McCormack, C.J.

Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Gallant Fish, Daniel Ping, Christopher Kessel, and Molly Kettler, Assistant Attorneys General, for the people.

Gurewitz & Raben, PLC, Detroit (by Harold Gurewitz ), for Nancy Peeler.

Levine & Levine, Kalamazoo (by Randall S. Levine and Anastase Markou ), for Richard L. Baird.

Willey & Chamberlain LLP, Grand Rapids (by Charles E. Chamberlain, Jr., and Britt M. Cobb ), Bursch Law PLLC, Caledonia (by John J. Bursch ), and Varnum LLP, Grand Rapids (by Ronald G. DeWaard, Brion B. Doyle, and Regan A. Gibson ) for Nicolas Lyon.

Doug Lloyd and Timothy A. Baughman, Detroit, for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, amicus curiae.

Cramer, Minock & Sweeney PLC (by John Minock, Ann Arbor) and Matthew Monahan, for the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, amicus curiae.

Dickinson Wright PLLC (by J. Benjamin Dolan, Phillip J. DeRosier, Detroit, and Seth B. Waxman ), for Jarrod Agen, amicus curiae.

Ashlii M. Dyer and Doster Law Offices, PLLC (by Eric E. Doster ), for American Conservative Union Foundation, amicus curiae.

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Grand Rapids (by Devin S. Schindler, Gaëtan GervilleRéache, Charles Ash, and Brian Lennon ), for Governor Richard Snyder, amicus curiae.

Rusek Law PLLC (by Alexander S. Rusek, Okemos), for Howard Croft, amicus curiae.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH (except Clement, J.)

McCormack, C.J.

Nancy Peeler, Richard L. Baird, and Nicolas Lyon were state employees investigated and charged for their roles in the Flint water crisis. But for some reason, they were not charged the way that almost everyone in Michigan is charged—with a criminal complaint issued by a prosecutor and followed by a preliminary examination in open court at which the accused can hear and challenge the prosecution's evidence. Instead, the prosecution chose to proceed with these cases using what have become known as the "one-man grand jury" statutes, MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4. A Genesee County judge served as the one-man "grand" jury and considered the evidence not in a public courtroom but in secret, a Star Chamber comeback. The one-man grand jury then issued charges. To this day, the defendants do not know what evidence the prosecution presented to convince the grand jury (i.e., juror) to charge them.

We consider two questions about the one-man grand-jury statutes. First, if charged by a one-man grand jury, is a defendant entitled to a preliminary examination? Second, can a judge issue an indictment authorizing criminal charges against a defendant?

In Peeler and Baird , we hold that the answer to the first question is yes. In Lyon , we hold that the answer to the second question is no. We therefore reverse the June 16, 2021 order of the Genesee Circuit Court denying Peeler's and Baird's motions to remand for a preliminary examination and reverse the Genesee Circuit Court's February 16, 2022 order denying Lyon's motion to dismiss. We remand all three cases to the Genesee Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

These prosecutions have an extremely long procedural history, most of which is not germane to the questions we answer here. Peeler, a former manager of the Early Childhood Health Section of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), is charged with two counts of misconduct in office (a five-year felony), MCL 750.505, and one count of willful neglect of duty (a misdemeanor), MCL 750.478. Baird, the former "Transformation Manager" and a senior advisor to former Governor Rick Snyder, is charged with misconduct in office; perjury during an investigative-subpoena examination (a 15-year felony), MCL 767A.9 ; obstruction of justice (a five-year felony), MCL 750.505 ; and extortion (a 20-year felony), MCL 750.213. Lyon, a former director of the Michigan Department of Community Health and DHHS, is charged with nine counts of involuntary manslaughter (a 15-year felony), MCL 750.321 ; and one count of willful neglect of duty.

In December 2019, the Attorney General's office requested the appointment of a one-person grand jury. Genesee Circuit Chief Judge Pro Tem Duncan Beagle granted the motion and appointed Genesee Circuit Judge David Newblatt to act as the one-person grand jury for a six-month term under MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4. Judge Newblatt later extended his term for six more months.

