Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In a recent weapons possession case, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals considered what type of objects may be considered "dangerous weapons" pursuant to federal law. In United States v. Tolbert, Jr., John Tolbert Jr. had just finished his trial for intentional possession of a firearm. When he was told to place his hands behind his back so that law enforcement could cuff them, he grabbed and plastic water pitcher and hit a deputy in the head with it. Although the officer wasn't seriously hurt and didn't need medical attention, the district court determined that the pitcher constituted a "dangerous weapon." Based on the court's characterization of this as a dangerous weapon, the court then increased Tolbert's sentence, applying a "4-level enhancement" stating that any object used "with the intent to commit bodily injury" may be considered a dangerous weapon.

Michigan weapons charges are serious. If you are found to have used a dangerous weapon in connection with committing a crime, the penalties for the underlying charge may increase. It is important to consult with an aggressive Michigan weapons charge attorney immediately to begin preparing your defense. As this case illustrates, courts may find nearly any object is a "dangerous object" depending on how it is used and the person's intent in using it.

Here the both the lower court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Michigan, determined that even a plastic water pitcher placed on the courtroom table can be a "dangerous weapon" under certain circumstances. The pitcher was a standard water pitcher, about 10 inches tall, with a 6-inch handle and a 12-inch circumference. It weighed a mere ½ pound to 1 pound when empty. The appellate court stated, "It is reasonable to infer...that such a water pitcher swung with sufficient force and proper aim, was capable of inflicting serious harm." The court cited additional dangerous weapons case law that supports the notion that "Almost any object can be a dangerous weapon depending on how it is wielded in the circumstances." Other items found to be dangerous include "walking sticks, leather straps, rakes, tennis shoes, rubber boots, dogs, rings, concrete curbs, clothes irons, and stink bombs."

Continue reading "Court Determines Plastic Pitcher Is A Dangerous Weapon In United State v. Tolbert, Jr. " »

White-collar crimes can be some of the most complex and technical cases. In a recent Sixth Circuit case, United States v. Parkes, a businessman - Timothy Parkes - was convicted of 10 counts of bank fraud concerning the making of alleged fraudulent entries in the books of a small bank. However on appeal, the 6th circuit - which includes Michigan - reversed this white-collar crime jury verdict based on a lack of evidence.

If you have are under investigation for or have been charged with a white-collar crime such as fraud or embezzlement, it is important to speak with an experienced fraud lawyer in Michigan to immediately begin preparing your defense. Fraud charges often require in-depth knowledge of complex financial matters in order to investigate and defend. Consulting with a knowledgeable Michigan white-collar crimes defense attorney is important to ensure you get the best defense possible.

In Parkes, the prosecution claimed that the businessman had worked together with the bank president to create fraudulent entries meant to disguise troubled loans. Parkes was indicted for and convicted of ten counts of bank fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344. At trial, in order to prove a violation of bank fraud the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme to defraud a financial institution; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; and (3) that the financial institution was insured by the FDIC.

Parkes alleged on appeal that the no evidence existed at trial that he knowingly executed a scheme to defraud, intended to defraud the bank or even participated in the creation of the bank entries. The Sixth Circuit agreed. The appellate court determined that the lower court improperly excluded a number of key pieces of defense evidence, including the fact that the bank president on his own had made identical fraudulent entries.

Continue reading "Bank Fraud Jury Verdict Overturned Based On A Lack Of Evidence" »

The sixth circuit has vacated a recent sentence in an Ohio sex crimes case concerning child pornography. In United States of America v. Inman the Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit, which includes Michigan, reviewed the sentence of a man who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B).

Being under investigation or charged with any sex crime is serious and may significantly affect your future and freedom. Here, where the alleged crime is child pornography, an individual may face jail time and having to place his or her name on the Michigan sex crimes registry.

In United States v. Inman, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's sentencing of Brandon Inman after he admitted to possession of a computer thumb drive containing images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Although both parties in this case requested Inman be given a ten-year term of supervised release, the court ordered a lifetime term of supervised release with standard and special measures, including drug testing. The court failed to provide any reasons for the term of the release or the imposition of the special measures.

On appeal, the 6th circuit reviewed whether it was plain error to impose such a sentence with no rationale. USC Sec.3553(a) requires that courts consider numerous factors in determining the length of supervised release imposed, including the history and characteristics of a defendant and the need for the sentence.

To determine whether the lower court erred in imposing the sentence, the court of appeals evaluated whether the decision was a clear and obvious error affecting Inman's substantial rights and whether the decision affected the "fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his judicial proceedings." The court noted, "the record does not demonstrate that the district court considered any of the pertinent Sec. 3553 factors" and also failed to explain many of the conditions imposed on the supervised release. As a result, the court of appeals determined that the order must be vacated.

