Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, a group of Michigan legislators announced that they are seeking to repeal Michigan's stand your ground legislation, adopted in 2006. Pursuant to MCL 780.974 (Michigan's self defense act) it is legal to use lethal force in self -defense.

The legislators pushing for the repeal include Reps. Tim Bledsoe, D-Grosse Pointe, and Woodrow Stanley, D-Flint. At a Capitol news conference they commented that the Martin shooting "brought into sharp focus...some of the glaring flaws" of adopting a stand-your-ground approach to the use of justifiable force.

When the law was adopted in 2006, it eliminated the legal requirement that someone using deadly force against an attacker had the "duty to retreat" if it was possible to escape and created a defense to certain Michigan homicides where a person believes he is at risk of being subjected to deadly force, great bodily harm or rape.

Now, people around the country are questioning whether "stand your ground" laws promote violence. Rep. Maureen Stapleton, D-Detroit, said the current law "encourages action before thinking." Repealing it would help stem the epidemic of gun violence in Michigan's inner cities, she said. However, others believe that the law doesn't promote violence or crime, but rather protects individuals from it.

Governor Jennifer Granholm supports the repeal, noting that the legislature would not disturb the "Castle Doctrine" that allows individuals to use deadly force in their own homes if they fear their life is in danger.

Despite receiving a lot of media attention, most sources believe that it is unlikely the bill will pass.

Continue reading "Michigan Legislators Move To Repeal Michigan's Stand-Your-Ground Law" »

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, a group of Michigan legislators announced that they are seeking to repeal Michigan's stand your ground legislation, adopted in 2006. Pursuant to MCL 780.974 (Michigan's self defense act) it is legal to use lethal force in self -defense.

The legislators pushing for the repeal include Reps. Tim Bledsoe, D-Grosse Pointe, and Woodrow Stanley, D-Flint. At a Capitol news conference they commented that the Martin shooting "brought into sharp focus...some of the glaring flaws" of adopting a stand-your-ground approach to the use of justifiable force.

When the law was adopted in 2006, it eliminated the legal requirement that someone using deadly force against an attacker had the "duty to retreat" if it was possible to escape and created a defense to certain Michigan homicides where a person believes he is at risk of being subjected to deadly force, great bodily harm or rape.

Now, people around the country are questioning whether "stand your ground" laws promote violence. Rep. Maureen Stapleton, D-Detroit, said the current law "encourages action before thinking." Repealing it would help stem the epidemic of gun violence in Michigan's inner cities, she said. However, others believe that the law doesn't promote violence or crime, but rather protects individuals from it.

Governor Jennifer Granholm supports the repeal, noting that the legislature would not disturb the "Castle Doctrine" that allows individuals to use deadly force in their own homes if they fear their life is in danger.

Despite receiving a lot of media attention, most sources believe that it is unlikely the bill will pass.

Continue reading "Michigan Legislators Move To Repeal Michigan's Stand-Your-Ground Law" »

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, a group of Michigan legislators announced that they are seeking to repeal Michigan's stand your ground legislation, adopted in 2006. Pursuant to MCL 780.974 (Michigan's self defense act) it is legal to use lethal force in self -defense.

The legislators pushing for the repeal include Reps. Tim Bledsoe, D-Grosse Pointe, and Woodrow Stanley, D-Flint. At a Capitol news conference they commented that the Martin shooting "brought into sharp focus...some of the glaring flaws" of adopting a stand-your-ground approach to the use of justifiable force.

When the law was adopted in 2006, it eliminated the legal requirement that someone using deadly force against an attacker had the "duty to retreat" if it was possible to escape and created a defense to certain Michigan homicides where a person believes he is at risk of being subjected to deadly force, great bodily harm or rape.

Now, people around the country are questioning whether "stand your ground" laws promote violence. Rep. Maureen Stapleton, D-Detroit, said the current law "encourages action before thinking." Repealing it would help stem the epidemic of gun violence in Michigan's inner cities, she said. However, others believe that the law doesn't promote violence or crime, but rather protects individuals from it.

Governor Jennifer Granholm supports the repeal, noting that the legislature would not disturb the "Castle Doctrine" that allows individuals to use deadly force in their own homes if they fear their life is in danger.

Despite receiving a lot of media attention, most sources believe that it is unlikely the bill will pass.

Continue reading "Michigan Legislators Move To Repeal Michigan's Stand-Your-Ground Law" »

A recent Michigan Supreme Court decision dismissed charges against a Michigan man after determining that Holland police officers had entered his house illegally. In Michigan v. Moreno, two Holland police officers tried to enter the house of Angel Moreno, Jr. without a valid warrant.

