Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

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 " »

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 " »

A case involving the conviction of a western Michigan man continues to make headlines and challenge conventional legal wisdom. In U.S. v. Gabrion, Marvin Gabrion was convicted of murder in 2002 concerning the drowning of a young mom, Rachel Timmerman. Even though the state of Michigan does not allow for capital punishment, a federal jury determined Gabrion should face the death penalty. The death penalty was only available in this instance because Timmerman's body was discovered in the Manistee National Forest, therefore placing the case in a federal court and making capital punishment possible. Had Timmerman's body been discovered a few hundred feet away on state property, the death penalty would not have been available. At trial, Gabrion's representatives were barred from pointing out this injustice to jurors. Gabrion became the first person since 1937 to be sentenced to death in Michigan.

If you have been charged with a violent crime such as homicide or murder, it is imperative to speak to an aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyer immediately. The potential impact on your future and your freedom as the result of a criminal conviction, especially involving serious violent crimes, is significant. The criminal defense law firm you choose can and will make a difference.

Recently, the a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the death sentence should be vacated because the trial judge erred when it kept Gabrion's attorney from telling jurors that Gabrion would not face the death penalty if the body had been discovered on state land. This past Thursday, the federal appeals court rejected the panel's decision. Now, the full appeals court will start over to determine whether the 2002 death sentence was proper.

Continue reading "Full Panel To Review Decision To Overturn Death Sentence In Michigan Murder Case, U.S. v. Gabrion " »

The criminal law process can be challenging and in some instances, a conviction may be unavoidable. However, many times the criminal appeals process may be available to help reduce the impact of a conviction or even overturn a poor decision. For example a defendant may be convicted for a crime he or she didn't commit, receive an unfair sentence, or believe that their lawyer did not do as good of a job as he or she should in defending the case. In these and many other situations, it is a good idea to seek out the help of a post-conviction services law firm and have a criminal defense appeals attorney review your matter to determine any issues that may provide the probability of overturning a conviction and grant a person another opportunity to achieve justice and secure his or her freedom.

A frequent complaint - and one that may lead to a new trial - is that of "ineffective assistance of counsel." Ineffective assistance of counsel means that the lawyer who represented you did such a poor job representing a client that his or her "performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that but for the bad performance, there is a reasonably probable chance that the outcome would have been different.

According to the Michigan Supreme Court, the attorney's actions in Michigan v. Armstrong provide an example of ineffective assistance of counsel.

In Armstrong, a 25-year-old male was charged with engaging in sex crimes with a 15-year-old girl. The 15-year-old and the defendant met three times over the course of several months, during which the sexual assaults occurred. Much of the defense was based on attacking the girl's credibility. For example, the complainant denied speaking with the defendant after the last incident because she wanted "no further contact with the man who had so brutally raped her." However, cell-phone records revealed hundreds of incoming calls from the girl to the defendant. When defense counsel attempted to introduce these records, the prosecution objected for lack of foundation. Defense counsel - who had only practice law for eight months at the time - made no additional efforts to have the records admitted.

During closing argument, the prosecution argued to disregard any evidence of cell phone records because they had not been properly admitted. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Finds Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel In Michigan v. Armstrong " »

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in a significant case - Howes v. Fields - affecting individual rights. At issue - whether police are required to read prisoners their Miranda rights every time they interrogate them about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration. Requiring police read you your rights, even while in prison, is necessary in order to protect individual rights and prevent against coerced confessions.

Tuesday's case before the Supreme Court involved the confession of Randall Lee Fields. Fields was serving a 45-day prison sentence for disorderly conduct when a Lenawee County jail guard and sheriff's deputies took him into a conference room and began questioning him. Although the deputies told Fields he was free to leave, they never read him his Miranda rights. Police are required to give notice to all criminal suspects in their custody of their Miranda rights before questioning. A Miranda warning provides individuals notice of their constitutional right to remain silent and their right to legal counsel.

After being questioned for seven hours concerning allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor, Fields confessed. He was subsequently convicted of criminal sexual assault and sentenced to 10 to 15 years in jail.

