Attorney Nicholas Somberg

This case is a throwback to the COVID days. An attorney, piqued that he was disallowed from posting a screenshot from one of his state district court proceedings in the Zoom era, filed a federal lawsuit claiming violation of his first amendment rights. 

The lawyer, Nicholas Somberg, posted the picture on his Facebook page and cast some shade on the assistant prosecutor with whom he was working in the criminal case. For their part, the prosecutor's office took great offense, and sought an order for the lawyer to show cause, asserting that photographing any of the court proceedings violated the rules of zoom court. 

In May of 2020, at the very dawn of the zoom court era, the court issued a policy whereby:

• No one may use a portable electronic device to take photographs or for audio or video recording, broadcasting, or live streaming unless the use is specifically allowed by the judge presiding over that courtroom through a written order; and 

• In areas of the courthouse outside the courtroom, no one may photograph, record, broadcast, or live stream an individual without their express prior consent. 

Although the district court did not grant the prosecutor's criminal contempt charge, it was "chagrined and troubled by the allegations." The prosecutor's office elected not to appeal the dismissal of its contempt petition. 

Somberg literally created a federal case out of his perceived snub a few weeks later when he alleged violation of his first amendment:

right to photograph, screenshot, audio/video record, broadcast, report, distribute, share, and publish photographic, audio and video recordings of public live-streamed Michigan court proceedings without threat of or an actual prosecution...

Attorney Somberg further alleged that he would seek to exercise his right to make such recordings in the future and that he does not wish to be subjected to fines or the contempt of court when doing so. 

After a few years of procedural maneuvers related to summary judgment and an interlocutory appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the prosecutor, on behalf of the State of Michigan, filed a motion for summary judment which was ultimately granted by Judge Gershwin Drain.

While recognizing that the public, and members of the bar, certainly have the right to access the courts of our state, this access, "does not require an unfettered access to government information." The federal court agreed with the prosecutor that courts constitute non-public forums; the zoom court rules are content-neutral; and the prohibition of recordings is a reasonable method for assuring the proper order and decorum in the court. 

Recognizing that the plaintiff-lawyer's claim was a "right to access" claim as opposed to a "freedom of expression" claim, it granted the State of Michigan's motion and dismissed the case. Here is a link to the court's entire opinion that was issued in September. 

Oakland County, where this case arose, has an interesting history regarding the use of recorded court proceedings. In the old days [i.e. prior to 2010], attorneys could order DVDs of court proceedings for $25 dollars per disc. That came to a screeching halt when one of the judges became the subject of an edited montage produced and posted to the Internet by one of our former clients. 

The client, having lost legal custody of his two children, went through a platoon of lawyers, and ended up representing himself in various post-divorce custody and parenting motions. He was irreparably disgruntled by the family court system and decided to take matters into his own hands. 

His solution was to sit through various motion calls and hearings of the targeted family court judge. Next, he ordered the DVDs for those hearings. He utilized his significant technical media skills to lampoon the judge in a one minute montage hatchet job. 

When the targeted judge became aware of the litigant's unflattering roast, he successfully and permanently changed the court's policy of access to court proceedings. Now, litigants and their attorneys are monitored when they review court hearings. They must agree not to record the recordings and have to come to the court administrator's office to view recorded proceedings. 

So much for obtaining DVDs of legal proceedings and taking them back to your office at your leisure. Prior to the change, our law firm took advantage of obtaining the DVDs and posted some examples of our representation in court to our web site. Here is a link to those videos.

Recently, former president Donald Trump's legal team has sought to have television cameras introduced into his federal court proceedings in the election interference federa; case in Washington DC. That was a flat-out "No", based on the long tradition of no camera access to federal court proceedings. 

Again, these are "right to access" questions as opposed to "freedom of expression" issues. Most state court proceedings are recorded and the public has limited access to view recordings of the actual proceedings, as they occurred. In federal court, the public, and the legal professionals alike, are limited to written transcripts. 

Post #634

Clarkston Legal

Judge T. David Law

Time heals all wounds. This time last year, the district court bench out in Novi was in complete disarray. Judge MacKenzie was being sued by the Oakland County Prosecutor and the feds were sniffing around, while down the hall, Judge Powers had his troubles with the Judicial Tenure Commission.

Now, an election has taken care of Judge MacKenzie, and Judge Powers resigned on the eve of his judicial tenure trial.  New judges are on the bench in Novi these days.

Judge Travis Reeds took the bench in January following his election victory over Judge MacKenzie. And although the list was very long with judicial hopefuls, Governor Snyder finally selected T. David Law, a First Assistant Attorney General, over many other well-qualified candidates.

