Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

This past week two cases took center stage at the Supreme Court on the issue of what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and whether it's a violation of the 8th Amendment to sentence 14-year-olds convicted of murder to life in prison without the possibility of parole. News reports indicate that Justice Kennedy, who is likely the swing vote, is looking for legal grounds to invalidate a law that mandates a life sentence without parole for some young offenders.

If your minor aged child is under investigation for or has been arrested for any crime, it is imperative to contact an aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyer to immediately begin preparing a defense and protect your child's future.

The cases before the Supreme Court involve two separate incidents of 14-year-old boys convicted of murder. In Jackson v. Hobbs, the 14-year-old Jackson was involved in a robbery of a video store when another teenager shot and killed the store clerk. Although Jackson did not pull the trigger, he was given a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole based on his involvement. In Miller v. Alabama, Miller, who was 14, and his 16-year-old friend set a neighbor's house on fire following a dispute. The neighbor died and the 16-year-old blamed Miller. Miller was sentenced to life in prison.

The Supreme Court will now determine if the same reasoning that determined that the death penalty for those age 18 years and younger is cruel and unusual punishment applies to life without parole sentences to 14-year-olds convicted of murder.

While acknowledging the need for serious punishment, a representative of one of the boys pointed out "young offenders are less culpable than adults for the crimes they commit. Studies have shown that biologically and psychologically, teens are more susceptible to peer pressure and more prone to impulsive and reckless behavior. Studies show that their judgment and character are not yet fully formed."

Continue reading "Supreme Court To Determine Whether Sentencing 14-year-olds To Life Without Possibility Of Parole Is Cruel And Unusual Punishment " »

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 American Civil Liberties Union has recently issued a statement accusing the FBI of racial profiling - the targeting of racial, ethnic and religious groups for investigation by associating criminal behaviors with specific communities. One of the areas specifically mentioned in its report was Michigan. According to the report, Michigan's Arab-American and Muslim communities have been targeted for investigation as a possible terrorist recruitment ground. The ACLU labels such practice as "racial profiling on an industrial scale" and is calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to put an end to this practice.

If you feel you have been targeted unfairly by police, or have been improperly detained for investigation into an alleged crime, it is important to obtain the help of an aggressive Michigan criminal defense attorney at once to challenge law enforcement's authority and protect your constitutional rights. Under the constitution, the 4th amendment prohibits police officers or other law enforcement from stopping a person without evidence they were involved in a crime.

The lack of a valid reason for stopping an individual may serve as a defense - including as a DUI defense or drug possession defense.

The ACLU notes, "Today the FBI is engaged in unconstitutional and crude stereotyping, attributing certain types of crimes to entire racial and ethnic communities around the country. It is then collecting racial and ethnic information to "map" those communities on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, and national origin. Sweeping away protections that have been in place since the 1970s, new, permissive regulations also allow the FBI to spy on innocent Americans and peaceful groups with little or no suspicion of wrongdoing."

Continue reading "ACLU Alleges Widespread Racial Profiling In Michigan In Violation Of Constitution" »

One of the most crucial factors affecting the future of juveniles facing criminal charges is keeping a child from being charged as an adult and keeping a conviction off a minor's permanent record. Having a case heard in a Michigan juvenile court can mean avoiding a conviction and jail time in an adult environment.

Recent case law examined the need to for prosecutors to prove a defendant's age before trying a minor in adult court. In State v. Ali, a teen was indicted for first-degree murder and second-degree murder in the deaths of 3 individuals. The indictment alleged that the teen - Ali - was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged shootings. Under Minnesota law, where the case was filed, 17-year-olds are automatically subject to trial in the district court. Similarly, in Michigan, criminal charges are considered juvenile criminal matters if your child is under the age of 17. Once a teen turns 17, Michigan law considers him or her an "adult" and criminal charges may be brought in adult court. Further, where a minor is accused of serious criminal charges such as homicide, murder or aggravated assault, a prosecutor may seek to "waive up" a juvenile to adult court. To protect a minor's future, it is critical to seek the help of an experienced juvenile crime defense attorney to keep the case out of adult court.

In Ali, the teen moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that he was only 15-years-old on the date of the shootings and that juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction over the proceeding. The district court denied Ali's appeal, concluding that Ali had already turned sixteen by the date of the shootings. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, finding that a motion to dismiss an indictment where the case is in the wrong court is immediately appealable. The court noted "if the court were to conclude that Ali was only 15-years-old at the time of the alleged offense, the court would be without jurisdiction to proceed further...no purpose is served by putting the parties through the rigors of trial before that determination is made."

The court also determined that when the age of the defendant determines the jurisdiction of the court, the state has the burden to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" a defendant's age on the date of an alleged offense. The court noted that if tried in the wrong court, a minor risks being deprived of the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings.

