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.

Prior Bad Act Evidence

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404, evidence of a prior act, wrong, or crime is not admissible for the sole purpose of establishing a defendant’s guilt. It may be admissible for other purposes, however. For example, it may be used to establish motive, intent, plan, preparation, opportunity, or knowledge. It can also be offered to demonstrate identity, a lack of accident, or an absence of mistake.

Before a court can admit prior act evidence, it must engage in a three-step analysis. First, it needs to make a preliminary finding regarding whether there is sufficient evidence showing the prior act actually occurred. Second, the court must find that the prior act is admissible for one of the purposes set forth in Rule 404. Third, the court must apply Rule 403’s balancing test to assess whether the probative value of the evidence greatly outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice or other concerns set forth in Rule 403.

In the subject case, the court found that the defendant’s prior convictions for controlled substantive offenses were probative of an intent to distribute. Further, the court found that the defendant’s prior convictions were similar to his current changes, which increased their relevance. Finally, the court found that any prejudice the introduction of such evidence would cause could be mitigated via limiting jury instructions. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s motion as it pertained to his prior drug crime convictions.

Meet with a Seasoned Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Michigan law protects criminal defendants from the prosecution’s use of unjust evidence at trial, and if the state violates the defendant’s protections, it may constitute grounds for reversing a conviction. If you are charged with violating state or federal law, you should meet with an attorney to discuss your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a seasoned Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to help you seek a just outcome, and if you hire him, he will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that in 2013, the defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, which was the mandatory minimum sentence. When the COVID-19 pandemic reached the defendant’s prison, he moved for compassionate release. In support of his motion, he argued that his pre-existing health conditions and the fact that the First Step Act reduced the minimum sentence for similar crimes constituted compelling and extraordinary reasons that warranted an early release. He also noted that he had not garnered any infractions in prison and had completed his education. The district court nonetheless denied his motion. He then appealed.

Factors Weighed in Evaluating a Request for Compassionate Release

The appellate court found the district court’s analysis of the federal sentencing factors to be sufficient to affirm its ruling. The appellate court noted that the district court weighed the relevant sentencing factors, including the defendant’s criminal history and the characteristics of his crime, and found that they weighed heavily against granting relief. Specifically, it noted he frequently committed crimes while on supervision or parole and had an extensive criminal past.

The district court also noted other factors it deemed relevant, including the fact that the defendant’s sentence was deemed necessary to protect the public, and reducing his sentence to less than half of the mandatory minimum would undermine its goals of general and specific deterrence in light of his repeated offenses.

While the appellate court stated the district court could have issued a more elaborate opinion, it found that its analysis was adequate to avoid being considered an abuse of discretion. The appellate court explained that it did not require district courts to set forth exhaustive opinions, but only enough to allow for meaningful appellate review. In sum, the appellate court found that the district court adequately weighed the relevant factors in considering the defendant’s request, and issued an order appropriately setting forth the reasoning for its opinion. Thus, it affirmed the district court ruling.

Meet with a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a drug crime can result in a lengthy prison term, but there are often numerous arguments an offender can make in favor of a reduced sentence. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is prudent to meet with an attorney to discuss your case. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan drug crime defense lawyer with the knowledge and experience needed to help you assert your rights, and if you hire him, he will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Bernstein via the online form or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the police obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s home and vehicle based on the belief that he was selling drugs. Following the investigation, the State charged the defendant with multiple drug and weapons crimes. He then moved to suppress the evidence obtained via the search warrant on the grounds that it was overly broad and did not contain adequate evidence to establish probable cause. The court granted the motion and dismissed the charges against the defendant. The State subsequently appealed, arguing that the trial court applied an improper standard in evaluating whether the warrant should have been granted.

Probable Cause Sufficient to Justify a Search Warrant

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures and states that warrants will not be issued without probable cause, supported by affidavits that describe in detail the place that will be searched and the things that will be seized. The Michigan Constitution contains a similar provision that has been construed as providing the same protections as the Fourth Amendment.

In the subject case, the State argued that the search warrant was valid despite the fact that the affidavit in support of the warrant contained deliberately misleading and untrue statements, in that even if the statements were disregarded, the affidavit still established probable cause. The court ultimately agreed with the State.

