On Friday, June 6, 2025, the Disciplinary Counsel filed a response to an objection by Judge Debra Nance of the Forty-Sixth District Court in Southfield, Michigan, regarding the admission of security video evidence in a Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission case, identified as FC No. 106.
The case stems from allegations of misconduct related to an incident that occurred on August 20, 2019, during a judicial conference at the Mackinac Island Bike Shop. Reports suggest that Judge Brue, accompanied by Judge Nance, confronted the shop owner, Ira Green, about an issue with a rented bicycle and subsequently attempted to seize a receipt, leading to accusations of assault and racism. Both judges involved are African American.
The response addresses Judge Nance’s motion to exclude videos showing interactions involving herself, Judge Demetria Brue, Ira Green, a Mackinac Island police officer, a Michigan State Police trooper, and other officers, citing an inadequate chain of custody under Michigan Rule of Evidence (MRE) 1003.
The Disciplinary Counsel argues that Judge Nance’s objection lacks merit. The videos, sourced from Ira Green’s security system at his bicycle shop, were copied onto thumb drives. Green provided one thumb drive with a brief video segment to the Mackinac Island police shortly after the incident and a second thumb drive containing the full available footage to the Judicial Tenure Commission in August 2020.
The Counsel contends that MRE 1003 permits the admission of duplicates unless there is a genuine question about the original’s authenticity or if admitting the duplicate would be unfair. They assert that Judge Nance has not provided evidence questioning the authenticity of the original video, only offering speculation about possible alterations without substantiation.
The response clarifies that Judge Nance’s motion inaccurately quotes MRE 1003, claiming that a failure to maintain a chain of custody inherently creates an authenticity issue. The Counsel refutes this, noting that the rule does not contain such language and that case law, including People v. Threatt (2019) and People v. Holmes (2007), establishes that gaps in the chain of custody affect the evidence’s weight, not its admissibility. The proponent must only show a reasonable probability that the evidence remains substantially unchanged.
Judge Nance’s objection highlights an 18-minute gap in the video footage from 7:27 p.m. to 7:46 p.m. on the day of the incident. The Disciplinary Counsel acknowledges this gap but states it does not impact the authenticity of the existing footage. They plan to present testimony indicating that during this period, Judges Nance and Brue were attempting to enter Green’s office, an area not covered by cameras. The Counsel also notes that an evidentiary hearing confirmed the thumb drives were unaltered after being received by the police and Commission staff. They anticipate Green’s testimony will verify that he copied and provided the videos without modification, satisfying MRE 901’s authentication requirements.
The Disciplinary Counsel requests that the Master deny Judge Nance’s objection, allowing the video evidence to be presented at the public hearing.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