Continue reading "State Must Show Proof Of Age By A "Preponderance Of The Evidence" In State v. Ali " »

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 " »

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" »

In a recent decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes the state of Michigan, determined that a police officer violated an individual's constitutional rights when he engaged in a low-speed chase.

Your constitutional rights protect you if you are under investigation for or been charged with a Michigan crime. If police officers violate your rights, the charges may be reduced or dismissed. An experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer can advise you concerning your rights.

In Walker v. Davis, a Kentucky man - Thomas Germany - was killed while riding a motorcycle across an empty field in the middle of the night. The incident occurred after a police officer clocked Germany riding his motorcycle at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone. The officer tried to the pull Germany over, but he refused to stop. Another officer heard about the attempt on the radio and tried to intercept Germany on his cruiser. When he failed, the second officer engaged in a slow speed pursuit, following Germany across a muddy field. The officer then intentionally ran into the motorcycle, knocking Germany off the cycle and crushing him with his police cruiser.

The appeals court determined that the police officers action's clearly violated Germany's constitutional rights stating, "It has been settled law for a generation that, under the Fourth Amendment '[w]here a suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so." Here, Germany was not a threat to anyone - he was riding his motorcycle in the middle of the night across an open field. As the result, the court determined it was a violation of Germany's 4th amendment rights to use deadly force.

Continue reading "6th Circuit Finds Police Violated Individual's Constitutional Rights In Low-Speed Chase in Walker v. Davis " »

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" »

In a significant death penalty case, a Michigan federal appeals court has thrown out a death sentence imposed on Marvin Gabrion who was convicted in 1997 for murder. Gabrion was then sentenced to death by the federal District Court.

Gabrion's post-conviction appeal decision marks the second time in a year that a federal court has spared an individual from the death penalty after the U.S. government has sought capital punishment.

In Gabrion's case, the issue of trial error led to the sentence being thrown out. Here, because the crime at issue occurred in a Manistee county national park, federal law applied and Gabrion faced possible execution as a penalty. However, because Michigan is not a death penalty state, Gabrion would not have received a death sentence if the crime had occurred outside of the park. On appeal, the federal court determined that the District Court had erred when it refused to allow arguments to the jury pointing out the significant difference in penalties and the injustice in imposing a death sentence because the crime occurred on federal property rather than state. As a result of the appellate court decision, Gabrion has been spared execution.

Gabrion's case was the first time a judge had imposed the federal death penalty in Michigan.

Continue reading "Federal Court Throws Out Death Sentence In Michigan Murder Case" »

In a significant case for juvenile rights, a recent juvenile law case from the Eastern District of Michigan has allowed the question of parole for juvenile offenders who commit murder to move forward.

Specifically, Hill v. Snyder raises the question of whether it's a violation of a juvenile's rights - i.e. is it cruel and unusual punishment - for a child aged 14-18 to received a life sentence without the issue of parole for a homicide offense. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court found that it was "cruel and unusual" punishment for juveniles convicted on non-homicide offenses to receive a sentence of without the possibility of parole, leaving open the question of the constitutionality of denying parole to those convicted of murder.

Here, one of nine juveniles sentenced to life without parole - Keith Maxey - was part of a drug deal that went bad. He did not shoot any of the victims and did not possess a weapon himself. In fact, he had left the scene when the shooting occurred. However, Maxey was convicted on an aiding and abetting theory and sentenced to life without parole.

The ruling questions whether a statute automatically denying parole to juveniles convicted of homicide is cruel and unusual.

As stated by a representative of the ACLU about the recent ruling, "[T]he ruling allows us to prove what many already know - sentencing children to die is prison without giving them an opportunity for parole is inhumane, unfair and unconstitutional. By ignoring a child's potential for rehabilitation and denying judges and juries any discretion, the state doles out unforgiving sentences that violate basic fairness and human rights principle. The decision is the first step toward correcting this fundamental injustice."

Continue reading "Michigan Case Raises Issue Of Whether Juveniles Who Commit Murder Should Be Allowed Parole" »

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" »

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" »

The FBI as recently released a report evaluating per capita crime rates in cities with population above 100,000 - listed as the number one violent city is Flint, Michigan. According to FBI crime statistics, Flint tops the country with the worst violent crime rate. Violent crimes include such incidents as murder, homicide, gang violence and domestic violence.

If you are under suspicion or have been arrested for any violent crime in Flint, Michigan or anywhere throughout the state, it is important to speak to an aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyer immediately to begin investigating the charges and preparing your defense.
Contrary to Flint, crime rates in Saginaw, Michigan - a city that has held the dubious distinction of "most violent city" in recent years, have dropped.

NBC 25 Michigan news investigated possible reasons for the varying rates in crime, citing issues such as reduced police forces in Flint, increased community activism in Saginaw and lack of jail space in Genesee County. While Flint tries to grapple with issues of high crime rates, it is important that the rights of those individuals charged and arrested are not swept aside in an attempt to improve Flint's reputation.

Continue reading "New Report Identifies Flint As Most Violent City" »