top of page
judge valentine-3.jpeg

JUDGE VICTORIA VALENTINE

Judicial Biography​

​

  • Elected to the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, November 2016
     

  • Assigned to the Oakland County Family Division, January 2017
     

  • Assigned to the Civil/Criminal Division, January 2021
     

  • Appointed by the Michigan Supreme Court to the Business Court, June 27, 2022
     

  • Admitted to the Michigan State Bar (1998); U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; and U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

  • Expert Contributor for the Institute of Continuing Legal Education

  • DBusiness Top Circuit Court Judge 2021, 2022

  • Accepted to the Seventeenth Meeting of the American College of Business Court Judges, October 2022

  • Active member of the Michigan State Bar

Judge Valentine Motions & Transcripts 
January 4, 2021 Until July 22, 2021

2

March 9, 2021 15:34-15:55 pm: Bond Motion - Judge Valentine Transcript

​

March 9 2021: Bond Motion-Judge Valentine Audio

​

www.justicefordenis.org/post/march-9-2021-judge-valentine

​

Notes:​​​​​ 21 minutes Bond Hearing​

3

April 9 2021: PEOPLE'S BRIEF ON RESPONSE DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO QUASH AND DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

"Supplemental report #10 details a conversation between Ms. Linda Preka (decedent's mother), former A.P.A. Hand (married name of Wiegand) and the officer in charge of the investigation.
See Exhibit .1 That report reflects that Ms. Preka was shown a snapchat message sent on the Defendant's account "Hulkolas," while the Defendant was incarcerated in the Oakland County Jail. According to the report, Ms. Preka showed that snapchat message to both A.P.A. Hand and Detective Balog. As stated, it does not appear that the supplemental report, or information included in that supplemental report, was turned over to defense until undersigned A.P.A. obtained a copy from the Novi Police Department and mailed it in February of this year."

 

Keast supplemental report #10 detailing  its all fabrication VS the Supplemental report #10 states:

 

"On 09/27/2019 The preliminary exam was held on this matter at 52-1 District Court. After the hearing, the Oakland County Prosecutor, Beth Wiegand was shown a new SNAP Chat on Nick Remington’s (HULKOLAS) SNAP CHAT account by the victim Preka's stepfather Jamie Thom. Thom advised Wiegand that he was sent this SNAP CHAT by one of Denis Preka's friends named Avery Eckert on 09/26/2019.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

6

May 18, 2021 9:05-9:20 am: Status Conference - Judge Valentine Audio

 

May 18, 2021: Status Conference-Judge Valentine Transcript

 

THE COURT: The only person who has the information of everything that's out there, I think would possibly be Ms. Hand, and the person with the obligation would be Ms. Hand. So that's why I requested the affidavit, Mr. Keast, with Ms. Hand. And I think I mentioned at the last hearing that I thought that would be a precarious position to put you in, and I apologized because you have no idea whether or not the information she's providing is accurate or not because you weren't involved. So if it's not in your file, I don't know how you would determine it, but that's why I wanted the affidavit from Ms. Hand. Also, your opinion is completed. I'm going to hold it for another day. I wanted to go through the preliminary exam transcript. I have, I think, both parts now. I only had one previously. 
I will tell you that the Snapchat information will be excluded. As far as anything from the (indiscernible) account, that's going to be excluded. I just can't find any - I can't find anywhere where it would be reliable at this point. 


MR. ROCKIND: Thank you, Judge.


MR. KEAST: Judge, I'm sorry, just so I'm clear -- well, I suppose we could wait for the opinion too, but just the question I had for the Court; counsel had requested exclusion of the Snapchat account as a remedy for Brady violations. We had yet to argue the reliability of, and foundation of the Snapchat argument. Is that, I guess asking the Court to show the Court's hand at this point, is that the ruling, that it's based upon the Brady violation, or is it on the reliability of the records themselves?
 

THE COURT: I understand, and it's cited as the fact that it is a remedy with regard to the Brady violation, I'm more -- I would say in my mind it was more the thought process of it just can't be reliable based upon the arguments that Ms. Hand was making to the court at the exact same time that she had information otherwise. It's just not reliable, in my opinion.


