Judge Hoort---the assessment of costs.

I obviously cannot speak for other judges, but . . .

The Michigan Supreme Court is requiring an increased effort to collect monies owed in criminal cases, leading to the question what are allowable court costs in a criminal case.  

According to a Memorandum from the State Court Administrator Office, costs are limited to expenses specifically incurred in prosecuting the defendant, providing legal assistance to the defendant, and (in probation cases) supervising the probationer. For costs to be assessed, the costs must bear some direct relation to actual costs incurred in prosecution, and cannot include the costs of the day-to-day functions of the prosecutor, law enforcement, or other governmental unit, even if the functions resulted in arrest and prosecution. People v Barber, 14 Mich App 395 (1968), Saginaw Public Libraries v Judges of the 70th District Court, 118 Mich App 379 (1982).  It would thereby seem that costs can be assessed in a criminal case, as follows:

1. State cost; crime victim rights fee.
2. The expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant.
3. Any assessment authorized by law.
4. Any costs incurred in compelling the defendant’s appearance.
5. Costs of emergency response and prosecution. 
6. As a condition of probation. If the court requires the probationer to pay costs under MCL 771.3(2), the costs must be limited to expenses specifically incurred in prosecuting the defendant or providing legal assistance to the defendant and supervision of the probationer.
7. MCL 769.1k allows the court to impose any cost in addition to the minimum state cost. 

Statutory allowed costs:

State Costs ($68.00); Crime Victim Rights fee ($130.00); Prosecutor’s OWI fee; Probation Oversight fee.

Additional possible costs:

Attorney fees; witness subpoenas; Cost to supply discovery.  (e.g. copy cost, postage); Cost of transcript(s) requested by the defense; Cost for drug test; Actual or estimated cost bearing some direct relation to the actual costs incurred in compelling defendant’s appearance. (e.g. writs, extradition); Actual or estimated cost bearing some direct relation to the actual cost related to an adjournment caused by the defendant; Actual or estimated cost bearing some direct relation to the actual cost caused by the defendant over and above the already existing day-to-day cost for the prosecutor.

What then does this mean?

Procedure for Additional possible costs in my courtroom:

A. Defense expert witness fees will be ordered and added by the court to the amount owed when the bill is received and approved by the court.

B. The People will be responsible for submitting any request at the time of sentencing for costs for prosecution, to-wit: witness subpoenas; cost to supply discovery; adjournment related costs; actual or estimated cost bearing some direct relation to the actual cost for transportation, extradition; and any additional actual or estimated cost bearing some direct relation to the actual cost caused by the defendant over and above the already existing day-to-day cost for the prosecutor.  In the absence of any request for actual costs, the cost for an adjournment caused solely by the defense will be $100.00; the costs of transportation from another county will be $100.00.

C. Probation will be responsible for reporting in the PSI the cost of any Preliminary Exam transcripts requested by the defense; drug tests; attorney fees. In the absence of a request for actual costs, the cost for Attorney fees continues to be $400 for a plea, $1,000 for one day of trial, $500 per day thereafter; cost for drug tests is $25.

Representing your self in court.

I cannot speak for other judges, but the following information may be helpful for persons representing themselves in court.

---------------------

People do have a constitutional right to proceed in propria persona in the courts of this state. Const 1963, art 1, § 13.  However, individuals who represent themselves in Michigan's courts are held to the same standards as members of the state bar. Baird v Baird, 368 Mich 536, 539 (1962).  The Court can not overlook a party's tactical errors or consider documentary evidence that was not submitted to the trial court merely because a party acted in propria persona. Amorello v Monsanto Corp, 186 Mich App 324 (1990).

Judges, clerks and court house staff cannot provide legal advice. Do not ask court employees for legal advice. If you want legal advice, talk to an attorney or consult the Michigan Court Rules and Michigan laws. Court employees are allowed to provide procedural information only.

On the day of your hearing arrive at the assigned judge's courtroom early to allow time for courthouse security measures. Be prepared to spend most of the morning or afternoon in court. Your case may be heard immediately or you may have to wait for other cases to be heard.  Bring with you any documents, records, photographs, audio and/or visual recordings related to your case. Witnesses are generally required if you wish to present evidence to the court.  Subpoenas are available if you need a court order to compel a witness to appear in court.  Without evidence you can loose even if you’re right.

Let the judge’s staff know before the hearing if 1) you need an adjournment because of witness problems or you wish to have an attorney with you or 2) you need an interpreter because you are unable to communicate in English or 3) you are hearing impaired.

Only one person at a time may speak during a court proceeding. This ensures greater accuracy in making a record by our audio recording equipment.  When speaking, talk to the witness or the court, not the opposing party, either from your table or the podium. Stepping away from the microphones reduces the accuracy of the record.  Be respectful of the judge, court staff, attorneys, witnesses and other parties.

Do not interrupt when someone else is talking. Do not talk and stop talking when the judge is talking. The judge will try to give both sides a full opportunity to be heard, but you need to wait your turn.  The judge does get to interrupt you if what you are saying is irrelevant or not material to the issues before the court. 

Please remember that hearsay is generally inadmissible.  Unless there is an exception under the Rules of Evidence, you can tell the judge anything you actually heard the other party say that is relevant to the case, but you can’t tell the judge what somebody else has said even if that other person is a doctor, lawyer, police officer, family member or friend.  You need to have that person appear in court as a witness.  Likewise, police reports, lab reports, medical reports, affidavits, letters are hearsay and not admissible unless there is an exception to the hearsay rule. 

The right to proceed in propria persona.

In Kreis  v Bedford, Unpublished Opinion in the Court of Appeals, (issued 11/10/2011, No. 300183) plaintiff argued that because she acted in propria persona, she should not have been expected to strictly comply with the provisions of the court rules concerning motion practice and motions for summary disposition. She also suggests that the circuit court should have informed her how to conduct discovery and how to properly oppose plaintiff's motion for summary disposition. She claims that she had an absolute right to proceed in propria persona, and that by holding her to the same exacting standards as a practicing lawyer, the circuit court effectively interfered with her right to procedural due process. The Court of Appeals did not agree.

Without question, litigants have a constitutionally guaranteed right to proceed in propria persona in the courts of this state. Const 1963, art 1, § 13; see also Shenkman v Bragman, 261 Mich App 412, 416 (2004).  However, it is well settled that individuals who represent themselves in Michigan's courts are held to the same standards as members of the state bar. Baird v Baird, 368 Mich 536, 539 (1962); Totman v Royal Oak School Dist, 135 Mich App 121, 126 (1984). The Court will not overlook a party's tactical errors or consider documentary evidence that was not submitted to the trial court merely because a party acted in propria persona. Amorello v Monsanto Corp, 186 Mich App 324 (1990); Bachor v Detroit, 49 Mich App 507, 512 (1973). When a litigant elects to proceed without counsel, the litigant is "bound by the burdens that accompany such election." Hoven v Hoven, 9 Mich App 168, 174 (1967).