Justices Hear Conflicting Views on Proposed Redactions to Discovery Rule MCR 6.201

The Michigan Supreme Court held a public hearing in November on a proposed amendment to MCR 6.201 that would require redaction of personal identifying information from police reports and interrogation records before those materials are provided to defendants.

Defense attorneys told the justices that redactions would interfere with lawyers’ constitutional duties. Jessica Zimbelman of the State Appellate Defender Office, speaking on behalf of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, called the proposal “a solution looking for a problem” and said defense counsel need identifying details to perform independent investigations required by the Sixth Amendment. Mary Sue Anderson, who supervises investigations at the State Appellate Defender Office, told the court that without birth dates investigators can be “flying blind,” using the example that a common name such as “James Johnson” in Wayne County could correspond to hundreds of possible records.

That position was echoed by Lindsey Abramson, deputy chief public defender in Oakland County, who described operational harms when investigators do not receive dates of birth: she said conflict checks can be paralyzing without that information and related a case in which missing identifying data caused lengthy delay and a withdrawal from a capital prosecution. Abramson said early, simultaneous independent investigation by defense teams is essential and that interview availability alone does not substitute for direct access to necessary identifiers.

Prosecutors and the attorney general’s representatives urged the opposite balance. Eric Restuccia, appearing for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the attorney general, testified that the proposed revision as published earlier this year would not adequately protect witnesses’ and victims’ contact information and therefore could discourage cooperation. Restuccia cited anecdotal incidents—texting and harassment after defense counsel shared discovery with defendants—and asked the Court to adopt its prior 2022 proposal that would allow prosecutors to redact addresses and phone numbers.

Law professors and legal educators also commented that the Court lacks data showing unredacted discovery has produced widespread harm since People v. Jack and People v. Antaramian. Maya Menlo, speaking for that group, warned that a broad rule change could lead to over-redaction, create Brady risks, and leave appellate advocates without preserved unredacted files years later.

Speakers on both sides noted the existence of protective orders under current practice. Prosecutors argued protective orders are not always feasible in advance of harm and that making witnesses available for interview is not an adequate substitute; defense representatives said prosecutors already have remedies when there is a clear risk and that a catch-all withholding standard would give prosecutors excessive discretion.

The hearing record therefore framed the choice for the Court as weighing victim-and-witness safety concerns against the practical needs of defense counsel to identify, contact and investigate witnesses in a timely manner. No vote was taken at the hearing; the Court closed the public-comment portion after the scheduled speakers finished and will consider the written comments and oral presentations as it deliberates next steps.