On Tuesday, August 6, 2024, the disciplinary counsel asked the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission to deny the recommendation from the Special Master to dismiss the complaint against Judge Debra Nance.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Debra Nance,” with case number FC 106.
The complaint against Judge Nance centers around statements she made under oath to the Commission in July 2020 regarding an interaction she witnessed the previous year on Mackinac Island involving Judge Demetria Brue. Judge Brue had allegedly gotten into an argument with a bike shop owner while renting bikes and falsely accused him of assault. Judge Nance was present during these events but later denied having knowledge of Judge Brue’s misconduct in her testimony.
The Commission authorized the filing of the complaint in December 2022, determining there was sufficient evidence that Judge Nance intended to mislead in her statements. However, the Special Master disagreed and recommended dismissal of the complaint in May 2024. In his recommendation, the Special Master cited Judge Nance’s denial that she intended to deceive and said the disciplinary counsel failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
However, the disciplinary counsel argues the Special Master made several errors in reaching his recommendation. They believe the Master improperly second-guessed the Commission’s initial determination that a hearing was warranted. They also point out it is typically incorrect to grant dismissal when a person’s intent or state of mind is at issue, as it is in this case regarding Judge Nance’s intent to mislead.
The disciplinary counsel further asserts Judge Nance did not meet her initial burden to show there were no disputed facts, such as regarding the circumstantial evidence of her intent. They also claim the Master was wrong to refuse consideration of video evidence from the bike shop that contradicts Judge Nance’s statements. This video captures Judge Nance witnessing the interaction between Judge Brue and the shop owner that Judge Nance later denied knowledge of in her testimony.
In asking the Commission to reject the recommendation, the disciplinary counsel argued any single one of the errors they identified is grounds for denying the dismissal. They believe the Special Master made multiple mistakes in both the facts and law that led to his recommendation. A hearing is still needed, in their view, to properly resolve the dispute over Judge Nance’s intent and the credibility of her statements under oath.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
