On Wednesday, October 16, 2024, disciplinary counsel filed a brief with the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission requesting the coordination of hearings for two cases involving Judges Demetria Brue and Debra Nance. The cases, designated as FC 105 and FC 106, address allegations of misconduct related to events occurring in 2019.
The complaints originate from an incident on August 20, 2019, at the Mackinac Island Bike Shop, where Nance and Brue rented bicycles during a judicial conference. According to reports, Brue, with Nance alongside her, informed the shop owner of an issue with the bike and requested a refund. It is alleged that Brue reached over the cash register in an attempt to seize the receipt, subsequently accusing the owner of assault and racism. She also stated that she was an elected official and a judge, claiming she feared for her safety. Brue is African American, as is Nance.
The disciplinary counsel’s motion emphasizes the similarity of the public hearings for both cases, asserting that many of the same witnesses will be required to testify in each hearing. Counsel anticipates calling between 10 to 12 witnesses, who are dispersed across various locations in Michigan and beyond, including Petoskey, Allegan, Mackinac Island, and even out-of-state locations such as Minnesota and California. The intent behind the motion is to minimize the burden on these witnesses by scheduling the hearings consecutively rather than separately.
Disciplinary counsel clarified that the motion does not seek to consolidate the hearings, a request previously rejected by the Master overseeing the cases. Instead, they propose a system where one hearing could be held in the morning and another in the afternoon on the same day, allowing witnesses to testify for both cases without the need for multiple trips.
During a status conference on September 30, 2024, misunderstandings surrounding the nature of the allegations in FC 106 were highlighted. The Master noted that discrepancies in testimony pertained primarily to statements made months after the incident in question, questioning whether these statements were misleading. However, disciplinary counsel countered that there are fundamental disagreements between Judge Nance and the disciplinary counsel regarding the events of August 20, 2019, particularly concerning video evidence and witness accounts.
The brief argues that the proceedings for both cases should commence expeditiously, stating that delays could undermine the integrity of the process. The counsel pointed out that the Master had previously indicated a desire to resolve these matters promptly, and they argue that beginning the hearings on February 3, 2025, would align with this goal.
The brief also addressed Judge Nance’s claims regarding opportunities to resolve her misconduct allegations. Disciplinary counsel asserted that she was presented with options to avoid a public hearing, which she later disputed. The counsel emphasized that all judges facing similar charges have access to the same options, including resignation to avoid public proceedings.
Furthermore, the brief referred to a report by the National Center for State Courts, which examined racial disparities in judicial discipline cases. According to the report, while there are observable disparities in the race of judges facing public hearings, it did not indicate that Black judges lack equal opportunities to resolve allegations outside of a public forum.
Disciplinary counsel’s motion also sought to clarify the procedural status of FC 105 and FC 106, emphasizing that both cases have experienced delays primarily due to an ongoing audit of the Commission, which should not hinder the disciplinary process.
In conclusion, disciplinary counsel submitted their brief with the aim of coordinating the hearings for Judges Brue and Nance, underscoring the need for efficiency and the minimization of witness impact. They maintain that proceeding with the hearings on the proposed date is essential to uphold the rationale provided by the Commission in related matters.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
