Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers
Washtenaw County Bar Association
AVVO Clients' Choice Award 2017
MIAOWIA

In many criminal trials, the prosecution relies on testimony from victims and eyewitnesses to prove its case against the defendant. As such, if a key witness for the state later recants their testimony, it may constitute grounds for reversing a defendant’s conviction. A change in an eyewitness account will not always result in a favorable outcome for a criminal defendant, though, as demonstrated in a recent Michigan case in which a jury convicted the defendant of assault with intent to murder. If you are accused of a crime, it is critical to retain the assistance of a skilled Michigan criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

The Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with assault with intent to murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. During his trial, the prosecution’s case hinged on testimony from the alleged victim; he testified that the defendant shot at him numerous times following an altercation. A jury found the defendant guilty, and as he was a third-offense habitual offender, he was sentenced to 20 to 60 years in prison for his assault crime and two years for his firearm offense.

Reportedly, almost ten years after his conviction, the defendant moved for relief from judgment, his second motion for relief, on the grounds that the victim completed an affidavit in which he recanted his testimony. The trial court initially granted a stay but later denied the defendant’s motion following the victim’s death. The defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›

Criminal defendants rarely lack grounds to assert the insanity defense, but when they present compelling evidence demonstrating that the defense applies, they can often avoid a conviction. As such, if a defense attorney makes mistakes that prevent a defendant from offering a valid insanity defense, it may constitute grounds for reversing a conviction, as shown in a recent Michigan assault case. If you are accused of assault or another criminal offense, it is smart to retain a skilled Michigan criminal defense attorney to evaluate what defenses you may be able to assert.

The Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant tackled his girlfriend, bit her neck, threw her to the ground, and pulled out her hair. When she proceeded into their house, he followed her and threatened to kill her and her disabled brother, whom the defendant also attacked. The defendant was charged with multiple assault crimes. The defendant presented an insanity defense at trial, averring that he had post-traumatic stress disorder and snapped prior to the incident.

Allegedly, the prosecution objected to the introduction of the defendant’s expert witness, a psychologist, on the grounds that his opinion was based on statements the defendant made outside of the doctor-patient relationship and therefore constituted hearsay. The court ruled that the facts on which the expert based his opinion had to be introduced into evidence, which ultimately resulted in the defendant testifying and being subjected to cross-examination. A jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, after which he appealed, arguing his attorney was ineffective regarding the presentation of his insanity defense. Continue Reading ›

The Michigan Constitution and the United States Constitution afford criminal defendants many rights, including the right to counsel and the right to self-representation. While defendants are protected from harm caused by incompetent attorneys in that they can assert claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, if they choose to represent themselves, they waive the right to make such claims, as illustrated in a recent Michigan ruling issued in a murder case. If you are charged with a violent crime, such as murder, it is in your best interest to hire a capable Michigan criminal defense attorney to help you fight to protect your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was involved in an altercation with the male and female victims, his neighbors, when he was at their home. He threw a full beer can at the female victim, which hit her in the face, and then left the property. The victims called 911, and after the police arrived, they observed the defendant breaking things in his apartment. He ultimately had to be subdued and sedated.

It is reported that after the defendant’s release from jail, he went on a rampage that ultimately resulted in the death of the male victim. He was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, assault and battery, and numerous other crimes. A jury convicted him following a trial during which he represented himself with standby counsel. He appealed, arguing he was entitled to a reversal due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Continue Reading ›

In Michigan, many crimes are similar in nature and contain similar elements but vary in degrees. As such, if the prosecution cannot establish a defendant’s guilt for the charged offense, it may be able to obtain a conviction for a lesser included offense, which is a less serious crime that necessarily happens during the commission of the more serious offense. Further, in some instances, the defendant will ask the court to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses to prevent them from being convicted for more severe crimes. There is no constitutional right to such instructions, however, as discussed in a recent opinion issued in a Michigan robbery case. If you are charged with robbery or any other theft crime, it is in your best interest to speak to a Michigan criminal defense attorney to determine what measures you can take to protect your interests.

The Alleged Robbery

It is reported that the defendant and two other men entered a gas station convenience store, and began to take things without paying. When the store clerk confronted them, the defendant approached him and began threatening him and waiving a gun at him. The clerk called the police, but the defendant and the other men left before they arrived. They were apprehended shortly thereafter and taken into custody. The defendant was charged with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and armed robbery and was convicted by a jury. He then filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus, challenging his convictions.

In Michigan, criminal statutes are made up of elements. Thus, when the state charges a defendant with a crime, the prosecution must establish each element beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction. While in some cases, the meaning of an element of a crime is clear, in others, it is less certain. For example, assault crimes contain acts of violence, but there is debate as to whether certain behavior falls under the definition of such acts. This was illustrated in a recent Michigan assault case in which the court examined whether spitting is an act of violence, ultimately concluding that it is. If you are accused of assault, it is important to seek the assistance of a Michigan criminal defense attorney to help you formulate compelling defenses.

The Alleged Assault

It is reported that the defendant was serving a prison sentence for an unspecified conviction. A female corrections officer requested that he come to her for a shakedown, but he refused, stating she was not going to stop him from paroling and using profanity. As such, the officer did not feel comfortable performing the shakedown alone and requested assistance.