MR. ROCKIND: I appreciate that, Judge. What's interesting is that the, just so you know, the screenshot that was provided to us that we never observed or never received, we've analyzed that screenshot in depth, and I will share with you that our analysis is that screenshot actually corroborates that the Snapchat logs that were provided by the prosecution previously, which were actually in an Excel spreadsheet, which were modifiable and capable of being modified and added to, that those -- that further -- we believe that the Snapchat provided to us, that screenshot, was further exculpatory evidence and it further undermined the reliability of the actual Excel spreadsheet and of the Snapchat records.


MR. KEAST: Just so I'm clear, I want to make sure that when the Court issues the order, we're talking about two different things. And that's why -- I'm not trying to split hairs here, but there was an argument counsel made in the motion filed and response by Ms. Hand, that the Snapchat, by nature of the fact that they are deletion by default, I think that's the line counsel used, were not reliable. And because of the certification of authenticity that was filed by Snapchat complied with the Federal Rules of Evidence as opposed to Michigan Rules of Evidence. But we haven't addressed that on the record, so I just want to -- I hate to just keep coming back on the same argument, that's why I'm bringing it up, Judge.


MR. ROCKIND: Is the Court going to address those things in its ruling, Your Honor?
 

THE COURT: No, I didn't get into whether or not the Snapchat is a business record, whether or not -- in other cases. I mean, if you look at all of them -- and I do a lot of research with regard to the issues in this case because of the fact that they are, I guess probably people don't see them very much. And, you know, I just want to be fair to both parties. I think you're both in a bad position. And Mr. Keast, I think I'm a little bit more sympathetic to your position because you didn't put yourself where you are.

 

MR. KEAST: I appreciate that.
 

THE COURT: With regard to, you know, Snapchat, it's not that they're always unreliable. You can, you know, have someone testify as to the issues with regard to if it's their account, etc., and that they had control over it. That's not what happened here. That's just absolutely what flies in the face of deceit to the Court, is that it was not in the control of the defendant at the time that the arguments were being made. And that was the majority of the basis for the argument that Ms. Hand was making. And you'll see the citations in the opinion.(Indiscernible) Mr. Rockind to reopen anything, that all of the -- that the record was complete with regard to the Snapchat, etc. So, you know, yes, I can use it as a sanction, but I don't find it reliable to begin with. If I did find it reliable, would I use it as a sanction; I don't know. I cited both, but I don't find it reliable.


MR. ROCKIND: All right. Well, thank you, Judge.


MR. KEAST: We'll review the opinion. Should we have a status conference again, perhaps, after the parties have had an opportunity to review that, and see where we stand?
 

THE COURT: Sure. I gave you 14 days from the date of the order. I'll probably issue it today or tomorrow. There's one more thing I wanted to look at. But the -- I gave you 14 days from the date of the order for the affidavits, and I gave you 10 days from the date of the order -- I can't remember for what, but I know there's 10 days in there. Mr. Busch, do you happen to recall? Well, anyway, you'll get it today or tomorrow.


MR. ROCKIND: All right, Your Honor.


MR. KEAST: Fair enough, Judge. 


MR. ROCKIND: Thank you very much, Your Honor.

​

www.justicefordenis.org/post/may-18-2021-judge-valentine​​

​

Notes:​​​​​ 15 minutes Status Conference Hearing

7

May 21 2021: OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

​

  • Pursuant to MCR 6.201, al discoverable information shall be turned over to Defense Counsel within 14 days of the date of this Opinion and Order; 
     

  • All Snapchat evidence relating to the "Hulkolas" account is excluded as it is unreliable;
     

  • An affidavit from both the former Assistant Prosecutor Hand, and the current Assistant Prosecutor Mark Keast shall be provided to Defense Counsel and filed with the Court within the 7 days of the date of this Order, detailing al known evidence. The affidavit shall include a list of all evidence the current and former Assistant prosecutors have knowledge of that has any relation to this case. The affidavit shall also include the date of a n disclosure or production to the Defendants' counsel of the evidence and a list of any information that has not yet been produced; 
     

  • And, while this Court finds no fault in the handing of the Preliminary Examination by the experienced and esteemed Judge Reed, the Court finds that in the interest of justice, this case shall be remanded to District Court and shall be heard by a new judge.
    This opinion does not address any Motions or issues previously filed by Plaintiff but adjourned by Plaintiff's counsel.
    For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. 
    Dated: 5/21/2021 Victoria Valentine

​

​

Unbalanced Scales of Justice
bottom of page