LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – In a high-stakes courtroom drama, 15 Republican electors implicated in an alleged scheme to overturn Michigan’s 2020 presidential election results found themselves entangled in yet another legal battle last week.
The defendants are accused of falsifying certificates claiming that Donald Trump won the 2020 election and are being prosecuted by Democratic Attorney Dana Nessel’s office for their role in what she calls a “alleged false electors scheme.”
Facing criminal charges in Lansing in addition to a related civil lawsuit in Kent County by 2020 Democratic electors, these defendants are navigating dual legal proceedings. In the criminal case, Judge Kristen Simmons is set to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to send the charged individuals to trial in Ingham County Circuit Court with a decision about whether there is enough probable cause to move forward with the case expected in March or April.
The implications are significant: potential prison sentences in the criminal case and substantial financial penalties in the civil suit. This week’s legal wrangling centered on whether the civil case should be put on hold until Judge Simmons’ decision on the criminal proceedings are resolved – a request the trial court decisively denied. Attorneys for the 15 electors have appealed the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals (COE).
Parallel prosecutions or parallel problems?
The Republican electors include former state GOP Co-Chair Meshawn Maddock (who is running to be the new MIGOP Chair) and 14 others, many of whom are elderly, five of whom are 70-years-old or older and two who are over 80-years-old.
The Legal News website reports that their attorneys argued to the Court of Appeals that being forced to defend both cases simultaneously violates their constitutional rights.
Their lawyers are pleading with the Michigan Court of Appeals to hit the pause button on the civil case, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to issue a stay and allowing the continuing discovery. They also argue a “parallel prosecution” setup is a textbook violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Judge Christopher Yates, wasn’t entirely buying it, however. While he acknowledged that staying civil proceedings during a criminal trial is common practice, he also seemed unimpressed with the defendants’ claims of judicial abuse of discretion from the trial court. “That’s very hard to find,” Yates remarked, referring to the elusive proof of said abuse.
MORE NEWS: Ice Crews Prep Track for I-500 Snowmobile Race in the Soo
Meanwhile, defense attorney Kyle Bristow argued that the trial court judge hadn’t even bothered to weigh the five legal factors typically considered in such cases. But Yates wasn’t letting Bristow off the hook either, pointing out inconsistencies in his argument.
Legal limbo leaves no one happy.
The defendants are also trying to escape the civil case altogether through a summary disposition motion, essentially asking the court to declare the case dead-on-arrival but the trial judge had refused to rule on that motion.
The court’s balancing act continues.
For now, the electors find themselves in a high-stakes balancing act, defending themselves on two fronts while awaiting crucial decision in both cases that could shape both their political and personal futures.
Leave a Comment
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.