Articles Posted in Criminal Defense

Published on: |

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 ›

Published on: |

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 ›

Published on: |

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 ›

Published on: |

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 ›

Published on: |

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 ›

Published on: |

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 ›

Published on: |

Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (the Act), people with three or more prior convictions for certain felonies face enhanced penalties if they are convicted of a subsequent crime. The prior convictions must arise out of crimes that occurred on different occasions, however. Recently, the United States Supreme Court examined what the word occasions means in the context of the Act, in a case where the defendant had ten prior robbery convictions that stemmed from a single criminal incident. If you are accused of a federal crime, it is wise to meet with a Michigan criminal defense attorney to assess your options.

Factual History of the Case

It is reported that in 1997 the defendant broke into a storage facility and robbed ten different units. The government charged him with ten counts of burglary; he pleaded guilty and was convicted. Seventeen years later, an officer who was in the defendant’s home saw the defendant with a rifle in his possession. The defendant was subsequently charged with the federal offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury found the defendant guilty and during sentencing, he was deemed an armed career criminal under the Act, because of his ten prior robbery convictions. The court sentenced the defendant to 15 years in prison, and he appealed. The appellate court affirmed his sentence, and the defendant sought certiorari review.

Prior Offenses Under the Career Criminal Act

The  Supreme Court examined the issue of whether crimes that a defendant commits in sequence during a single incident happen on separate occasions for the purposes of imposing a sentence enhancement under the Act. The Court found that such crimes did not constitute separate occurrences, and reversed the lower court ruling. Continue Reading ›

Published on: |

Under Michigan law, there are some acts that, while they form the basis of criminal charges, are justified in certain situations. For example, if a person uses force against another person, they may be charged with an assault crime, but if they took such action to protect themselves or someone else, the charges against them might be dismissed. In a recent ruling, a Michigan court discussed what evidence a criminal defendant must produce to establish the use of force was appropriate. If you are charged with assault or any other crime, it is in your best interest to confer with a skilled Michigan criminal defense attorney.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendants, husband, and wife, were charged with first and third-degree home invasion. The charges arose out of an incident in which they, along with the husband’s mother, went to the home of another man to pick up the mother’s partner. When they arrived, the man reportedly opened the door briefly and then grabbed the partner and dragged her into another room.

Reportedly, the husband and wife heard the partner screaming for help and entered the home without the man’s permission. A physical altercation ensued. A jury convicted the defendants as charged. They appealed, arguing that their attorneys were ineffective because they failed to request a jury instruction on the defense of others. The intermediate appellate court affirmed their convictions, and they appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. Continue Reading ›

Published on: |

The United States Constitution grants criminal defendants numerous protections and rights. For example, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution affords people charged with crimes the right to a public trial. If the right is violated and a criminal defendant is tried in a closed courtroom, it may constitute grounds for dismissal. Recently, a Michigan court discussed the right to a public trial and what evidence a defendant must offer to prove their rights were violated. If you were charged with a crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a trusted  Michigan criminal defense lawyer.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes following a shooting death. The case proceeded to trial, and during a recess, a juror came into contact with the victim’s child’s mother in the hallway. The trial court subsequently removed the woman and all spectators from the courtroom and ordered them not to return for the remainder of the trial. The jury convicted the defendant of multiple felonies. He then appealed and moved to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing, arguing in part that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial had been violated.

It is reported that the intermediate appellate court granted his motion. Following the evidentiary hearing, he filed a motion for a new trial which was denied on the grounds that the courtroom was not locked, it was merely cleared, and that even if it was closed, he waived the right to a public trial by failing to object. He then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. Continue Reading ›

Published on: |

People wrongfully convicted of crimes have numerous avenues for seeking justice. For example, they may be able to file appeals or petition the court for a writ of habeas corpus. They must comply with statutory procedures prior to filing their petition, however, and if they fail to do so, their petition will likely be denied, as illustrated in a recent Michigan ruling. If you believe you were wrongfully convicted of a crime or need assistance with another criminal matter, it is in your best interest to contact a Michigan criminal defense lawyer to determine your options.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted by a jury of numerous weapons offenses and assault with intent to commit murder. The trial court deemed him a third-offense habitual offender and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 30 to 60 years, 15 to thirty years, and 34 months to 10 years for his respective crimes. He subsequently appealed, arguing in part that police seized evidence from his home without showing him a warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The state court denied his appeal, and he subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court.

Requirements for Seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus

After a criminal defendant files a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court must undertake a preliminary review to evaluate whether it is clear from the face of the petition, including any attached exhibits, that the defendant is not entitled to relief in the district court. If the court finds the petitioner is not in fact entitled to relief, it must dismiss the petition. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information
2750 Carpenter Rd #2
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Phone: (734) 883-9584
We serve clients throughout Michigan, including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Jackson County including Jackson; Lenawee County including Adrian and Tecumseh; Livingston County including Brighton and Howell; Monroe County including Monroe; Oakland County including Novi and South Lyon; Washtenaw County including Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Dexter, Manchester, Saline Township, Whitmore Lake, and Ypsilanti; and Wayne County including Belleville, Canton Township, Northville, Plymouth, Plymouth Township, and Romulus. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, ArborYpsi Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design