Prosecutor Case Outcome Statistics, 2021–2025

In May 2025, a Michigan requester asked the Delta County Prosecutor's Office for five years of data about criminal case filings, trial outcomes, dismissals, plea agreements, and internal performance reports. The office replied on June 5, 2025, granting the request in part and denying it in part. It released three years of warrant counts organized by police agency. It said the case-outcome statistics and performance reports the requester described do not exist.

Summary

The request, dated May 23, 2025, asked for records covering January 1, 2021 to the present, or from the date Prosecutor Lauren Wickman took office if later. It had four parts: the total number of criminal cases filed; the number of cases ending in guilty verdicts, not-guilty verdicts, dismissals, and plea agreements; a felony-versus-misdemeanor outcome breakdown if available; and any internal performance reports or case disposition summaries concerning Prosecutor Wickman or the office as a whole.

The office's June 5, 2025 letter, signed by FOIA Coordinator Ashleigh Young, granted the request in part as to "2021, 2022, and 2023 list of authorized charges." It denied the four numbered categories on the ground that the described documents "do not currently exist." The packet included a standard denial form with the "Record Does Not Exist" box checked, a FOIA appeal form, a page pointing to Delta County's FOIA policies, a blank extension form, and three "Warrants Authorized by Agency" reports.

The released reports are not case-outcome statistics. They count warrants authorized by originating police agency, split into felony and misdemeanor columns. Across the three reports, the agency rows total 2,704 warrants: 751 felony and 1,953 misdemeanor. The reports cover calendar years 2021 and 2022 and only January 1 through November 30, 2023. No 2024 or 2025 data was released.

What was requested

The request invoked the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq., and asked for public records regarding "the prosecutorial activity of Delta County Prosecuting Attorney Lauren Wickman." The four numbered items were:

1. The total number of criminal cases filed.
2. The number of cases resulting in guilty verdicts at trial, not-guilty verdicts at trial, dismissals, and plea agreements.
3. A breakdown of felony versus misdemeanor case outcomes, if available.
4. Any internal performance reports or case disposition summaries related to Prosecutor Wickman or the office as a whole.

The request also asked that records be provided electronically if available, that any search, duplication, or delivery fees be quoted in advance, and that any denial cite the specific legal exemption relied on.

What the office released

The office produced three "Warrants Authorized by Agency" reports generated from what appears to be a case-management system. Each report lists originating agencies in rows and reports felony warrants, misdemeanor warrants, a combined total, and a percentage share. The 2021 report carries a run date of November 10, 2023. The 2022 and 2023 reports carry run dates of November 30, 2023. The 2023 report's date range ends on November 30, 2023, not December 31.

The agency-level figures reconcile cleanly: in each year, the felony and misdemeanor columns add up to the total column, and the agency rows add up to the reported grand total. The transcribed totals are below.

In 2021, the largest originating agencies were Escanaba Public Safety (569 warrants, 52.2 percent), the Delta County Sheriff's Department (211, 19.36 percent), and Michigan State Police Post 84 Detachment (164, 15.05 percent). In 2022, Escanaba Public Safety again led with 473 (53.57 percent), followed by the Sheriff's Department at 148 (16.76 percent) and MSP Post 84 at 124 (14.04 percent). In the partial 2023 period, Escanaba Public Safety reported 332 (45.42 percent), the Sheriff's Department 151 (20.66 percent), and MSP Post 84 Detachment 130 (17.78 percent).

What the office withheld

The response denied four categories, each on the same basis: the document "does not currently exist." The denial form's second option — "Record Does Not Exist: This item does not exist under the name provided in your request or by another name reasonably known to the County" — is checked. The letter does not identify a statutory exemption for these items, which is consistent with a nonexistence denial rather than an exemption claim.

• 2024 and 2025 case filings. The office said no document reporting the total number of criminal cases filed in 2024 or 2025 currently exists.
• Trial outcomes, dismissals, and pleas. The office said no document reporting guilty verdicts, not-guilty verdicts, dismissals, or plea agreements currently exists.
• Felony versus misdemeanor outcomes. The office said no such breakdown currently exists.
• Performance reports and disposition summaries. The office said no internal performance reports or case disposition summaries concerning Prosecutor Wickman or the office currently exist.