Newly-appointed Judge Law will finish out the balance of now-retired Judge Powers' term and run for election in November 2016. With a name like Law, we think he'll have a great chance to get elected in Novi.

This is a very good development as the Novi District Court is a busy place. That court handles some of Oakland County's prime real estate.

So we here at the Law Blogger are glad that the dust has finally settled over there. In fact, one of our lawyers is scheduled for trial in Novi next week.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Yesterday, Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper addressed the students of Clifford Smart Middle School in Commerce Township about the dangers of social media and potential criminal liability for conduct involving the transmission of naked images through the Internet.  The presentation was part of the ongoing Educating Our Youth initiative at the prosecutor's office.

The prosecutor warned the students that nothing is ever deleted once posted to the Internet via social media.  She also advised that the hard drive of a computer can be seized by law enforcement and explained the trove of information that resides on such devices.

The wide-ranging talk covered sexting, how to exercise proper caution when online, and the recent case in Brandon where a student hacked into an after-school app to post violent threats that included references to the Colombine massacre.  Often, coming of age in the post-modern world now involves facing certain digital realities.

With a compelling digital backdrop for her presentation, the primary thrust of Jessica Cooper's address to the middle school students was the dangers of sexting one another.  She warned students of the serious felonies of: possession, distribution and solicitation of child sexually explicit materials and the steep penalties those convicted could face.  She cautioned students that deleting such images does not make the problem go away.

Recently, Cooper's office has exercised its prosecutorial discretion to bring charges against a large group of middle school and high school students in Rochester Hills.  The students were sending nude images of themselves to one another through their cell phones.

No one wants to witness the witch-hunt that could result from mass prosecutions of teenagers; that was not the point of Cooper's message.  Rather, the digital youth culture needs to scale back some of its reckless nubile abandon in our digital age.

We here at the Law Blogger applaud the prosecutor's efforts in the Educating Our Youth initiative.  With an overburdened schedule, Madame Prosecutor is finding the time to personally take her serious message to the youth who need to hear it the most.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Novi Judge Brian McKenzie

By: Timothy P. Flynn

I'm aging myself by belonging to a group of 50-something lawyers that can recall when Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper was a circuit court judge, then a Court of Appeals judge.  Now she is, of course, the Oakland County Prosecutor.  Impressive career trajectory.

And as the prosecutor, Judge Cooper's career is now intersecting with another local judicial luminary, Novi District Judge Brian MacKenzie. Their career collision comes through a complaint the prosecutor filed   -in the form of a petition for a Writ of Superintending Control-   with the Oakland County Circuit Court, now assigned to Judge Leo Bowman.

The Writ alleges illegal conduct against the Novi judge.  Judge MacKenzie has struck back hard with a responsive pleading that, on first blush, sure calls into question the propriety of the prosecutor's Writ.

Channel 7 Action News was one of the first news outlets to break the story about the details of Cooper's allegations.  Judge Cooper alleges that over the past decade, Judge MacKenzie handed down sentences that did not comport with the law; that he dismissed cases after guilty pleas were tendered and accepted by the Court; that he dismissed cases stating it was with the consent of the prosecutor when there was no such prosecutorial consent; and perhaps most disturbingly, that he removed these cases from the public files of the Novi District Court.

Judge McKenzie is one of those judges that polarizes public opinion.  Truly, he is an iconic figure in our local judiciary.  Some folks love him; others not so much.

Several of the defendants that have been sentenced by MacKenzie applaud the justice they received in his courtroom; Channel 7 had a few willing to go on camera to defend the judge.  You do not have to look very far around Novi, Milford and Highland to encounter people who respect Judge MacKenzie's brand of justice.

On the other hand, now-retired Oakland Circuit Judge Steven N. Andrews admonished Judge MacKenzie on an appeal from the Novi District Court to the Oakland Circuit Court way back in 2004.  In reversing McKenzie's judgment of sentence, Judge Andrews, in a tersely-worded opinion called-out the district judge for meting-out sentences that did not comport with the law; Judge Andrews characterized MacKenzie's sentences as an illegal "pattern of conduct."

We here at the Law Blogger have always known Judge MacKenzie to be devoted to the Sobriety Court he established and nurtured in the Novi District Court and to the concept of required sobriety for alcohol-convicted probationers in general.  He is also known as a friend of veterans, recently starting a veterans' court in Novi.

There used to be websites devoted to a favorable portrayal of McKenzie and there are websites devoted to the disparagement of the good judge; now all deeply buried in Google's search results by this breaking story.

Some lawyers, vocal but who must remain nameless, view the manner in which Judge MacKenzie conducts a criminal call to be akin to "Kabuki Theater": heavy on drama, light on substance.  Others see him as a champion of justice that has a positive effect on the lives of the people that appear in his courtroom.

