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 recent case out of Jackson raises the question of parental responsibility when their minor children are charged with juvenile crimes. The case that brought this issue to the forefront concerned a group of teens allegedly responsible for property crimes at the Lily Missionary Baptist Church. The youths allegedly spread religious oils around the pulpit, attempted to break into a safe and damaged doors. The teens were also accused on stealing a van that belonged to the church. The van was then totaled in a rollover crash in Concord, Michigan. As a result of the incident Woody Myrick, a 17-year-old, was charged with breaking and entering, vehicle theft and safe breaking. In exchange for dropping the safe breaking charge, Myrick pleaded guilty to the two other charges. He was sentenced to 300 days in jail, and will be on probation for three-years and responsible for paying restitution. A 13-year-old who allegedly participated in the crimes has also been charged.

If your teen has charged with a crime, speaking to an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer is important to review your options and begin preparing a vigorous defense.

After the church vandalism occurred, many in the community wondered whether the parents could be held responsible - either criminally or financially - for the damage caused by their children. However, under Michigan law, parents cannot be held criminally responsible for the criminal acts of their children unless they specifically and knowingly engaged in that "bad act."

As reported by MLive.com, "If the parent is not involved in a bad act - or even engages in a bad act without the requisite mental state to support criminal culpability - the parent cannot be convicted of a crime...the law does not support criminal liability for a parent based exclusively upon the acts of a parent's child."

Continue reading "Kent County Case Evaluates Parents' Responsibility For Juvenile Crime" »

Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear two juvenile lifer cases - two cases where the minors were convicted of crimes without the chance of parole. At issue is whether such a harsh punishment for juveniles constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Because the number of juveniles serving life sentences in Michigan is more than nearly every other state, the potential for a large impact on Michigan's juvenile justice system is great.

Juveniles under investigation for or charged with any criminal activity in Michigan should seek the counsel of an experienced Michigan juvenile crimes attorney at once. Because potential penalties may affect your future, it is imperative to speak to an aggressive Michigan criminal defense attorney to protect your rights, fight to keep your case in juvenile court and keep you out of jail.

The announcement that the Supreme Court will hear Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama comes as a similar juvenile lifer case is currently in federal court in Michigan. It is unknown how the outcome will affect the Michigan case, but observers note that the Supreme Court is "potentially extending the reach of two recent decisions" concerning the treatment of juveniles in adult court.

These critical juvenile law decisions include:

Roper v. Simmons: The Supreme Court determined that the death penalty may not be given to minors 17 years and younger; and
Graham v. Florida: Minors cannot be sentenced to life without parole in non-homicide cases such as assault, robbery and drug charges.

The constitution provided the basis for these decisions. Specifically, the justices found that such severe penalties were in violation of a juveniles Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The new cases will evaluate if the law should extend to ban mandatory life in prison for juveniles, even where the juvenile was at the scene of the crime but did not commit the actual killing. Statistics reveal that as many as one-third of Michigan juvenile lifers are in jail for this type of crime.

The two pending case involve 14-year-old boys who were convicted of murder or involvement in a homicide. In Miller v. Alabama, the 14-year-old Miller and a 16-year-old were in a fight with a neighbor and set the neighbor's home on fire. The neighbor died and the 16-year-old blamed Miller. Miller was sentenced to life in prison. In Jackson v. Hobbs, Jackson was involved in a robbery of a video store when another teenager shot and killed the store clerk. Although Jackson was not accused of killing the clerk or intending to commit murder, he was given a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Continue reading "Supreme Court To Hear Two Juvenile Lifer Law Cases, Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama ; Outcomes May Have Great Impact On Michigan Juvenile Criminal Law" »

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 " »

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" »