In January 2021, Newblatt issued indictments against Peeler and Baird, and the cases were then assigned to Genesee Circuit Judge Elizabeth Kelly. Peeler and Baird moved to remand their cases for a preliminary examination, but the trial court denied the motion, holding that "indictees have no right to [a] preliminary examination." The Court of Appeals denied leave in both applications for lack of merit.

Judge Newblatt also issued an indictment against Lyon in January 2021. Lyon moved to dismiss, raising statutory arguments about the right to a preliminary examination, that the statutes do not confer charging authority upon a one-man grand jury, and that MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine and the right to due process. The trial court denied this motion too. Lyon filed an interlocutory application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, which remains pending.

Peeler and Baird filed applications for leave to appeal in this Court, and Lyon filed a bypass application here, seeking leave to appeal prior to a decision by the Court of Appeals. We ordered oral argument on the application in each case. People v Peeler , 509 Mich 381, 984 N.W.2d 80 (2022) ; People v Baird , 509 Mich 381, 984 N.W.2d 80 (2022) ; People v Lyon , 509 Mich 381, 984 N.W.2d 80 (2022). In Peeler and Baird , we allowed further briefing on "whether a defendant charged with a felony after a proceeding conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 is entitled to a preliminary examination." In Lyon , we allowed further briefing on these issues:

(1) whether MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 violate Michigan's constitutional requirement of separation of powers, Mich. Const. 1963, art. 3, § 2 ; (2) whether those statutes confer charging authority on a member of the judiciary; (3) whether a defendant charged after a proceeding conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 is entitled to a preliminary examination; and (4) whether the proceedings conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 violated due process, Mich. Const. 1963, art. 1, § 17. [ Lyon , 509 Mich 381, ––– N.W.2d –––– (2022).]

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND

Whether MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 confer charging authority on a member of the judiciary and whether a defendant charged under those statutes is entitled to a preliminary examination are matters of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. Millar v. Constr. Code Auth. , 501 Mich. 233, 237, 912 N.W.2d 521 (2018). That means we review the issue independently, without required deference to the trial court. Id.

Enacted in 1917, MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 are part of a statutory scheme that quickly became known as the "one man grand jury" law. See, e.g., People v. Doe , 226 Mich. 5, 6, 196 N.W. 757 (1924) (referring to the judge "sitting as a one man grand jury"). The Legislature enacted these statutes because "regularly constituted law enforcement agencies sometimes are unable effectively and lawfully to enforce the laws, particularly with respect to corrupt conduct by officers of government and conspiratorial criminal activity on an organized and continuing basis" and "the common law 23-man grand jury is unwieldy and ineffective for the investigation of such crimes ...." In re Colacasides , 379 Mich. 69, 89, 150 N.W.2d 1 (1967). Unlike citizens grand juries, which have a centuries-long history, Michigan's one-man grand jury has no such historical pedigree and has been the subject of two successful constitutional challenges so far. Cf. Helmholz, The Early History of the Grand Jury and the Canon Law , 50 U Chi L Rev 613, 613 (1983) (tracing the use of a citizens grand jury to the year 1166); Davidow, Dealing with Prosecutorial Discretion: Some Possibilities , 62 Wayne L Rev 123, 126 (2017) (describing the "checkered past" of the one-man grand jury, citing In re Oliver , 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948), and In re Murchison , 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955) ).

Despite its nickname, the word "juror" makes no appearance in the statutes, and the term "grand jury" appears only twice. See MCL 767.3 ("Any person called before the grand jury shall at all times be entitled to legal counsel not involving delay and he may discuss fully with his counsel all matters relative to his part in the inquiry without being subject to a citation for contempt.") (emphasis added); MCL 767.4a ("It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to possess, use, publish, or make known to any other person any testimony, exhibits or secret proceedings obtained or used in connection with any grand jury inquiry conducted prior to the effective date of this act ....") (emphasis added).

MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 are wordy, but the important language in each is included here. MCL 767.3 :

Whenever by reason of the filing of any complaint, which may be upon information and belief, or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney or attorney general, any judge of a court of law and of record shall have probable cause to suspect that any crime, offense or misdemeanor has been committed within his jurisdiction , and that any persons may be able to give any material evidence respecting such suspected crime, offense or misdemeanor, such judge in his discretion may make an order directing that an inquiry be made into the matters relating to such complaint ...

and thereupon conduct such inquiry. [Emphasis added.]

MCL 767.4 :

If upon such inquiry the judge shall be satisfied that any offense has been committed and that there is probable cause to suspect any person to be guilty thereof, he may cause the apprehension of such person by proper process and, upon the return of such process served or executed, the judge having jurisdiction shall proceed with the case, matter or proceeding in like manner as upon formal complaint. The judge conducting the inquiry under section 3 shall be disqualified from acting as the examining magistrate in connection with the hearing on the complaint or indictment , or from presiding at any trial arising therefrom, or from hearing any motion to dismiss or quash any complaint or indictment, or from hearing any charge of contempt under section 5, except alleged contempt for neglect or refusal to appear in response to a summons or subpoena. [Emphasis added.]

III. ANALYSIS

A. RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION

We agree with Peeler and Baird that the statutory language provides a right to a preliminary examination. We have said so before, although in dictum: In People v. Duncan , 388 Mich. 489, 498-499, 201 N.W.2d 629 (1972), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Glass , 464 Mich. 266, 627 N.W.2d 261 (2001), we identified MCL 767.4 as a statute with "specific statutory language" providing for a preliminary examination. MCL 767.4 refers to a "hearing on the complaint or indictment" and disqualifies the judge who conducted the inquiry from being the "examining magistrate" at that hearing. It is unclear what "hearing" that language could be referring to other than a preliminary examination. Moreover, "examining magistrate" is a term of art used in other statutes, so we need not guess what it means—an examining magistrate is a judge who conducts a preliminary examination. See, e.g., MCL 766.1 ("The state and the defendant are entitled to a prompt examination and determination by the examining magistrate in all criminal causes ....") (emphasis added).

MCL 767.4 also requires that once an accused has been apprehended, "the judge having jurisdiction shall proceed with the case, matter or proceeding in like manner as upon formal complaint." In other words, the judge should treat the one-man-grand-jury-charged case the same as a case in which a formal complaint has been filed. We know how that process works too: When a formal complaint is filed, an arrest warrant is issued, the accused is apprehended, and the court holds a preliminary examination before an information may issue. See MCL 764.1a(1) ("A magistrate shall issue a warrant or summons upon presentation of a proper complaint alleging the commission of an offense and a finding of reasonable cause to believe that the individual accused in the complaint committed that offense. The complaint must be sworn to before a magistrate or clerk."); MCL 767.42(1) ("An information shall not be filed against any person for a felony until such person has had a preliminary examination therefor, as provided by law, before an examining magistrate, unless that person waives his statutory right to an examination."). Thus, for a case to proceed "in like manner as upon formal complaint," MCL 767.4, a preliminary examination must be held unless waived by the defendant, MCL 767.42(1). See MCR 6.110(A) ("The defendant may waive the preliminary examination with the consent of the prosecuting attorney.").

There is more evidence in historical practice. We see in our cases evidence that preliminary examinations were routinely conducted after a one-person grand jury returned an indictment. See, e.g., People v. Bellanca , 386 Mich. 708, 711-712, 194 N.W.2d 863 (1972) (defendant charged by a one-man grand jury was entitled to transcripts of witness testimony given before the grand jury before his preliminary examination on the charges); In re Slattery , 310 Mich. 458, 464, 17 N.W.2d 251 (1945) ("[U]nder the laws of this State, hereinbefore referred to, the testimony is kept secret, but if the judge finds that a crime has been committed, he orders a warrant to be issued, and an examination held in open court before a magistrate and, if probable cause is shown, the accused is bound over for trial in the proper court.") (emphasis added); People v. McCrea , 303 Mich. 213, 224-225, 6 N.W.2d 489 (1942) ("As a result of the grand-jury investigation indictments were returned and warrants were issued against McCrea and other defendants. The preliminary examinations were conducted before Judge Ferguson, and McCrea and other defendants were held for trial."). And in other authorities. See, e.g., Committee Reports (Special Committee to Study and Report Upon the One-Man Grand Jury Law) (hereinafter Committee Reports ), 26 Mich St B J 11, 59 (1947) ("Before there can be a trial there must be an accusation, and in Michigan this may come in either of the following three ways: a. An Indictment voted by a 23-Man Grand Jury; or b. A complaint and warrant issued in the customary way by a justice of the peace or other magistrate; or c. A complaint and warrant issued by a ‘One-Man Grand Juror’. In either of the last two instances the defendant is entitled to an examination before being bound over for trial. ") (emphasis added).

