The Verdict: Kalamazoo County leaders considering whether to relocate the prosecutor’s office offsite are making a structural decision that goes beyond real estate. Prosecutor Jeff Getting calling the move “a terrible idea” frames the issue as disruption and inconvenience for his staff. The stronger frame is due process and loss of access. If courts must be impartial in fact and in appearance, then institutional design should reduce perceived closeness between prosecutors and the adjudicative function. That is what separation does.
Kalamazoo County, Michigan leaders are debating a proposal that could reconfigure the county criminal justice center, including relocating the Prosecutor’s Office offsite from the courthouse where it now sits. Prosecutor Jeff Getting criticized the concept as “a terrible idea,” but that arguably tone deaf reaction misses the deeper constitutional and fairness issues at stake.
Getting voiced his opposition to the move at the January 20, 2026 Board of Commissioners Meeting.
And I am here to tell you that not only is Jeff Getting flat out wrong, but it doesn’t really matter what he thinks at all.
The Core Facts
- The current courthouse and Prosecutor’s Office share a building completed about two years ago at a cost of $94 million.
- A new proposal before county leaders could relocate the prosecutor’s office, potentially offsite, as part of a redesign.
- Getting publicly opposes the idea.
- The Public Defender’s Office is already offsite; this move levels the playing field for both sides.
This dispute is not simply about where tiles go or where office suites are located. It gets to the heart of how our criminal justice system is structured and how that structure affects the fairness of adjudication.
A Structural Conflict at the Heart of the Courthouse
Putting the Prosecutor’s Office in the same building, and sometimes the same floors, as the courts sends the wrong signal and poses substantial due process problems.
That kind of configuration is exactly how you end up in situations of overfamiliarity, like that of Judge Michael Schipper, Barry County, who gives Prosecutors exactly what they ask for.
In a system where prosecutors are supposed to be advocates with enormous power, physical proximity to judges and court staff creates both real and perceived conflicts:
- Informal access and influence. Judges and prosecutors see each other in hallways, elevators, and shared spaces. This familiarity can subtly influence decision-making, even unconsciously.
- Perceptions matter in due process. A cornerstone of due process is not just that justice is fair, but that it is seen to be fair. Shared quarters between prosecution and the bench erode that perception.
- Impartiality requires separation. Separation of functions particularly between advocates and adjudicators is a basic civil liberties principle that guards against bias.
Those concerns are why many modern justice centers intentionally locate prosecutor’s offices separate from the courthouse itself, with clear physical and operational boundaries.
A Practical Example: Proximity Doesn’t Mean Coordination
In one recent matter observed firsthand, the problem was not distance between offices. In fact, it was the exact opposite.
Court users were receiving incorrect procedural guidance from Getting’s prosecutorial staff about filing requirements and next steps. That information directly conflicted with the circuit court’s actual rules and expectations. As a result, individuals arrived at the court window misinformed, unprepared, and frustrated.
What followed was not quiet coordination behind the scenes. It was palpable tension.
Circuit court staff were visibly irritated, not because members of the public were confused, but because they were repeatedly forced to correct misinformation that should never have been issued in the first place. Instead of the prosecutor’s office resolving the problem internally, court staff found themselves constantly combatting bad guidance at the counter and in hallways.
The court was left doing damage control for errors it did not create.
The prosecutor’s office staff behaved as if they were an extension of court staff, or that they knew better than the court staff did.
This is not a story about malice or misconduct. It is a story about role confusion and institutional bleed-through. When prosecutorial offices operate as if they are part of the court’s administrative function, members of the public understandably assume that the information they receive carries judicial authority. When that information is wrong, the credibility cost lands on the court, not the prosecutor.
Importantly, the proximity did not improve outcomes. It made it worse. Instead of clear accountability, responsibility became diffused. Court staff were forced into a corrective posture, while the office that issued the misinformation remained insulated from its downstream effects.
That experience underscores why separation matters. Courts should not be in the position of policing or correcting prosecutorial communications to the public. Prosecutors are advocates. Courts are neutral administrators of process. When those lines blur, defendants and court users pay the price in confusion, delay, and erosion of trust.
Getting’s “Terrible” Comment Misses the Point
Getting’s protest that the move is a “terrible idea” seems grounded entirely in proximity to the courthouse or concerns about his staff’s convenience. But convenience for prosecutors is not a constitutional value. Protecting defendants’ rights is.
Here’s why relocating the office supports due process:
1. It enhances judicial independence
Judges must be impartial arbiters, free from the appearance of collaboration with one side. When prosecutors and judges operate in the same building, even unintentional familiarity can undercut perceptions of judicial independence.
2. It protects defense counsel from the perception of bias
Defense attorneys, particularly public defenders, already battle uphill in systems where resources are very much unequal. Keeping prosecutors physically removed from the courthouse reduces implicit signaling that the “home team” has an advantage.
