Michigan: Trial Court Judge accused of knowingly allowing the testimony of perjuring witnesses

Link for opinion: http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20100304_c294667_44_294667.opn.pdf


In the case of People v. Waterstone, 485 Mich. 1016; 776 N.W.2d 113 (2010), Judge Mary Waterstone was accused of permitting witnesses to knowingly commit perjury at a criminal case. The parties to the case later filed a suit against her for this misconduct and the AG defended her and then subsequently prosecuted her for the same crime. She later filed a motion to have the Attorney General (AG) disqualified from the case for conflict of interest.

She feels that the AG’s prosecution of her is inconsistent with the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.7, 1.9, 1.10. As well as cited inconstancies with the case of Attorney General vs. Public Service Commission, 243 Mich. App 487; 625 NW2d 16 (2000).

The AG failed to notify the defendant that she was party to the initial investigation. The defendant claims she had confidential conversations with the AG that could have been shared with the prosecution side of the case. The AG should not be allowed to prosecute and defend the client all at once according to MRPC. In AG vs. PSC it was found that the Attorney General’s office has a different role in government and the rules of professional conduct cannot easily apply to them. The AG is compelled to defend judges in civil suits while also prosecuting cases that county prosecutors do not.

In this case the defendant is being investigated under the MRPC and the AG holds a conflict of interest. The court has rules that the AG be disqualified from this particular case. The AG is being held to the MRPC in this instance. The court reversed and remanded.