Did you know that at any given moment, up to 2.3 million citizens are confined in our prisons in the United States?  Unfortunately, we lead the world in the incarceration industry.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear extended oral argument (80-minutes) in the case of Schwarzenegger v Plata.  You may recall that the governor of our largest state, Arnold Schwarzenegger, declared in 2006 that acute prison overcrowding had reached a crisis stage, "that gets worse with each passing day."

In California, there are approximately 160,000 men and women behind bars.  The prisons in that state are operating at 195% capacity meaning that two inmates occupy a space designed for one.

If petitioners are successful, a favorable ruling from the SCOTUS could release up to 40,000 inmates in California alone.

So far, the Prison Law Offices in Berkley, a non-profit organization specializing in prisoners' rights cases, sucessfully petitioned for convening a special three-judge District Court panel to assess the prisoners' claim under the Prisoner Litigation Relief Act.  Once convened, the prisoners' lawyers next convinced that panel to find that all conditions for a prisoner release order had been met.

The three-judge panel (not an appellate court, mind you) then ruled that the prison population must be reduced (significantly) over a two-year period.  This order, along with some complex jurisdictional issues, will be argued at SCOTUS this week.

One of the core issues is whether the admittedly overcrowded conditions in the California prisons affect the inmates' constitutional rights.  This approach is distinct from your basic habeas corpus petition and could result in a landmark prisoners' rights case.   

Among several other arguments, California asserts that it is simply not equipped to cut loose tens of thousands of convicted felons into its collapsing economy.  It does appear there is no good solution to this knotty problem.

Our laws become meaningless unless enforced.  Violent offenders must be punished to deter other violent crimes.  At what point, however, do we become a nation behind bars?

Michigan Connection:  Attorney General Mike Cox has joined several other states in filing an amicus brief in favor of rescinding the prisoner release order.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

Sorry about that headline.  But this case was all-over your evening news back in 2004, when kindergarten teacher Nancy Ann Seaman axed her long-time husband to death on Mother's Day.

Earlier this month, a federal judge granted Seaman's petition for Habeas Corpus.  Habeas relief is considered when a convicted inmate, having exhausted her state court appeals, sues the warden of her prison in federal court on the theory she is being illegally detained by the State of Michigan in light of constitutional errors in a state court criminal proceeding.

Ms. Seaman was jury convicted of first degree murder before soon-retiring Oakland Circuit Judge John McDonald.  Seven-months after her trial, Judge McDonald reduced Seaman's conviction from first to second degree murder.

Both Seaman and the prosecutor appealed.  The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and reinstated Seaman's first degree murder conviction.  [The linked MCOA opinion contains a fascinating in-court colloquy about premeditation between the prosecutor and trial judge at the hearing on Seaman's motion for a new trial, beginning on page 5.]

The Court of Appeals found (by 2-1) that the trial court abused its discretion by acting as a "thirteenth juror" in reducing the conviction to second degree murder.  The intermediate appellate court also held that premeditation has no set time-frame but rather, can be established in the fleeting moment that it takes to have a "second look" at an imminent homicide.

Dissenting Judge Karen Fort Hood was troubled by the apparent "disconnect" between Seaman's self defense theory and testimony regarding "battered spouse syndrome".  Evidence relative to the latter theory was limited by the trial court.  Judge Fort Hood also commented on what she perceived as a confusion of jury instructions on the two concepts.  See the last two pages of the above link for her concise dissent.

The Michigan Supreme Court declined further review of Ms. Seaman's conviction.

With her state appellate options exhausted, Seaman turned to federal court via Habeas Corpus.  In her initially successful petition, she asserted that she was denied her right to effective trial counsel, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, when Attorney Lawrence Kaluzny did not challenge a ruling by the trial court that limited the testimony of Seaman's expert on "battered spouse syndrome".  [BTW: In Oakland County, you just cannot hire better trial counsel than Larry Kaluzny.]  The federal judge has ordered a new trial for Seaman.

We here at the LawBlogger, however, need you to stay tuned on this one as Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is appealing the federal district court judge's order to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

Prior to the Civil War, Michigan was one of the first states to get in on the ground-floor of providing legal defense to the poor and the accused.  The constitutional right of the accused to an attorney was enshrined in the seminal case of Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963).

Things have changed.  Michigan has gone from the "first-floor" to the cellar in terms of the quality of court-appointed criminal defense; at least as measured in terms of compensation.

The ACLU is challenging the public defender system in the case of Duncan v State of Michigan.  The ACLU's brief argues that the quality of court-appointed legal defense in Berrien, Muskegon and Genesse Counties falls below the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective legal counsel.

The case was filed in the Ingham County Circuit Court where the trial judge certified Plaintiff's case as a class-action.

Defendants Governor Jennifer Granholm and the State of Michigan are represented by the Michigan Attorney General, Mike Cox.  The AG's brief asserts that the duty to appoint and compensate public defenders falls to the local circuit court judges.

