MICHIGAN STATE COURT RECOMMENDS ADDITIONAL JUDGE FOR BERRIEN COUNTY

By DEBRA HAIGHT
BCR Correspondent
ST. JOSEPH – Could Berrien County Trial Court be gaining a new judgeship in the future? That question was raised at a recent Berrien County Board of Commissioners meeting.
Berrien County Commissioner and Administration Committee Chairman Jim Curran raised the subject as he reported on a conversation his committee had with Berrien County Chief Trial Court Judge Mabel Mayfield and Trial Court Administrator Carrie Smietanka-Haney.
He said that Mayfield and Smietanka-Haney said that Berrien County has been identified as a county that could get another judge in coming years. The State Court Administrator’s Office periodically evaluates caseloads in the different counties to see where more or less judges might be needed around the state.
Judge Mayfield reported that the most recent Judicial Resource Report indicated that an additional judge has been recommended for Berrien County.
Curran noted that such a change has to be approved by the legislature and there is no timetable yet on when such an action might take place. He did say that preliminary discussions would place a new judge at the Niles courthouse, as there is already space there to accommodate an additional judge.
Currently, Berrien County has 11 judges assigned to three divisions within the Trial Court with all but one located at the St. Joseph Courthouse. Judge Mayfield is the chief judge over the Trial Court, while Judge Angela Pasula is the chief judge pro-tem.
The trial court’s three divisions are civil, criminal, and family. Two judges are in the civil division: Presiding Judge Donna Howard and Judge Charles LaSata. Three judges are in the family division: Presiding Judge Brian Berger, Judge Paul Jancha, and Judge Mayfield.
The criminal division has six judges: Presiding Judge Arthur Cotter, Judge Pasula, and Judges Gary Bruce, Sherri Frame, Gordon Hosbein, and Jennifer Smith. Judge Hosbein is currently assigned to the Niles courthouse.
Smietanka-Haney said after the county board meeting that the judicial resource report was conducted by the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO). “The purpose of the report is to determine if the sizing of each court’s judiciary is correct,” she said. “During this current round of the judicial resource report (JRR), Berrien County was determined to be “under-judged” by just over one judge.”
“The determination is made through judicial time studies, caseload data, and weighting of different case types within the caseload,” she added. “Courts whose JRR results indicate the possibility of an addition of a judge are then asked to complete a secondary analysis that is reviewed by the SCAO in making a final determination to the legislature.”
She noted that the final decision on whether the county will get an additional judge is ultimately up to the legislature and could be a year or more away. “I am not certain the length of time it may take for a final determination to be made by either SCAO or the legislature, but I know from other courts that it can be a long process,” she said.
She said that Berrien County was determined in the last two JRR reports to be either over-judged or correctly sized and no action was ever taken to reduce the number of judges.
Despite Curran’s statement that a new judge might be assigned to the Niles courthouse, she said it’s too early to make that decision. “If we were determined to receive an additional judgeship, we would need to put some significant thought and strategy into where a judge would be and what types of cases they would hear,” she said.
Published reports on the topic noted that allocating judgeships to counties in Michigan can involve a number of factors. It was noted that the fiscal year 2025 budget does include a $30 million increase in county revenue sharing, impacting how judgeships are allocated.
Reports went on to note that recommendations from the SCAO and Michigan Supreme Court have suggested eliminating certain district judgeships and redistributing them among probate judges with the goal of ensuring fair workload distribution among judges in a county.