Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In January of 2012, Richard Frank Thomas was convicted of the murder of Elijah Todd Butler, a crime that took place in October of 1971. Butler was a Marine who had married Geraldine Butler just four days earlier. According to a news article at Mlive.com, the man’s dying words, “Gerry, he did it” spoken in the arms of his wife were what helped convict Thomas more than 40 years later.

Geraldine Butler told authorities that Thomas had said that if she gave him her virginity, he would leave the couple alone. She alleged that Thomas had made death threats against herself and her husband. Butler was killed when he was shot at the doorstep of his home. Thomas allegedly threatened anyone who may know what he had done to keep quiet after the murder.

It was only after another murder that Thomas’s threats became more credible. In 1976, Thomas was convicted of murdering Robert Groothuis, a gas station owner. Thomas allegedly shot Groothuis, and was sentenced to life in prison. Still, it was 40 years later before the Metro Kent Cold Case Team would arrest Thomas for the murder of Butler.

Just this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed with Thomas’s claim that he had been denied his constitutional rights to a speedy trial. Thomas had also claimed that the delay damaged the credibility of witnesses, as the lapse of time since the shooting must have compromised witnesses’ memories.

Because Thomas was not arrested for the offense at the time it occurred, the appeals court found that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had not been violated. According to the court, “Mere delay between the time of the commission of an offense and arrest is not a denial of due process. There is no constitutional right to be arrested.” The appeals court also determined that Thomas’s claim that witnesses’ memories had deteriorated could not be shown to have affected the defense in his case, because the defendant could not show that any individual was capable of providing substantial proof of an alibi for Thomas at the time the crime was committed.

Experienced Michigan criminal appeals lawyers understand the difficulties individuals who have been convicted of a crime face. There are occasions on which an innocent person is convicted. At other times, sentencing may seem extremely harsh, and out of line with the state’s sentencing guidelines.

Continue reading

On Tuesday June 18, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision in a case involving a 25-year-old Bay City man convicted for sexual assault of a 4-year-old girl. David B. Burns’ conviction was overturned in a unanimous 7-0 decision, the justices agreeing with a ruling made by the Michigan Court of Appeals in June of 2012 regarding hearsay statements which were allowed and admitted as evidence by the judge in Burns’ trial.

In his April 2011 trial, Burns was found guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a person younger than 13 after the jury deliberated only an hour and a half. Burns was then sentenced by Bay County Chief Circuit Judge Kenneth W. Schmidt to 25 to 41 years in prison.

During Burns’ trial, an associate minister of the church the 4-year-old girl attended, Viola Gonzales, testified that the little girl told her that the defendant was abusing her; Gonzales said that the girl went into “graphic” detail about the sexual assault. A news article at Mlive.com states that prosecutors in the case attempted on four occasions to get the girl to testify, but each time she refused to speak. The jury was allowed by Judge Schmidt to use Gonzales’ testimony not as corroborating evidence, but as evidence of proof. Schmidt said that this was allowed because of an exception to the hearsay rule due to the alleged 4-year-old victim’s unwillingness to testify, perhaps due to Burns telling her not to speak of the alleged sexual assault.

Additionally, a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner testified to the fact that she performed a physical examination on the girl after being told she was abused, however conclusive evidence could not be obtained to substantiate the child’s allegations.

Ultimately the Supreme Court admonished Schmidt for permitting Gonzales to testify on behalf of the alleged victim; the justices also agreed that it was not proven by prosecutors that the girl would not testify because the defendant had instructed her to keep quiet or intimidated her. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and has remanded Burns’ case for a new trial.

Bay City attorney Edward M. Czuprynski who defended Burns said that his client is innocent, and that the entire case was a prosecution “built on a house of cards, on assumptions and hearsay.”

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys would agree that the evidence in this case is questionable, and that the evidence allowed by the judge was hearsay. Every individual deserves the right to a fair trial.

Continue reading

In January of 2012, Donald Martin Zuder was convicted on a charge of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a weapon used in connection with an incident at his home that allegedly occurred with a female acquaintance in 2006. Zuder, who is now 79 years old, will serve out his sentence after a Michigan Court of Appeals panel ruled unanimously this week that the conviction was valid.

Zuder was sentenced to prison time of between 3 1/2 and 15 years by former Muskegon County Circuit Judge James M. Graves Jr.

The alleged victim, who was not identified in a news article at Mlive.com, said that the sexual assault took place in the summer of 2006, when Zuder (who was an acquaintance) asked if she would like to clean his home to earn extra money. She agreed, and after touring the house with Zuder the two had a drink. While she was sitting at the kitchen counter, Zuder left the room and returned with a long gun. Initially, Zuder pointed the gun toward a window and mentioned how he could kill a deer with it. She claims that he then pointed the gun at her, calling her a “tease” and saying that she would have to be nicer to him. She requested that Zuder take her home at that point, but he refused.

Instead, the victim alleges, Zuder retrieved a bag containing women’s undergarments after laying the gun on the kitchen table. He requested to see the woman’s body, at which point she said her second request that he take her home was denied. She then removed her clothes and dressed in the undergarments, at which point she alleges Zuder put his hands all over her body. The two played pool at Zuder’s request; she then dressed and the defendant drove her home. The alleged victim said that she felt she had no choice but to comply with Zuder’s demands because she was fearful of the gun laying on the kitchen table.

Appeals judges Joel P. Hoesktra, William B. Murphy, and E. Thomas Fitzgerald signed the opinion affirming Zuder’s conviction.

As all capable and experienced Michigan criminal appeals attorneys are aware, having a conviction overturned is not easy, and requires exceptional skill.

Continue reading

In April of 2008, Miguel and David Vidana allegedly raped a 20-year-old woman at the York Creek Apartment Complex. Both men were convicted of rape in 2011 and sentenced in separate trials to 23 to 45 years in prison by Kent County Circuit Court Judge George Buth.

Now, both men have had their appeals claims denied by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Miguel and David Vidana each filed separate claims on the grounds that jurors had been unfairly excused from the brothers’ trials due to their race. They also challenged the admission of hearsay evidence, and claimed ineffective counsel.

The Vidana brothers allegedly raped the woman at the apartment after incapacitating a male who was at the apartment. News reports at Mlive.com also state that the brothers allegedly brandished a knife, and that Miguel raped the victim in a bedroom while his brother waited outside the door. David Vidana told the victim that she would not be harmed if she did what Miguel told her to do. Ironically, the Vidana brothers’ sister is said to be the one who rescued the woman from the apartment, taking her to call police. DNA samples were then taken from the woman, and used to prosecute the brothers.

The brothers were given separate trials, and would not testify against one another.

In their appeals, the Vidana brothers claimed that three African-American jurors were dismissed by Assistant Prosecutor Kevin Bramble because of their race. In the opinion released by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the panel said that Bramble provided explanations for excluding the jurors which were race-neutral. One of the excused jurors allegedly had a prior criminal conviction, one juror’s father was in prison on a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, and another employed as a social worker. The appeals court found that the explanations for excluding the three jurors were race neutral, therefore they denied the challenges made by the Vidana brothers.

Miguel Vidana is in prison at the St. Louis (Michigan) Correctional Facility, while his brother is incarcerated in Manistee County.

Continue reading