nessel said. “It’s so much work.”
Lightner also said that was something she was working on. That said, there were important issues to consider before handing over the money.
Lightner said there needed to be some accompanying legislation with the process of resentencing those cases. She said a transition period should occur before a juvenile life without parole defendant who is resentenced on a heinous crime but then either given a clearer pathway to parole or if they walk free altogether.
Speaking on a case that affected a close friend of hers and the Supreme Court’s decision overall, Lightner said she was disappointed in the justice system because an automatic life without parole sentence does not occur lightly.
That bore out another point of agreement between Lightner and Nessel, as the attorney general mentioned that the state has to grapple with the fact that some of these individuals will likely be released from prison without an adequate number of parole officers to track them.
Lightner said there has to be a transitional process if people with life without parole sentences are immediately released upon resentencing or review. Nessel agreed but countered that those individuals were likely set up to fail without oversight or services to ensure they don’t recommit another crime.
Another piece of common ground was found in an unlikely arena between Lightner and Nessel: Her lawsuits against the federal government and President Donald Trump, namely in Nessel’s fight to get federal dollars already appropriated to states flowing again.
Nessel said her lawsuits have not come from a place of whether she agrees or disagrees with Trump’s policies, but whether they follow the law, and if there is a concrete legal injury to the state in the process.
“We are talking about not millions, but billions of dollars, potentially in money that is owed to the state of Michigan,” Nessel said. “Over $30 billion that Michigan residents pay to the federal government every single year, we get it back in the form of these programs and grants. We just want the federal government … to keep their commitments to give us the money that we’re owed.”
Although Lightner limited how much Nessel could address the lawsuits on a question from Rep. Helena Scott (D-Detroit), she did say she appreciated Nessel fighting for every dollar she could.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