Fields appealed the use of his confession. Under Michigan law, if you have been convicted of any criminal offense in federal or state court, you have the right to appeal your conviction and sentence to the highest level. An experienced Michigan criminal appeals attorney can determine any key issues that would give a client the probability to overturn a conviction or give another chance to secure their freedom.

On appeal, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Fields' confession and conviction were invalid and that police are required to read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from other inmates and may be likely to incriminate themselves.

The dismissal was appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments this week. According to the Detroit Free Press, the Court appeared split in their opinion. The Court will decide in the spring.

Continue reading "Miranda Rights Evaluated By Supreme Court In Howes v. Fields " »

If you've been arrested and charged with a crime, ensuring your rights are protected at each step of the criminal defense process is necessary to limit the negative consequences on your future and your freedom. In the event of a conviction of any misdemeanor or felony offense - including accepting a plea bargain - your life will be impacted. Minimizing the effect becomes crucial to your future. An experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer can make all the difference.

A recent case involving a prison sentence for a drug crime revealed the importance of having an experienced Michigan criminal defense law firm fight for your freedom, even after you've been sentenced. In United States v. Smith, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the sentence handed down to a man - Cornell Smith - who was indicted on charges of conspiring to possess with intent to deliver cocaine. The 6th Circuit - which includes Michigan - reviewed the sentence of Smith's plea agreement, which stipulated to 180 months of imprisonment based on an attached sentencing guideline. However, the agreement reflected guidelines that had been amended after the pre-sentencing report was filed, with the new guidelines calling for a shorter sentence.

Despite the amendments to the sentencing guidelines, the judge accepted the original sentence. Smith subsequently appealed, and argued for a sentence reduction. If you have received a sentence that is unfair, a Michigan criminal defense appeals attorney can identify issues that may overturn a conviction or reduce a sentence.

Here, relying on recent Supreme Court law the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals determined where a defendant enters into a plea agreement, he or she may seek a reduction in sentence where the sentencing guideline range has also been reduced. Imposing lengthier sentences on individuals convicted of any Michigan crime based on outdated guidelines would be unfair.

As explained in Smith, where "an agreement expressly uses a guideline sentencing range applicable to the charged offense to establish the term of imprisonment, and that range is subsequently lowered... the defendant is eligible for sentence reduction."

Continue reading "Defendant Entitled To Sentence Reduction For Possession With Intent To Deliver Conviction In United States v. Smith " »

In a recent case the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Michigan, the court reviewed the sentence imposed on a man convicted of possessing child pornography, receipt of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and possession of child pornography. In United States v. Dudeck, Gary Dudeck He received a concurrent 120-month prison term for each count. At issue is whether the man's sentences for "receipt of child pornography" and "possession of child pornography" were based on receiving the same images.

An experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer is necessary if you are under investigation for or have been charged with any type of sex crime - including any charges related to child pornography. In addition to facing potential serious circumstances such as jail time and being required to place your name on the Michigan sex crimes registry, the allegations alone may harm your reputation. Child pornography charges are ugly that may stick with you for a lifetime, unless you fight vigorously to keep a conviction of your record. Contacting a Michigan child pornography defense attorney right away is important to begin preparing your defense and protect your reputation.

Here Dudeck allegedly downloaded images of child pornography to his computer and stored the images in his directory. He also allegedly downloaded thirty-three videos depicting sexual acts between adult men and prepubescent girls, as well as intercourse between prepubescent boys.

In Michigan, police and prosecutors frequently charge people for internet sex crimes while using their own computer in their own home. Many times, innocent people are charged for inadvertently downloading child pornography and other illegal files. Police and FBI stings that entrap honest people in the act of sharing files are illegal. An aggressive internet sex crimes defense firm can fight back.

Continue reading "6th Circuit Reviews Possession Of Child Pornography Sentence in United States v. Dudeck" »

A recent Michigan case highlighted the need for an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer. In Walker v. McQuiggan a man was convicted of first-degree murder and firearms possession in the commission of a felony. Under Michigan law, penalties for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm may be enhanced - including both penalties for the weapons charges and the underlying crime as well. Here, Reginald Walker's faced serious charges and potential consequences, but despite evidence of long-term mental illness, his defense counsel failed to investigate and put on an insanity defense.