The court explained that demonstrating that an officer providing an affidavit intentionally left out information or provided inaccurate facts does not, standing alone, invalidate a warrant. Rather, a court must determine, after the improper information is set aside and pertinent information that was omitted is added, whether the information that remains is adequate to demonstrate probable cause to issue a search warrant. Here, the court found that the trial court only conducted the first part of the test in that it determined there was false information in the affidavit and failed to determine whether probable cause nonetheless existed. Thus, the court vacated the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Seasoned Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer

Drug crimes typically carry significant penalties, but in many instances, the evidence used to support drug charges was obtained unlawfully and is inadmissible. If you are accused of committing a drug crime, it is advisable to meet with an attorney as soon as possible to discuss your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a seasoned Michigan criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and help you to seek a favorable outcome. You can contact Mr. Bernstein via the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of conspiracy with the intent to distribute controlled substances, using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, tax evasion, possessing cocaine with an intent to distribute, and engaging in a continuous criminal enterprise in the late 1980s. He was sentenced to a term of life in prison and five years of supervised release. He appealed, and his conviction for conspiracy was vacated, and his sentence was reduced. He then sought a further reduction of his sentence under the First Step Act.

Eligibility for a Reduced Sentence under the First Step Act

At the time the defendant was sentenced, crimes involving crack cocaine were treated more harshly than those related to powder cocaine. To address this sentencing disparity, in 2010, Congress issued the Fair Sentencing Act. The provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act were not retroactive; however, so in 2018 Congress passed the First Step Act.

Pursuant to the First Step Act, a defendant found guilty of a covered offense may file a motion asking the sentencing court to reduce the penalty imposed as if the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act were in place at the time the covered crime was committed. Pursuant to the First Step Act, a covered crime is one that was committed before August 3, 2010 and violates a federal criminal statute, the penalties for which were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.

The court noted, however, that the First Step Act merely allowed courts to reduce sentences of eligible defendants but did not require a reduction. In the subject case, the court affirmed that the defendant met the eligibility requirements for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. The court explained, though, that eligibility does not entitle a defendant to a de novo resentencing hearing or plenary resentencing. Instead, courts can apply sentencing factors as they see fit. Here, the court ultimately determined that the defendant’s sentence should be reduced.

Meet with a Trusted Criminal Defense Lawyer in Michigan

People faced with drug crime charges often feel as if the odds are stacked against them, but in many instances, they are numerous defenses they can assert to avoid convictions. If you are charged with a drug crime, you should meet with an attorney as soon as possible to discuss your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney with the knowledge and resources needed to help you seek the best legal outcome possible. You can reach him through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Defendant’s Arrest

Allegedly, the defendant was arrested at a gas station for carrying a concealed gun without a license. Apparently, an officer saw the gun in the defendant’s waistband with the handle protruding from his coat. The officer asked the defendant if he had a license to carry the gun, to which he replied he did not. The officer then confiscated the gun and arrested the defendant, after which it was discovered he had heroin in his possession as well.

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous weapons crimes and possession of heroin. He moved to suppress the evidence found during his arrest on the grounds that it was the product of an illegal search and seizure. Specifically, he argued the gun was not concealed but was being carried in accordance with the State’s open carry law. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the State appealed.

Constitutional Protections Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure

On appeal, the State argued that the investigatory stop of the defendant did not violate his rights. The court agreed and reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that, generally, a seizure or search conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable, and therefore, unconstitutional. The Terry stop, also known as the investigatory stop, is one exception to the warrant requirement, however.

Pursuant to this doctrine, if an officer has an articulable, reasonable suspicion that a person either committed a crime or is in the process of committing a crime, it can stop a person. Further, an officer can approach and detain an individual under the Terry doctrine for the purposes of investigating potential criminal behavior, even if no probable cause exists to arrest the person. The scope of the seizure and search must be limited to what is needed to promptly confirm or disprove the officer’s suspicion.

In the subject case, the court found that under the totality of the circumstances, the officers were justified in approaching the defendant and questioning him regarding the gun. Thus, it reversed the trial court ruling.

Confer with a Skillful Criminal Defense Lawyer in Michigan Drug charges can result in significant penalties, but there are often numerous defenses a person charged with a drug offense can assert. If you are charged with a drug crime or any other offense, it is wise to confer with a lawyer to determine your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skillful Michigan criminal defense attorney who can aid you by developing a strategy designed to provide you with a strong chance of a successful result. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the online form or by calling (734) 883-9584 to schedule a conference.