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 " »

The United States Constitution provides several different fundamental rights that apply to all U.S. citizens and all criminal defendants. One of these protections is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police or other law enforcement violate these rights, then an experienced criminal defense lawyer can challenge the evidence obtained as the result of an "illegal search." In some cases, this may lead to criminal charges being reduced or even thrown out.

In United States v. Beauchamp, police saw a man - Gevoyl Beauchamp - walking at 2:30 in the morning in an area known for drug possession and drug trafficking complaints. One police officer noticed Beauchamp and Beauchamp "hurriedly walked away without making eye contact." The police officer then instructed his partner to stop Beauchamp, who was now a couple of blocks away. The partner drove up to Beauchamp, got out of his car and ordered Beauchamp to stop. Beauchamp complied. However, because Beauchamp seemed "nervous and shaking" the officer frisked Beauchamp and asked permission to search him. He agreed, and police discovered $1300 in cash. During the search, the Beauchamp's pants had fallen down and police officers noticed plastic protruding from his butt cheeks. Beauchamp began to run away, but was detained by police officers who determined that the plastic contained crack cocaine.

Beauchamp was indicted on 2 counts - drug possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine and drug distribution of less five grams of crack cocaine. The second count was dismissed and Beauchamp subsequently entered a plea of guilty of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He then appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a seizure. Where police officers lack sufficient "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a search for drugs, an experienced Michigan drug charges defense attorney may be able to get the evidence obtained illegally thrown out through filing a motion to suppress, which may lead to charges being dropped.

The court noted that the fourth amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable search and seizures. Although in some circumstances, such as in "consensual encounters" the 4th amendment is not applicable, whenever a "seizure" occurs, 4th amendment protections apply. An individual is considered "seized" when an officer "by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained [his] liberty." Here the court determined that a seizure had occurred because a reasonable person in Beauchamp's position would not have felt free to walk away after being targeted by the police, and after trying to walk away, being specifically instructed to stop and change the direction he was walking,

Continue reading "Search Found To Be Illegal In United States v. Beauchamp " »

According to the Flint Journal, Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell has recently announced a controversial new plan to deter drug usage. Pickell's plan includes setting up signs that warn drivers of a "sheriff's narcotic checkpoint." However, in Indianapolis v. Edmund, the Supreme Court ruled that drug roadblocks are unconstitutional.

If you have been stopped at a drug checkpoint or are facing drug charges based on evidence from a police search, it is important to contact an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney. Rules concerning the conditions under which you may be searched and what constitutes an invasion of privacy are very specific. If police fail to follow proper procedures it is possible to challenge the search, often leading to charges being reduced or even dropped.

In Edmund, the City of Indianapolis used drug roadblocks to examine motorists for signs of drug usage, including the use of drug sniffing dogs. After review, the Court determined that the random drug searches at highway checkpoints were a violation of Americans' right to privacy. In a 6-3 decision, the Court determined that the police use of roadblocks and random stop in an effort to stop the flow of illegal drugs through Indianapolis was unconstitutional because it violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.

The Court further determined that the severity of a drug problem in some city neighborhoods did not justify the searches, leading to far more innocent motorists being stopped than criminals.

Despite the clear ruling that such drug checkpoints are unconstitutional, the Genesee County Sheriff's Department has been using checkpoint warnings for the last few weeks. According to reports although the Undersheriff would not provide specific details about the plan, he asserts, "what is being done is within the law."

A spokesperson from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) disagrees, noting that they are deeply troubled with the tactic, stating that they believe the Genesee's County Sheriff's Department was taking "a backdoor approach to violating people's rights." "Police need probable cause to search a vehicle for drugs and 'turning away' from a reported checkpoint 'doesn't give police the probable cause."

Continue reading "Genesee County Sheriff Reveals Plan To Use Drug Checkpoints Warnings To Stop Vehicles Despite Unconstitutionality Of Drug Roadblocks Determined In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond " »

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 " »

The Detroit Free Press reports that this week's joint operation between the Oakland County Sheriff's Office and the Drug Enforcement Administration resulted in a seizure of the largest quantity of heroin in Oakland County and Michigan history. Law enforcement recovered 10.5 kilograms of cocaine and 69 kilograms of heroin with a combined street value of $150 million.

Michigan law enforcement is serious about cracking down on drug crimes. If you've have been charged with federal drug charges or a major felony offense for drug trafficking, you face jail or prison time and large fines. In some cases, in their zeal to remove drugs from the streets, police or drug enforcement agents make errors in charges or in the procedures used to confiscate narcotics or other drugs. In order to ensure your rights are protected, it's important to contact an aggressive Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately if you've been charged or under investigation for any state or federal felony drug charge.

According to news reports, law enforcement conducted a traffic stop and found two kilograms of cocaine. They then executed a search warrant and found large quantities of heroin, cocaine and cash.

Even when evidence of contraband exists, many defenses exist that an experienced Michigan drug crime lawyer can raise in order to protect your future and keep you out of jail. Knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense attorneys will protect your constitutional rights against police mistakes and misconduct by investigating such questions as:

• Was the search warrant on your vehicle or property valid?
• Did the police have the right to stop and search your car?
• Did probable cause exists for your arrest?
• Is any chemical testing accurate?
• Did police or DEA agents entrap you?
• Were informants and witnesses used fairly?