The AG brought a motion for summary disposition which was denied by the trial court.  The court, however, granted the AG's motion to stay further proceedings until appeals from the decision were decided.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ingham Circuit Court's rulings granting class certification and denying summary disposition.  In a lengthily dissent, Appeals Judge William C. Whitbeck asserted that the case, which he described as a "fundamental challenge to Michigan’s system for operating and funding legal services for indigent criminal defendants" essentially could result in an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

The case is scheduled for oral argument before the Michigan Supreme Court on April 13, 2010.  Meanwhile, the state legislature is considering HB 5676 which seeks to establish a state-wide public defender system, along with the essential funding.  The sponsors of the proposed legislation, Bob Constan and Justin Amash acknowledge they will have a very tough time to get this type of funding approved in the midst of the sustained economic downturn.

Never short on resources, however, the ACLU is bringing their game, on this same issue, to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Vermont v Brillon.

The ACLU's suit, and the proposed legislation have attracted national attention.  (The Law Blogger picked-up on a National Public Radio feature that addressed the critical state of Michigan's court-appointed criminal defense.)  The most likely result of all these efforts will be, "more of the same".  The defense bar will continue to soldier on, as underpaid under-resourced champions of the constitution.

Defendants, for the most part, will continue getting convicted.  No tears shed here, unless the accused is truly innocent.  Then it's a real tragedy as well as a threat to our individual rights and the criminal justice system.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

The mighty UM Law School has its hands all over the recent constitutional challenge to the felony child support statute.  The case was originally charged by UM Law Alumni and Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.  The defendant-appellant in the case is represented by the Michigan Innocence Project, run out of the UM Law School by Professor David Moran.

The case, People vs Likine, was the subject of a one-day jury trial in the Oakland County Circuit Court back in November 2008.  Years earlier, Selesa Likine was ordered to pay child support for her three minor children pursuant to her divorce proceedings; also in Oakland County.  The criminal case against Likine charged that she fell behind on the support payments from 2005 through 2008, creating arrears in the amount of nearly fifty thousand dollars.

Ms Likine attempted to assert the defense of an "inability to pay" the support ordered by the family court.  She claimed disability via the Social Security Administration stemming from her diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.  Likine also asserted that she was unemployed due to a lengthily hospitalization at the beginning of the charging period.  She further claimed that her support obligation was erroneously calculated by the family court, as it was based on a "phantom" imputed income of $5000 per month; a wage she claims she never earned in her entire life.

The felony child support statute is one of strict liability.  The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a 2004 published case (People v Adams) that a defendant cannot assert a defense at trial of his or her, "inability to pay" the court-ordered child support.

Accordingly, in the Likine case, the Attorney General requested trial judge John McDonald to preclude Likine from introducing any of the above facts regarding her disability and resulting lack of income from jury consideration.  The AG's motion was granted based on the Court of Appeals' Adams ruling.

Just prior to the beginning of her criminal trial, Likine's attorney moved for reconsideration of Judge McDonald's evidentiary ruling; this time arguing that precluding her from presenting evidence of her "ability to pay" and of her employment history, violated Likine's constitutional Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The motion was again denied.

Not surprisingly, Likine was convicted by the jury of failing to pay court-ordered child support and sentenced to one-year probation.  When the jury was deliberating her case, however, they sent out a note to Judge McDonald asking for information about Ms Likine's employment history.  Due to his earlier rulings in the case, Judge McDonald refused to answer the jury's query.

Following her jury trial, Likine secured appellate representation from UM's Professor Moran, who filed a motion for new trial; this time asserting that Likine's conviction violated the Michigan Constitution.  McDonald, stating that he sometimes disagreed with the Court of Appeals' Adams decision, nevertheless denied the motion.

In her appeal currently pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals, Likine relies on a Michigan Supreme  Court decision from 1889 which held that statutes cannot criminalize conduct which, through no fault of the defendant, is impossible to avoid.  Professor Moran asserts that such a criminal law lacks the requisite, "voluntary actus reus" (bad act).

Along the same lines, Professor Moran raises a claim of violation of federal Due Process under the U.S. Constitution.  In this fashion, Likine argues on appeal that the Court of Appeals' Adams decision wrongly eliminates the actus reus requirement of the felony child support statute, rendering it unconstitutional on its face.

In response, the Attorney General asserts that Adams remains controlling in felony child support convictions. The AG's argument is that the Michigan Constitution is not offended when a "prior judicial determination" establishes a payment obligation for which it is a crime to ignore.  Since Likine's support obligation was established by the family court, she was afforded Due Process.

In a somewhat surprising move given the high-powered counsel on both sides, the Court of Appeals has submitted the case to a 3-judge panel for decision without the benefit of oral argument.  The order to dispose of the case solely on the briefs was issued last week, despite both sides filing timely briefs which requested oral argument.

The losing side on this one will probably try to take the issue before the Michigan Supreme Court.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
www.clarkstonlegal.com