BlackHand Betty and the Brady Breaches

[XLFD]

"It is conceded that Prosecutor [Beth] Hand had knowledge and deliberately withheld evidence and information that was required to be produced.   Our courts have held that the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor after discovery has been requested constitutes a Brady violation...Ms. Hand's failure to bring discovery and blatant misrepresentation before the court at the preliminary examination amounts to nothing less than intolerable due process violations." "  -- Opinion and order of Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Victoria A. Valentine, June 21, 2021

When Oakland Assistant Prosecutor Beth Hand (seen above) left her job, it was under a cloud of controversy after committing a serious Brady Rule violation and being roundly sanctioned by their circuit court judge.  Due to Hand's unethical strategy of keeping information from the defendant in a very high-profile case (the Denis Preka homicide) leading ultimately to the dismissal of the case against a man caught on camera doing what many would say were actions that led to the death of Preka, she was, undoubtedly, highly encouraged to move on.  Shortly, Hand herself will be put on trial by this reporter where a more recent Brady violation is alleged to have occurred.

While Judge Valentine explains basically what a Brady rule violation is, legal protocol during discovery requires prosecutors to disclose material exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense, as determined in Brady v. Maryland.  In United States v. Bagley, however, the Supreme Court eliminated any discovery request requirement and stated that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose all material, favorable information in their possession to defendants regardless of whether it is requested. This duty is breached regardless of whether that information is withheld intentionally or unintentionally.

Despite the admonishment made by Judge Valentine on the record after reviewing all of the evidence pointing at a Brady rule violation, Beth Hand denied withholding evidence from the defense in a 2025 interview, saying to the Detroit Free Press: "It absolutely did not happen. I would never do that.  My integrity is everything to me. It has been my entire career. The accusation that I would ever intentionally withhold evidence is absurd, it’s absolutely absurd."

Hand's integrity has been in question in almost everything she has had a hand in during her stint here in Mason County, but her assertion that she would never commit a Brady rule violation is totally untrue, as witnessed in her prosecution against Muzette Elizabeth O'Connell.  You may remember her as the woman who showed up at the Hamlin Town Hall to vote on November 5, 2024 with a Trump hat on. which eventually led to her being charged with three felonies and two misdemeanors.  

Two responding deputies, Mike Fort and Noah Noble had their body cams running when they rushed O'Connell and arrested her, ironically after she had been similarly assaulted by the township's clerk, leading to the shattering of O'Connell's cell phone.  At a court hearing on March 19, 2025. Assistant Prosecutor David Marvin admitted reviewing these videos and determined that they would not be charging O'Connell with the two felonies of resisting and opposing, charged originally in early November by Prosecutor Hand, as they did not show O'Connell resisting arrest.  

At a prior hearing just one week before that, the newly assigned defense attorney replacement James Marek told Marvin that the two body cams were not part of the file passed on to him.  O'Connell would confirm that her prior attorneys never received those videos and that she had asked for them through those attorneys and was told they were never given to them.  

The case was over four months old at that time, the court records (here, here and here) show that both of her prior attorneys filed discovery requests that should have produced those bodycam records that even a prosecutor said absolved O'Connell of two serious felonies.  These were entirely exculpatory bits of evidence that Prosecutor Beth Hand's office withheld from O'Connell and her defense team for now nearly five months, five months where they were plea bargaining with her defense with the attorneys not knowing that the bodycams would not show evidence of two of the most serious crimes charged.  Those attorneys would likely have encouraged O'Connell to take pleas, since they would have been inclined to believe the unseen videos were damaging to O'Connell.

This is an extremely serious Brady rule violation by Hand denying Ms. O'Connell access to two very important exculpatory bits of evidence, being withheld (again ironically) while BlackHand Betty was saying with tears welling in her eyes in front of Freep reporters:  "The accusation that I would ever intentionally withhold evidence is absurd, it’s absolutely absurd."  Lady, you have no idea what ethical conduct is, as one can find multiple instances throughout the Ludington Torch that you have fallen short of our community standards in your course of conduct while just in Mason County

Almost immediately after the March 19 hearing where the felonies against O'Connell were dropped, I sent out a FOIA Request to the prosecutor asking for the two bodycams in their possession that they were unwilling to give the defense for 4.5 months.  I received a response eight days later, denying my request in much the same way they denied the two discovery requests:  unlawfully.  This would lead to the FOIA lawsuit I have which not only questions the specious denial without a valid exemption received but also brings up the accusation of a serious Brady violation as pertains specifically to O'Connell's case.   