Continue reading "Child Pornography Sentence Vacated " »

In a victory for individuals over the often oppressive tactics of law enforcement, a unanimous United Supreme Court determined that police violated the constitution when they placed a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker on a suspect's vehicle without a warrant. In United States v. Jones, the justices determined that placing the tracking device on the car violated the Fourth Amendment's protection of "persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The court determined that this protection also includes private property such as automobiles.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned, "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted." Although the court had some differences in reasoning, all unanimously agreed that the police actions went too far and violated the suspect's rights.

The constitution impacts nearly every aspect of the criminal process - from investigation, to charges, arrest and trial. Where police or other law enforcement officials overstep their bounds, their conduct that may serve as a defense to criminal charges. If you believe your rights may have been violated, it is important to speak to an experienced criminal lawyer in Michigan to protect your rights and begin preparing your defense.

Here, the government claimed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents use GPS tracking devices in thousands of cases each year and argued that using the tiny devices is too trivial to constitute a violation of a property right. However, the Court strongly disagreed, noting that even a small trespass if committed in "an attempt to find something or to obtain information" constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. As stated by Justice Sotomayor, "In the digital age I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every website they have visited in the last week, or month, or year."

Continue reading "Supreme Court Unanimously Determines Warrant Necessary For GPS Tracking In United States v. Jones " »

The United States Supreme Court has just passed on an opportunity to ensure greater fairness is criminal trials. In Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court justices evaluated the circumstances surrounding eyewitness testimony and when it may be introduced at testimony. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court concluded that unless evidence exists that police have "manipulated" the circumstances, judges cannot throw out eyewitness testimony on their own. However Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the only dissenter, asserts this is "backwards." The primary goal is to "assure a fair trial" and "[w]hether the police have created suggestive circumstances intentionally or inadvertently ...it is no more or less likely to misidentify the perpetrator." Eyewitness testimony is just as powerful in persuading a jury regardless of the circumstances.

As a criminal defense attorney in Michigan, I agree. When an individual faces the possibility of arrest, charges and a possible conviction in a crime such as theft or robbery, a drug offense or violent crime, his or her fate may depend in part on eye witness testimony. When that testimony is flawed, the possibility for great injustice exists. Under any circumstance, if you are facing criminal charges in Michigan, it is crucial to speak with an aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyer immediately to begin preparing your defense and challenge the evidence against you - including any eye witness statements.

Perry is a criminal law case out of New Hampshire involving car robberies. In Perry, police officers were notified about a man breaking into cars behind an apartment building. A woman gave a vague description of a potential suspect. However, after seeing Perry standing next to a police officer she then identified him as the suspect. Based on her identification, Perry was convicted. Perry argued that his standing next to the police officer unduly influenced the woman's identification. The New Hampshire Supreme Court determined that because the police did not create the suggestive circumstance, the eyewitness identification testimony was allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court has just affirmed this decision.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Misses Opportunity To Make It More Difficult To Introduce Eyewitness Testimony In Perry v. New Hampshire " »

A recent case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated the effect of firearms in connection with drug possession. In United States v. Shields, the Sixth Circuit found in favor of the defendants, determining that the lower court had erroneously imposed a too long sentence and found that the sentence enhancement was unreasonable.

Weapons charges are serious. In Michigan, when a crime is committed while a defendant is in possession of a firearm sentencing guidelines call for a mandatory two-year prison sentence. This sentence will be added to penalties associated with an underlying crime. If you face weapons charges, it is important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Michigan, such as a top weapons charge attorney.

In Shields, the defendant was arrested for allegedly possessing a firearm in connection with drug possession. Here, police officers found Kevin Shields in possession of a nine-millimeter handgun. As a police officer was walking Shields to the patrol car, Shields stated that he needed his wallet, which was on the porch. When the police officer went to the porch to grab the wallet, he also found a small amount of pot near where Shields had been sitting. This amount constituted only a small, consumption-level amount of marijuana plus cocaine residue. While marijuana possession in small amount is generally considered a misdemeanor, here the drug possession was considered a felony because Shields had prior drug convictions.

Although the prosecution sought a sentence enhancement for "weapons possession in connection with a felony" the appellate court determined that an enhancement based on weapons charges was not reasonable in this case. No "sufficient nexus" existed between the firearm and the drug possession. A sentence enhancement is available where "a firearm is possessed" in connection with "another felony ... if the firearm facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating another felony offense." As explained in the case, an example of this would be where a defendant uses a firearm to protect the drug, facilitate a drug transaction, or embolden himself while participating in felonious conduct."

