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.

Reversing a Conviction Due to Newly Discovered Evidence

On appeal, the court found no error with the trial court’s ruling. The court explained that a defendant can file a second motion for relief from judgment but only if there is newly discovered evidence they did not have when they filed the first motion, or there has been an intervening change in the law. As such, a defendant filing a second motion for relief must show that one of these exceptions applies before the court will consider their motion.

When a defendant files a second motion for relief based on newly discovered evidence, they will only be granted a new trial if they can establish: that the evidence was newly discovered; the new evidence is not cumulative; they could not, using reasonable diligence, have found and presented the evidence at trial; and, the new evidence makes it probable that a different outcome would occur on a retrial.

In order to determine whether newly discovered evidence would result in a different outcome, the court must first evaluate whether the evidence is credible. In the subject case, the court ultimately found that there was no way to corroborate the trustworthiness of the witness’ affidavit. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Talk to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If the victim of a crime recants their testimony following their alleged assailant’s conviction, it may be cause for vacating a guilty verdict. If you are charged with assault or another crime, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can inform you of your possible defenses and help you to pursue the best legal result available under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

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.

Jury Instructions on Lesser Included Offenses

The defendant asserted, among other things, that the trial court violated his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by denying his request for a jury instruction on felonious assault and brandishing a firearm in public, which he asserted were lesser included offenses of armed robbery. He further contended that the evidence offered at trial supported his position that it was a lesser included offense.

The court found the defendant’s claims unavailing, however. The court explained that the Constitution does not demand that state courts instruct juries on crimes that are not lesser included offenses of the charged offense. It further elaborated that a court’s failure to instruct a jury on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case was not such a fundamental error that it automatically resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s petition.

Meet with a Skilled Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If the prosecution lacks the evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt in a theft case, it may attempt to convict them of a lesser included offense. If you are accused of robbery or another crime, it is prudent to meet with an attorney to discuss your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skilled Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise you of your rights and help you to seek the best legal outcome possible under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

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.

Acts of Violence as Defined by Michigan Law

On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution failed to offer evidence at trial that was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Specifically, he asserted that the crime he was charged with required proof of the use or threatened use of violence, and spitting did not constitute a violent act. The court disagreed, explaining that violence, as used in the Michigan criminal statutes, is defined as any wrongful use of physical force against another person with the intent to embarrass or harm that person.

The court elaborated that it was well established in common law that spitting on another individual is an offensive act that constitutes the intentional tort of battery. The court ultimately held that because the use of violence encompasses the use of physical force to inflict injury or cause embarrassment and because spitting can cause such harm, it constitutes a violent act. Thus, the court upheld the defendant’s conviction.

Talk to a Dedicated Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Assault crimes can carry significant penalties, but merely because the state charges a person with an assault offense does not mean that the prosecution will be able to meet the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt. If you are faced with assault charges, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your options for seeking a favorable outcome. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a dedicated Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can gather any evidence in your favor to provide you with a strong chance of achieving a successful result. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

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.

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.

Violent Crimes as Defined by Federal Law

The defendant set forth numerous arguments on appeal, including the assertion that conspiracy to commit carjackings did not constitute a crime of violence. The court disagreed, holding that because the defendant’s convictions were predicated on his substantive carjacking crimes rather than his conspiracy crimes, he was not entitled to relief.

The court explained that under the applicable law, an offense will only constitute a crime of violence if the use of force is an element of the offense. Further, the court clarified that conspiracy convictions do not qualify as crimes of violence. To evaluate whether a crime is a crime of violence, the courts look at the statutory definition of the crime rather than the manner in which it was committed.

In the subject case, the court found that carjacking was a violent crime after assessing the statutory elements. The court noted that while the jury was instructed on a conspiracy theory of liability, it did not form the basis of the defendant’s convictions. Instead, he was convicted of carjacking. As such, the court upheld the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Skilled Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Violent crimes carry substantial penalties, but merely because the government charges a person with a crime does not mean that the evidence against them is sufficient to obtain a conviction. If you are accused of a violent offense, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skilled Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the knowledge and experience needed to help you seek a favorable 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.

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.

The courts determine whether a search warrant establishes probable cause by examining the totality of the circumstances. In some instances, like the present case, the search warrant will include information obtained via a confidential source. If the constitutionality rests, all or in part, on the confidential information, the reliability of that information must be sufficiently corroborated through independent means or clearly demonstrated

In the subject case, the defendant argued that because the confidential source that provided information for the warrant was not reliable, the warrant lacked probable cause, and the search of his home was an illegal search and seizure. The court disagreed, noting that the confidential source was known to police and in their custody, which gave their statements greater weight. Further, the source provided substantial detail about the defendant’s home and the weapons he had, which added to his credibility. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion.

