Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In June we reported that Bradford Mitchell’s second-degree murder conviction had been reversed by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Mitchell had been convicted in the 2011 beating death of Jay Kolhoff, a neighbor who lived in the same west side Saginaw apartment complex as Mitchell. Authorities claimed Mitchell beat Kolhoff to death with a baseball bat over a $5 debt.

At the original trial, the jury was not given the option to convict Mitchell of voluntary manslaughter. The appeals court ruled that the jury should have been given this option, and that Saginaw County Circuit Judge Robert L. Kaczmarek erred when telling the jury that first- and second-degree murder were their only options. The appeals court ultimately sent Mitchell’s case back for a re-trial.

On Thursday October 31, the jury deliberated for about four hours before convicting Mitchell of manslaughter. The maximum penalty is 15 years in prison, far less than the life sentence with parole Mitchell faced when convicted of second-degree murder. James Piazza, Mitchell’s defense attorney, said after the verdict that while they were disappointed the jury did not find Mitchell not guilty, they were pleased that jurors decided on manslaughter. While Mitchell is considered a habitual offender, Piazza stated in news reports that his “educated guess” is that his client will be given a minimum sentence of less than 10 years.

Mitchell alleges that when he went to Kolhoff’s apartment to collect the $5 debt, Kolhoff grabbed a baseball bat and assaulted him with it. Mitchell contends that he grabbed the bat from Kolhoff, then struck him with it once in the shoulder and once in the head, although he admitted he may have struck Kolhoff more times.

Mitchell remains in jail without bond where he will remain until sentencing; a date has not yet been set.

This is an example of what can result when a conviction is successfully appealed with the Michigan appeals court. While ideally the defendant would have preferred to have been found not guilty by the jury, a conviction for manslaughter is far better than murder in regards to criminal penalties. Now, instead of spending 30 to 50 years in prison as he was sentenced to in the original trial, Mitchell will likely spend only a third of that time or less behind bars.

Continue reading

In February of 2011, 36-year-old Terrance L. Shepard and 43-year-old Patrick A. Martin were convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The two were allegedly involved in the December 2002 suffocation death of 19-year-old Kevin Amos Jr., whose body was discovered in March of 2003 on the banks of the Cass River by fishermen in Tuscola County.

Shepard and Martin appealed their convictions, which were upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals in September. According to a news article at Mlive.com, the two men will continue serving life sentences.

An accomplice in the murder, Tanisha R. Williams, testified at the murder trials that Martin held a gun on her and ordered her to tape the victim’s head, which ultimately suffocated him. She claimed that Martin was the main instigator of the crime, and Shepard an accomplice who “kept the momentum of the murder going.” Williams pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in December of 2010 for her role in the murder of Amos.

Appellate court judges Pat Donofrio, Kurtis Wilder, and Jane Beckering disagreed with numerous arguments raised by both Martin and Shepard. Some of these arguments included how prosecutors handled an eyewitness’ testimony, statements which were made outside of court by Martin, and the excluding of five potential jurors who were black by prosecutors.

Both victims raised issues regarding whether the prosecution’s striking of potential jurors denied their rights to equal protection, and whether Williams’ testimony was bolstered by prosecutors. Martin argued that Saginaw County Chief Circuit Judge Fred L. Borchard should have instructed jurors to use caution in considering Williams’ testimony given in exchange for her plead to second-degree murder, instructing them that there was “no guaranteed of her truthfulness.”

Ultimately, the appeals court panel found issue with all of the arguments raised by the defendants, denying their requests to have their convictions overturned.

Continue reading

On October 10, former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was sentenced to 28 years in prison for various public corruption charges including bribery, extortion, and racketeering. It has been seven months since Kilpatrick was convicted by a jury on what the government referred to as running a “money-making racket” out of City Hall.

Prosecutors in the case accused Kilpatrick of funneling millions of dollars to his family, friends, and himself while a financially crippled Detroit hobbled along. The former mayor was convicted on 24 of 30 counts against him; defense attorneys asked their client be given a 15 year sentence, however U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds sided with the government’s request for 28 years, saying that “I believe that is in fact what his sentence should be.”

On Wednesday October 30 it was announced that Kilpatrick will appeal the sentence, and a notice of appeal was filed in U.S. District Court by lawyer Harold Gurewitz. News reports indicate the former mayor steered a minimum of $4.6 million from city contracts for the financial gain of himself and his friends.

While the basis of the appeal was not revealed in the notice filed by Gurewitz, many believe the issues which will be argued to the appeals court panel include the fact that the 28-year sentence handed down by Judge Edmund’s was excessive, according to a news article at USA Today.

It is suspected attorneys will also argue to the appeals court that the sentence was “disparate” due to the fact that others involved received substantially less severe punishment, even probation in some instances. Kilpatrick’s lawyers may also argue that because of the massive publicity surrounding the case, the judge should have granted the request made shortly before trial for a change of venue. Other possible arguments may include insufficient evidence for a conviction, and the judge’s refusal of Kilpatrick’s request for change of counsel on the eve of trial.

Alan Gershel, professor at Cooley Law School and former assistant U.S. Attorney, commented that he felt Kilpatrick has a very small chance of successfully appealing the sentence. Gershel closely monitored the trial.

Michigan criminal appeal lawyers know how difficult it is to have a sentence or conviction overturned by the appeals court. Because Kilpatrick is such a prominent figure and former mayor of Detroit, it will be interesting to learn how the panel rules in this case.

Continue reading

Thomas Philpot, a former Lake County Clerk, is currently serving an 18-month federal prison term in Milan, Michigan for allegedly diverting more than $24,000 in federal funds while in his position. He was convicted on charges of public corruption for pocketing taxpayer money as his own salary bonus. According to news reports at Highland Community, the federal funds were to be used for improvement of collection and disbursement of child support.

Philpot, who is 54 years old, allegedly violated the law knowingly; his defense attorneys argued to a federal appeals court that their client could not get a fair trial due to pre-trial publicity. According to the U.S. Department of Corrections website, Philpot is due to be released from federal prison on July 9 of next year.

News articles claim that according to state regulations, the money allegedly taken by Philpot as a bonus is to be paid to employees of the county who work full time in child support. The Lake County Council must approve any bonuses being paid out of these funds to elected officials. In court, a federal prosecutor alleged that Philpot never gained permission from the council to take the money, and that he used his authority to “write checks to himself.” Philpot was indicted in 2011; he was convicted in his 2012 trial.

In his appeal, Philpot’s attorneys argued that pretrial publicity prevented their client from getting a fair trial. The federal appeals court did not agree and said that stories in the media were factual, and that it had been more than a year prior to Philpot’s trial since those stories were run in the media. The defendant’s lawyers also claimed insufficient evidence against Philpot, however the appellate judges disagreed on that point as well.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys realize the difficulty of having a conviction overturned by either the state or federal appeals court. An appeal is not a “re-trying” of the case, but rather an intense review of the trial proceedings so that it can be determined whether errors were made, and that all proceedings at trial were carried forth in accordance with the law.

Continue reading