The complaint follows, which explains in more detail how this immediate case ties in with O'Connell's and that an expedited hearing is essential so that justice can be better served.  One would hope that the prosecutor would drop the baseless case against O'Connell and pony up the records that will most probably show what is indicated on the police report:  the deputies assaulted her before even telling her she was under arrest, acting only upon what appears to be an untrue statement by Hamlin's ex-clerk.

 

                         COMPLAINT REGARDING FOIA DISCLOSURE VIOLATIONS 

 

NOW COMES Tom Rotta, pro se, and as his complaint states as follows: 

                                                 

                                                   INTRODUCTION 

1.  This is a civil action under the Freedom of Information Act, hereafter FOIA, in order to have defendant, Mason County Prosecuting Attorney Office, hereafter McPROSECUTOR, disclose body cam videos of a November 5, 2024 arrest in their possession that happened in Hamlin Township. 

2.  The defendant's failure to supply any part of the public records request by Plaintiff Tom Rotta, hereafter ROTTA, without citing any permissible exemption and without following the requirements needed for such a denial violated the FOIA and became their final determination to deny the request for those videos.   

3.  This lawsuit seeks disclosure of the time-sensitive records constructively denied by the unlawful response, disbursements, civil, and punitive damages consistent with prevailing in this matter.  Additionally, we seek the court to use its authority to correct the due process violation of the Brady Rule the McPROSECUTOR has committed against an accused party in the 79th District Court by not timely providing the records sought in this FOIA request. 

                                                           

                                                           PARTIES 

4.  Plaintiff Tom ROTTA is a resident of the city of Ludington in Mason County in the state of Michigan. 

5.  Defendant McPROSECUTOR is an agency authorized and empowered through section 49 of Michigan's compiled laws and located in Mason County (Michigan) 

6.  Defendant McPROSECUTOR is a public body as that term is defined by the FOIA, specifically MCL 15.232(h)(iii). 

 

                                     JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND TIMELINESS 

7.  The circuit court has jurisdiction of FOIA appeals by statute pursuant to MCL 15.240(1)(b).   

8.  Venue is proper in this case pursuant to MCL 15.240(4) as the McPROSECUTOR is located solely in Mason County. 

9.  Filing is timely done as it occurs within 180 days within the public body's final determination on March 27, 2025 to deny the request in total citing no permissible FOIA exemption.  As mandated by the FOIA in MCL 15.240(5), the court shall assign for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and be expedited in every way. 

 

                                                   GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

10.  On Wednesday, March 19, 2025, Plaintiff ROTTA sent a FOIA request by email to the McPROSECUTOR's official email address clearly described in the email's subject line as "FOIA Request: Muzette Elizabeth O'Connell arrest body cam footage from MCSO", and clearly prefaced in the body of the email starting with the words:  "Under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act..."  (EXHIBIT 1: email request) 

11.  The request specified two copies of body cam footage that were reviewed and used by the McPROSECUTOR in order to ply their craft, namely:  "Please provide the body cam footage of Deputies Mike Fort and Noah Noble retained and reviewed by the MCPA for the mid-day arrest of Muzette Elizabeth O'Connell on November 5, 2024, at Hamlin Town Hall and used for the purpose by the MCPA to decide charging two counts of R&O back in November 2024." 

12.  The requested videos were "public records" as defined by the FOIA, in that it meets the definition of a "writing" in possession of the public body for use in a prosecution. 

13.  The McPROSECUTOR officially received this email on Thursday, March 20, 2025, as per MCL 15.235(1) and as noted in the request, had 5 business days to respond, per MCL 15.235(2). 

