Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that an inmate's Miranda rights were not violated by Lenawee County sheriff's deputies when they questioned him in jail about a sex abuse case. In Howes v. Fields the Court evaluated whether an inmate must be read his Miranda rights before questioning the prisoner about other cases.

Here, Fields was in a Lenawee County jail for an unrelated misdemeanor offense. While in jail, the deputies decided to ask Fields questions about another cases involved the sexual abuse of a mentally disable teen. Fields confessed to the crime following seven hours of questioning.

The constitution affects every aspect of the criminal law process and guarantees several rights and privileges. Based on a 1966 case, Miranda v. Arizona, police are required to read suspects in custody a "Miranda warning" or their "Miranda rights." A Miranda warning is given to ensure that those in custody are informed about and understand their fifth amendments right against self-incrimination and their right to obtain a lawyer. If you are under investigation for a crime, or have been arrested it is crucial to speak to an aggressive Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately to ensure your constitutional rights are protected and begin preparing your defense.

Here, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the guards violated Fields' rights and that a Miranda warning was required. Taking prisoners outside the general population and questioning them about conduct that occurred outside of jail creates a setting where a Miranda warning was required. The 6th Circuit determined that police are required to read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from other inmates and may be likely to incriminate themselves.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Determines Inmate Miranda Rights Not Violated In Lenawee County Sex Abuse Case " »

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 " »