Continue reading "Sentence Enhancement Unreasonable In US v. Shields Where Possessing A Gun Was Not Connected To Drug Use " »

A recent case out of Wayne County examined just what actions may constitute a "reasonable suspicion" and may justify police making an investigatory stop.

In Robinson v. Howes, the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit examined the actions of two Wayne County Deputy Sheriff's who were involved in the arrest of a Highland Park, Michigan man. At issue is whether the deputy sheriff's had enough reasonable information to stop the man and make an investigatory stop. Whether police have the right to stop you and perform an investigation is crucial and is a critical determination in many criminal law cases.

Where police or other law enforcement detain you in violation of your 4th amendment rights to be free of "unlawful searches and seizures," any evidence collected pursuant to this violation may be thrown out. In numerous situations, this may lead to charges being reduced or even completely dismissed. As a result, if you've been detained pursuant to a criminal investigation it is important to speak to an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney to determine whether the stop was proper and whether your 4th amendment rights or any other constitutional rights were violated.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution has a tremendous impact on criminal law enforcement at all levels. These rights extend to all citizens and include the right to counsel, the right to due process, the right to a jury trial, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. If you have been charged with a crime, including weapons possession, drunk driving, drug crimes, or theft and property crimes, consulting with a top Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

Here in Robinson, two deputies testified that they were dispatched to the scene after receiving a radio report of "shots fired from a yellow vehicle." When the police arrived, one of the officers approached the vehicle and the suspect stated "he had done nothing wrong," got out of his car and started to walk away. After he left, one officer testified that he noticed a handgun on the front seat. He yelled to the other officer who then tried to grab the suspect. The two officers then struggled with the petitioner, then pepper-sprayed him and placed him under arrest. The petitioner disputed the police officer's version of events and asserted that the investigation and ensuing arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights, in part because the stop was based on uncorroborated information from an anonymous caller.

Continue reading "Appeal From Michigan District Court Reviews Investigatory Stops In Robinson v. Howes " »

In what is perhaps the first case of its kind, a Michigan Court of Appeals has determined that a Rochester Hills man must face a computer hacking trial based on evidence that he was snooping in his ex-wife's email account. The Oakland County man has been charged with "misusing a computer," a felony charge in Michigan. The charges stem from accusations that Leon Walker accessed his wife's email after she filed for divorce. Reports state that he believed she was cheating on him and checked her email for evidence.

If you have been charged with a computer crime or other white-collar crime it is important to talk to an experienced criminal defense law firm in Michigan. Many times overzealous prosecution can lead to criminal charges. It is important to begin an investigation immediately and fight back.

Here, Walker has been charged pursuant to Michigan's "hacking" law, MCL 450.411s, which prohibits third parties from breaking into computers or computer programs. Under certain circumstances "hacking" may be considered a felony. In this instance, Walker faces up to 5-years in jail for reading the email. The arrest and charges sparked a national debate about computer privacy, especially between spouses.

In the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, the three-member appellate panel wrote that Michigan's computer hacking doesn't provide for a spousal exception. Such a steep penalty and use of resources seems unjust. Here, Walker simply accessed his wife's Gmail account on a shared computer. She had left her password in a book next to the computer, which he entered in an effort to determine whether she was cheating on him and exposing their child to a potentially violent situation.

Continue reading "Rochester Hills Man Faces Felony Trial For Reading Wife's Email " »

Michigan news from Emmet County reports indicate that law enforcement is out in force this holiday season. With the slogan "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest," from now through New Year's day state troopers are on "directed patrol, looking for criminal activity on the roads with operating while intoxicated (OWI) drivers being the biggest one's targeted."

While officers will be on the look out for drunk drivers, reckless drivers and seat belt use violators, it is crucial that responsible drivers pulled over in error, without probable cause or where law enforcement violate individual's rights be able to protect themselves from drunk driving charges and penalties.

If you have are charged with Michigan drunk driving, the first thing to do is call an experienced drunk driving criminal defense attorney in Michigan immediately to protect your rights and begin preparing your defense.

In fact, in many situations drunk-driving charges can be reduced or even DUI charges dismissed as the result of common police errors.

Although everyone wants to ensure the safety of Michigan roads, it is imperative to protect your rights, your driving privileges and your reputation. A drunk driving charge will not only damper the holiday spirit but may also have a lasting impact on your freedom.