Meet with a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If the police violate a person’s rights during the investigation of a crime, any evidence found during that investigation may be inadmissible. If you are accused of violating the law, it is smart to meet with an attorney to discuss what measures you can take to protect your interests. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to provide you with a good chance of obtaining a favorable outcome. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. The charges arose out of an incident involving a minor, during which the defendant allegedly told the minor he would kill him and fired a gun at him. The defendant was convicted as charged, after which he appealed.

Sufficiency of Evidence Establishing Guilt for an Assault Crime

On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. The court ultimately disagreed and denied his appeal. In doing so, the court explained that sufficiency challenges are reviewed de novo. In reviewing the evidence in question, the court must view it in the light most favorable to the prosecution and evaluate whether a reasonable fact finder could determine that the prosecution established each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the jury observes the witnesses and the evidence and makes credibility determinations, the reviewing court should not interfere with the jury’s role in assessing the weight of the evidence. The court explained that circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from such evidence can constitute sufficient proof of the elements of a crime and noted that the prosecution does not need to negate every possible theory of innocence.

In the subject case, the court found that there was adequate evidence to support the defendant’s conviction; namely, a reasonable jury could find that the defendant attempted to commit a battery and, in doing so, placed the minor in fear of receiving an immediate battery. The court found the remainder of the defendant’s arguments unavailing. As such, the court denied the defendant’s appeal and affirmed his convictions.

Talk to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for an assault crime can result in significant penalties. If you are charged with assault, it is prudent to talk to an attorney about your possible defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise of your rights and help you to seek the best legal outcome available under the facts of your case. You can contact 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 the defendant and another individual attempted to rob a drug dealer. The drug dealer was shot during the incident. The government then charged the defendant with several crimes, including conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery. Additionally, the defendant’s indictment asserted that both offenses were predicate crimes of violence. The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and the use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

It is alleged that the government agreed to dismiss the rest of the charges against the defendant. The court convicted the defendant of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. He then sought habeas review, arguing that the predicate offenses did not constitute crimes of violence and, therefore, his conviction should be vacated. The appellate court granted the appeal, and the government sought certiorari review.

The Definition of Crimes of Violence

On appeal, the Court answered the distinct question of whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery falls under the definition of a crime of violence under federal law. The Court ultimately ruled that it did not and affirmed the intermediate court’s ruling. In its opinion, the Court noted that the government was required to demonstrate that the defendant intended to take another party’s property through threat or force and took a substantial step in the direction of meeting that goal in order to obtain a conviction for Hobbs Act robbery.

As the Court explained, though, the elements of attempted Hobbs Act robbery do not categorically involve the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force. Therefore, Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under federal law, as a predicate for a felony conviction and imposing enhanced sentencing for using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

Talk to a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Charges

People convicted of violent crimes face significant penalties, especially if the offense involved the use of firearms. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is essential to set forth a compelling defense, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible to determine your options. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and help you to seek a good outcome. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Alleged Crime

It is reported that the victim and the defendant attended a work event together. After the event, they went out drinking along with other individuals. The victim became intoxicated and returned to another companion’s hotel room, where she became sick and then fell asleep.

Allegedly, she awoke hours later and noticed that the defendant’s arm was around her and his hand was feeling around inside of her underwear. The victim elbowed the defendant, who stopped. He was later charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was convicted, after which he appealed.

Prior Bad Acts Evidence in Michigan Criminal Cases

On appeal, the defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in allowing his former girlfriend to testify that days before the subject incident, the defendant engaged in non-consensual anal sex with her while she was sleeping. The appellate court explained that while evidence of other wrongs is not admissible to establish guilt, it can be used to show intent, proof of motive, or a common plan or scheme.

Essentially, the rule regarding prior bad acts evidence is one of inclusion that allows for relevant other acts evidence to be admitted as long as it is not being used solely to demonstrate criminal tendencies. In other words, it is admissible if it is being offered for a proper reason, is relevant to a material fact, and its probative value is not significantly outweighed by the risk of prejudice.

