|
|
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
By Michael Nichols
Categories: Michael J. Nichols
Reporter Kyle Melin of MIRS News Service obtained the transcript for the "Swear to" - which is a hearing at which a detective or police officer requests an arrest warrant in a felony case. Usually it is a brief and perfunctory proceeding. Not in the matter of Cindy Gamrat. Mr. Melin picked up on it and a courtesy copy of his article is below. This is a subscriber-based publication. Only portions of the article are excerpted here. The full article can be found by subscribing to the newsletter:
Judge Originally Unconvinced On Courser, Gamrat Charges
Less than two hours before Attorney General Bill SCHUETTE was scheduled to hold a press conference to announce felony charges against former Reps. Todd COURSER and Cindy GAMRAT back on Feb. 26, a judge told the investigators she would not issue five of the six warrants the Attorney General was pursuing.
The article goes on to point out:
Schuette started his press conference around 12:23 p.m., almost 90 minutes after it was scheduled to start.
"The charges are a result of a joint investigation between the Michigan State Police and Attorney General's office, and now with the approval of the judge, the case will be argued in its proper place -- the courtroom," said Schuette spokesperson Andrea BITELY.
Initially, Attorney General Special Agent David DWYRE and Det. Sgt. Jeremy BREWER of Michigan State Police didn't have a problem making the perjury case against Courser.
Mr. Melin then wrote about a critical aspect of the hearing:
However, Alderson said she was unclear what indictable offenses the Attorney General was pursuing against Gamrat and Courser.
"If you want to take them back and get more information or have someone else come over and argue that point with regard to indictable offenses at common law, I'm happy to do that," Alderson told Dwyre and Brewer, saying she could just sign the one felony complaint to Courser and address the others later.
After reading the transcript, Mr. Melin contacted Mike Nichols. Nichols directed him to the blog he wrote to correct inaccurate statements pursuant to the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. That is elsewhere at http://www.nicholslawyers.com/In-The-News/ID/2816/Attorney-for-Cindy-Gamrat-Unfortunate-Misrepresentations-made-in-Hearing-Mike-Nichols-Speaks-Out-About-Swear-To#.VuBfGcv2YiQ. Mr. Melin quotes from the blog:
After reading the transcript, Gamrat attorney Mike NICHOLS wrote a blog post on his web page, "Nicholslawyers.com," in which he said, "Lawyers for Bill Schuette appeared in an unusual occurrence during this hearing to try to satisfy the district judge's skepticism that a crime occurred even if the facts alleged are true."
He said there were inaccuracies in the information provided about whether Gamrat was asked about the infamous "false flag email" in formal interviews or whether she had a formal conversation with anyone about Rule 41 or the definition of "signature" under House rules.
"Further, while reasonable minds can disagree, I find absolutely no support for certain statements made by attorneys for Bill Schuette regarding the legal standard for 'corrupt intent' to satisfy the definition of misconduct in office in violation of the common law," Nichols wrote.