Continue reading "Holiday Crackdown On Michigan Drunk Driving May Lead To False Arrests" »

Earlier this week, a Detroit man pleaded guilty to allowing an unlicensed minor to operate a motor vehicle after he allowed his 9-year-old daughter to be his designated driver. According to the Wayne County prosecutor's office, Shawn Weimer also pleaded guilty to second-degree child abuse. Weimer's case gained national attention after his daughter was shown on surveillance video bragging about her driving skills.

Weimer himself had reportedly consumed half a bottle of whiskey and did not want to drive under the influence. Michigan has some of the toughest drunk driving laws in the country. If you have been charged with a DUI/OUI or other drunk driving offense it is important to consult with a drunk driving attorney in Michigan immediately to fight the charges and protect your driving privileges.

Many individuals charged with DUI/DWI are scared to fight back and mistakenly believe that if they have been charged with a drunk driving offense, they will be found guilty. This is not the case. In fact, in many situations an aggressive criminal defense lawyer in Michigan can fight the charges, by pointing out flaws in the evidence or challenging the stop itself, and successfully get OUI charges reduced or eliminated. Although not every strategy will work in every case, a number of common police errors and missteps occur in drunk driving stops that drunk driving defense lawyers can use as part of a vigorous defense.

Continue reading "Detroit Dad Pleads Guilty After Using 9-Year-Old Daughter As Designated Driver" »

MaryAnn Godboldo has emerged victorious after a Wayne County Circuit Court Judge upheld the lower court's ruling that a court order to remove Godboldo's 13-year-old daughter from her care was not valid. All criminal charges stemming from police attempts to remove the child, as well as all custody charges have been dropped.

The criminal charges in this case stem from the actions by the Michigan Department of Human Services to removed Godboldo's daughter, Ariana, from her home after Godboldo took the girl off her autism medication. Reports indicate that Godboldo had made the decision to stop giving her the medication after Ariana's condition worsened and she received a second opinion. As stated in one news report, "the speed at which this sensible decision by a caring mother turned into sheer terror is mind-boggling."

Many times, over zealous law enforcement officials overstep their bounds. In these situations, it is imperative to speak to an aggressive criminal defense lawyer in Michigan immediately to fight for your future and protect your rights. By challenging the evidence and putting together a skilled defense, a criminal defense law firm may be able to get charges reduced or eliminated.

Here, the officials involved claimed that the decision to stop giving Ariana Risperdal put her at risk. When the police attempted to enforce the order to remove the girl, Godboldo refused to allow them inside. Police then surrounded the house, claiming that they heard shots fired inside. Godboldo refused to come out, but eventually surrendered 12 hours later.

Godboldo was then charged with weapons violations, including assault with a dangerous weapon, shooting from inside a building, having a firearm during a felony and resisting and obstructing police.

Continue reading "Detroit Mom MaryAnn Godboldo Victorious - Wayne County Court Clears All Charges Against Her" »

The Michigan Supreme Court has decided against hearing argument in a controversial Allegan County witness screen case.

In People v. Rose, a western Michigan man, Ronald Rose, was accused of sexually assaulting an 8-year-old girl. At trial, a one-way screen was placed between the witness and Rose, ostensibly because she was scared of testifying. However, in doing so not only was Rose denied his 6th Amendment right to confront his accuser, but the action was also highly prejudicial. As a result, Rose should be entitled to a new trial.

The U.S. Constitution provides many protections designed to ensure criminal defendants are given a fair trial. One of these protections is the 6th Amendment, which provides that a defendant is entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him. While MCL 600.123 expressly provides alternative for child testimony, the use of a screen is not one of them. In fact, as described by Scott Grabel, a Michigan criminal defense lawyer, the use of the screen was more like a theatrical prop and was "the most prejudicial thing he'd ever seen in a criminal trial."

The visual of seeing a screen placed between the accuser and the defendant highlighted the "witness's apparent fear of directly facing defendant...Permitting the screen sent the jury the message that the court deemed the witness to be worthy of protection from the defendant," stated Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kelly. Other less prejudicial alternatives exist to protect child witnesses, such as using videotape testimony. In these instances a jury may conclude that a child is scared of testifying and the criminal court system, rather than being scared of a particular defendant.

Continue reading "Michigan Supreme Court Declines To Hear Whether Witness Screen Violates Confrontation Clause In People v. Rose " »

The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument concerning the case of a Rochester Hills man who was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual assault in 2006 by an Oakland County Circuit Court judge. In State v. Trakhtenberg Judge Deborah Tyner found Jacob Trakhtenberg guilty of sexual assault following a 55-minute trial before the judge. No jury was present and Trakhtenberg's lawyer did not make an opening statement or call any witnesses.

