Writ of superintending control; Request for grand-jury records within a reasonable time; “Clear legal duty” to furnish the records; MCR 6.107(B)(1) & (2); 14-day requirement

Because plaintiff failed to show that he filed his request for the grand-jury records at issue within a reasonable time, the court denied his request for a writ of superintending control to compel production of the records. He filed this original action in the court for a writ of superintending control to compel defendant-circuit court judge to release grand-jury records relating to his 1997 first-degree murder conviction. The court held that “defendant erred insofar that she stated that access to grand-jury material ‘can only be granted by the judge presiding in the criminal case at trial or in post-conviction proceedings.’” However, to be entitled to a writ of superintending control, plaintiff had to “establish that defendant had a ‘clear legal duty’ to furnish the records.” His motion clearly did not satisfy the 14-day requirement. Thus, he had to “establish that he requested the records within a reasonable time upon a showing of good cause and that the interests of justice would be served by providing him with the records.” He asserted he needed the “records in order to prepare a motion for relief from judgment. Even if such a reason could support a finding of good cause for the request,” it did not alone show that he made it within a reasonable time. While he claimed “to be seeking records of additional testimony that he and his attorney did not receive at the time of his trial, plaintiff concedes that he knew before trial that approximately 30 witnesses had testified at the grand-jury proceedings, and that he was” given transcripts of only 9 such “witnesses before trial, and an additional transcript of another witness during trial.” He admitted in his brief that shortly after he was arraigned in 8/96, a witness told “him that she was one of approximately 30 witnesses who testified before the grand jury. Thus, plaintiff knew before his trial that he had not received transcripts for all of the witnesses who supposedly testified before the grand jury. He never sought the production of additional grand-jury records or transcripts before trial, and he never argued in his direct appeal that he was improperly denied additional grand-jury records. It was not until approximately 20 years later plaintiff began his quest to obtain additional grand-jury records.” Thus, his own admissions showed “he had information before his trial that additional grand-jury records might exist, and he never requested or argued that he was entitled to any additional records.” As a result, he could “not establish that his efforts to obtain the records, beginning in 2016, were made within a reasonable time.” Thus, defendant did not have a clear legal duty to provide them.