In the subject case, the prosecution introduced the testimony from the defendant’s former girlfriend to show a common plan or scheme. The appellate court found that the prior act and the conduct out of which the defendant’s charge arose were sufficiently similar to establish a common plan, and the introduction of evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts was therefore proper. Thus, it affirmed his conviction.

Meet with a Skilled Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

The state cannot attempt to prove a criminal defendant’s guilt by introducing evidence of prior bad acts, but it may be able to use such evidence for other purposes. If you are accused of a crime of a sexual nature, it is smart to speak with a lawyer as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a skilled Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise you of your rights and help you to pursue the best legal outcome available under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant engaged in a video chat with the victim, who was fourteen, and her mother. During the conversation, the defendant expressed that he had a sexual dream about the victim and that he had previously engaged in sexual activity with a mother and daughter. At some point after that, the victim asked her mother to rub her stomach, but her mother rubbed near her breasts and underwear. The defendant later met the victim and her mother in a hotel room and engaged in sexual intercourse with the mother. He was later charged with numerous offenses, including using a computer to commit a crime. He was convicted, after which he appealed.

Using a Computer to Commit a Crime

Under Michigan law, in order to convict a defendant of using a computer to commit a crime, the prosecution must show that the defendant used a computer or a computer program, system, or network, to either commit, conspire or attempt to commit, or solicit another person to commit a crime. A person can be convicted of this offense regardless of whether they are convicted of committing, attempting, or conspiring to commit or soliciting another party to commit the underlying offense.

In the subject case, the underlying offense for the charge was producing child sexually abusive activity, which the court noted was defined as a child engaging in an enumerated sexual act, which included fondling. In the subject case, the defendant argued that there was no evidence that he arranged for sexually abusive activity involving a child, or prepared, attempted, or conspired to arrange such activity. The appellate court disagreed, noting that a rational factfinder could determine that the solicited the victim’s mother to commit the underlying offense of child sexually abusive activity. Thus, it affirmed his conviction.

Speak to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a sex crime can irreparably harm a person’s rights and reputation. If you are charged with a sex offense, it is prudent to speak to an attorney about your options for seeking a favorable outcome. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to help you protect your interests, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact 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 the defendant and the victim, who were married, lived together with the victim’s adult daughter and her son. The defendant and the victim began arguing one morning, and their disagreement became physical. The victim then kicked the defendant out of the house. Later that evening, the victim’s daughter was in her room when she again heard the victim and defendant arguing. She then heard gunshots and called 911. After she left her room, she found the victim, who had been shot.

Allegedly, the victim died from her wounds. The defendant was charged with and convicted of murder. He appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence at trial.

Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence

Under Michigan law, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible unless it falls under one of the enumerated exceptions. The court explained that hearsay is a statement made by someone other than the person testifying at a hearing or trial, the is offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Statements are defined by the Michigan rules of evidence as not only oral or written assertions but also nonverbal behavior if it is intended to be an assertion.

In the subject case, the court rejected the defendant’s reasoning and found that all the statements he alleged were hearsay were properly admitted. For example, the victim’s daughter’s testimony that she heard the defendant and victim arguing was offered to show the effect they had on the parties, not the truth of the matter asserted. As such, they were not hearsay because their value did depend on whether or not they were true. The court found that other statements were properly admitted under the present sense exception and excited utterance exception. Thus, the court found that the trial court properly admitted the statements in question and affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Meet with an Assertive Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

The prosecution is limited in what evidence it can introduce at trial, and if it improperly relies on hearsay testimony, it could result in an unjust verdict. If you are accused of a criminal offense, it is in your best interest to hire an attorney to help you formulate a defense. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an assertive Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can gather any evidence that will help you seek a just result. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that first responders found the victim dead in her bed. The defendant, who had a tumultuous romantic relationship with the victim, placed the 911 call but gave differing accounts as to what happened. The autopsy revealed that she died due to neck compression. The defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. At the trial, the defendant asserted that the victim’s death was caused by erotic asphyxiation and was accidental and requested the assistance of an expert to prove his assertion. The court denied his request, finding that as the defendant set forth an affirmative defense, he bore the burden of negating intent. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed.

Establishing Intent in Criminal Matters

The salient issue on appeal was whether the defendant’s assertion that the victim’s death was accidental and was caused by erotic asphyxiation was an affirmative defense and therefore required the defendant to negate the element of intent. The court ultimately determined that it was not and vacated the judgment.

