ADM File No. 2019-33
Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2021-7 and Adoption of the Michigan Continuing Judicial Education Rules
To read this ADM file, visit www.courts.michigan.gov/rules-administrative-orders-and-jury-instructions/proposedadopted/administrative-orders/.
ADM File No. 2022-30
Proposed Amendments of Rules 702 and 804 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rules 702 and 804 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a)-(c) [Unchanged.]
(d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application ofhas reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — When the Declarant is Unavailable as a Witness
(a) [Unchanged.]
(b) The Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(4) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) if the statement tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability, and is offered to exculpate the accused, it must be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness.
(5)-(6) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-30): The proposed amendment of MRE 702 would require the proponent of an expert witness’s testimony to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the factors for admission are satisfied and would clarify that it is the expert’s opinion that must reflect a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case. The proposed amendment of MRE 804 would require corroborating circumstances of trustworthiness for any statement against interest that exposes a declarant to criminal liability. Please note that the unchanged language in these rules reflects the Court’s non-substantive amendments of the rules that become effective Jan. 1, 2024. See ADM File No. 2021-10, Order.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Feb. 1, 2024, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-30. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-45 Proposed Amendment of Rule 9.131 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 9.131 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 9.131. Investigation of Member or Employee of Board or Commission, or Relative of Member or Employee of Board or Commission; Investigation of Attorney Representing Respondent or Witness; Other Investigations Creating the Appearance of Impropriety; Representation by Member or Employee of Board or Commission.
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Other Investigations Creating the Appearance of Impropriety. If the administrator determines that an appearance of impropriety would arise if a request for investigation is handled in the manner prescribed by MCR 9.112(C), the procedures in subrule (A) shall be followed.
(D) [Relettered (E) but otherwise unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-45): The proposed amendment
of MCR 9.131 would require that the Supreme Court review requests for investigations involving allegations of attorney misconduct in instances where the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) administrator determines that an appearance of impropriety would arise if the AGC handled the investigation.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Feb. 1, 2024, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-45. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2023-01 Appointment of Chief Judges of the 10th Circuit Court and the 70th District Court
On order of the Court, effective immediately, Hon. Julie A. Gafkay is appointed as chief judge of the 10th Circuit Court and Hon. Terry L. Clark is appointed as chief judge of the 70th District Court for the remainder of terms ending Dec. 31, 2023.
ADM File No. 2023-01 Appointment of Chief Judge of the 89th District Court (Cheboygan and Presque Isle counties)
On order of the Court, effective immediately, Hon. Aaron J. Gauthier is appointed as chief judge of the 89th District Court for the remainder of a term ending Dec. 31, 2023.