14.  On March 27, 2025, Assistant Prosecutor David Marvin sent a FOIA response to ROTTA denying the records requested, primarily reasoning that:  "This case is active and video evidence will be needed at trial should the case not settle by plea agreement or other resolution.  Specifically, evidence supporting the charge of MCL 168.934 (Election Law – Polling Place Violations) is captured on the video.  Until the case is resolved, the FOIA request cannot be met."  [EXHIBIT 2:  FOIA Response/final determination] 

15.  The response denied the records in full; by MCL 15.235(5), it was a final determination to deny the request. 

16.  As it was a denial, by MCL 15.235(5)(a) the written notice must contain "an explanation of the basis under this act or other statute for the determination that the public record, or portion of that public record, is exempt from disclosure."  

17.  The denial mentions the video is part of an active case and the video will be needed at trial.  None of these are exemptions or anything close to exemptions under those listed in MCL 15.243, and are thus unlawful under the FOIA. 

18.  As it was a denial, by MCL 15.235(d) the written notice must contain "a full explanation of the requesting person's rights" which include the right to appeal to the head of the public body or seek judicial review.   

19.  The right to appeal before either the head of the public body or the court was not found anywhere on the final determination of a denial, violating this subsection. 

20.  As it was a denial, by MCL 15.235(e) the written notice must contain a notice of the right to "receive attorneys' fees and damages if, after judicial review, the court determines that the public body has not complied with this section and orders disclosure of all or a portion of a public record." 

21.  The right of requestor to receive attorney fees and damages after prevailing in a FOIA case was never mentioned in the denial, violating this subsection. 

22.  Violations of FOIA notwithstanding with this full denial of public records, the FOIA response cemented the McPROSECUTOR's Brady Rule violation as it pertains to supplying a defendant with material, exculpatory information in the government's possession.   

23.  At a March 12th, 2025 hearing in front of Judge John Middlebrook and ROTTA, the McPROSECUTOR was made aware of the lack of police body cam videos in the case file passed on from Muzette O'Connell's former two attorneys to her new attorney James Marek.  O'Connell insisted she had wanted but was never given the videos through her prior attorneys. 

24.  According to the 79th District Court case file of O'Connell's case, both of her former attorneys Tracie Dinehart on 11-7-2024 and Horia Neagos on 11-27-2024 sent out discovery requests that should have had these videos produced within a reasonable time.  On information and belief, the police report was produced but the videos, deeply wanted by O'Connell in order to prove her innocence of resisting arrest, were never disclosed for over 4 months.   

25.  At the March 12 hearing, McPROSECUTOR, represented by David Marvin, acknowledged this and indicated that the defense would have the body cam footage by the next hearing on March 19th. 

26.  At the March 19 hearing, Marvin would dismiss the two R&O charges, saying in court that he had reviewed the footage and wouldn't press the charges.  On information and belief, after talking with Marek and O'Connell the footage was still left undisclosed, albeit the usefulness of the footage was now mostly moot due to the dismissal action.   

27.  Curious as to why the McPROSECUTOR would engage in such blatant Brady Rule violations by withholding evidence that showed (even to them) O'Connell's innocence in the felonies alleged in her case, the aforementioned FOIA request was sent out later that day as noted at the beginning. 

28.  This appears to be an ongoing Brady violation since the McPROSECUTOR admits in their final determination to deny the records that "evidence supporting the charge of MCL 168.934 (Election Law – Polling Place Violations) is captured on the video" being asked for.  This indicates that the McPROSECUTOR is still withholding evidence that it should have disclosed through both discovery requests by two lawyers representing O'Connell. 

29.  The unprincipled act by McPROSECUTOR to commit a Brady Rule violation and verify that that's exactly what they were doing in denying ROTTA's FOIA request for exculpatory material that should have been disclosed to a defendant charged with two serious felonies five months ago was not only unprofessional but prosecutorial misconduct requiring sanctions against McPROSECUTOR, the first sanction for willfully and intentionally failing to comply with the FOIA or otherwise acting in bad faith, and penalize the McPROSECUTOR from $2500-$7500, as allowed by MCL 15.240b. 

30.  McPROSECUTOR's arbitrary and capricious behavior as regards violations of the FOIA and discovery rules should additionally exact punitive damages against them, by having the McPROSECUTOR pay the state treasurer and ROTTA $1000, as allowed by MCL 14.240(7). 

