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 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.

Presentation of an Insanity Defense

On appeal, the court agreed with the defendant’s assertion, vacated his convictions, and remanded the matter for a new trial. While the court agreed with the trial court that the defendant’s statements were not made for the purposes of treatment and therefore were not admissible as statements made in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, the background information provided to the expert regarding the defendant’s medical history was not hearsay, as they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

The defendant’s attorney failed to argue that such statements were admissible for evaluation of the defendant, though, and instead required the defendant to testify. The court found that this negated the defendant’s entire theory of his case, and therefore, his attorney’s performance fell below the standard of reasonableness of a professional. As such, the court vacated the defendant’s conviction.

Talk to a Dedicated Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

While people charged with assault crimes are not required to produce evidence in their defense, in some cases, offering an affirmative defense might help them avoid a conviction. If you are charged with assault or any other crime, it is advisable to talk to an attorney about your options for pursuing a just outcome. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a dedicated Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can examine the facts of your case and develop arguments designed to help you seek the best legal outcome available. You can contact 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 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.

The Right to Self-Representation

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. In doing so, it explained that the defendant waived his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by choosing to represent himself. The court elaborated that the Michigan Constitution and the United States Constitution both grant criminal defendants the right to represent themselves. While the right to self-representation is not explicit in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the right to personally defend oneself is implied by the statutory language. The Michigan Constitution expressly grants such rights.

The court noted, though, that in order to assert the right of self-representation, a defendant has to waive the right to counsel and must do so intelligently and knowingly, with adequate awareness of the relevant circumstances. In the subject case, the defendant did not argue that his waiver of the right to counsel was invalid; instead, he asserted that his decision to represent himself with standby counsel should be treated as if he had an appointed attorney. The court disagreed, noting that a defendant has the right to counsel or to represent himself but not the right to both. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Confer with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Although criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves, they generally should not exercise that right as it often leads to unfavorable results. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is wise to confer with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and resources needed to help you seek a good outcome, 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 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 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.

The court elaborated that in order for a defendant to show that a prior conviction under a state statute was not a violent felony as defined by the ACCA, they must demonstrate a realistic probability that the state would apply the statute in question to behavior that falls outside of the generic definition of the crime.

In the subject case, the court ultimately found that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Michigan’s third-degree home invasion law touched on conduct that fell outside of the generic burglary offense, as he was required to do to show that it was not a violent felony under the ACCA. As such, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Talk to an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a violent crime may not only result in a lengthy prison sentence, but it may also impact how a person is punished for future crimes. If you are charged with a felony, it is important to talk to an attorney about your options for protecting your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can assess the circumstances surrounding your arrest and help you to seek the best outcome possible 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 conference.

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.

The Sex Offender Registration Requirement in Juvenile Cases

Under Michigan law, cruel or unusual punishment is prohibited, which is broader than the protections offered by the United States Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. Whether a punishment is cruel or unusual is evaluated by a three-part test that considers the severity of the penalty imposed and the seriousness of the offense, a comparison to the penalties for other crimes under Michigan law, and a comparison of the punishment for the offense under Michigan law and other states.

In the subject case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the registration requirement was disproportionate to the offense and that the requirement imposed a grossly disproportionate penalty in consideration of other crimes in Michigan and similar crimes in other states. Based on the foregoing, the court found that the requirement that the defendant register as a sex offender was not unusual or cruel punishment. As such, the ruling exempting him from the requirement was reversed.

Talk to an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a sex crime can irreparably alter a person’s life, and may carry a lifelong requirement to register as a sex offender. If you are charged with a sex offense, it is prudent to talk to an attorney about your options for protecting your interests. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can develop compelling arguments on your behalf to provide you with a strong chance of obtaining a favorable outcome. 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’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 History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant and his girlfriend drove a friend to another part of the state so that the friend could sell methamphetamines. The drug purchasers believed they had been cheated and started following the defendant’s car after the transaction, and the parties engaged in multiple confrontations in two different parking lots. During the confrontations, the defendant pointed a gun at the purchasers.

It is reported that the purchasers contacted the police and advise them of the incident. The defendant was subsequently charged with assault with a dangerous weapon. He initially requested a jury trial but later asked for a bench trial, due to the fact that it would be conducted one month earlier than a jury trial. He was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 months to 15 years in prison. He appealed.

Waiver of the Right to a Jury Trial

On appeal, the defendant argued that he did not voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial as he was forced to choose between a speedy trial and a trial before a jury. The court disagreed and denied his appeal. First, the court noted that the defendant did not raise the issue before the trial court, and therefore it was not preserved for appeal. As such, the court reviewed the issue for plain error, meaning a clear mistake that prejudiced the defendant by affecting the outcome of the lower court proceedings.

