Key Takeaways
- Accessing court records in Michigan reveals a confusing patchwork of policies, with individual courts largely deciding their own access rules.
- A judge recently denied requests for video and records in a specific case, complicating transparency efforts.
- Community members, including those with disabilities, struggle with navigating the court system and raising concerns about accessibility.
- An accidental email leak raised further questions about court administration and staff continuity regarding records requests.
- Concerns about judicial accountability in Michigan persist, especially regarding misconduct and its implications for affected individuals.
Editor’s Note, March 2026
This piece was published June 10, 2023 — four months before charges were filed against this publication’s founder. It documents a contemporaneous denial of video and records requests in People v. Williams, a broken plea deal on the record, and SCAO involvement in navigating Michigan’s court records system.
The records Schipper denied access to in June 2023 are part of the documented record that is now before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
See the full Barry County series and People v. Williams.
He denied the records. We documented the denial. The Court of Appeals has the record now.
On March 2nd, after a complete nightmare of trying to get transcripts for People v. Williams into his lawyer’s hands, the State Court Administrator’s Office for Region V provided information on obtaining the sentencing video.
At this hearing, Judge Michael Lee Schipper and an Assistant Prosecutor entirely broke the plea deal, pretending it didn’t exist.
And today, he denied video and records requests for those January 2023 proceedings.
When I pushed back on the reason, the explanation was that my request wasn’t being “denied.”
The alternative: I could come to the courthouse to review the records, placing hardship and additional obstacles in retrieving the case records.
Much later, I would learn that Barry County has a track record of record-keeping problems.
The Court’s Records Policy
Michigan’s court rules delegate decisions regarding access to courtroom recordings to individual courts, creating a patchwork of policies across the state. Michigan Court Rule 8.119(F) designates court recordings as court records but leaves it to each court to establish its own policy under Model Local Administrative Order 8.
Below is Barry County Court’s LOA policy which, seems to have no issue with copies being provided to someone if they are willing to pay for them; something I was more than willing and ready to do.
The Plot Thickens
Another community member also reached out to me about accessing records in his own case. I encouraged him to try, though I cautioned him not to expect too much; based on my experience, I wasn’t confident the request would be granted. I explained who he could contact and how to submit the request.
This individual is hearing impaired and has faced significant challenges navigating the local system. Over the years, he has described court experiences that left him confused about how decisions were reached, including instances where he believed he was pursuing a trial but later learned his case had been resolved through a plea agreement. He has also struggled with financial and housing stability, which he believes has been affected by court-related obligations tied to his Social Security income.
Stories like his are difficult to hear, and they are not entirely isolated. Several residents have shared concerns about how accessible and responsive the system feels for people with disabilities or limited resources.
Public discussions about inclusivity and accessibility in Barry County have surfaced before. Community members have raised questions about whether local agencies, including courts and law enforcement, have adopted training or policies aimed at improving communication and accommodations for individuals with disabilities.
Past reporting has also noted legal disputes involving discrimination allegations within local law enforcement. One such case involving the Hastings Police Department was resolved through an out-of-court settlement.
Situations like these often prompt broader questions within a community: if challenges arise even within institutions themselves, how effectively are systems working for members of the public who rely on them?
During the effort to obtain records, an unexpected development occurred. My acquaintance received an email from the Court Administrator that appeared to have been sent accidentally, apparently intended for internal staff.
When I learned about the email, I was surprised. I immediately forwarded the screenshot to both parties. Each responded by explaining that the staff member involved was new. However, that explanation did not align with what I had previously observed. The staff member’s name appears on multiple transcripts dating back years, and I had personally corresponded with her several times regarding records requests since January 2023.
According to Public Records…
Public records also show that in 2015 the Barry County Court Administrator received a $22,000 salary increase, bringing her compensation to approximately $99,000 per year at that time. With annual adjustments and longevity in the position, the current salary is likely higher today.
The administrator’s name also appears in press materials surrounding the unexpected departure of Judge Amy McDowell from the Barry County bench.
Judge McDowell’s resignation raised questions within the community because it occurred abruptly and without detailed public explanation. Situations like this are not unique to Barry County. Across the country, judges sometimes retire or step down before formal disciplinary proceedings occur.
Michigan’s judicial oversight structure has also drawn criticism from legal observers because misconduct findings do not automatically invalidate the rulings issued in the cases a judge previously handled. A Michigan Supreme Court decision established that judicial misconduct alone is not sufficient grounds to reverse otherwise valid convictions, a standard that has generated ongoing debate about accountability and remedies when misconduct is alleged.
For individuals affected by court proceedings, the limited avenues for review can make it difficult to address concerns about fairness or transparency.
Because of those concerns, formal complaints have been submitted regarding the issues described above so that the appropriate oversight bodies can evaluate them.
