Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In June of 1997, Marvin Gabrion allegedly abducted and killed Rachel Timmerman and her infant daughter, Shannon Verhage. Gabrion is alleged to have killed three others as well. In 2002, he was convicted of the murders in federal court and sentenced to death. Capital punishment was abolished in the state of Michigan in 1846. Gabrion appealed his sentence on the grounds that he would not have been sentenced to death if he had been tried by the state, and that his attorneys should have been permitted to reveal this information to jurors. He also argued the point that the murder of the victim did not occur on federal property.

Gabrion is accused of murdering Rachel Timmerman two days prior to his rape trial, in which he stood accused of raping Timmerman; she was to testify against him in connection with the August 1996 rape. Court records revealed that Gabrion threatened to kill Timmerman and her baby if she told anyone about the rape, which she reported to Newaygo County Sheriff’s deputies. At the time of her death, the victim was 19 years old. Gabrion reportedly abducted Timmerman and killed her by weighing her down with a concrete block, then tossing her into a remote lake in the Manistee National Forest after she was bound and gagged.

According to a news article at Mlive.com, an appeals panel had overturned Gabrion’s death penalty sentence earlier. On Tuesday, May 28, a federal appeals court upheld the death penalty, saying that the fact that Michigan lacks a death penalty has nothing to with Gabrion’s character, or the fact that he chose to kill the victim. In their decision, the Court of Appeals went on to say that it had nothing to do with the defendant’s culpability, or the manner in which the victim was murdered.

Michigan appellate law attorneys realize that whether at the state or federal level, appealing a conviction or sentencing is never easy; in fact, it is a complex process that requires the skill and ability of a seasoned lawyer with extensive hands-on experience in this specialized area of the law.

Continue reading

Paul William Nix, a 40-year-old man who was found guilty of fleeing and eluding police and on two counts of second-degree child abuse, recently had those convictions upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Nix appealed his conviction on the grounds that the prosecutors in the case did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the 24-mile long high speed chase he was involved in was “likely to cause serious physical or mental harm to a child.” Nix allegedly had his two children, an infant and a 4-year-old stepson, unrestrained in the back seat of the Chevrolet Blazer he was driving at the time of the chase.

The defendant is currently serving six to 40 years for fleeing and eluding police, and four to 15 years on the two counts of second-degree child abuse.

It all started in June of 2011 when the suspect and his wife and children were parked in the Chevrolet Blazer at a city park. A sheriff’s deputy who was patrolling the area noticed that the license plate on the Blazer was expired; as he approached the vehicle, Nix drove away. According to a news article at Mlive.com, Nix had an outstanding warrant for his arrest in connection with an armed altercation which occurred three days prior, according to court records.

A high-speed pursuit ensued when Nix drove away from the park, continuing for 24 miles and reaching 100 mph speeds at times. The news article claims that Nix raced past traffic signs and signals, and crossed the center line; he also veered to avoid stop sticks placed in the road by a deputy, and attempted to ram a patrol car. Eventually, Nix crashed into the Alpine Slide at the Crystal Mountain Resort. Nix then got away after he fled on foot, but was arrested in Arkansas one week later as his family headed for Mexico.

The Michigan Court of Appeals panel found that the defendant’s actions did put the children in substantial danger after listening to the testimony of sheriff’s deputies.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys know that it takes a lawyer with exceptional skill and experience to win these types of cases. The appeals process is complex, and very different from the criminal justice process.

Continue reading

In 2012, Brian Lee Snyder was convicted for larceny in a building stemming from an October 2011 incident in which he allegedly stole a gold watch and silver pieces from an antique store in Mattawan, according to a news article at Mlive.com. In April of 2012, Snyder was sentenced to 330 days in the Van Buren County Jail according to Mike Bedford, Van Buren County Prosecutor.

Snyder was sentenced in April, and appealed his conviction in May on the grounds that the jury was allowed to hear evidence regarding a prior conviction, evidence which was inadmissible. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that Van Buren County Circuit Judge Paul E. Hamre allowed the jury to hear inadmissible evidence. The court of appeals’ judges ruled that the judge abused his discretion, saying “We conclude that the erroneous admission of the defendant’s prior conviction undermined the reliability of the verdict, and therefore that defendant has met his burden to show that the trial court’s error was prejudicial.”

The appeals court requested that Hamre comply with the Michigan Rules of Evidence by conducting an analysis regarding the prior conviction and its impact on the conviction, however Hamre did not meet the request.

Van Buren County Prosecutor Mike Bedford felt that the appeal had merit, and that Hamre did make an error; he did not file a brief in response to a letter from the Court of Appeals. Bedford went on to say that he was not surprised that the appeals court reversed the conviction, and that he did not disagree with the ruling.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys know that errors are made in the legal process, just as this case indicates. When evidence is allowed which is inadmissible, it may be grounds to have a convicted overturned.

Continue reading

On Tuesday May 21, the state Supreme Court reversed a ruling made by the Michigan Court of Appeals that motorists who are users of medical marijuana may not legally drive with any amount of marijuana in their systems.

The case began when a medical marijuana user, Rodney Koon, was stopped in Grand Traverse County for driving 83 mph in a 55 mph zone according to a news article at Mlive.com. Koon admitted to police that he had drank a beer, and also told officers that he was a registered medical marijuana patient and had used about five to six hours prior to the stop.

Essentially, district and circuit court judges determined that jurors would not be informed that any presence of marijuana in Koon’s system would be grounds for a conviction of driving under the influence. The MMMA (medical marijuana law) and Michigan’s Vehicle Code conflict in this area; it was ruled by a circuit judge that the state’s zero-tolerance law in regards to marijuana was superseded by the MMMA. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decisions.

The Appeals Court held that there are many medications which are accompanied by warnings that users should not drive while using the medications. However, the Supreme Court found that while the MMMA is an imperfect statute, it does offer protection for motorists who are found to have marijuana in their systems (and who are registered medical marijuana patients) as long as those motorists are not found to be under the influence.

It looks like in this situation the final result turned out to be advantageous for Rodney Koon. As experienced Michigan criminal appeals attorneys, we know that appealing a sentence or conviction is a complex process; it takes special skill to win an appeal, and no lawyer can guarantee this result – particularly those who are not experienced in and familiar with the appeals process.

Continue reading