3. It mirrors best practices in other jurisdictions
Across the country, jurisdictions have increasingly separated advocacy functions from adjudicative spaces; not for aesthetics, but to uphold fairness. This is especially true in centers that serve urban populations with diverse legal needs.
4. It aligns with constitutional principles, not architectural whim
Due process is not advanced by fancy facilities or shared spaces. It is advanced by institutional integrity. Structures matter because they embody values. A courthouse that physically separates prosecution from adjudication reinforces that justice serves neither side but the rule of law.
Why Physical Separation in Justice Buildings Matters
Kalamazoo County is not operating in a vacuum. Across the country, courts, architects, and legal scholars have increasingly recognized that physical space and institutional layout directly affect due process, public trust, and perceptions of fairness.
Courthouse Design and the Appearance of Fairness
Justice reform experts have long emphasized that courts must not only be impartial but must appear impartial to the public. Research and reporting on courthouse design show that physical environments influence how defendants, families, and attorneys experience fairness. Modern courthouse reforms increasingly prioritize neutrality, transparency, and the reduction of implicit power signaling over convenience for court actors .
Michigan’s Own Guidance on Public Trust
Michigan’s judiciary has acknowledged that courthouse configuration plays a role in whether people view courts as legitimate and fair. State-issued guidance on reimagining courthouses emphasizes that justice facilities should promote confidence, neutrality, and equal treatment. The goal is not administrative efficiency alone, but ensuring that court users experience the system as impartial and accessible, particularly those already at a power disadvantage .
National Shift Toward Function Separation
Legal design experts and court administrators increasingly advocate separating advocacy functions from adjudicative spaces. Prosecutors are advocates, not neutral parties, and modern justice facility planning reflects that distinction. The trend is toward clear institutional boundaries that reinforce judicial independence rather than blur it through proximity or informal interaction .
Prosecutorial Power and Structural Safeguards
Legal scholarship has also documented the extraordinary discretion wielded by prosecutors and the risks that accompany unchecked or poorly structured power. While these critiques often focus on charging decisions and plea bargaining, they also recognize that institutional design and proximity to judicial authority can shape outcomes and perceptions, intentionally or not. Structural safeguards, including separation, help counterbalance that power.
Judicial Independence Requires More Than Ethics Rules
Judicial independence is not maintained by ethics rules alone. Courts and scholars consistently stress that independence must be reinforced structurally, including through organizational and physical separation from parties appearing before the court. Even the appearance of closeness between judges and prosecutors can undermine confidence in neutral decision-making, particularly for defendants and the public .
Why This Strengthens Kalamazoo’s Decision
Relocating the Prosecutor’s Office is not an attack on prosecutors, nor a rejection of planning that went into the current building. It is a recognition that justice systems evolve, and that structural choices must align with constitutional values, not convenience.
What Prosecutor Jeff Getting calls a “terrible idea” aligns squarely with best practices aimed at protecting due process, reinforcing judicial independence, and preserving public trust.
What Should Happen Next
I think this move is a fantastic idea. However, I do feel that without data, Kalamazoo County leaders will receive pushback, such as they have received from Jeff Getting. To combat that, County leaders should lead with data and:
- Conduct and share with the public a due process impact assessment focusing on fairness outcomes, not just construction budgets.
- Consult defense counsel and civil liberties advocates on design recommendations.
- Prioritize structural separation to enhance confidence in the criminal justice system.
Why This Matters
Kalamazoo is making a significant and meaningful choice that goes beyond real estate. It is making a choice about what fairness looks like in practice.
When you ask whether justice is truly equal under the law, consider not just the words in statutes but the architecture of the system. Physically separating the prosecutor’s office from the courthouse is not some petty relocation dispute; it is a concrete step toward ensuring that every defendant gets their day in a setting structured for neutrality, not proximity to power.
If county leaders embrace this proposal, they won’t be rejecting tradition; they’ll be affirming due process. And if that makes defendants feel like they finally got a “fair shake” then it doesn’t matter what Jeff Getting thinks. If Jeff and his staff have to walk a little further to the courthouse, they’re just going to have to get over it.
QUICK FACTS:
A: County leaders are evaluating a reconfiguration of courthouse space that could relocate the prosecutor’s office offsite to better align with modern best practices around neutrality, separation of powers, and public confidence in the justice system.
A: Prosecutor Jeff Getting has argued the relocation is unnecessary and disruptive, emphasizing prior planning and proximity benefits. However, those concerns prioritize his office’s convenience rather than constitutional fairness.
A: Physical separation reduces informal access, reinforces judicial independence, and strengthens the appearance and reality of impartial decision-making, all core elements of due process.
A: Yes. Many jurisdictions intentionally separate prosecutorial offices from courthouses to avoid perceived bias and to uphold structural fairness.
A: No. The issue is institutional design, not individual behavior. Due process protections focus on preventing structural risks before problems arise.