If you have been convicted of a misdemeanor of felony offense - your future will be affected - especially where Michigan's most serious penalties apply. There are things you can do - including post conviction appeals - that can minimize the impact on your future. It is crucial to contact a dedicated Michigan post-conviction appeals attorney if you or a loved one has been wrongfully convicted or incarcerated. Working with an aggressive Michigan criminal appeals attorney is necessary to identify issues that may be used to help overturn a conviction and provide a second chance at achieving justice.

Here, Walker was accused of shooting a complete stranger and killing him. At trial his defense counsel had the opportunity to request a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether Walker was mentally ill. Even though the defendant had been found mentally ill in prior exams, Walker's defense counsel decided not to have the exam because "he did not believe that a defense of insanity in this case would be successful." Walker had also written counsel that he had a significant history of mental illness, that he heard voices and possibly even heard voices on the day of the shooting. Despite the long history of schizophrenic ailments, counsel did not present an insanity defense, instead focusing of self-defense and intoxication.

Walker was sentenced to life without parole and two years for felony firearm charges. Walker appealed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision and the Supreme Court denied Walker's leave to appeal. Then in 2006, Walker filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the appeal and dismissed this case. Walker persisted and filed a timely appeal. Courts review ineffective assistance of counsel claims to see whether errors that counsel make are so serious that "counsel" is not functioning as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and that these errors were so serious to deprive the defendant a fair trial.

Continue reading " Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel In Murder And Possession Of Firearms Trial In Walker v. McQuiggan" »

A recent 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case, United States v. Johnson, evaluated police officers' conduct when they conducted a "knock and talk" at a residence owned by the defendant's mother-in-law. An anonymous caller told the police that the residents were in possession of marijuana and had a firearm. When a crime is committed in Michigan and the accused has a firearm, sentencing guidelines call for a two-year sentence at a minimum - in addition to any sentence associated with the underlying crime. If you face such charges, an experienced Michigan criminal defense firm can help prepare a compelling defense.

Here, the police went to the house and one of the residents opened the door. Although two women who lived at the home consented to a search, the defendant objected. One of the detectives then began to search the bedroom where the woman and the defendant stayed. Police officers discovered counterfeit money, 100 grams of marijuana, digital scales, computer equipment, media storage devices and a handgun.

If you are facing any Michigan criminal charges including drug crimes, fraud or weapons charges, it is important to speak to an aggressive Michigan criminal lawyer immediately to begin preparing your defense. In many situations, errors in police conduct may provide a defense to the charges.

Here a grand jury indicted defendant on charges of aggravated identity theft, possessing counterfeit securities and producing and possessing false identification documents. The defendant pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal his motion to suppress. A motion to suppress is used to challenge evidence obtained by law enforcement - it is often used when police officers violate an individual's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense attorney can determine whether it may be possible to file a motion to suppress in your case.

On appeal, the court determined that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his bedroom and had objected to police searching his bedroom. As a result, the court found the search was unreasonable and the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.

Continue reading "6th Circuit Reverses Prison Sentence In United States v. Johnson Finding That Defendant Had Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Bedroom" »

The Battle Creek Enquirer reports that a Branch County man, Thomas Foley, will receive a second trial on charges that he killed his wife. Foley was convicted in 2009 of first-degree murder for allegedly shooting his wife, Dee Dee Foley, a Union City teacher.

If you have been charged with a violent crime such as murder or homicide, it is critical to contact a Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights and begin preparing your defense. In the event you have been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony criminal offense, you have a right to appeal your conviction.

Many reasons exist for appeals, including the discovery of new evidence.

Here, Foley has always maintained his wife was killed by an intruder, however the jury was not convinced at trial. According to news reports, after the trial witnesses came forth who provided new testimony that could prove Foley innocence. Three witnesses stated that they saw a car backing out of the driveway, bolstering the inference that an intruder was in the house. Circuit County Judge Sindt ordered a new trial, and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Supreme Court upheld Sindt's opinion.

Continue reading "Branch County Murder Case To Be Re-tried" »