It is alleged that two additional officers responded to help escort the defendant to another unit. On the way there, the defendant spat in one of the officer’s faces. The defendant was charged with assaulting a prison employee, and during the trial, a video of the incident was played for the jury at trial. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a criminal defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the prosecution can offer both direct and circumstantial evidence to meet this burden, it cannot rely on evidence relating to the defendant’s prior bad acts or convictions to demonstrate the defendant’s character or to imply that they acted in accordance with that character during the commission of the alleged offense. As explained in a recent Michigan ruling, such evidence can be offered for other reasons, however, such as to establish intent or motive. If you are charged with a crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Michigan criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with distributing controlled substances and sex trafficking. He had numerous prior convictions for firearm offenses, possessing and distributing controlled substances, and receiving and controlling stolen property. The defendant filed several pre-trial motions, including a motion to preclude the prosecution from admitting evidence of his prior convictions.

The federal courts punish violent crimes more harshly than other offenses. While in some cases, it is obvious that a crime is violent, in other instances, the character or a crime is less evident. Recently, a Michigan court analyzed whether carjacking crimes prosecuted under a coconspirator theory of liability constituted crimes of violence, ultimately ruling in the affirmative. If you are charged with a federal offense, it is smart to talk to a Michigan criminal defense attorney regarding your potential defenses.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with numerous carjacking offenses due to his participation in a carjacking scheme. The case proceeded to trial. When the prosecution presented its case, it did not indicate that the defendant had directly participated in the carjackings; instead, it argued that he sought and obtained the vehicles that were stolen.

It is reported that the court instructed the jury that they could find the defendant guilty on a coconspirator theory of liability. In other words, the court explained that all parties to a conspiracy are responsible for the acts each party commits, as long as they are undertaken to advance the conspiracy and happened after the party joined the conspiracy. The jury convicted the defendant, and he was sentenced under the scheme pertaining to crimes of violence. He appealed. Continue Reading ›

Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), people with prior convictions for certain crimes can face greater penalties during subsequent sentencing hearings. Specifically, the ACCA allows for increased sentences for people with a history of committing violent felonies. Violent felony is a broad term, though, and it is not always clear what qualifies as such an offense. Recently, a Michigan court discussed whether home invasion constituted a violent felony, ultimately concluding that it did. If you are accused of committing a crime, it is in your best interest to talk to a Michigan criminal defense attorney about your options for seeking a just outcome.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He entered a guilty plea, after which he was convicted and sentenced. During his sentencing hearing, he was deemed a career offender under the ACCA due to a prior conviction for third-degree home invasion. He appealed, arguing that his prior offense was not a violent felony as defined by the ACCA, and therefore, his sentence was improper.

Violent Felonies Under the ACCA

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. In so doing, it explained that under the meaning, as defined by the ACCA, a conviction will be considered a violent felony if the statutory elements are either more narrow or the same as those of the generic violent felony offense. In order to conduct this assessment, which is referred to as the categorical approach, the court must only assess the statutory language. In other words, it must ignore the actual facts that led to the defendant being charged with the underlying offense. Continue Reading ›

People convicted of sex crimes typically have to register as sex offenders. Until recently, it was unclear whether this requirement applied to juvenile offenders. A Michigan court recently issued a ruling expressly stating that it does, rejecting the assertion that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. If you are accused of a sex crime, it is wise to meet with a Michigan criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that when the defendant was 16, he was a resident at a juvenile detention facility. The victim, another resident, was engaged in an oral sex act with another resident when the defendant grabbed her buttocks and shoved her head down during the act. The victim reported that while the oral sex act was consensual the defendant’s behavior was not. The defendant was charged with numerous offenses, including third-degree criminal sexual conduction, which was a Tier-III offense that required registration as a sex offender.

Allegedly, the defendant asked to be exempt from the sex offender registration requirement and the court granted his request. The state appealed, and the trial court ruling was reversed. The defendant then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which ruled that the registration requirement constituted punishment but declined to rule on the defendant’s case. The case was remanded back to the intermediate appellate to determine whether the requirement constituted cruel or unusual punishment. Continue Reading ›

Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, people cannot be unreasonably searched or detained by the police. This means, among other things, that in most instances, the police must possess a warrant in order to search a person or their home. Additionally, there must be probable cause for issuing a warrant; if there is not, any search conducted under the warrant may be unlawful, and the evidence found during the search should be suppressed. Recently, a Michigan court addressed the issue of what constitutes probable cause in a case in which the defendant appealed his convictions for weapons crimes and other offenses. If you are charged with a crime, you should speak to a Michigan criminal defense attorney regarding your rights as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant’s home was searched pursuant to a warrant. The information used to obtain the warrant was provided by a confidential source. During the search, the police found illegal narcotics and firearms. The defendant then moved to suppress the evidence found during the search on the grounds that the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Probable Cause for Issuing a Warrant

Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause and must specifically describe the place to be searched and the times that are likely to be found during that search. The courts will find probable cause when it is illustrated that there is a fair likelihood that evidence of a crime or illegal items will be found in a particular place. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information