The Michigan Court of Appeals recently offered a case study in judicial triage: with a short “focus order” issued less than two weeks before argument, the panel redirected People v Plomb from two garden-variety issues to a third—judicial interference—that would dominate both the oral argument and the published opinion.

What a “focus order” is—and what it does.

A focus order is a pre-argument signal flare. Rather than revising the questions presented, it announces what the court wants answered at argument (and, sometimes, in supplemental briefs). Properly used, it is agenda-setting: sharpening the inquiry, aligning argument with the court’s concerns, and sometimes redefining how the case gets decided.

The turn in Plomb.
The appellant challenged a jury conviction on two familiar grounds: prior-acts evidence and ineffective assistance.

Thirteen days before the oral argument, the panel issued a focus order orienting counsel to a different concern: an exchange at trial (Jury Trial Transcript 146–151) and whether the judge’s conduct crossed the line into bias or interference.

The order pointed counsel to People v Stevens, 498 Mich 162, 170–178 (2015) which catalogs factors for when a judge “pierces the veil of judicial impartiality,” and People v Davis, 216 Mich App 47, 49-50 (1996) which cabins the narrow circumstances for judicial interjections.

At oral argument, that third issue eclipsed the rest. Most of the forty minutes were spent on whether the trial court “pierced the veil of judicial impartiality” under Stevens and the narrow circumstances for judicial interjections recognized in Davis.

And in the opinion, the focus held.
Four months after the case call, the published authored opinion devoted two pages to the appellant’s original claims but more than five pages to the focus-order question of judicial interference.

In other words, the court’s central concern—as signaled before argument—became the center of gravity in the written decision. People v Plomb, ___ Mich App ___ (2025) (Docket No. 368608)

Just another focus order example

Last summer, I posted about “focus orders”, their value, how the Michigan Supreme Court includes “focus” instructions in its argument orders, and shared an example from the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This week’s Plomb decision is another example of how a focus order can proactively surface a court’s central concern and refine counsel’s argument preparation.