The court explained that reversal is only appropriate when the forfeited plain error led to the conviction of a defendant that is actually innocent or substantially impacts the integrity, fairness, or reputation of judicial proceedings. In the subject case, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the court found that he was adequately apprised of his right to a jury trial and willingly waived that right. Thus, his appeal was denied.

Meet with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A person’s constitutional rights do not cease when they are charged with a crime, and if their rights are violated during the course of a criminal proceeding, it may be grounds for vacating any conviction entered against them. If you are accused of assault or another criminal offense, it is wise to meet with an attorney to talk about your options. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and knowledge needed to provide you with a strong chance of achieving a good outcome, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. 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.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant and numerous other pain management doctors were charged with and convicted of operating a medical practice that was essentially a racketeering enterprise in violation of federal law, including the Controlled Substances Act. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant prescribed Schedule II drugs outside of the standard of care that applied to his practice and did so for their financial gain rather than the benefit of their patients. The defendant appealed his conviction, and the appellate court affirmed. The defendant then sought certiorari review.

The Mens Rea Needed to Convict a Defendant for Unauthorized Distribution of Controlled Substances

On appeal, the Court answered the question of whether a doctor that allegedly prescribed drugs outside of the usual scope of their professional practice should be convicted of unlawful distribution in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, despite the fact that they intended or reasonably believed that their prescriptions fell within the scope of their practice.

The Court ultimately answered no, and determined that for the offense of prescribing controlled substances in an unauthorized manner, the mens rea of intentionally or knowingly applied. In other words, if the defendant offers evidence that they had the authority to dispense controlled substances, the government must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant either acted in an unauthorized manner in prescribing the substances or intend to do so.

In other words, the government must prove that the defendant’s distribution of controlled substances was not only in fact for an unauthorized use, but also that the defendant knew or intended the use to be unauthorized. Thus, the Court vacated the lower court ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Confer with a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Charges

Doctors that abuse their prescription privileges may be charged with federal offenses, but the prosecution generally must show that their unlawful acts were intentional, rather than inadvertent. If you are accused of a crime, it is critical to retain an attorney who will fight zealously on your behalf. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney with the skills and experience needed to help you formulate a compelling defense, 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 conference.

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.

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.

The Court explained that pursuant to the Act, defendants convicted of three or more specified felonies that occurred on different occasions are deemed armed career criminals. The Court also pointed out that the defendant’s crimes happened in a single, uninterrupted course of conduct.

The Court found that the word occasion should be interpreted in a manner consistent with its ordinary use. In other words, a person may say that the defendant committed numerous offenses on one occasion, but not that he burglarized a storage unit on numerous occasions. The Court explained that its understanding of the word occasion was supported by the history of the Act, as Congress modified the Act to include a provision stating that the prior offenses must happen on occasions that are distinct from one another.

Talk to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

People accused of violent crimes may receive substantial penalties if they are convicted. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is in your best interest to talk to a lawyer about your possible defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney who is adept at helping people charged with crimes fight to protect their interests. You can reach Mr. Bernstein via the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

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.

Force Used in the Defense of Others

On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the defendants were prejudiced and received ineffective assistance from their attorneys and therefore remanded the case for a new trial. The court explained that under Michigan’s defense of others doctrine, a person could use force to defend another individual if they reasonably believe that the individual is in immediate danger of harm and the force is necessary to prevent that harm. If the attack reasonably appears to be deadly, deadly force is permissible.

Whether the defense of others doctrine applies depends on the facts of the case, not the charges brought against the defendant. In the subject case, the court found that the doctrine was applicable regardless of the fact the defendants were not charged with assault crimes. The court further explained that pursuant to the Constitution, criminal defendants have the right to present a defense, and errors with regard to jury instructions can interfere with this right.

Affirmative defense instructions are not automatically given to jurors following a defendant’s request, however. Instead, the defendant bears the burden of offering evidence from which the jury could find the essential elements of the defense are present. If a criminal defendant offers such evidence, the instruction should be given. In the subject case, the defendants offered evidence that they believed their use of force was necessary to prevent harm of another, but their attorneys failed to request jury instructions on the doctrine of defense of others, which the court deemed unreasonable. Thus, it reversed their conviction.

Talk to a Seasoned Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Actions taken in self-defense are often justified under the law, and many criminal defendants who acted in the protection of themselves and others can escape convictions. If you are accused of an assault offense, you should talk to an attorney about your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a seasoned Michigan criminal defense attorney who can assess the facts of your case and gather the evidence needed to provide you with a strong chance of a favorable result. 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 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.

The Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court’s ruling and remanded the matter for a new trial. The Supreme Court explained that the trial court’s closure of the courtroom for almost the entire trial due to an isolated and benign interaction between a juror and an observer comprised a clear error. Further, as the deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial was a structural error, it affected the defendant’s rights as a matter of course.

