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

Under federal law, crimes of violence are punished more harshly than other offenses. While the definition of a crime of violence is established by statute, disputes nonetheless continue regarding whether certain offenses fall under the definition. In a recent ruling, a Michigan court discussed what constitutes a crime of violence in a matter in which the defendant appealed his sentence following his conviction for carrying a firearm or abetting and aiding using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. If you are accused of a criminal offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a trusted  Michigan criminal defense attorney regarding your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with numerous federal crimes, including carrying a firearm or aiding and abetting using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. A jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to serve sixty consecutive months in prison for the firearm offense. He filed a motion to vacate his sentence, arguing that abetting and aiding attempted robbery, the underlying crime of violence, was not a crime of violence as defined by the applicable statute. The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Crimes of Violence Under Federal Law

An appellate court will review the question of whether an offense is considered a crime of violence de novo. In doing so, they must apply the categorical approach as dictated by the elements clause of the relevant statute. In other words, they must assess the elements of the alleged offense rather than the particular facts out of which the defendant’s conviction arose. Continue Reading ›

Certain crimes include an element of intent. As such, if the prosecution is unable to demonstrate that the defendant possessed the state of mind needed to commit the crime, it should not be able to obtain a conviction. Recently, a Michigan court discussed burdens of proof with regard to intent in criminal matters in an opinion issued in a case in which the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. If you are faced with criminal charges, it is advisable to confer with a skilled Michigan criminal defense attorney to discuss your potential defenses.

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. Continue Reading ›

Typically, in Michigan criminal trials, the prosecution is not permitted to introduce evidence that the defendant previously engaged in wrongful behavior that is similar to the criminal offense they are accused of committing. There are some exceptions, though, as demonstrated in a recent Michigan matter in which the defendant challenged his conviction for sexual assault after the prosecution introduced evidence of a prior similar incident. If you are charged with assault or any other crime, it is prudent to meet with a knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense attorney to determine what evidence the state may introduce against you.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with sexual assault. During the trial, the victim testified that she was unconscious and woke up to the defendant strangling her and having sex with her. Additionally, another woman testified that on a previous occasion, she slept on the defendant’s couch and woke up to the defendant strangling her and having sex with her. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to admit prior bad acts evidence.

The Introduction of Prior Bad Acts Evidence

The appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. The court explained that, except for cases involving an abuse of discretion, an appellate court would not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit the evidence. A trial court commits an abuse of discretion if it allows evidence that is inadmissible as a matter of law. Continue Reading ›

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

Typically, criminal defendants are tried individually. The state is not precluded from trying numerous criminal defendants at one time, however. For example, if multiple people were allegedly engaged in the same course of criminal conduct, the prosecution may seek a joint trial. In a recent Michigan ruling, the court addressed when a joint trial is appropriate in a matter in which the defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever. If you are accused of committing a crime, it is in your best interest to consult a Michigan criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendants, a man, and a woman, robbed a store in Detroit. Specifically, the male defendant parked his car in the alley behind the store, while the female defendant went into the store, stole the victim’s sunglasses, and began to run. The victim chased the female defendant, and when he got close to the male defendant’s vehicle, the male defendant shot him.

Allegedly, both defendants were subsequently arrested and charged with armed robbery, assault, and other crimes. The male defendant filed a motion to sever the trials, arguing a joint trial was prejudicial to his defenses. The court denied his motion, and they were tried jointly before separate finders of fact and were both convicted. They appealed, and the male defendant argued in part that the trial court erred in denying his motion. Continue Reading ›

Just because a person is convicted of a crime does not mean that they no longer have any recourse. Instead, there are often numerous avenues a party can explore in search of a favorable outcome. For example, a person who believes they are being unlawfully detained in prison can file a petition for habeas corpus. While typically, a prisoner will want to obtain a resolution to a habeas corpus case as soon as possible, in some instances, it may be prudent for them to seek a stay while other claims are pending. This was illustrated in a recent ruling issued by a Michigan federal court in which it found that a stay was appropriate until the prisoner’s petitions for remedies in state court were resolved. If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is smart to speak to a Michigan criminal defense attorney about your options for seeking a just result.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition in which he challenged his plea-based assault and weapons offense convictions. In part, he asserted that the state trial court committed an abuse of discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest. The court ordered the state to file a response to the prisoner’s petition, but before the state responded, the prisoner moved for a stay of proceedings and to have his petition in abeyance so that he could exhaust his state remedies with regard to four other claims.

Grounds for Granting a Stay and Abeyance

The court ultimately found that a stay was appropriate and granted the prisoner’s motion. The court explained that the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies requires that state prisoners allow the state courts to respond to their claims before they present the claims to a federal court via a habeas corpus petition. This obligation is satisfied if the prisoner invokes a complete round of the state’s process if appellate review, which includes a request for a discretionary review if that is part of the typically appellate procedure in the state. Continue Reading ›

Under both the Michigan and United States Constitutions, criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves at trial. Exercising the right of self-representation is not as simple as a criminal defendant merely stating that they would prefer to proceed without an attorney, however. Instead, the court must establish the requirements set forth under statutory and case law to ensure that the waiver of the right to counsel is knowing and voluntary. If the requirements are not met, the court has an obligation to deny a defendant’s request to represent themselves. This was demonstrated in a recent Michigan ruling issued in a matter in which the defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including murder and assault. If you are accused of a crime, it is in your best interest to confer with a Michigan criminal defense attorney regarding your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant and a female friend were consuming alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana at his apartment. The defendant stated he wanted to tie the woman up and beat and rape her. She left and went to the first floor of the apartment building, and the defendant grabbed his gun and followed her. He ultimately shot two female residents who were standing in the hallway. They subsequently died due to their injuries.