Analysis

1. The release answers a different question than the one asked

Documented: The request asked for case filings and case outcomes. The release consists of warrant counts by originating agency. Our reading: These are related but distinct measures. A warrant report can show how many warrant requests came from each police agency and how they were classified. It cannot show how many criminal cases the prosecutor filed, how those cases were resolved, or what share ended in plea, dismissal, trial conviction, or acquittal. The office may have treated "authorized charges" as the closest existing record, but the released documents do not supply the outcome data the request described.

2. The coverage is shorter than the requested period

Documented: The request sought January 1, 2021 to the present. The release covers 2021, 2022, and January 1 through November 30, 2023. Our reading: The release omits December 2023, all of 2024, and all of 2025 to the response date. The office's denial explains the 2024–2025 omission by saying no such document exists. It does not separately explain the missing December 2023 period, though the 2023 report's own date range ends November 30, 2023.

3. "Does not exist" is a recognized basis, but FOIA attaches a certificate requirement

4. The response timing needs an extension notice to be explained

Documented: The office says it received the request on May 27, 2025 and responded on June 5, 2025. Counting business days after receipt, that is seven business days (May 28, 29, 30, June 2, 3, 4, and 5). Legal interpretation: MCL 15.235(2) generally requires a response within five business days, but allows a single extension of up to ten business days under unusual circumstances, with a written notice stating the reason. The packet includes a blank extension form but no completed extension notice. Open question: If an extension was issued and served, the June 5 response could be timely. If no extension was issued, the response would fall outside the five-business-day period. The released records do not establish which happened.

5. The receipt date is itself contested by the paper trail

Documented: The request was faxed on May 23, 2025 at 5:22 p.m. to the Delta County Clerk's office and the District Court. A deputy clerk forwarded it to the Prosecutor's Office on May 27, 2025 at 11:54 a.m. The Prosecutor's Office says it received the request on May 27. Legal interpretation: FOIA's clock generally starts when the public body receives the request. Whether receipt by the Clerk's office counts as receipt by the Prosecutor's Office, or whether they are separate public bodies for this purpose, is a legal question. Open question: The record does not resolve whether the five-day clock began May 23 or May 27.

6. No fees were quoted or charged in the released record

Documented: The request asked for advance notice of any search, duplication, or delivery fees. The response does not quote a fee, request a deposit, or invoice the requester. Our reading: On the face of the released records, the documented fee total is $0. That does not rule out internal cost estimates that were not disclosed, but none appear in the packet.

7. The denial form is a standard template, not a detailed explanation

Documented: The denial form is a statewide template credited to MTA, MAMA, and CSET, P.C. (May 2015). It contains checkboxes for exemption, nonexistence, and redaction. The nonexistence box is checked. The "brief description" and exemption-subsection fields are not completed in the copy provided. Our reading: The form functions as a notice of the right to appeal and judicial review. It does not, by itself, explain what searches were conducted, which records systems were queried, or why the requested metrics are not maintained.

Timeline

• May 23, 2025 · 5:22 p.m. Request faxed The request is faxed to the Delta County Clerk's office and the District Court. The fax confirmation reports two pages received.
• May 27, 2025 · 11:54 a.m. Forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office A deputy clerk forwards the fax to the Prosecutor's Office, describing it as a FOIA request that had been sent to the Clerk and District Court. The office later says it received the request this day.
• June 5, 2025 Partial grant and partial denial The FOIA coordinator issues a letter granting the request in part as to 2021–2023 "authorized charges," denying the four outcome categories as records that do not exist, and enclosing three warrant reports, a denial form, an appeal form, and policy information.
• June 17, 2025 Appeal received and decided The Board of Commissioners receives the appeal at its regular meeting and upholds the partial denial the same day.
• June 27, 2025 Board upholds the partial denial Chair John Malnar upholds denial of items 2, 3 and 4 in full and of item 1 for 2024 and 2025, confirms item 1 was produced for 2021 through 2023, and records the Prosecutor’s stated intention to produce the 2024 and 2025 records later.

Appeal history and the Board of Commissioners

Appeal status: partial denial upheld. The requester appealed, and the Board of Commissioners decided the appeal. Chair John Malnar’s letter of June 27, 2025 records that the appeal was received at the Board’s regular meeting on June 17, 2025 and that the Board upheld the partial denial the same day. It is the only document in this record that separates the four numbered items and says what happened to each.

