On November 3, 2025—the five-year mark of the 2020 election—the Michigan prosecution of attorneys Matt DePerno and Stephanie Lambert took a troubling turn.
The Oakland County Circuit Court order, People of the State of Michigan v. Stefanie Lambert (Case No. 2023-285759-FH), leaves no question where the balance tilts.
Judge Jeffrey Matis denied every defense request—fifteen in all—and granted the prosecution’s positions in full.
Key Excerpts from the Court’s Order
“The request to modify the instructions regarding Count 24 is DENIED.”
“The request to modify the Court’s prior rulings … is DENIED.”
“The special non-standard instruction captioned Unauthorized Possession of a Voting Machine shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is charged with the crime of unauthorized possession of a voting machine. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly obtained or had possession of
2. A ballot box or voting machine
3. Without authorization by the Secretary of State or valid court order.”
That third element—the “authorization by the Secretary of State” requirement—has never appeared in Michigan’s election-law statutes. By inserting it into the official jury instruction, the court has effectively created a new legal requirement after the fact.
The order also denies the defense’s proposed instructions on lawful authority, investigative intent, and definitions vital to the defense theory; rejects all four sections of Lambert’s Supplemental and Revised Requested Jury Instructions (“Law,” “Lawful Instruction,” and “Private Investigator”); and refuses reconsideration based on People v. Holkeboer (2024). Even Lambert’s request for clarification of the definition of “voting machine” was denied.
Finally, the court imposed a strict exhibit deadline: “Defendant shall produce trial exhibits on or before December 3, 2025. Exhibits not provided by this date and time may be excluded at trial.”
The trial is set for Monday, March 2, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in person. Defense counsel warns that the combination of denials and deadlines pre-loads the case in favor of the prosecution.
A Law That Never Existed
The centerpiece of this dispute is simple: no statute in 2020—or now—required “authorization from the Secretary of State” before examining election equipment pursuant to a court-ordered discovery.
In the Antrim County litigation, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was the opposing party. Requiring her permission to obtain discovery evidence would have been absurd; she was actively fighting to suppress the very records the plaintiffs sought to examine.
A December 20, 2020, email in the case file confirms that no such authorization rule existed. The state’s later attempts to reinterpret procedures only arose after the Antrim forensic findings became public.
Hellbound and Down 