The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an interesting published opinion about two siblings charged with truancy, their right to counsel, and whether they waived that right in the trial court.
Court of Appeals Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher wrote the lead opinion. She also penned a separate concurring opinion. Judge Thomas Cameron also wrote a concurring opinion.
I prompted ChatGPT to summarize it in the voice of SCOTUSblog. Because ChatGPT has size limitations, I had to break the request into four submissions (2 for the opinion, 1 for the Gleicher concurrence, and 1 for the Cameron concurrence).
How I prepared the text
I converted the original .pdf files to .docx.
I created a new .docx file where I would later paste and “clean up” the formatting. In this process, block quote formatting is lost. Page breaks need to be cleaned up. And I moved the bottom of the page footnotes to immediately below the paragraph where they are referenced.
ChatGPT prompts
Prompt #1: Summarize this Michigan Court of Appeals court opinion authored by Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher in the voice of SCOTUSblog. I will give you the first part of the opinion. [pasted the introduction and section 1 (the 5+ page factual background, 2,233 words)]
Prompt #2: Next summarize the second part of that same Michigan Court of Appeals opinion in the voice of SCOTUSblog: [pasted section 2 (the opinion’s 4-page analysis 2,141 words)]
Prompt #3: Next summarize Michigan Court of Appeals Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher’s separate concurring opinion in the voice of SCOTUSblog: [pasted the text of her 4+ page concurrence (1,545 words)]
Prompt #4: Now summarize Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Cameron’s separate concurring opinion in the voice of SCOTUSblog: [pasted the text of his 3+ page concurrence (1,202 words)]
ChatGPT’s summary responses
Prompt #1: Summarize this Michigan Court of Appeals court opinion authored by Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher in the voice of SCOTUSblog. I will give you the first part of the opinion. [pasted the introduction and section 1 (the 5+ page factual background, 2,233 words)]
The Michigan Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher, has ruled that children prosecuted for truancy have a right to counsel, which may be waived only if the child unequivocally chooses self-representation after being found capable and competent to proceed. In this case, two siblings were accused of truancy and had an attorney appointed for them. However, the court found that the children waived their right to counsel, despite not requesting self-representation, and without determining whether they understood the consequences of their decision. The trial court’s decision to accept the waiver and its failure to determine the children’s capability and capacity to represent themselves were found to be a violation of the children’s right to counsel, and the Court of Appeals vacated the orders of disposition and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Prompt #2: Next summarize the second part of that same Michigan Court of Appeals opinion in the voice of SCOTUSblog: [pasted section 2 (the opinion’s 4-page analysis 2,141 words)]
In this part of the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the court discusses the arguments made by the children represented by the Juvenile Justice Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School, who challenge the trial court’s ruling that they represent themselves and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their truancy adjudications. The court finds that the arguments related to counsel are dispositive, and although the trial court failed to make the necessary findings regarding truancy on the record, the evidence supports that the children were truant. However, the prosecution’s evidence was unchallenged by the respondents. On remand, the prosecution will be required to prove truancy beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court must find on the record that “the juvenile, the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian, and school officials or learning program personnel have met on the juvenile’s educational problems.” The court also discusses the landmark case of In re Gault, which held that in a delinquency proceeding, a juvenile needs counsel, and the child and their parents must be notified of the child’s right to be represented by counsel retained by them, or if they are unable to afford counsel, that counsel will be appointed to represent the child. The court notes that this prosecution is based on alleged truancy, not delinquency, as that term was used in Gault. Truancy is sometimes referred to as a “status offense” and has been described as a noncriminal behavior that would not be a crime if committed by an adult. The court notes that Michigan children adjudicated guilty of truancy are potentially subject to a loss of their liberty, but only when a court is convinced that either the child or society would face a risk of harm with home placement. The court does not decide whether counsel must be appointed for children facing truancy adjudications but suggests that the appointment of counsel may be required for those whose parents cannot afford to retain counsel when a child’s liberty is at stake.
Prompt #3: Next summarize Michigan Court of Appeals Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher’s separate concurring opinion in the voice of SCOTUSblog: [pasted the text of her 4+ page concurrence (1,545 words)]
Michigan Court of Appeals Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher wrote a separate concurring opinion on the case of two children who were prosecuted for truancy. She argues that children who risk losing their liberty have a constitutional right to counsel under the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions, citing In re Gault, a Supreme Court case which held that a child accused of “delinquency” needs the assistance of counsel to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, and to prepare and submit a defense. Gleicher argues that truancy proceedings can potentially subject a child to the loss of their liberty and should, therefore, be considered just as serious as a felony prosecution. Even when a child is not at risk of losing their liberty, there may be serious and long-lasting collateral consequences of an adjudication for a status offense, such as truancy. Gleicher believes that a lawyer’s guidance may help a child and their family avoid escalating punishments, instead directing them toward more holistic solutions to truancy. She notes that MCL 712A.17c provides for the appointment of counsel in proceedings brought under MCL 712A.2(a) or (d) but argues that these statutes require further examination.
Prompt #4: Now summarize Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Cameron’s separate concurring opinion in the voice of SCOTUSblog: [pasted the text of his 3+ page concurrence (1,202 words)]
Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Cameron concurs with the majority’s opinion that children prosecuted for truancy have a statutory right to counsel under MCL 712A.17c(2) and MCR 3.915(A). He agrees with his colleague’s concurring opinion that there is a constitutional right to counsel for children facing the prospect of incarceration. However, he disagrees with the assertion that all children prosecuted for truancy have a constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney, regardless of the risk of incarceration. He explains that Gault recognizes an unqualified constitutional right to counsel if the juvenile faces incarceration, but the statutory right to counsel in Michigan is qualified because it applies to only certain violations of the juvenile code. He also disagrees that counsel is necessary to protect against the “serious and long-lasting collateral consequences of an adjudication for a status offense,” and believes that the concurrence’s proposed rule goes too far. Additionally, he addresses the issues involving parental interference and whether that impacts the waiver of the right to counsel, explaining that the children never affirmatively waived their right to counsel and the record is unclear whether the children wanted their father to participate in the attorney-client meetings or not.
Observations
ChatGPT does what it is asked to do in the format that it receives information.
Presently, it does not have the ability to receive or process in the context of block quotes. In this decision, block quotes included case law, court, and transcript excerpts.
ChatGPT also has input size restrictions. Segmented requests lead to segmented summaries.
Bottom line: ChatGPT is not (at all) reliable for preparing court decision summary analysis.
I’ll pass, for now. But at least I can appreciate why.