In Michigan, a decision to decline criminal charges is often treated as final. But for victims, particularly when the accused is a law enforcement officer, a declination can mark the beginning of a longer fight for answers rather than the end of a legal process.
The case of Megan Moryc, a former Michigan State Police trooper identified as the victim in a domestic violence and sexual assault investigation involving another trooper, illustrates how prosecutorial discretion, internal police practices, and public records law can intersect in ways that leave victims without transparency or resolution.
The Declination Decision
According to official incident documentation, the case was presented for prosecutorial review in July 2023. The warrant request was denied. The written justification cited familiar factors: lack of witnesses, no confession, delay in reporting, and an inability to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Those reasons are frequently invoked in intimate partner violence cases, especially where the accused is a law enforcement officer. The declination itself falls within prosecutorial discretion. What followed raises more difficult questions.
An Investigation Without a Recorded Victim Interview
The investigative record reflects that no recorded interview of the victim was conducted as part of the criminal investigation. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the file documents no formal recorded statement taken from the person identified as the victim.
The report references recollections and implications raised by third parties, but without follow-up interviews or evidentiary development tied to those claims. When cases are declined under these circumstances, meaningful review becomes nearly impossible.
The Victim Was Not Notified
Records show that Moryc was not contacted directly by the prosecuting office when the charging decision was made. She later learned of the declination through law enforcement rather than from prosecutors.
Michigan law recognizes the right of crime victims to receive notice of significant prosecutorial decisions. While enforcement varies, the absence of direct notification in a case involving alleged domestic and sexual violence undermines both statutory protections and public confidence in the process.
Without notice, the victim had no opportunity to ask questions, request review, or understand how the decision was reached.
Moryc should have received a formal notice with 30 days to appeal the decision. She did not. All that, and the decision was made by an assistant prosecuting attorney who was “highly respected” by law enforcement.
As a side note, Circuit Court Judge Michael Schipper also regularly shows bias in favor of law enforcement, too.
The FOIA Trail and Conflicting Statements
What followed was a series of written responses that conflicted with one another.
In one communication, the prosecuting authority stated that no personnel files were maintained for employees. In another, the same authority stated that if records existed, they would have been maintained either by the office or by county administration.
Both statements cannot be true at the same time.
The FOIA denial asserted that no responsive public records existed. When Moryc appealed the denial, she asked when and how the personnel file had been destroyed if it no longer existed. No destruction log was produced. No extension notice was issued within the statutory timeline. No clarification followed.
As of November 26, 2025, the county approved the appeal. The video also explains that the County consulted legal representation before making the decision.
This Is Not an Isolated Recordkeeping Failure
What happened to Megan Moryc is not unique to one office or one decision. It fits a broader pattern that Michigan courts themselves have already acknowledged.
In late 2025, reporting based on findings from the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) confirmed failure in service and record maintenance affecting an incarcerated appellant. In that case, notice was not properly recorded, service was not reliably tracked, and court calendars did not reflect what the law required.
The mechanics are different, but the harm is the same.
n Megan’s case, the failure was prosecutorial notice. Charges were declined without documented notification to the victim, eliminating her statutory window to seek review.
In the SCAO case, the failure was administrative service. Appeal briefs were not properly served, and the data of service varied between the Michigan Supreme Court and Barry County Court record by almost one month.
Separately, in an unrelated Circuit Court matter, requests for courtroom video records were denied, removing an independent source of documentation.
Across all three situations, the loss of rights did not stem from a legal determination on the merits. It stemmed from missing, inaccessible, or unreliable records; one that is building a larger pattern.
This parallel matters because Michigan’s justice system relies on documentation to protect rights. Notice, service, access to recordings, and accurate timelines are not technical formalities. They are the mechanisms by which the law functions. When records are sloppy, incomplete, selectively unavailable, or inconsistently maintained, the system does not fail loudly. It fails quietly, and the people affected often never know what they lost.
Seen in that light, Megan Moryc’s case is not an anomaly.
Prior to that, a FOIA denial resulted in the eventual release of the so-called “Sixberry Notes” after prosecutorial authority initially claimed responsive records did not exist. All of these cases were then joined by yet another FOIA appeal within the last week, where records were again said not to exist, yet in the denials, invoices were included for the cost of record search.
Collectively, these are data points in a larger pattern. Procedural rights continue to exist on paper, but they are undermined in practice by recordkeeping and access failures that cannot reliably support them. When notice is not given, service is defective, recordings are withheld, and records are inconsistently accounted for, accountability erodes without any formal ruling ever being made.
Why This Matters
This case reflects a broader accountability gap that appears repeatedly when criminal charges are declined in cases involving institutional power.
Several systemic concerns emerge:
- Declinations issued without direct victim engagement
- Investigations lacking recorded victim interviews
- FOIA responses that obscure rather than clarify record custody
- Prosecutorial decisions that become effectively unreviewable
None of these issues require proof of misconduct. They require only a system that prioritizes closure over transparency.
Any way you slice it, it appears that Barry County desperately needs an independent FOIA officer, an electronic record solution, and a massive filing overhaul.
A Familiar Pattern
As seen in other cases where charges are declined, such as that of former Barry County Sheriff Candidate Richelle Spencer, the legal standard of proof can quietly become a shield not only against prosecution, but against scrutiny itself for law enforcement. It begs the question: is selective enforcement at play here?
What Is Selective Enforcement?
Selective enforcement occurs when authorities apply laws or policies inconsistently, choosing who to investigate, charge, discipline, or ignore based not on evidence or legal standards, but on status, relationships, institutional interests, or convenience.
The law itself may be neutral on its face. The problem lies in how it is enforced.
In criminal justice systems, selective enforcement most often appears when similarly situated cases are treated differently without a clear, documented justification tied to public safety or evidentiary standards.
Selective Enforcement could be remedied, but it will take prosecutor commitment and integrity to get it done. Read more here.
How to Spot Selective Enforcement
Selective enforcement is rarely announced. It is usually visible through patterns:
- Cases involving insiders or institutional actors are declined early or handled informally
- Victims receive less communication, fewer interviews, or no explanation of decisions
- Standard investigative steps are skipped or inconsistently applied
- Charging decisions rely on generic justifications that are not evenly used across cases
- Records become difficult to obtain, incomplete, or are said not to exist
- Oversight mechanisms are avoided or delayed after declination decisions
Selective enforcement does not require proof of intent or corruption. It is identified by disparate treatment without transparent, case-specific reasoning.
When enforcement decisions cannot be explained clearly, documented consistently, or reviewed meaningfully, selective enforcement becomes a structural risk, even if no individual misconduct is proven.
Pulling It All Together
Declining charges should never mean declining accountability. And in Barry County, it appears discretion is being exercised inconsistently in ways that suppress review.
For victims, the unresolved question is often not why charges were declined, but whether the system will honestly document how that decision was made.
In this case, the paper trail remains incomplete.
SOURCES AND DOCUMENTATION
Incident reports, prosecutorial declination documentation, FOIA correspondence, FOIA appeal filings, and related records on file with Clutch Justice.
Names of individual prosecutors have been intentionally omitted.
