The question might be relevant in ongoing proceedings before Michigan’s Judicial Tenure Commission.

In the Disciplinary Counsel’s August 6, 2024 objection to the Master’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint in FC 106, they note that three expert witnesses who “are certified deaf interpreters who can read Judge Brue’s lips from the video, as they would during an in-person conversation” are prepared to testify if the matter is allowed to proceed to hearing. (n 7) The disciplinary counsel’s objection later shares “Judge Brue faced the camera as she spoke. The video makes it possible to read her lips. In addition, three certified deaf interpreters are prepared to testify to her words at this time.” (n 28)

This feels like it could develop into new territory in Michigan’s evidence jurisprudence. A forensic lip reader shared the standards once adopted by an England and Wales Court 20 years ago in a case involving analysis of lip reading by video evidence.

What will be the approach of Michigan’s judiciary?

Stay tuned, as the saying goes.