The appellate court explained that intent is an element of first-degree murder and that the intent to kill must be premeditated and deliberate. A defendant who alleges a death was accidental does not bear the burden of establishing that they lacked the intent that is an element of the crime. In other words, because intent to kill is an element of first-degree murder, the prosecution bore the duty of establishing intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate court clarified that the defense that the victim’s death was accidental was not an affirmative defense because it did not impose the burden of negating intent on the defendant. As such, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in applying the standard for affirmative defenses to the defendant’s request for the assistance of an expert. Thus, the court vacated the trial court’s ruling on the issue and remanded for further proceedings.

Speak with a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

First-degree murder is one of the most serious crimes a person can be accused of committing, but if the prosecution cannot prove the defendant intended to cause another person’s death, it should not be able to obtain a guilty verdict. If you are accused of first-degree murder or any other crime, you should speak with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise you of your options and help you to seek a favorable outcome. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The History of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant’s co-worker, who per eyewitness reports was last seen with the defendant, was missing. The police began investigating her disappearance and questioned the defendant. He advised them that he was working when she disappeared, even though he was not. Thus, the police became suspicious of the defendant and obtained a warrant to search his apartment. As part of the search, they performed a DNA analysis that indicated the presence of the skin cells on the defendant’s rug.

Allegedly, the State charged the defendant with the first-degree murder of the co-worker solely due to the DNA evidence. Before the trial, the prosecution filed a motion in limine asking the court to permit the introduction of evidence that the defendant had a prior conviction for strangling and attempting to rape another woman. The defense attorney argued such information was inadmissible other acts evidence, which would be used to unjustly indicate the defendant’s propensity to commit crimes. The trial court found in favor of the defendant, and the State appealed.

The Use of Other Acts Evidence in Criminal Cases

On appeal, the State argued the defendant’s previous offense was similar to his current charge, and as such, evidence of the prior crime should be admitted to show, among other things, the defendant’s intent, motive, and common plan, scheme, or system. The appellate court declined to adopt the State’s reasoning.

Under the Michigan Rules of Evidence, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot be used to show a propensity to commit such acts. It may be admitted into evidence, though, for other purposes, like showing intent, motive, opportunity, or a scheme or plan.

The courts will perform a three-part test to evaluate whether other acts evidence should be admitted. Specifically, they assess whether the evidence is being offered for a valid purpose, then they evaluate whether it is relevant. Last, they will weigh whether its probative outweighs the risk of prejudice. Here, the appellate court ultimately found that the State failed to prove the other acts evidence should be admitted for any reason. As such, it affirmed the trial court ruling.

Speak to Seasoned Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

The prosecution cannot use unlawful evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt, and if it does, it may be grounds for a reversal of a conviction. If you are charged with a crime, it is smart to speak to an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a seasoned Michigan criminal defense attorney who will work hard to preclude any unjust evidence from being used against you at trial to provide you with a strong chance of a favorable outcome. You can reach Mr. Bernstein via the online form or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Assault and Subsequent Trial

It is reported that the defendant and the victim were involved in a verbal altercation, after which the victim got into a vehicle and began to drive away. The defendant then began to shoot at the vehicle. He was charged with assault with intent to commit murder and other crimes. At his trial, the victim and his mother, who was at the scene of the incident, both testified that they did not know who shot at the vehicle.

Allegedly, the prosecution then presented evidence of earlier statements made by the victim and his mother in which they identified the defendant as the shooter, including a letter from the mother to the police. The defendant was ultimately convicted as charged. He then moved for a new trial, arguing in part that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Evidence of Guilt in an Assault Case

The appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained that a court might order a new trial on the groundsthat the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, only if the evidence was so heavily in favor of the opposite verdict that the verdict constitutes a miscarriage of justice. In other words, a verdict will generally only be vacated when the evidence does not reasonably support the verdict and it is clear it most likely arose out of some extraneous influence.

The court explained that, unless exceptional circumstances are present, the issue of a witness’s credibility is for the jury, and the trial court does not have the right to substitute its view of credibility for the jury’s. Further, conflicting testimony, even if it is impeached, is not an adequate basis for granting a new trial. In the subject case, the court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate the trial court ruling was erroneous. Thus, it was affirmed.

Speak to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer

The credibility of witnesses at a criminal trial is within the purview of the jury, and if the jury issues a guilty verdict after finding that a witness that is favorable to the defendant lacks credibility, it will likely be upheld. If you are charged with assault, you should speak to an attorney to determine what evidence the prosecution may introduce against you. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney who can develop a strategy designed to provide you with a strong chance of a favorable result. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.