Documented: The letter upholds denial of items 2, 3 and 4 — trial outcomes, the felony/misdemeanor breakdown, and internal performance reports — “as they do not exist.” It upholds denial of item 1 for 2024 and 2025 on the same ground, and confirms that item 1 — the count of criminal cases filed — was provided for 2021, 2022 and 2023. It then adds that the Board “supported the offer made by the Prosecutor to provide 2024 and 2025 records in the future,” and that the Prosecutor “has not yet, but intends to produce” them.

Our reading: The letter is a genuine improvement on the response it reviews, because it itemizes. It also contains an internal tension. The Board upheld a finding that the 2024 and 2025 counts do not exist while simultaneously endorsing a plan to produce them later. Both statements can be true — a record not yet compiled does not exist today — but the letter never says which it means, sets no date for the promised production, and does not describe the search behind the nonexistence finding. It records no vote count and cites no agenda item.

Timing: Under MCL 15.240(3) the Board was not deemed to have received the appeal until its next regularly scheduled meeting, which the letter fixes as June 17, 2025. The tenth business day after that date was July 1, 2025. The determination was made on June 17 and the written notice is dated June 27, so both fell inside the statutory period.

Documented: The response letter advises that a requester who disagrees may appeal to the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners or seek judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court.

Why Board review matters: A Board appeal creates a public record of the commissioners' decision on a prosecutor's transparency position. It can produce a written determination, a hearing record, and a political accountability moment. It also runs on a different track than litigation: the Board can reverse or narrow the denial without a court order. A court action, by contrast, is decided de novo, with the burden on the public body to sustain its denial, and can support attorney fees and damages if the requester prevails.

Potential concerns and open questions

The following are questions raised by the record, not findings of wrongdoing:

• Metric mismatch. The release provides warrant counts rather than case filings or outcomes. Is there a case-management report that tracks filed cases and dispositions, even if it is not titled the way the request described?
• Nonexistence documentation. Did the office search its case-management system, and is there a signed certificate of nonexistence that satisfies MCL 15.233(1)?
• Timing. Was a written extension notice issued between May 27 and June 5, 2025? If so, it is not in the released packet.
• Receipt date. Should the clock run from the May 23 fax to the Clerk's office or the May 27 forwarding to the Prosecutor's Office?
• Partial-year data. Why does the 2023 report end November 30, 2023, and is a full-year 2023 report available?
• Record retention. If the office does not maintain outcome statistics, what records does it maintain about case dispositions, and what is its retention schedule?

What this record does and does not show

It shows that a request was made, that the office responded within seven business days of the date it says it received the request, that it produced three years of warrant reports, and that it denied four categories as nonexistent. It does not show that the office acted in bad faith, that the denial was unlawful, or that the withheld categories were destroyed. It also does not establish the accuracy or completeness of the warrant reports beyond the internal arithmetic, which reconciles.

The 2,704 warrant figure is a count of warrants authorized by originating agencies, not a count of cases filed or resolved. Any comparison to prosecution outcomes, conviction rates, or office performance would require records this release does not contain.

Remedies and practical next steps

These are options, not legal advice. A requester should consult a Michigan attorney about deadlines and strategy.

1. Request a certificate of nonexistence. Ask the FOIA coordinator for a signed certificate under MCL 15.233(1) identifying the name under which the record was sought and confirming that no record exists under that or another reasonably known name.
2. Narrow and rephrase the request. Ask for specific existing reports by system name — for example, case-disposition reports, sentencing reports, or monthly prosecutor statistics — rather than a compilation that may not exist.
3. Ask for the data fields, not a new report. Request records "sufficient to show" case numbers, filing dates, charges, and disposition dates, or request the case-management system's data dictionary and retention schedule.
4. File a written appeal with the Board of Commissioners. Address the chairperson, state the word "appeal," identify the reasons the denial should be reversed, and keep proof of delivery. The Board's response period is ten business days after receipt, subject to the meeting rule in MCL 15.240(3).
5. Preserve the judicial-review option. A civil action to compel disclosure must be brought within 180 days after the final determination. For a June 5, 2025 determination, that window would close in early December 2025, subject to how the final determination date is calculated.
6. Document fees and communications. Keep the fax confirmation, the forwarding email, the response envelope, and any fee notices. These establish the timeline and any waiver or estoppel arguments.

Authorities and sources

Documents

These are redacted copies prepared for publication. Requester names, home addresses, personal phone numbers, and email addresses have been removed. Unredacted originals are not hosted on the public web server.

