Representatives introduced three bills aimed at restricting a long-standing provision that allows the attorney general's office to select Ingham County as venue for certain cases, saying the change would keep trials closer to where events and witnesses are located.

Sponsors told the House Judiciary Committee the measures would clarify MCL 600.1631 and remove a unique privilege the attorney general currently possesses. An author of HB 5316 said the change "does not remove any authority from the attorney general, only ensures that cases are filed where they arise," and argued the bills would "support fairness, transparency, and access to justice by allowing local communities to participate in cases that directly affect them."

The committee heard an audio excerpt the sponsors said shows internal attorney general staff discussing venue choices. The transcript identifies the voice in the clip as criminal bureau chief Danielle Hageman Clark; the recorded remark reproduced in committee was, "I'm not down with trying to pick no Roscommon jury," a line sponsors cited as evidence that venue choices can be strategic and therefore unfair to defendants. A sponsor characterized that language as "an absolute and clear violation of ethics" and urged the committee to advance the legislation.

Several members asked whether the bills would prevent the attorney general from assisting local prosecutors or representing the state when necessary. A sponsor repeatedly said the bills would not preclude assistance or intervention but would limit automatic selection of Ingham County when another proper venue exists. Representative Rene raised concerns about attorney-client privilege in the recorded material and noted the attorney general's statutory role to represent Michigan's interests.

Members also asked staff to clarify interactions with federal rules and whether other states have a formal right to intervene in Michigan proceedings. Committee counsel and sponsors said they would provide additional legal and fiscal analysis; Rep. Wozniak noted a fiscal analyst review was pending.

The hearing was limited to testimony only; there was no formal vote on the venue bills during this session. Sponsors asked the committee to forward the bills, and a public-submitted card from Randy Groves of the Michigan Chamber expressed support for HB 5316. The committee proceeded to other business and did not reach final action on the venue bills in this hearing.

What happens next: Committee staff will supply follow-up legal and fiscal information the members requested; the bills remain at testimony and may return for further committee action.