31)  The body cam footage denied to ROTTA and O'Connell should be immediately disclosed, redacted to ROTTA if necessary and the redactions are lawful under FOIA, unredacted to O'Connell so she can prepare her defense to the remaining charges or ask the 79th District Court to dismiss them based on the ethical violations by the prosecutor 

                                               RELIEF REQUESTED 

32)  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tom ROTTA respectfully requests this court to: 

A)  Determine that McPROSECUTOR unlawfully under FOIA withheld the two bodycam recordings from ROTTA, offering no sustainable exemptions to prohibit disclosure, even in part, and order the immediate release of the two records to ROTTA, along with costs and disbursements for prevailing as allowed under MCL 15.240.   

B)  Determine that the withholding of exculpatory discovery material in the O'Connell case was prosecutorial misconduct, and alert Judge Middlebrook of the 79th District Court of this Brady violation so that the court can figure out a proper sanction for McPROSECUTOR for failing in her duties under the Brady rules, and for a fair and proper resolution to the O'Connell case. 

C)  Determine that the unsubstantiated denial of this FOIA request along with the implications that McPROSECUTOR committed a Brady rule violation and is still in violation deserves the imposition of punitive damages for the arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful acts as allowed in MCL 15.240(7), namely by awarding ROTTA and the state treasury with $1000 each. 

D)  Determine in addition that McPROSECUTOR acted in bad faith by willfully and intentionally failing to comply with the FOIA (and the tenets of the Brady rule) and assign a fine of $7500 as permitted under MCL 15.240b to be deposited in the general fund of the state treasury. 

E)  Grant all other relief that is warranted and just. 

April 3, 2025                                                       _____________________________________      

 

[Freedom Seeker]

You (and the people) and the plaintiff deserve a lot more than $1000 for this refusal of McProsecutor (and Cole knowingly though his curt "final" reply) to withhold and not disclose the body cams at the arrest of O'Connel. McSO and LPD must be taught "resisting arrest" in the same old brick schoolhouse with the same thug teacher.

Prayers for justice. Glad to hear Marvin got the resisting charges dropped. Could you not also have included MCSO for refusal to disclose the body cam also?

[XLFD]

I could have gone after the sheriff for failure to produce these when asked (recalling this earlier article where he denied the report and bodycams) but he was acting under the Hand of the prosecutor, who also supplies legal advice for county departments.  In fact, I had under preparation such a lawsuit pending what happened at the March 12 hearing (where I was given access to the police report by O'Connell and learned that no videos were ever shared), then decided that the prosecutor would be a better route, since Prosecutor Marvin admitted the resisting charges were not able to be proven with the videos.  That meant that the footage I asked for (the arrest of O'Connell) was fair game as the other charges dealt with the statements of the witnesses, which I didn't ask for because I would presume they mirrored the report.

The problem is that Judge Sniegowski will not expedite my case as is required by law and what other judges in the past have tried to accommodate.  My lawsuit for the COL's credit cards, filed and served on March 24th, won't have a hearing until May, and that hearing will only determine whether my motion to disqualify Judge Sniegowski is honored (I'll bet anybody that she finds herself qualified to hear my case, despite all the ways she botched my other case for excessive bodycam FOIA fees which is almost a year old).  

There was no such motion filed here, even though I have been at enough trials where Hand was the prosecutor and have seen a very high bias towards the prosecution even during jury trials when objections are made, or jury instructions are given.  Gurumurthy had about a dozen reasonable objections in the Travis Gale case, but there was only one time, on a minor note, that she ruled in his favor and allowed a lot of prejudicial evidence to be entered that would likely have been denied by a fair judge.  

It was difficult to find a process server to give this to the prosecutor's office, most people realize that this corrupt prosecutor is probably going to go after them just for doing this task.  Hand just may create fictitious charges against them, just as she has against a certain website creator.  The problem is she will be down some personnel, Marvin has resigned, and they will likely have to contract out for assistant prosecutors as they are down two to none from what I understand.  Lot of background chatter I'm hearing about Hand, and it's from some unexpected sources.

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks X for more insight and info. Seems Hand is a pit bull to defend LE at any cost and disregard to law, justice and fairness. I pray your boldness to try her on this shakes the whole system of corruption in Ludington.

Their pranks to illegally prosecute you seem they have pulled all stops and put a lot of hope in Hand. Praying for righteous judges and arbitration.