The Attorney General's office believes that because the statutory scheme requires the judge to make a finding of probable cause that the defendant committed the crime, a preliminary examination would be redundant. After all, a preliminary examination's main function is for a court to determine whether there is probable cause. But the argument confuses some basics. Probable cause to arrest (which MCL 767.4 requires and authorizes the judge to order) is different from probable cause to bindover (which must be found at a preliminary examination to bind the defendant over on felony charges). "[T]he probable cause required for a bindover is ‘greater’ than that required for an arrest and ... imposes a different standard of proof.... [T]he arrest standard looks only to the probability that the person committed the crime as established at the time of the arrest, while the preliminary hearing looks both to that probability at the time of the preliminary hearing and to the probability that the government will be able to establish guilt at trial." LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure (2d ed, 1992), § 14.3, pp. 668-669; see also People v. Cohen , 294 Mich.App. 70, 74, 816 N.W.2d 474 (2011) ("We disagree with the circuit court's conclusion that probable cause to support an arrest is equivalent to probable cause to bind a defendant over for trial."). So the Court of Appeals was wrong in People v. Green , 322 Mich.App. 676, 687, 913 N.W.2d 385 (2018), when it held that the one-person grand-jury procedure "serve[s] the same function" as a preliminary examination. We overrule Green . The circuit court erred by denying Peeler's and Baird's motions to remand for a preliminary examination. We therefore reverse the circuit court's order denying those motions.

B. CHARGING AUTHORITY

Lyon brings another challenge to the application of MCL 767.4 : he argues that the statute does not grant the judge conducting the inquiry the authority to issue indictments. We agree.

The word "indictment" appears four times in the statute, and its use is important:

The judge conducting the inquiry under section 3 shall be disqualified from acting as the examining magistrate in connection with the hearing on the complaint or indictment , or from presiding at any trial arising therefrom, or from hearing any motion to dismiss or quash any complaint or indictment , or from hearing any charge of contempt under section 5, except alleged contempt for neglect or refusal to appear in response to a summons or subpoena.... Except in cases of prosecutions for contempt or perjury against witnesses who may have been summoned before the judge conducting such inquiry, or for the purpose of determining whether the testimony of a witness examined before the judge is consistent with or different from the testimony given by such witness before a court in any subsequent proceeding, or in cases of disciplinary

action against attorneys and counselors in this state, any judge conducting the inquiry, any prosecuting attorney and other persons who may at the discretion of the judge be admitted to such inquiry, who shall while conducting such inquiry or while in the services of the judge or after his services with the judge shall have been discontinued, utter or publish any statement pertaining to any information or evidence involved in the inquiry, or who shall disclose the fact that any indictment for a felony has been found against any person not in custody or under recognizance, or who shall disclose that any person has been questioned or summoned in connection with the inquiry, who shall disclose or publish or cause to be published any of the proceedings of the inquiry otherwise than by issuing or executing processes prior to the indictment , or shall disclose, publish or cause to be published any comment, opinion or conclusions related to the proceedings of the inquiry, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not more than 1 year or by a fine of not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,000.00, or both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, and the offense when committed by a public official shall also constitute malfeasance in office. [ MCL 767.4 (emphasis added).]

Perhaps not surprisingly, the statute never says a judge may issue an indictment, in specific contrast to the statutes governing citizens grand juries. Cf. MCL 767.24(1) ("An indictment for any of the following crimes may be found and filed at any time[.]"); MCL 767.23 ("No indictment can be found without the concurrence of at least 9 grand jurors; and when so found, and not otherwise, the foreman of the grand jury shall certify thereon, under his hand, that the same is a true bill.").