Because possession of a few ounces of narcotics can turn into drug distribution or drug trafficking charges, it is critical to ensure the Michigan drug defense law firm you hire fully investigates all avenues of defense. Early intervention is key to beat charges or lessen to consequents of an arrest and prosecution. In high-profile Michigan drug trafficking cases such as this heroin bust, it becomes even more important to fight back as soon as possible. Many times, prosecutors want to make a name for themselves and make alleged drug sellers "enemy number one." Often, charges may be trumped up and innocent individuals prosecuted just because of who they know or are associated with.

Continue reading "Pontiac Heroin Seizure Largest In Oakland County History " »

Earlier this year, the Michigan Supreme Court approved new Michigan jury trial rules to take effect September 1st. The new jury rules will affect both civil and criminal trials. Despite widespread changes, the Jackson Citizen Patriot reports that many local lawyers don't believe the new jury rules will impact the way Jackson County courts or other Michigan trial courts operate.

If you a facing a Michigan criminal trial anywhere in the state of Michigan, it is important to contact an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer who is familiar with the criminal court system and understands the new rules and how they may affect your case.

If you have been accused of a crime, the constitution provides you many fundamental rights. Among those rights include the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process of the law and right to trial by a jury of your peers. The purpose of the new rules are to enhance the jury process with the hopes that by engaging jurors more in the trial process, they will achieve a more informed decision. The new rules will impact all Michigan county criminal courts including those in Oakland County, Wayne County, Macomb County, Saginaw County and Washtenaw County.

As stated by one observer, "the Supreme Court is trying to ...rationalized the jury experience so juries don't feel so much like they are sitting there watching a TV program...And if the are more involved in the case, they are more likely to come to a rational decision."

The Michigan Supreme Court tested the reforms in 12 courts across the state and report that jurors support the changes. Some Michigan criminal defense lawyers are skeptical about the rules, concerned that overzealous or biased judges will not implement the new rules in a fair and balanced way. An aggressive Michigan criminal trial attorney can fight to protect your right to an impartial trial as the new reforms take effect.

Continue reading "New Michigan Criminal Trial Jury Rules To Take Effect September 1" »

According to Ann Arbor news, two men have been accused of shooting a man in an alleged Ann Arbor drug deal this past week. The men are being held on cash bonds after being arraigned at the Washtenaw County Jail. One of the men is charged with assault with intent to murder, assault to commit great bodily harm less than murder, assault wit a dangerous weapons and possession of a fire arm during the commission of a felony.

If you are facing any Michigan violent crime - including weapons charges - it is important to contact and experienced Michigan weapons charge attorney immediately to defend your rights. In Michigan, if a crime is committed while the accused in is possession of any type of firearm, state guidelines call for a minimum two-year sentence as well as penalties for the underlying crime.

Here, since the underlying crimes including drug crimes and potential murder, the stakes are high. At A. Scott Grabel and Associates, with a long track record proven results we understand the potential defenses to weapons charges including such common issues of proof as:

•Was the weapon loaded?
•Was the weapon operable?
•Was the perpetrator use a hunting weapon?
•Where was the weapon located? Did you know it was in your possession?

Continue reading "Two Ann Arbor Men Held On Weapons Charges" »

Earlier this week, the Michigan Supreme Court announced new Michigan jury rules that may affect the outcome of many civil and criminal cases across the state.

These rules will take effect in September and may impact the many types of trials, including assault and violent crimes, drug charges and theft and property crimes.

Chief Justice Robert Young notes the new rules are aimed at "giving jurors the tools they need for their very demanding job: seeking the truth."

One of the new reforms will be to allow juries to talk about evidence in civil cases throughout the trial. Criminal juries already are allowed to do so. Advocates believe that by allowing jurors to discuss evidence as its being presented - rather than waiting until the end - will improve jury's decision-making process.

Other reforms include:

• Allowing judges to schedule expert witnesses in a way that they believe makes sense to jurors;
• Allowing jurors to take notes during trial and use their notes during deliberation;
• Allowing jurors to visit or view where a material event - such as a crime - occurred;
• Giving jurors copies of the instructions that are likely to help with evaluation of the case at the beginning of the trial;
• Allow jurors to take into the jury room a reference document, as well as any exhibits and writings admitted into evidence;
• Allow jurors reasonable requests to review evidence or testimony as they deliberate;
• Giving judges the option of summarizing the evidence at the end of trial; and
• Allowing attorneys to make commentary during the trial.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Issues New Rules For Juries In Michigan Criminal Cases" »

According to the Oakland County Daily Tribune, an Oakland County Jury has convicted a 70-year-old Lake Orion woman for growing marijuana in her house. Barbara Argo now faces up to 4-years in jail on charges of manufacturing/delivering marijuana.

If you are faced with any type of drug possession charges, it is important to contact an experienced Michigan drug crimes attorney immediately to begin preparing your defense. Law enforcement takes all drug crimes seriously and often aggressively prosecute drug manufacturing charges, making thorough investigation and vigorous representation by a Michigan drug defense lawyer imperative.

Here, Argo worked at a medical marijuana dispensary. After a raid on the facility, Argo told deputies that she was growing marijuana plants at her house. When law enforcement discovered 19 plants, they arrested her, despite the fact that she is a licensed medical marijuana patient and caregiver.

Placing Argo behind bars would be an unjust result. She does not post any threat to society. She is a patient who was growing drugs for her own medical use - not a dangerous drug trafficker or manufacturer. Michigan passed the Medical Marijuana Act in 2008 with overwhelming support for its citizen to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Using significant resources to put Argo behind bars is misplaced.

Continue reading "Oakland County Conviction Of Woman For Marijuana Possession Reveals Flaws In Michigan Drug Law" »