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with second-degree murder, assault, and numerous other felonies. He was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the trial court violated his right to represent himself at trial. Continue Reading ›

The United States and Michigan Constitutions grant people certain privacy rights. This means, among other things, that they are protected from unreasonable searches. In other words, the police generally cannot search someone unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal activity. If they conduct a search without just cause, it may be deemed unlawful, and if the search results in criminal charges, the prosecution may be barred from using any evidence obtained via the search at trial. Recently, a Michigan court discussed what a defendant arguing a search was unlawful must prove in a case in which the defendant, who was charged with being a felon in unlawful possession of a weapon, moved to suppress evidence. If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is smart to speak to a Michigan gun crime defense attorney about your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant drove his minivan to the parking lot of a liquor store and parked it there for several minutes. Surveillance footage showed the defendant talking to numerous people while he sat in the van. No one was seen entering the van, but at one point, a man exited the rear of the van and robbed someone. The defendant, who was outside of the van at the time, observed the robbery, got back into his van and drove away.

Allegedly, footage from a green light a few blocks away showed a person that appeared to be the robber getting back into the van.  The day after the incident, the police saw the defendant walking down the street. They approached him and asked him about the incident, and he admitted the robber was in his van. He walked to his van with the police and gave them his key. They then searched his van and found a gun. The defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a weapon. He moved to suppress the evidence found during the search, arguing that the search was unlawful and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Continue Reading ›

It is well established under Michigan law that people can be charged with more than one offense following a single criminal incident. They cannot be found guilty twice for the same crime, however, as such rulings violate double jeopardy. Further, they cannot be found guilty of multiple crimes if such convictions are contradictory. In other words, there are protected from inconsistent verdicts or those that cannot be rationally reconciled with the court’s factual findings. This was illustrated in a recent Michigan criminal matter, in which a court overturned a defendant’s felonious assault conviction on the grounds that it was inconsistent with his conviction for assault with murderous intent. If you are accused of assault, it is advisable to confer with a Michigan assault defense attorney regarding your potential defenses.

The Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant stabbed a woman he had previously dated in July 2018. Prior to the incident, the woman left the apartment she lived in with the defendant, and the defendant moved to Florida. At some point, she emailed the defendant and asked him to return to Michigan. According to the woman, the defendant appeared on her balcony one evening and stabbed her numerous times.

It is reported that she was taken to the hospital, where she underwent surgery. The defendant was charged with felonious assault, assault with murderous intent, and other crimes. He was convicted via a bench trial, after which he appealed, arguing in part that his convictions for assault with murderous intent and felonious assault were inconsistent verdicts. Continue Reading ›

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted people in many facets of society, including those serving time in prison. Many inmates were able to obtain compassionate release during the pandemic, pursuant to the First Step Act. Since the introduction of vaccines, though, it has become more difficult to demonstrate such relief is warranted, as illustrated in a recent Michigan ruling issued in a case in which the defendant was convicted of numerous crimes. If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is smart to meet with a Michigan criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of identity theft and wire fraud and sentenced to serve 70 months in a federal penitentiary. One month prior to when his sentence was to begin, he moved for compassionate relief due to his concerns about the COIVD-19 pandemic. Specifically, he requested home confinement with an electronic monitoring system. His motion was denied due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, and he began serving his sentence. The defendant subsequently filed a new motion, again arguing for a modification of his sentence. The court reviewed his motion and ultimately determined that such relief was not warranted.

Compassionate Release Under the First Step Act

The First Step Act altered the law regarding the compassionate release of federal prisoners, thereby allowing the courts to consider motions filed by people incarcerated in federal prisons who are striving to reduce their sentences. When presented with such a motion, a court must conduct a three-part test. Specifically, it must determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction, ensure that such a reduction is consistent with relevant policy statements issued by the sentencing commission, and consider any applicable sentencing factors. Continue Reading ›

In Michigan criminal matters, the prosecution bears the burden of proving each element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot meet this burden, the evidence should be deemed insufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction. The standard of review the court employs when faced with challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence was the topic of a recent Michigan ruling in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. If you are charged with an assault crime, it is advisable to speak to a Michigan criminal defense attorney to determine your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

The Alleged Assault

Reportedly, the victims were in their front yard when they heard a loud boom. They then listened to a person make a comment regarding the firing of a gun then threaten to kill them. The victims did not see the defendant but determined he was the one speaking because they recognized his voice. The person than shown a light at the female victim’s head, which they believed to be a light attached to a gun.

Allegedly, the victims returned to their apartment and called the police. The police spoke with the defendant, who advise he heard a noise that sounded like a gunshot, after which he grabbed his gun and pointed it at the victims. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and was convicted by a jury, after which he appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information