Indeed, the Legislature amended the statutory scheme to authorize judges to issue indictments, but later removed that authority. In 1949, the Legislature amended the statute to provide for three-judge grand juries and gave them express authority to issue indictments ("Provided, That orders returning Indictments shall be signed by 3 judges."). See MCL 767.3, as amended by 1949 PA 311. But it repealed that provision several years later. See MCL 767.3, as amended by 1951 PA 276. "Where the Legislature has considered certain language and rejected it in favor of other language, the resulting statutory language should not be held to explicitly authorize what the Legislature explicitly rejected." In re MCI Telecom. Complaint , 460 Mich. 396, 415, 596 N.W.2d 164 (1999).

And the statute is clear about what it does authorize a judge to do. If, after conducting the inquiry, "the judge shall be satisfied that any offense has been committed and that there is probable cause to suspect any person to be guilty thereof, he may cause the apprehension of such person by proper process ...." MCL 767.4 (emphasis added). In other words, the judge may authorize an arrest warrant. The statute didn't authorize the judge to issue an arrest warrant explicitly and issue an indictment at the same time implicitly.

And while the word "indictment" can be understood narrowly to mean only "[t]he formal written accusation of a crime, made by a grand jury and presented to a court for prosecution against the accused person," Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed.), as in MCL 767.24(1) and MCL 767.23, that is not the case in MCL 767.4. MCL 761.1, which provides definitions for MCL 767.4, defines "indictment" broadly. See MCL 761.1(g) :

"Indictment" means 1 or more of the following:

(i ) An indictment.

(ii ) An information.

(iii ) A presentment.

(iv ) A complaint.

(v ) A warrant.

(vi ) A formal written accusation.

(vii ) Unless a contrary intention appears, a count contained in any document described in subparagraphs (i ) through (vi ).

This definition encompasses much more than a formal indictment—a charging document initiating a criminal prosecution.

The circuit court and the Attorney General's office have emphasized the purported parallels between the one-man grand-jury and the citizens grand-jury procedures. Thus, the argument goes, because the citizens grand-jury statutes authorize the issuance of indictments, so too must MCL 767.4. But we find the differences between the statutes more important. As the defendants and amici note, the citizens grand-jury statutes—unlike MCL 767.4 —expressly authorize the grand jurors to issue indictments and require the grand jurors to swear an oath. See MCL 767.9 (setting forth the oath to be administered to citizen grand jurors). A juror's oath is a significant part of service. See, e.g., People v. Cain , 498 Mich. 108, 123, 869 N.W.2d 829 (2015) ("The juror's oath involves a conscious promise to adopt a particular mindset—to approach matters fairly and impartially—and its great virtue is the powerful symbolism and sense of duty it imbues the oath-taker with and casts on the proceedings."); id. at 134, 869 N.W.2d 829 ( VIVIANO , J., dissenting) ("The essence of the jury is, and always has been, the swearing of the oath."). The absence of this hallmark of the grand-jury process is more evidence that the one-man grand-jury statutes do not authorize a judge to initiate charges by issuing indictments. To be sure, judges serving as one-person grand jurors have issued indictments following investigations. See, e.g., Colacasides , 379 Mich. at 77-78, 150 N.W.2d 1 ("These documents were the evidentiary basis upon which appellant had been indicted by Grand Juror Piggins for conspiracy to bribe a police officer.") (emphasis added); Green , 322 Mich.App. at 681, 913 N.W.2d 385 ("Defendant was indicted by a one-person grand jury ...."). But the historical practice has been mixed because the procedure has also been used to authorize warrants. See, e.g., Bellanca , 386 Mich. at 711, 194 N.W.2d 863 ("[T]he ‘grand juror’ ordered the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant so that he might be prosecuted for perjury and such warrant issued on that day."); People v. Dungey , 356 Mich. 686, 687, 688, 97 N.W.2d 778 (1959) ("[D]efendants in this case were tried in the circuit court of Genesee county on an information charging them with conspiracy to violate the laws of the State relating to the suppression of gambling" after "an investigation conducted in said county by a visiting circuit judge, under the provisions of [ MCL 767.3 ]," after which "the judge issued his warrant for the arrest of 11 individuals , including the four defendants in this case[.]") (emphasis added); People v. Birch , 329 Mich. 38, 41, 44 N.W.2d 859 (1950) ("Thereafter Judge Leibrand proceeded to conduct the investigation. Witnesses were called and examined by him, findings made, and warrants issued including the warrants involved in the above entitled cases. ") (emphasis added). It seems that the power of a judge conducting an inquiry to issue an indictment was simply an unchallenged assumption, until now. See generally Committee Reports , 26 Mich St B J at 59 (providing that a "One-Man Grand Juror" may issue a complaint or warrant, while only a citizens grand jury may vote to issue an indictment). For these reasons, we conclude that MCL 767.4 does not authorize a judge to issue an indictment initiating a criminal prosecution. The trial court therefore erred by denying Lyon's motion to dismiss. Given our statutory holding, we need not address Lyon's constitutional arguments that MCL 767.4 violates separation of powers and due process. See People v. McKinley , 496 Mich. 410, 415-416, 852 N.W.2d 770 (2014) (applying "the widely accepted and venerable rule of constitutional avoidance").

