Scheduled hearing related to Davis’ 2024 firing for allegedly lying to judge
By Robert Tomlinson
News Director
DETROIT — St. Joseph County’s prosecuting attorney could face formal action from the state regarding an alleged incident from prior to her election.
In a notice dated Feb. 7 obtained and confirmed by the Commercial-News Monday, the state’s Attorney Discipline Board (ADB) scheduled a virtual prehearing conference for Monday, March 24 at 10 a.m. as the first step toward a potential disciplinary hearing for Deborah Davis.
The disciplinary process stems from an incident from January of 2024 that led to Davis, who was an assistant prosecutor at the time, being fired from the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office for allegedly lying to Judge Jeffrey Middleton during an aggravated stalking case in St. Joseph County 3B District Court.
Monday’s prehearing conference will be mainly to discuss deadlines for pretrial motions, evidentiary issues and briefing schedules prior to a scheduling order for a formal hearing before the Board. If, in the formal hearing before a three-lawyer panel appointed by the ADB, misconduct is established based on the evidence, potential discipline could be a reprimand, probation, a suspension, or even disbarment, which would be determined during a separate hearing.
The conference will be livestreamed on YouTube on the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board Channel Two channel.
According to the allegations filed by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission (MAGC) in a formal complaint Jan. 17, Davis was the prosecuting attorney during a preliminary hearing in the case on Jan. 16, 2024, and allegedly made “false or misleading statements” about why the victim in the case was not present for the hearing, despite being subpoenaed to testify.
The complaint alleges that Davis failed to tell the court that the reason the victim wasn’t present was “related to the fact that [Davis] had met with the victim shortly before the hearing.” During this meeting, the complaint alleges, Davis told the victim that she planned to dismiss the case, and that because of that the subpoena would be cancelled and she would be free to leave.
During the hearing, according to the complaint, when asked if the victim had left the courthouse with her permission, Davis said that, “Well there was some confusion because [inaudible] and then there was a bond violation and then we did not get to speak after that.” At one point, Judge Middleton replied, “Well, I wish she hadn’t left. She was here under subpoena and then she just drove away?” Davis responded, “I think that there was – I don’t know what you want me to get into on the record, but the concern was that she wasn’t going to testify truthfully today because she was angry and has had contact with [the defendant].”
According to the complaint, when asked by Middleton about why Davis didn’t put the victim “back in her office or something,” Davis said the victim’s “lack of cooperation” was based on “continued contact” from the defendant, which included an apparent conversation they had outside the courthouse, which she said was witnessed by a corrections officer.
“So, at this point he had contributed to the unavailability and hostility of this witness which is the key witness in all of his cases,” Davis said during the hearing, according to a transcript in the complaint. “The testimony that has been provided thus far in this case, the probable cause purposes, maybe it’s enough to bind over, it wasn’t threatening, intimidating, harassing behavior. We don’t have her here to say that today at this point but it was a direct violation, it was knowingly a violation by [the defendant] and he’s so brazen to do it today while we’re all here at the same courthouse.”
The statements Davis made, according to the complaint, led to the court cancelling the defendant’s bond and continuing the hearing to another day, which led to the defendant spending time in jail.
An investigation was launched afterward by then-prosecutor David Marvin, which concluded that Davis, according to the complaint, “committed misconduct by making false statements to the court” during the hearing. The conclusions of the investigation led to Davis’ firing from the prosecutor’s office on Jan. 25, 2024.
In a response to the complaint filed to the Attorney Discipline Board on Feb. 20, Davis “absolutely denie[d]” Marvin’s allegations and alleged that Marvin “failed to conduct an unbiased investigation” into the incident. She also alleged that Marvin “produced more than one version of his alleged ‘report,’” challenged “the conclusory opinions of Mr. Marvin and manner in which the investigation was conducted,” and claimed that the firing was in retaliation for Davis running for the prosecutor’s position.
“Mr. Marvin failed to give [Davis] the opportunity for due process; he did not advise [Davis] of the specific allegations nor give her a chance to respond; he did not interview necessary witnesses; and he failed to review credible, readily available documentation that absolutely refutes Mr. Marvin’s allegations,” Davis’ response stated. “[Davis] believes termination of her employment was in retaliation for [Davis’] decision to seek election as St. Joseph County Prosecutor, which would potentially challenge Mr. Marvin who had not yet filed for re-election at that time.”
Davis, in her response, stated that she did have a meeting with the victim, and that there was discussion regarding a dismissal of only the case set for the preliminary examination. She stated the defendant in the case had been bound over to Circuit Court on two other cases where the victim was a complaining witness that were still pending, that the defendant was still subject to a personal protection order (PPO), and later stated that the defendant had a probation violation hearing that same day. However, she stated the inclination to dismiss the case was “based upon victim’s assertion only minutes before the hearing was starting that she would not be truthful under oath if forced to testify that day.”
Davis also stated in her response that the victim “did not wish to remain at the courthouse” and that she was “concerned for the safety and comfort of Victim as Defendant was seated in the hallway directly across from the only exit from the building,” which led to Davis walking with the victim until they were past the defendant and where court security was present.
In the response, Davis also stated that the “partial statement” given in some parts of the complaint and the transcript excerpt in the complaint were “taken out of context” and, in particular regarding the transcript excerpt, “must be considered with other facts and circumstances.”
As to the defendant spending time in jail, Davis’ response stated that she had notified the court at the start of the hearing that a bond violation had just occurred, that she was requesting a hearing to address the bond violation allegation, and she believed the defendant to be in violation of four separate court orders by having contact with the victim outside the courthouse.
In an interview with WWMT-TV following her firing, when she was asked why she didn’t explain what happened prior to the hearing to the judge, Davis said she was concerned for the victim.
“This victim in particular has had so many issues with this relationship with this individual. My feeling was that if [the defendant] were aware that I was going to dismiss it before I found out about this contact that he would then ramp up his efforts to continue harassing her, intimidating her or potentially hurting her,” Davis told WWMT.
Davis ultimately contended in her response that she “acted in good faith” based upon the circumstances, that the MAGC “relies upon information gathered by Mr. Marvin that is not verified and should be excluded as hearsay,” and that it “relies upon the fraudulent misrepresentations of Mr. Marvin.” Her response also called for an investigation by the Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board into Marvin’s alleged conduct related to the incident as well.
When reached out to by the Commercial-News Tuesday, Davis said she believes the scheduling conference would “likely be adjourned,” but otherwise declined to comment further on the situation.
The MAGC responded in a separate filing on Feb. 24 to Davis’ response, stating that Marvin’s credibility is a “factual issue for the panel,” denied that there have been any due process violations, and that “even if she had acted in good faith, [the MAGC] denies that that constitutes a defense to the alleged misconduct.”
Davis was eventually re-hired by Marvin and the prosecutor’s office on Oct. 22, 2024, and served as an assistant prosecutor until the end of the calendar year. She was officially elected prosecutor in November 2024, running unopposed in the general election and defeating both Marvin and former prosecutor John McDonough in the August primary with 56.1 percent of the vote. Marvin finished in second with 30.9 percent of the vote.
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.
FAFO