Judge excludes New York Times article and related testimony in Michigan abortion trial, citing hearsay and lack of reliability

A presiding judge in a Michigan trial over state‑mandated abortion materials ruled that a New York Times investigative article offered into evidence could not form the factual basis for an expert’s opinion, and the judge struck testimony that relied on that article.

Judge Seema G. Patel told attorneys she had reviewed the newspaper reporting and concluded it lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and specificity to Michigan to form “sufficient facts and data” under the evidentiary standard governing expert opinion. She also described the article as anecdotal and not a peer‑reviewed study or a learned treatise.

Why it matters: The evidentiary ruling removed from the record a line of testimony that defendants said would show national problems in clinic oversight and training. The court’s ruling constrains the bases on which the expert witness may rely and narrows the types of outside reporting that may be used at trial to support expert conclusions.

What the judge said and why she struck it

- The ruling: After hearing argument, Judge Patel said she would “strike and not admit” the New York Times article and would strike the portions of testimony that were based on it. The judge explained that newspaper reporting with multiple levels of hearsay and anecdotal assertions did not meet the court’s gatekeeping obligation to admit only reliable expert bases.

- Parties’ arguments: Defense counsel said experts are commonly permitted to rely on hearsay and pointed to case law that allows expert reliance on hearsay when formulating an opinion. Plaintiffs’ counsel and other parties objected that permitting a newspaper article with hearsay within hearsay would swallow the hearsay rules and allow unreliable, non‑peer reviewed material into the record.

- Court’s reasoning: The judge said the article was not a learned treatise, not peer reviewed and not a Michigan‑specific factual showing; she described its anecdotes and non‑systematic reporting as insufficient to support an expert opinion. She cited the rules requiring that expert testimony be based on sufficient, reliable facts and data.

Immediate effects in the trial

- Testimony struck: The court struck the portions of the witness’s testimony that relied on the article and declined to admit the article into evidence. The ruling narrowed the bases the expert could use to support opinions about alleged national trends in clinic staffing or oversight.

- Procedural follow up: Counsel asked the court for time to review and identify precisely which portions of testimony should be removed from the docket; the court directed parties to confer and said the transcript would be reviewed to finalize the scope of the strike and any follow-up questioning at the next session.

Speakers (attribution whitelist)

- Seema G. Patel — Presiding judge. Affiliation: government (Ingham County Circuit Court). - Christopher Braverman — Assistant Attorney General, intervening defendant counsel; argued for expert reliance on external reporting. - Defense and plaintiff counsel participating in evidentiary argument (identified in transcript as Megan Filly, Mr. Asmundson, other counsel).

Authorities and evidentiary law cited

- other: Newspaper article (New York Times front‑page investigative article) — proffered by counsel, not admitted. - other: Case law cited by defendants (Enricostro/Castro type holdings) allowing expert reliance on hearsay in formulating opinions; and plaintiff citations (People v. McKinney; Edwards v. Detroit News) arguing newspapers cannot be judicially noticed for truth. - rules referenced by judge: Michigan Rules of Evidence 702 (expert testimony), 703 (bases of expert opinion), and 401/402 relevance and 403 prejudice balancing.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: Extensive argument among counsel about whether experts may rely on investigative reporting as a factual basis and whether newspaper anecdotes create a reliable empirical basis to support opinions about clinic practices nationally. - Decision: The judge excluded the article and struck testimony relying on it for lack of sufficient reliability and specificity and because the material was not a learned treatise or peer‑reviewed literature.

Clarifying details

- Ruling language excerpt: The judge stated on the record that the article was “anecdotal, it is not a learned treatise, and it is not a peer reviewed study,” and that the article’s claims were not sufficiently reliable or Michigan‑specific to form the basis of expert opinion. - Next steps ordered: Parties to review the transcript, confer on scope of struck testimony, and raise any follow‑up evidentiary questions at the next court session.

Provenance (transcript evidence)

- topicintro: {"block_id":"16838.41","local_start":0,"local_end":22,"evidence_excerpt":"You may be seated. So before we broke, we had an evidentiary issue. I've had a chance to look over the document. Mister Aswinson, would you like to make an argument for why this should be admitted and used?","reason_code":"topicintro"} - topfinish: {"block_id":"19111.46","local_start":0,"local_end":46,"evidence_excerpt":"I'm going to strike, and I'm not going to admit the the article. And I'm going to strike the grant the plaintiff's motion to strike the testimony that this article that is based on this article.","reason_code":"topicfinish"}

Salience

- overall:0.68 - overall_justification: Excluding a nationally circulated newspaper article from expert basing reduces one party’s evidentiary strategy and clarifies judicial gatekeeping standards for expert opinion in the case. - impact_scope:regional - impact_scope_justification: The ruling affects the trial’s evidentiary record and could influence how other courts evaluate the use of journalistic investigations as bases for expert testimony. - attention_level:high - attention_level_justification: The evidentiary gatekeeping issue arose on a high‑profile subject and drew extended argument from multiple counsel.

Searchable_tags:["evidentiary_ruling","New_York_Times","expert_reliance","hearsay","Michigan_trial"],"graph_signals":{"jurisdictions":["US-MI"],"ontology_topics":["court_case","evidence_law","expert_testimony"],"entities":[{"id":"judge-seema-g-patel","name":"Seema G. Patel","type":"person"}],"events":[{"id":"evidentiary_ruling_strike","name":"Ruling striking NYT article and related testimony","date":"2025-10-26"}]}