IV. CONCLUSION

MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 authorize a judge to investigate, subpoena witnesses, and issue arrest warrants. But they do not authorize the judge to issue indictments. And if a criminal process begins with a one-man grand jury, the accused is entitled to a preliminary examination before being brought to trial. Accordingly, we reverse the Genesee Circuit Court's orders denying Peeler's and Baird's motions to remand for a preliminary examination and denying Lyon's motion to dismiss. We remand to the Genesee Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Zahra, Viviano, Bernstein, Cavanagh, and Welch, JJ., concurred with McCormack, C.J.

Bernstein, J. (concurring). I concur fully with the Court's opinion but write separately to address the significant interests implicated in this case. Today, this Court recognizes what we have always known to be true: procedure matters. It is, in fact, the foundation of our adversarial process. Indeed, our adversarial system of justice "is premised on the well-tested principle that truth—as well as fairness—is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question." Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 84, 109 S Ct 346, 102 L Ed 2d 300 (1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

However, the Attorney General has invoked obscure statutes, MCL 767.3 ; MCL 767.4, to deprive these defendants of their statutory right to a preliminary examination. "A preliminary examination functions, in part, as a screening device to insure that there is a basis for holding a defendant to face a criminal charge." People v. Weston , 413 Mich. 371, 376, 319 N.W.2d 537 (1982). Our court rules state that a defendant is entitled to "subpoena and call witnesses, offer proofs, and examine and cross-examine witnesses at the preliminary examination." MCR 6.110(C).