The court then explained that as a structural error, the denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial presumptively impacted the defendant’s substantive rights, as it significantly affected the public reputation, fairness, and integrity of the trial. As such, it met the plain error standard’s requirements for reversal. As neither the evidence of record nor the prosecution rebutted the presumption, the court found that a reversal of the intermediate court’s ruling was warranted, and it remanded the matter for a new trial.

Confer with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Constitutional rights do not end merely because a person is accused of a crime, and if the state violates a criminal defendant’s rights during a trial, it may be grounds for reversing their conviction. If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is prudent to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney who takes pride in helping people fight to protect their liberties, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Bernstein via the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

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.

The court explained that a party filing a federal habeas corpus petition must exhaust their state court remedies prior to filing the petition. In order to properly exhaust their remedies, they must fairly present each claim to the state court. This includes, among other things, a requirement that the petitioner presents the issue to both the state court of appeals and the state supreme court.

In other words, fair presentation requires that the state courts are given the opportunity to review both the legal and factual grounds for each claim. If a petition contains both unexhausted and exhausted claims, it is referred to as a mixed petition and will typically be subject to dismissal on exhaustion grounds. In the subject case, the defendant’s petition expressly stated that it included unexhausted claims. Thus, the court denied the petition while preserving the defendant’s right to refile in the future.

Speak to Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Simply because a person is convicted of a crime does not mean that they have no recourse for protecting their liberties and reputation. If you have questions regarding your rights as a criminal defendant, it is smart to speak to an attorney. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to help you 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 Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and numerous other crimes following the shooting death of his wife. During the trial, the state introduced evidence of the defendant’s past infidelity, among other things. Following his conviction, the defendant filed an appeal, arguing in part that the trial court improperly permitted evidence of his infidelity. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction.

Evaluating Whether Evidence is Relevant or Prejudicial

The appellate court noted that the parties did not dispute that the defendant shot his wife; rather, the issue was whether the shooting constituted murder or voluntary manslaughter. To demonstrate guilt for voluntary manslaughter, the state needs to show that a person killed someone in the heat of passion that was brought about by sufficient provocation. The state must also show that there was not a lapse of time between the provocation and the event during which a rational person could gain control of their emotions.

At trial, the defendant argued that after finding out his wife was unfaithful, he was so overwhelmed with passion he could not control himself. The state introduced evidence of his infidelity to refute this assertion, which it argued made it relevant. The appellate court explained that evidence will be deemed relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact that is of consequence less or more probable. Thus, it has two elements: materiality and probative value. The appellate court found that both elements were met in the subject case in that it went to the core issue of whether the defendant was adequately provoked.

Turning to the issue of whether the evidence was unduly prejudicial, the appellate court explained that evidence will only be deemed unfairly prejudicial if it is marginally probative but would be given preemptive weight. As the appellate court found that the risk of prejudice created by the evidence was minimal, the defendant did not meet this burden.

Confer with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Criminal defendants are protected from unjust tactics during their trials, including the introduction of improper evidence. If you are accused of committing a crime, it is crucial to mount a compelling defense, and you should confer with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer who is proficient at helping people fight criminal charges, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. 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 state charged the defendant with four counts of making misleading or false statements to a police officer during the course of a criminal investigation. Specifically, the defendant, who was the President of a University, was questioned about her knowledge of sexual misconduct allegations against a sports medicine doctor at the school. The police alleged that she falsely claimed she did not know the identity of the doctor during a Title IX investigation in 2014 or the nature and substance of the investigation. The defendant filed a motion to quash bind over. The Circuit Court granted the motion, quashing the bind over of the defendant and dismissing the case. The state appealed.

Proving a Person Made False Statements to Law Enforcement

On appeal, the appellate court held that the state lacked sufficient evidence to show that the statements the defendant made to law enforcement were misleading or affirmatively false. The court elaborated the information was inadequate to allow an ordinarily prudent person to hold a reasonable belief that the defendant made a misleading or false statement, and therefore, there was no probable cause.

Further, the appellate court held that the state failed to demonstrate that the allegedly misleading or false statements made by the defendant were material. A false statement will be deemed material, for the purposes of the statute barring people from willfully and knowingly making false statements to a police officer about a material fact in a criminal investigation, if the person knows that the statement is false or is misleading and they are aware that it has a natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing the decision making body.

Here, the appellate court found that the prosecution failed to establish the statements in question were material. Thus, it affirmed the trial court ruling.

Talk to a Capable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

People generally have an obligation to be truthful and candid during the course of criminal investigations, and if they are not, they may face serious repercussions. If you are being investigated for a crime or were recently charged with a criminal offense, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a capable Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience needed to help you fight to protect your rights. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.