If you are under investigation for a Michigan crime, including any type of sex crime, it is important to consult with an aggressive criminal defense lawyer in Michigan to ensure you receive high quality representation and the best possible chance at getting charges dismissed or reduced.

Michigan criminal law divides criminal sexual conduct into categories, with criminal sexual conduct (CSC) first degree being the most serious. Criminal sexual conduct 2d degree involves touching of an intimate body part in a sexual manner without penetration. Here Trakhtenberg's ex-wife accused Trakhtenberg of sexually assaulting their 8-year-old daughter, and was convicted of CSC -2d degree. Often finding the true motivation behind allegations of sexual assault may be the key to your defense. According to reports Trakhtenberg and his ex-wife were engaged in a bitter dispute over money, custody and Trakhtenberg's sizeable estate.

In less than an hour and with no witness testimony, Trakhtenberg was found guilty in the sex crime trial and was sentence to 4 to 15 years in jail. Immediately after, his wife sued to gain possession of the estate. A Michigan jury ruled against her and members of the jury indicated that they believed Trakhtenberg was innocent of sexual assault.

Although an Oakland County judge granted Trakhtenberg a new criminal trial in 2010, a Michigan Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The Michigan Supreme Court will now hear argument in the case.

Continue reading "Michigan Supreme Court To Hear Argument In Criminal Sexual Conduct Case in State v. Trakhtenberg " »

Rima Fakih - former Miss USA was arrested over the weekend in Highland Park, Michigan on a suspicion of drunk driving. According to reports, Fakih's blood alcohol content measured a 0.20, more than twice Michigan's legal limit. Under Michigan law if a first-time offender's BAC is greater than 0.17, they may be charged under Michigan's super-drunk law. The super-drunk law imposes significant penalties including mandatory license revocation followed by driver's license restrictions and the installation of a mandatory interlock device on their vehicle. Offenders may also be required to submit to mandatory substance abuse counseling and pay significant fines.

If you have been charged with any Michigan drunk driving charge, consulting with an experienced criminal lawyer in Michigan as soon as possible is important to protect your driving privileges and begin preparing your defense.

Although generally a first time offender will not go to jail, in certain instances and in certain Michigan courts judges are more likely to hand down tough sentences. For example, the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills is notoriously tough on OUIL offenders, having sent Jalen Rose to jail for 20 days after just one infraction.

Here, Fakih's celebratory and her excuse - that she was behind the wheel because her friend "was not in a condition to drive", may or may not sway a judge to give her a lighter sentence. Although judges are generally more compassionate on fist time offenders in Wayne County than Oakland County, what the evidence shows is an important consideration. By challenging the police decision to stop a vehicle or pointing out errors in blood or breath sampling equipment or in roadside tests, a top criminal defense lawyer in Michigan may be able to get charges reduced or dismissed.

Continue reading "Former Miss USA Arrested On A Suspicion of Drunk Driving, May Be Charged Under Michigan's Super-Drunk Law" »

The constitution guarantees an individual charged with any crime such as drug distribution, robbery or murder the right to a speedy trial. One of the reasons behind this constitutional guarantee is recognizing that individuals are innocent until proven guilty and this right helps ensure that people charged with a crime aren't subjected to "oppressive pretrial incarceration," as well as minimizing the anxiety of the accused and limiting the possibility that the defense will be negatively affected.

An experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer can fight to protect your rights if you are charged with any crime and help ensure law enforcement does not violate your constitutional rights at any point in the criminal law process, including investigation, arrest and trial.

In a recent 6th Circuit case, United States v. Ferreira, the 6th Circuit dismissed the indictment against a defendant after the government unnecessarily delayed his trial. In Ferreira, the defendant Ferreira was accused of conspiracy to distribute drugs - 500 grams or more of methamphetamines in 2005. At that time he was in custody in Georgia on unrelated criminal charges. As the result of government delays, misplaced paperwork and other errors, Ferreira did not appear in court related to the drug charges until August 2008.

Although the district court dismissed Ferreira's claims that the government violated his right to a speedy trial, on appeal the 6th Circuit - which includes Michigan - determined that the man's rights were denied. In determining whether someone's right to a speedy trial are violated, a court will evaluate four factors including the length of the delay and the reason for the delay. A length of more than one year satisfies the test. Here the wait was nearly three years long.

Additionally - a court will review the reasons for a delay. If the delay is motivated by bad faith rather than by simple negligence, it is more likely a court will find that the government violated an individual's rights.

Continue reading "Drug Distribution Case Dismissed Based On Violation Of Right To A Speedy Trial in United States v. Ferreira " »