Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

The United States Supreme Court has just passed on an opportunity to ensure greater fairness is criminal trials. In Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court justices evaluated the circumstances surrounding eyewitness testimony and when it may be introduced at testimony. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court concluded that unless evidence exists that police have "manipulated" the circumstances, judges cannot throw out eyewitness testimony on their own. However Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the only dissenter, asserts this is "backwards." The primary goal is to "assure a fair trial" and "[w]hether the police have created suggestive circumstances intentionally or inadvertently ...it is no more or less likely to misidentify the perpetrator." Eyewitness testimony is just as powerful in persuading a jury regardless of the circumstances.

As a criminal defense attorney in Michigan, I agree. When an individual faces the possibility of arrest, charges and a possible conviction in a crime such as theft or robbery, a drug offense or violent crime, his or her fate may depend in part on eye witness testimony. When that testimony is flawed, the possibility for great injustice exists. Under any circumstance, if you are facing criminal charges in Michigan, it is crucial to speak with an aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyer immediately to begin preparing your defense and challenge the evidence against you - including any eye witness statements.

Perry is a criminal law case out of New Hampshire involving car robberies. In Perry, police officers were notified about a man breaking into cars behind an apartment building. A woman gave a vague description of a potential suspect. However, after seeing Perry standing next to a police officer she then identified him as the suspect. Based on her identification, Perry was convicted. Perry argued that his standing next to the police officer unduly influenced the woman's identification. The New Hampshire Supreme Court determined that because the police did not create the suggestive circumstance, the eyewitness identification testimony was allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court has just affirmed this decision.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Misses Opportunity To Make It More Difficult To Introduce Eyewitness Testimony In Perry v. New Hampshire " »

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 " »

When an individual is under investigation for any Michigan crime - whether charges are filed and the outcome may depend on the physical evidence collected. As a result the objects and other evidence "seized" pursuant to a search warrant is critical. Protecting an individual's constitutional right to privacy and ensuring law enforcement doesn't overstep its boundaries in collecting evidence pursuant to a search warrant is of utmost importance.

In a recent case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed whether a police officer with the City of Lansing police department violated a defendant's Fourth Amendment right to privacy when he executed an overly broad search warrant. In Wheeler v. City of Lansing, the appellate court reviewed whether a search warrant was invalid because it was written so broadly as to include items without the necessary particularity and whether a reasonable police officer should have recognized that the warrant was deficient.

An experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer can review a search warrant, determine whether the warrant is invalid and fight to suppress any evidence wrongfully obtained.

In Wheeler v. City of Lansing, the City of Lansing police department was conducting an investigation into property crimes, including home invasions. After being told that the boyfriend of a woman, Stella Wheeler, may be involved and had taken property to Wheeler's apartment, Officer Dennis Wirth obtained a no-knock search warrant to search her apartment. The search warrant listed as property to be "searched and seized" to include "evidence of home invasions that have occurred in Eaton County and Ingham County including but not limited to personal property..."

A swat team then descended upon Wheeler's apartment and seized many items of personal property including a camera, a power adapter cord for a laptop computer, three gold bracelets, a radio, a nineteen-inch television and an energy bill addressed to Stella Wheeler. Wheeler subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Lansing and Wirth alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment including that the warrant was not valid and that the warrant was too vague.

A warrant must describe with some specificity the items to be seized. Wheeler alleged that the warrant was constitutionally deficient because it failed to describe the property to be seized with sufficient "particularity," i.e. that the warrant was too vague. For example, the warrant listed "televisions and cameras" but not what brand or dimensions, or other identifying characteristics. Previous case law has held that "[g]eneral warrants that fail to describe with particularity the things to be searched and seized for 'create a danger of unlimited discretion in the executing officer's determination of what is subject to seizure and a danger that items will be seized when the warrant refers to other items." "[T]he degree of specificity required is flexible and will vary depending on the crime involved ... we have noted that 'a warrant referring to stolen property of a certain type is insufficient if that property is common."

Continue reading "Search Warrant Declared Unconstitutional In Wheeler v. City of Lansing " »

According to Ann Arbor news two attempted Michigan home invasions occurred this past Tuesday morning, putting residents on alert for future incidents. Fortunately no one was injured.

In one alleged attempt, a 21-year-old man was in is bedroom when another man tried to remove his window air conditioner. When confronted, the alleged perpetrator ran away. He was described as 20 years old, 6 feet tall, 175, black and wearing dark pants and a varsity jacket. In the other attempted home invasion, a woman contacted 911 after observing a man try to pry open a rear screen door. After the woman confronted him he ran away. No description was provided.

If you are under investigation for or have been arrested for a property or theft crime it is important to contact an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer at once to begin preparing your defense.

Property crimes fall into a number of categories and the defense, as well as potential penalties, vary based on how these crimes are charged.

Under Michigan law, theft and property crimes include theft, grand theft, home invasion, burglary, larceny and embezzlement. Petty theft includes those situations where an individual takes another's property against their will with the intent to permanently deprive them of that property. To qualify as "petty theft" the amount of property taken will generally not exceed $1000 and is typically charged as a misdemeanor crime
Penalties for theft of property under $200 include:

• Jail time - 93 days or less
• Fines - $500 or less, or three times the value stolen

Theft of property over $1000 becomes grand theft or larceny and may subject an individual to felony charges.

Michigan burglary charges stem from allegations that individuals were "breaking and entering" a build with intent to commit a crime. The underlying crime may be theft, but not necessary. Breaking into a residence constitutes "residential burglary" and breaking into a building may be considered "commercial burglary."

Continue reading "Ann Arbor Attempted Home Invasions Raise Concerns " »

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" »

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" »