Lori Shemka

Michigan trial court invited to file an amicus brief—a procedural twist in In re Contempt of Kathy H Murphy

Posted on
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Time for a Paul Harvey “the rest of the story” update to my July 27, 2024 post, wondering how the Michigan Supreme Court would handle a unique set of circumstances when responsive briefing wasn’t being filed in the attorney contempt of court matter In re Contempt of Kathy H. Murphy. 

The case will be argued during the Court’s May 7 sitting.

Might the Michigan Supreme Court appoint someone to defend the COA ruling in In re Contempt of Kathy H. Murphy?

Instead of appointing an attorney to brief and argue the case, we learn from a March 4, 2025 filing that the 36th District Court received a January 21, 2025 request from the Michigan Supreme Court “seeking the 36th District Court’s analysis of whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that double jeopardy does not attach to summary contempt proceedings.”

The January 21, 2025 request does not appear in the public docket activity.

The 36th District Court’s March 4, 2025 filing is presented as an amicus brief.

This amicus brief is submitted pursuant to this Court’s January 21, 2025 request seeking the 36th District Court’s analysis of whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that double jeopardy does not attach to summary contempt proceedings. For the reasons below, the District Court agrees with the analysis of the Court of Appeals. First, the purpose of the protection afforded under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 15 of the Michigan Constitution does not extend to summary contempt proceedings, given the nature of the proceeding itself. During a summary contempt hearing, the alleged contemnor is not subjected to the embarrassment, expense, and ordeal contemplated by the guarantees against jeopardy, nor does the proceeding compel the contemnor to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity given the swift

Because the matter won’t be argued until May, it’s fair to anticipate the appellant filing a brief reply.

It’s good to see that there will be an adversarial posture for this matter’s unique legal questions.