Barry L King v. Oakland County Prosecutor
328403
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (Barry L. King) is the father of a 1977 murder victim in the Oakland County Child Killer investigation and has repeatedly litigated for access to investigative materials and to compel the prosecutor to confer.
- In 2008 investigators focused on Christopher Busch; a 2011 48th District Court order suppressed a 2008 search warrant and affidavit; plaintiff later received access to those documents (April 1, 2013).
- Plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking (1) an order compelling the Oakland County Prosecutor to confer under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA), (2) to invalidate the suppression order and sanction the prosecutor, and (3) discovery into various prosecution decisions and disclosures.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (prior judgment) and (C)(8) (failure to state a claim); the trial court granted the motion and denied reconsideration.
- This Court affirmed: the CVRA claim fails as a matter of law and is barred by prior adjudication; the suppression-order attack is an improper collateral attack and/or moot; discovery demands would not support a viable claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Right to confer under CVRA | King sought an order compelling the prosecutor to confer about the investigation | CVRA does not apply to crimes before Oct. 9, 1985; no arraignment/charges so no statutory duty to confer | Dismissed: CVRA claim fails as a matter of law and is precluded by prior judgment (King I) |
| 2. Validity of 2011 suppression order | King alleges the suppression order was improperly obtained and procedural defects invalidate it | The suppression order was litigated in earlier suits; circuit-court rulings stand and FOIA is not the proper vehicle | Dismissed: claim is an improper collateral attack and/or moot because plaintiff obtained access to records |
| 3. Requests for further discovery (various alleged misstatements, document handling, media releases) | King seeks discovery to probe inconsistencies, alleged false statements, and selective disclosures | Defendant argues the contested materials are privileged, were addressed in prior proceedings, or do not support a viable claim | Denied: discovery would not lead to a viable claim; many issues already adjudicated or protected (work product/privilege) |
| 4. Obligation to explain charging decisions | King demands explanation and documents for decision not to charge certain suspects | Charging decisions and deliberative materials are protected (work product, prosecutorial discretion); no legal basis to compel explanation | Denied: no legal basis to compel conference or disclosure; work-product/FOIA exemptions apply |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Oakland Co. Prosecutor, 303 Mich. App. 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (CVRA inapplicable to crimes before Oct. 9, 1985; no statutory duty to confer pre-arraignment)
- In re Hatcher, 443 Mich. 426 (Mich. 1993) (delayed collateral attacks on prior judgments are impermissible)
- People v. Gilmore, 222 Mich. App. 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (documents prepared in anticipation of litigation may be protected from disclosure)
- Messenger v. Ingham Co. Prosecutor, 232 Mich. App. 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (both factual and deliberative materials may be exempt from disclosure)
- Ditmore v. Michalik, 244 Mich. App. 569 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (requirements for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Estes v. Titus, 481 Mich. 573 (Mich. 2008) (standards for reviewing application of collateral estoppel)