Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

A recent Lansing case examined a fundamental privilege - the right to confess to a pastor. In People v. Bragg, a Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a Wayne County Circuit Judge decision that determined that a boy's alleged confession that he raped a girl could not be admitted in a first-degree criminal sexual conduct trial against him.

Michigan criminal sexual conduct charges are serious. If you have been investigated for or are facing any charges for any Michigan sex crime it is important to consult with an aggressive Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately.

First-degree criminal sexual conduct is one of Michigan's most serious sex crimes. Criminal sexual conduct first degree involves some sort of penetration of the alleged victim, with one or more of the variables described in the statue MCL 750.250b.

If convicted, Bragg faces a 25-year mandatory jail term.

Here, Reverend John Vaprezsan of Metro Baptist Church in Belleville testified at a preliminary exam that Samuel Bragg, a 17-year-old parishioner had confessed to raping a 9-year-old girl two years earlier. The confession occurred in the pastor's office. However, at trial the Reverend's testimony was excluded as privileged.

On appeal, Judge Elizabeth Gleicher, joined by Judges Pat Donofrio and Patrick Meter agreed, distinguishing between the situations when a pastor learns of "ongoing or future criminal activity" and may be obligated to report it from when a parishioner discusses prior behavior - especially in the context of seeking penance. Conversations are privileged under Michigan law where a parishioner is seeking penance, even if they're not in the form of formal confessions.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2156, a cleric is not permitted to 'disclose' certain statements made to him. Further, the conversation falls within the scope of privileged and confidential communications as defined by MCL 767.5a(2), as "necessary to enable Vaprezsan to serve as a pastor, because the defendant communicated with Vaprezsan in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the Baptist Church."

Continue reading "Rape Confession Excluded From Criminal Sexual Conduct Trial" »

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 " »

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 " »

October is domestic violence awareness month and many communities around the state are taking part in an effort to raise awareness about the effect of domestic violence on our communities. At one candlelight vigil in Howell, Michigan a speaker noted that in the last 10 years "2.6 million women have been seriously injured through domestic violence." The vigil was put on by a Livingston County non-profit organization that promotes the prevention of domestic assault, sexual assault and child abuse. National Public Radio has joined the effort, with a series of radio spots and articles on domestic violence support and intervention.

Domestic violence is a serious crime, carrying with it significant consequences and penalties. Unfortunately, as a Michigan criminal defense attorney I have seen these allegations used far too often as a weapon in custody battles, divorce and other domestic disputes. False allegations do a disservice both to legitimate victims and may significantly harm the lives of the innocent wrongfully accused. As noted by the manager of a Washtenaw County Domestic Aggression program, "Although most batterers are male, most men aren't batterers." Too often wrongful allegations are made, throwing the accused's life into a tailspin, negatively affecting a person's life almost immediately, and many times for life. Once domestic violence allegations are made those accused are often assumed to be guilty by the public, and face not only the disruption of their family life, jail time and court ordered rehabilitation, but also have their reputation damaged and live with the stigma of being accused of domestic assault. If you have been accused of domestic violence, it is important to consult with an experienced domestic violence attorney immediately to protect your future and your freedom.

Although it is important to call attention to legitimate cases of domestic abuse and make efforts to eliminate this behavior, many times these allegations are made against an individual in the heat of an argument. Later, after the emotion of situation has died down the alleged victim may wish to drop the charges. Unfortunately this is not possible - once the allegations have been made and the criminal process put in motion only a prosecutor has the authority to drop the charges. An aggressive domestic violence defense lawyer is necessary to fight to keep the charges off you record and keep you out of jail.

Continue reading "False Accusations Of Domestic Violence Create Lasting Stigma" »

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 " »