Related FOIA requests

• FOIA 26-292 — FOIA 26-292: The office used the requester's own cost-saving clause to withdraw the request, then offered to grant it if he removed the clause (Granted in part, denied in part — no records produced; the office conceded the data exists and refused the aggregate on the ground that the requester's own scope limitation excluded it, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-291 — FOIA 26-291: The office answered a request for a privilege log with nine document titles — and cited a subsection of the FOIA that does not exist (Granted in part — a nine-row title-and-date table supplying two of the eleven requested fields, no count, and a citation to a subsection of MCL 15.243 that does not exist, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-290 — FOIA 26-290: The office refused the victim-services records because it says you already have them — from a packet that contained none (Refused — five paragraphs labelled “granted” but zero pages produced, on the authority of a prior production that contained no responsive documents; the sixth paragraph received no disposition, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-131 — FOIA 26-131: Twenty case files, priced at $82.66 before a single page is copied (Granted in part — release conditioned on a $41.33 deposit; no records produced yet, April 17, 2026)
• FOIA 26-35 — FOIA 26-35: The office counted 52 pleas in 85 minutes — eight days after saying the same kind of aggregate did not exist (Granted — 52 pleas reported from the District and Circuit Court dockets, no fee quoted, no exemption cited, no pages withheld; the count is over-inclusive by the office's own admission, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-34 — FOIA 26-34: The office denied a count of diversion cases by defining “diversion” down to a programme it does not run (Denied — certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), Denial Form box 2 checked, on the ground that the only diversion programme in Delta County is juvenile diversion administered by the Probate Court; no exemption cited, no fee quoted, no waiver determination, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-33 — FOIA 26-33: Asked to count deferred prosecution agreements, the office certified the total nonexistent and priced the underlying data at $9,093.33 (Granted in part and denied in part — the aggregate record denied as requiring creation of a new record, with a certificate of nonexistence and Denial Form box 2 checked; the underlying data granted subject to a $9,093.33 estimate, a $4,546.66 deposit and a 270-day production estimate; public-interest fee waiver left undetermined, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-32 — FOIA 26-32: What the office's own memos say about the migration that broke its records — a 95-page production that answers its own denial (Granted in part, denied in part — five records produced across 95 pages, with only personal contact information redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a); no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-31 — FOIA 26-31: Asked how many crime scenes a prosecutor attended, the office listed eight documents and denied them as duplicative (Denied in full — refused as a duplicative request under Densmore v Department of Corrections, on the ground that the eight listed records were already produced in response to FOIA 25-267; Denial Form box 1 checked with the section 13 subsection left blank; no aggregate figure supplied and no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-30 — FOIA 26-30: Eight documents, one number, and a Densmore refusal built on a premise the record does not fully support (Denied — no aggregate total produced; eight responsive documents identified but not reproduced under a Densmore prior-production rationale; no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-29 — FOIA 26-29: A count of inherited convictions the office could not locate — priced at $1,033.33 for the work of counting (No count produced — office could not locate a record; underlying data granted subject to segregation and priced at $1,033.33 with a $516.66 deposit, February 5, 2026)
• FOIA 26-28 — FOIA 26-28: A headcount of cases open when the prosecutor took office — denied, then priced at $1,653.33 on an 800-file baseline (Denied in part, granted in part — no record states the headcount, with a certificate of nonexistence; underlying data granted subject to segregation and priced at $1,653.33 with an $826.66 deposit, February 5, 2026)
• FOIA 26-22 — FOIA 26-22: A conviction rate the office says does not exist, priced at $9,548 (Denied — record does not exist; $9,548 quote for the underlying files, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 26-21 — FOIA 26-21: A count of convictions the office says does not exist — then a quiet amendment that changed the number behind the bill (Denied as a compilation — no count produced; fee of $9,548.00 quoted for underlying files; amended response revised the volume figure without explanation, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 26-20 — FOIA 26-20: The aggregate case total, and the records that would let you count it (Denied — record does not exist, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 25-279 — FOIA 25-279: The office granted the personnel and budget records on paper — then sent three invoices totaling $34,673.79 and none of the records (Granted in part on paper — dozens of records listed as enclosed and none enclosed; three cost itemizations totaling $34,673.79, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-278 — FOIA 25-278: The office says it never tracked plea bargaining — then bills $23,146.66 for a 4,000-file review it says is already covered by another invoice (Granted in part — 62 trials produced from the calendar; plea-offer data certified not to exist; a $23,146.66 estimate the office says is moot if the twin invoice is paid, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-277 — FOIA 25-277: No annual statistical report exists, the underlying data does, and the office prices it at $34,720 (Granted in part — no statistical report exists; the underlying data is granted at a $34,720 estimate built on a volume figure the office has never counted, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-257 — FOIA 25-257: Three certificates of nonexistence, then a $19,840 bill to rebuild the data by hand (Denied — three certificates of nonexistence, with a $19,840 estimate to rebuild the same data by hand, October 31, 2025)