Clearly, and as this Court's decision aptly recognizes, a preliminary examination serves a crucial function for criminal defendants in our adversarial system. It allows defendants to learn about the specific criminal charges they face, confront allegedly incriminating evidence, and prepare a defense. The prosecution argues that the Legislature, through the statutes in question, has given it the discretion to opt out of a preliminary examination, as the prosecution did here. This assertion is quite alarming, and were it true, the prosecution would have the power to decide whether to grant a defendant permission to probe and challenge the charges against them before being formally indicted. Such a result runs afoul of the basic notions of fairness that underlie our adversarial system. I do not believe we can tolerate such a procedural offense. At the same time, this Court remains cognizant of the impact that this decision might have on the residents of Flint, who have suffered an unconscionable injustice. Residents of Flint have been supplied with water that was contaminated with toxic levels of lead, E. coli, and Legionella bacteria. Mays v. Governor of Michigan , 506 Mich. 157, 201, 954 N.W.2d 139 (2020) ( BERNSTEIN , J., concurring). Despite evidence of contamination, state officials denied that the water was contaminated. Mays , 506 Mich. at 169-170, 954 N.W.2d 139 (opinion by BERNSTEIN , J.). Later, officials allegedly manipulated data evidencing water contamination and continued to lie to Flint residents. Id. at 175, 954 N.W.2d 139. Research suggests that the death toll has been undercounted. See Childress, We Found Dozens of Uncounted Deaths During the Flint Water Crisis. Here's How. , PBS Frontline (September 10, 2019), available at < https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/interactive/how-we-found-dozens-of-uncounted-deaths-during-flint-water-crisis/> (accessed June 3, 2022) [https://perma.cc/H2U3-J3J8]. Lead exposure can also impact fertility rates, birth outcomes, and childhood development. See Matheny, Study: Flint Water Killed Unborn Babies; Many Moms Who Drank It Couldn't Get Pregnant , Detroit Free Press (September 20, 2017), available at < https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2017/09/20/flint-water-crisis-pregnancies/686138001/> (accessed June 3, 2022) [https://perma.cc/U8N4-HQCR]. We may not know the extent to which the contaminated water has detrimentally affected the health and well-being of Flint residents because the effects of lead poisoning can be long-term and slow to fully develop. See Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, High Levels of Lead in Bone Associated With Increased Risk of Death From Cardiovascular Disease in Men , 2009 Press Release, available at < https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/high-levels-lead-bone-risk-of-death-cardiovascular-disease-men/> (accessed June 3, 2022) [https://perma.cc/ZMW9-KTJ2]; Carroll, What the Science Says About Long-Term Damage From Lead , New York Times (February 8, 2016), available at < https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/upshot/what-the-science-says-about-long-term-damage-from-lead.html> (accessed June 3, 2022) [https://perma.cc/JD8R-GZH9]. Even after Flint's water was declared safe for consumption, Flint residents have remained hesitant to use the water. Robertson, Flint Has Clean Water Now. Why Won't People Drink It? , Politico (December 23, 2020), available at < https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/23/flint-water-crisis-2020-post-coronavirus-america-445459> (accessed June 3, 2022) [https://perma.cc/Y48U-LLQ7]. If the allegations can be proved, it is impossible to fully state the magnitude of the damage state actors have caused to an innocent group of people—a group of people that they were entrusted to serve. The Flint water crisis stands as one of this country's greatest betrayals of citizens by their government.

Yet the prosecution of these defendants must adhere to proper procedural requirements because of the magnitude of the harm that was done to Flint residents. Proper procedure is arguably most necessary in cases of great public significance, particularly where the charged crimes have been characterized as especially heinous and where the court proceedings are likely to be heavily scrutinized by the general public. In such cases, adherence to proper procedure serves as a guarantee to the general public that Michigan's courts can be trusted to produce fair and impartial rulings for all defendants, regardless of the severity of the charged crime.

The tenets of our system of criminal procedure are only as strong as our commitment to abide by them. Indeed, there would be little credibility to a criminal process that purports to strike a fair balance between adversaries if the guarantees underpinning that criminal process—such as the statutory right to a preliminary examination—could be done away with at the whims of the prosecution. Put simply, the prosecution's power to charge individuals and haul them into court is constrained by certain preconditions. We recognize today that, under these circumstances, one of those preconditions is required by statute—a preliminary examination. The prosecution cannot simply cut corners in order to prosecute defendants more efficiently. To allow otherwise would be repugnant to the foundational principles of our judicial system. This Court's decision reaffirms these principles and makes clear that the government's obligations remain steadfast for all criminal defendants.

In the end, such a prominent criminal prosecution will have a significant impact on the public at large. This criminal prosecution will serve as a historical record. Whether we realize it or not, courts provide historical context to consequential moments in history. See Rhodes, Legal Records as a Source of History , 59 ABA J 635, 635 (June 1973) ("The lawyer unwittingly is an agent of history."). What is happening before us cannot be understated. Former state officials, some of whom were elected, are being criminally prosecuted for their alleged roles in perpetrating an egregious injustice that resulted in the various ailments and even deaths of the people they served or represented. Future generations will look to this record as a critical and impartial answer to the question: what happened in Flint? For both their sake and ours, we should leave no question unanswered and no stone unturned.

For these reasons, I concur.

Clement, J., did not participate due to her prior involvement as chief legal counsel for Governor Rick Snyder.