Your fourth amendment right to be free of illegal searches and seizures protects you from unlawful searches of places where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy - such as your home. If you believe police have subjected you to an unlawful search or seizure, its important to contact an aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyer right away to protect your rights.

Here, the police officers were in search of another man - Adams - on several outstanding warrants. Adam's car was parked near Moreno's house. The police officers were told that Adams wasn't in the house and that they couldn't come in without a warrant. After saying they wanted to secure the home, the police officers tried to enter the home. Moreno began closing the door, but one of the officers put his shoulder against the door preventing it from shutting. Moreno then struggled with the police officers, and was arrested for and charged pursuant to MCL 750.81d with resisting and obstructing a police officer.

The court determined that the police had unlawfully entered the house. They did not have a warrant and no exigent circumstances existed that provided an exception to the warrant requirement.

Continue reading "Unlawful Entry By Police Leads To Charges Being Thrown Out In Michigan v. Moreno " »

Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley has just signed a new bill prohibiting lying to police during a Michigan criminal investigation. Michigan House Bills 5050 and 5051 make it illegal to "conceal material facts or provide misleading statements" in a criminal investigation.

Specifically, Michigan House Bill 5050 amends the Michigan Penal Code to prohibit and
prescribe criminal penalties for concealing a material fact from a peace officer, or misleading a peace officer regarding a material fact, in a criminal investigation of a felony or a misdemeanor.

Michigan House Bill 5051 sets forth penalties for "lying."

Where an individual lies in an investigation related to a serious misdemeanor, the potential penalty is 93 days and/or $500. For misdemeanors punishable by more than 1 year, or felonies punishable by less than four years, the potential penalty is 1 year and or $2500. For felonies punishable by 4 years or more that are under investigation, the potential penalty would be 2 years and/or $5000.

The bills are now Public Acts 104 and 105.

Official statements provide "Public safety is a key priority in Michigan, and police officers need to be guaranteed factual information in criminal investigations ... Ensuring the truth of statements in criminal investigations is simply a common-sense step to providing the best criminal justice system possible."

Continue reading "New Michigan Criminal Law Makes It A Crime To Lie To Police" »

A recent case evaluated whether the police executed a valid search of a suspect's home and car, and whether the evidence found should have been suppressed. In United States v. Carney, the defendant Carney was sentenced to 51 months after entering a guilty plea to charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm, making counterfeit money, and passing counterfeit money. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied his motion to suppress, finding that probable cause existed for the warrant to search the man's apartment and car.

The affidavit supporting the search warrant covered "evidence that someone using the car in question tried to pass counterfeit bills of different denominations at different times, that the car and residence were Carney's, that the car was seen in front of the residence, and that Carney was identified as attempting to pass a counterfeit bill."

If you have been arrested for criminal activity, or have been subjected to a search, it is important to consult with an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately. When police conduct a search without a valid warrant, an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer can fight to suppress any evidence they collect and may be able to get charges reduced or dismissed.

Here, Carney argued on appeal that the police did not have probable cause, that the search warrant was constitutionally defective and that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The appellate court denied the appeal, noting:

"the search warrant issued in this case was supported by probable cause because the support affidavit contained enough facts to indicate a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be located in both the white Chevy SUV and the apartment. That is all that is required. (emphasis added)."

This rule has been used to find valid search warrants of individuals' homes where a suspected thief may have stolen property in their home, or a drug dealer may have evidence of drug activity in his or her home, or a suspected counterfeiter may have different bills in his or her home.

Continue reading "Probable Cause Existed For Search Warrant Of Home And Car In Counterfeiting Case" »

A recent 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case evaluated what an "acquittal" means for purposes of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is the legal concept that means you can't be tried twice on the same charges. This means a prosecutor is forbidden from being a second lawsuit against a defendant after he or she has been convicted or acquitted of a particular charge.

In Michigan v. Evans, the defendant Lamar Evans was accused of burning a vacant house pursuant to MCL 750.73, Michigan's arson statute, which provides:

"Any person who willfully of maliciously burns any building or other real property, or the contents thereof ... shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years."

If you have been charged with arson or any other Michigan criminal offense, consulting with an experienced Michigan criminal defense law firm is important to protect your rights and begin preparing your defense.

At trial, the court erroneously told the prosecution that in order to prove Evans' guilt, it had to show that the burned house was not a dwelling. Because the prosecution failed to provide this evidence, the court granted a directed verdict for the defendant and entered an acquittal dismissing the case.

In Michigan, arson is defined as the deliberate burning of a house or building and the law distinguishes among:

• Arson involving houses;
• Arson involving "other real property"; and
• Arson involving personal property.

Despite the distinction, it is not necessary to show where the alleged crime involves "other real property" that the building was not a dwelling.

