Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In 2004, Bobby Ferguson allegedly assaulted and beat an employee with a pistol after suspecting that the employee was having an affair with Ferguson’s wife. The employee, Kennedy Thomas, was left with permanent and severe health issues according to news reports, which state Thomas now has permanent brain damage and head pain, making him disabled and unable to work.

Thomas sued Ferguson over the incident in 2007, saying that after getting involved in an argument about Ferguson’s wife, he was struck in the head with a pistol. Ferguson said that he believed he used an ashtray in the assault, and that he did not use a gun. He also stated that he did not believe Thomas was seriously injured, and that Thomas’s doctors were deceived regarding his medical condition.

Eventually Thomas was awarded $2.6 million by a jury, but that amount was reduced later to approximately $860,000 by Wayne Circuit Judge Wendy Baxter, the judge who heard the case.

Ferguson eventually pleaded guilty to assault, but appealed the verdict after the civil award left him owing Thomas such a substantial amount of money. His reasons for appealing included that a doctor who testified in the original trial was not qualified, that the verdict was flawed for countless reasons, and that Kennedy Thomas’s lawyer did not play fair. The Michigan Court of Appeals did not go for it, and ultimately tossed out Ferguson’s appeal.

Thomas filed a cross-appeal, and was awarded an additional $400,000 by the panel who found that he was entitled to some of the expenses which the judge had denied initially. Ultimately, Ferguson’s appeal efforts have left him owing more compensation to Thomas rather than less.

Individuals who have been convicted of a crime are not always guilty of the crime they are accused of; additionally, defense lawyers may fail to provide an effective defense. Michigan criminal appeals attorneys know how to determine if your rights may have been violated, if your sentence was excessive in comparison to the offense committed, and other factors that may make you eligible for an appeal.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned a conviction against Kazem Hammoud, who was arrested for driving on a suspended license after he failed to signal that he was making a right-hand turn.

Hammoud was stopped by Dearborn police, and told the officer that his license had been suspended. However, prosecutors at trial failed to produce evidence that proved Hammoud had been formally notified of the license suspension. This resulted in the Michigan Court of Appeals throwing out the charge; Hammoud cannot be charged again for the same offense. The defendant had previously been sentenced by the district court to 24 months probation, and ordered to serve the first 30 days in jail.

Although Hammoud admittedly told the police officer who pulled him over that his license had been suspended, he argued to the appeals court that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to prove that he had been properly notified according to MCL 257.212. The appeals court agreed with Hammoud, due to lack of evidence that the defendant was notified of suspension of his license by the secretary of state via personal delivery, or through first-class United States mail.

Case files show that the appeals court found that “although the evidence showed the defendant had actual knowledge of the suspension, evidence of the defendant’s actual knowledge alone does not satisfy the element of notice required by MCL 257.904(1).” Essentially, prosecutors in the case did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hammoud received official notice of the suspension.

Continue reading

In a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals made on December 20th, Darryl Willard Cain, the defendant-appellant, had his argument that convictions for carjacking and unlawfully driving away in a motor vehicle violated both the Michigan and United States Constitutions rejected. Cain claimed that the conviction violated double jeopardy clauses; the court found that convictions for both offenses did not offend the double jeopardy clause.

The incident occurred in Detroit in June of 2010. According to court documents, Cain carjacked the victim, Courtney Spires, as he was sitting at a red light in his mother’s 1995 gold Saturn. Spires claimed that Cain came up to his driver’s side window, pointed a gun and demanded that he get out of the car. Cain also demanded the victim take off his Timberland boots and pants, which Cain also allegedly stole along with a cell phone and wallet. Cain then proceeded to get into the car, and a woman got into the passenger seat. The van that Cain had been in prior to the carjacking then followed Cain and the passenger as they drove off in Spires’ mother’s Saturn.

Upon locating the Saturn in a backyard, police officers also found a Ford Explorer which was determined to be a stolen vehicle. Cain and two others were then arrested. Cain told Grosse Pointe Park police during questioning that he did not carjack anyone, and that someone had told him about the stolen cars; he also denied owning the gun.

In October of 2010, Cain was convicted on several charges which included felon in possession of a firearm, felony firearm, two counts of receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, carjacking, and UDAA (unlawful driving away of an automobile).

The Michigan Court of Appeals found that the double jeopardy argument made by the defendant did not offend the clause due to elements of each offense that do not apply to the other.

Continue reading