• FOIA 25-254 — FOIA 25-254: Two certificates of nonexistence, two documents produced, and a $74,520 itemization copied from an earlier request (Granted in part, denied in part — two documents produced, two certificates of nonexistence, and a $74,520 estimate identical to FOIA 25-244's, October 31, 2025)
• FOIA 25-244 — FOIA 25-244: Ten service slips, thirteen policy manuals, and a $74,520 quote (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-241 — FOIA 25-241: The special-prosecutor petition the office filed, and the 2024 memo that says it did not need another one (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-240 — FOIA 25-240: Officer use-of-force referrals, and the $1,863 bill for the one part the office would search (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-239 — FOIA 25-239: The Brady/Giglio list and how the office tracks officer credibility (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-234 — FOIA 25-234: Four lab reports, two certificates, and 26.4 grams where the press said four ounces (Granted in part, October 1, 2025)
• FOIA 25-202 — FOIA 25-202: No RFP, no bid, no purchase order — and the emails that show how the system was picked (Granted in part, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-201 — FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contracts, invoices, and licensing (Granted in part, denied in part, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-200 — FOIA 25-200: The software the office runs on — seven systems named, one of them retired in June 2024 (Granted in full, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-197 — FOIA 25-197: A request for complaints against the office came back as the office's own civil-rights lawsuits (Granted in part, denied in part, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-196 — FOIA 25-196: Audits of the office, 2019 through 2024 — five county financial statements produced, two fiscal years missing (Granted in part — five annual county financial statements produced; fiscal years 2022 and 2024 absent from the release; no exemption cited and no certificate of nonexistence, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-195 — FOIA 25-195: Reports on the office's own work — four case-tracking reports produced, performance reviews certified nonexistent, county reports withheld as attorney-client (Granted in part and denied in part — ten documents produced; county reports withheld on attorney-client privilege; performance reviews certified nonexistent; $5,961.60 estimated, $2,980.80 deposit, 270 days, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-194 — FOIA 25-194: Every email and text the Prosecutor sent in 2024 — a $63,028.80 estimate on a request the requester offered to narrow (Granted in part and denied in part — exemptions cited; $63,028.80 estimated, $31,514.40 deposit required, 270 days, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-215 — FOIA 25-215: Three answers to one request — two certificates of nonexistence, a grant, and a $13,248 estimate (Granted in part, August 9, 2025)
• FOIA 25-180 — FOIA 25-180: Two boxes checked — the trial records both “already provided” and “do not exist” (Denied in full — certificate of nonexistence plus an exemption box checked; no fee, no pages produced, August 2, 2025)
• FOIA 25-139 — FOIA 25-139: Forfeitures in cases that ended without a conviction, certified not to exist — while the same office took an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-137 — FOIA 25-137: The average time from charge to disposition, certified not to exist — after a ten-day extension for “voluminous” records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-136 — FOIA 25-136: The plea-agreement count the office certified does not exist — after taking an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-135 — FOIA 25-135: The office denied the 2024 trial summary as a record that “does not exist” — then produced eight case files on the next page (Granted in part — 8 case files produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-134 — FOIA 25-134: The dismissed-case count the office certified does not exist — after taking an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-133 — FOIA 25-133: The office certified the monthly count did not exist — then attached an annual one and offered to sell the underlying data for $2,815.20 (Granted in part — one annual screening table produced; monthly counts withheld; $2,815.20 quoted with a $1,407.60 deposit, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-129 — FOIA 25-129: Arraignment-to-disposition times the office certified do not exist, then priced at $2,931.12 (Granted in part — two items denied as nonexistent; $2,931.12 quote on the third, June 26, 2025)
• FOIA 25-118 — FOIA 25-118: Final case outcomes for January and February 2025 (Fee estimate issued, June 18, 2025)