Continue reading "Trial Court Error In Arson Case Not Considered An Acquittal In Michigan v. Evans " »

After considering two cases - one from Michigan and another from Missouri - the Supreme Court extended a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel. In Missouri v. Frye, the Court determined that an individual's right to effective assistance of counsel extends to informal plea bargains between criminal defendants and prosecutors. Further, in Lafler v. Cooper the Court determined that a defendant has a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel where he or she can show with "a reasonable probability" that a plea offer may have been accepted by a judge, but a lawyer's bad advice caused the defendant to reject a plea bargain and stand trial.

If you have been changed with any criminal offense, it is important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Michigan to ensure your rights are protected.

In the court's opinion, Justice Kennedy provided "that a defense counsel as a general rule has a duty to communicate to the client formal prosecution offers of a plea deal on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused."

To show harm when a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected because of a lawyer's bad performance, Justice Kennedy stated "defendants must show they probably would have accepted the more favorable plea offer if they had received effective legal advice and that the plea deal would have been accepted in court."

In Lafler v. Cooper, the defendant Anthony Cooper decided not to accept a plea deal that would send him to jail for 4 to 7 years for shooting a woman four times. His attorney advised him against accepting the deal because the accused shot the woman below the waist and missed her head. However, at trial Cooper was convicted of assault with intent to murder and received a sentence of up to 30 years in jail.

In Missouri v. Frye, the defendant Frye was charged with driving without a license. Although the prosecutor offered two separate plea deals, Frye's lawyer failed to tell him about the offers.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Extends Constitutional Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel in Lafler v. Cooper " »

A recent case shows the importance of having a top Michigan criminal defense attorney representing you and how overzealous law enforcement can turn your life upside down.

In Milligan v. United States, a woman was falsely arrested as part of a 24-state round up of fugitives. Nearly 11, 000 people were arrested, including an innocent woman, Paula Milligan. A data-entry clerk responsible for entering the warrant information for processing allowed the database to auto-fill all of the entries, and in the process identified the wrong woman. The woman arrested had had her name in the system solely based on a parking ticket.

If you have been arrested it is important to contact an aggressive Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights and investigate the charges against you. Fighting back right away can help protect your reputation.

Here, based on the inaccurate information in the warrant, a police officer arrived at Milligan's house and arrested her for forgery and four counts of identity theft. As part of the operation, the marshalls had contacted local media outlets to ride along and report on the operation, agreeing to air the report only after the operation was over. The day after the charges were dropped against Milligan, the news story aired showing footage of her arrest. The story was also on its website.

Based on police error, Milligan filed several lawsuits against the United States and the U.S. Marshals Service, including false arrest, false imprisonment and assault and battery.

Unfortunately far too often in an effort to crack down on crime, law enforcement over steps its bounds and makes mistakes. The rights given to criminal defendants under the Constitution extend to all U.S. citizens. These include such fundamental rights as 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 searches and seizures. Not only does the constitution guarantee you certain rights but also law provides that you cannot be held in custody without probable cause.

Continue reading "False Arrest Of Woman On Identity Theft Charges Leads To Lawsuit" »

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 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 " »

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 " »

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" »

A recent case out of Michigan evaluated the actions of the Dearborn, Michigan police department when they arrested a man and then dropped the charges. In Bennett v. City of Dearborn, plaintiff - Daryl Bennett - accused the Dearborn police department of several charges related to his false arrest including assault and battery and excessive force.

If you have been charged with any Michigan crime such as robbery, burglary or weapons charges, or are under investigation, it is important to speak with an aggressive Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately. Both constitutional and state laws protect individuals from many potential violations by police including violations of due process and the freedom from the use of excessive and unreasonable force. In some situations, overzealous police officers or other law enforcement personnel may over step their bounds and violate a person's rights. A knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense lawyer can help you challenge police conduct and fight to protect your freedom.

Here, exactly what happened the night of Bennett's arrest is in dispute. Dearborn police claim they responded to a call of a possible car theft in progress. The complainant allegedly reported that he saw a 20-year-old black male attempting to enter two vehicles in the area, and that Bennett had also been seen in the area, trying to get into two cars. The police officers claim that when they went in search of the suspect described, they saw Bennett. Bennett then took off running and was tackled by the police. The police allege that Bennett refused to get up after they requested he "put his hands up" but rather stayed on his knees and tried to crawl away, keeping his hands under his body and preventing the officers from handcuffing him. Police claim that it was only after Bennett continued to resist arrest that they tasered him in the back and handcuffed him.

Continue reading "6th Circuit Evaluates Police Conduct In False Arrest Case - Bennett v. City of Dearborn " »