|
No. 121833-4
| The
People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Maureen
Holahan (989) 362-4747 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Iosco
-- Ernst, J.)
|
|
|
| Fred Gottschalk and Jeffrey Silagy, |
|
Michael G. Woodworth (517) 886-7176 |
|
Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
|
|
Phillip M. Stevens |
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Reply
Brief>>
Defendants-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Attorney General and Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan Amicus
Curiae Brief>>
Background
Jeffrey Silagy, a Department of Natural Resources employee, signed
a complaint against Steven Freund, stating that Steven Freund filled
or caused a wetland to be filled without the appropriate permit. In
response, Freund filed a complaint alleging that Silagy committed perjury.
After investigating the case, the Iosco County prosecutor decided not
to pursue the perjury charge. The prosecutor concluded, however, that
a charge pursuant to MCL 752.11 — a misdemeanor offense based on
a public official's failure to uphold or enforce the law — might
be appropriate. The prosecutor also determined that he and his office
had a conflict of interest because there was a possibility he could
be called as a witness. At the prosecutor's request, the circuit court
appointed a special prosecutor to review the incident report and determine
whether a warrant should be issued. The special prosecutor investigated
and initiated charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice against
Silagy and his supervisor, Fred Gottschalk. After evidence was given
at the preliminary examination, the district court bound the defendants
over on charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. The defendants
challenged the special prosecutor's authority to bring the criminal
case and also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. Iosco County
Circuit Judge J. Richard Ernst rejected the various challenges of the
defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the charges
in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The court ruled that the special
prosecutor did not have the authority to investigate and initiate criminal
charges. The prosecution appeals. The prosecution argues in part that
the applicable statute, MCL 49.160, was amended in 1978 to confer all
the powers of a prosecutor upon a special prosecutor. The defendants
contend in part that the request for a special prosecutor was limited
to the special prosecutor reviewing the complaint and deciding whether
a warrant should be issued.
|