We now shall wait and see how the Oakland County Circuit Court Judge eventually assigned to the case assesses the allegations set forth in Judge Cooper's Writ.  Stay tuned for updates on this one.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Barbara Hernandez

Barbara Hernandez was convicted in 1991 of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison; she was sixteen years old.  The facts adduced at her trial were that she coaxed her victim, a 28-year old auto mechanic, into a vacant crack-house in Pontiac where her boyfriend, or pimp, depending on who you believe, stabbed him 25-times. 

The motive: robbery to obtain funds to fuel said boy friend's raging crack habit. Sympathy rating on scale of one to five; zero.

More than 20-years after her capital conviction, views on the Hernandez case remain polarizing.  For example, in an AP article detailing the murder, the prosecutor that tried Hernandez here in he Oakland County Circuit Court recently reflected on the case she submitted to the jury.

During her years with the Oakland County Prosecutor, Donna Pendergast, now an Assistant Attorney General, tried many high profile murders.  She had this to say about Hernandez:

Contrary to her assertion that she's cowering around the corner under some sort of influence of her boyfriend, quite the contrary. She's right in the mix and the evidence shows that.  At 16 years old, when you're involved with a scheme of that (kind of) deadly ramifications, you know what you're doing.  

On the other hand, one of the now-retired investigators who took a statement from Hernandez soon after the incident, recently claimed that he no longer recalls her saying that she may have held the victim; he told the AP:  "why I testified to that; who knows?"

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided in Miller v Alabama that mandatory juvenile lifer laws violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, critical aspects on the application of this decision were not addressed by the SCOTUS.  For example, recent cases percolating through the appellate courts here in Michigan address whether SCOTUS' Miller decision should be applied retroactively.

In People v Carp, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that the SCOTUS' Eighth Amendment ruling did not apply retroactively.  In doing so, Judge Michael J. Talbot conducted a tour de force of juvenile and capital sentencing jurisprudence, mandating lower courts with pending cases to take a juvenile offender's tender years into account; exhorting the legislature to address this perceived gap in our justice system; but nevertheless refusing to retroactively apply Miller on a collateral review.

Of course, Raymond Carp's attorneys have applied for further appellate review to the Michigan Supreme Court.  The briefs are in, with the Michigan Attorney General having just filed a brief in opposition earlier this month; and [update] an op-ed piece in the Detroit News.

Juvenile lifers recently received a big boost by a decision of United States District Court Judge John O'Meara who ruled that the SCOTUS Miller decision was retroactive for the 350 lifers convicted as juveniles and that prisoners so convicted deserved a chance at parole.

Convicts in Barbara Hernandez's position await the outcome of this decision while their lives burn-down like a candle.  Michigan's oldest juvenile lifer is 68; convicted of murder in 1962.

We here at the Law Blogger have to wonder: do murdering teens deserve a second chance in life?

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Jacob Trakhtenberg

Sitting on a parole board must be tough.  When reviewing a convict's petition for parole, the board member has an enormous amount of pressure to "get it right".

One option is to take the easy route by erring on the side of caution and letting the petitioner's sentence "run it's course".  Eventually, if flopped enough times by the parole board, a convicted felon simply gets released from the penitentiary by serving a statutory maximum period of incarceration.

That is what happened to two convicted felons that have been making headlines this month: one local; the other from Upstate New York.  This post takes a look at the circumstances of the cases, addressing the challenges of the parole system presented in each.

First, the Michigan case.  In 2005, Jacob Trakhtenberg, a former Chief Engineer for Chrysler, was charged in Oakland County Circuit Court with 5-counts of criminal sexual conduct.  The charging instrument did not specify dates of the alleged sexual assaults against his minor daughter, 8-years old at the time, and was silent as to the specific nature of alleged sexual contact.

His initial court-appointed lawyer elected to conduct a bench trial before former Oakland Circuit Court Judge Deborah Tyner, who found the accused guilty on 3 of the five charges.  One of the alleged deficiencies of Trakhtenberg's court-appointed defense counsel was that she did not conduct any investigation whatsoever relative to the prosecutor's disclosed witnesses.

Trakhtenberg was in prison during the years in which his appeals have [twice] traveled the gamut of the Michigan appellate courts.

Although his appeals have finally gained some traction thanks to our friend, appellate specialist Robyn Frankel, this relief may have come too late for the convicted felon.

In November, the defendant was placed on parole, having served 2/3 of his maximum 10-year sentence, and being eligible for release under the applicable Michigan statute.  His second appeal, known as a "6500 appeal" after the specific court rule that provides for such a last bite at the procedural apple, was decided in his favor last week in a Michigan Supreme Court opinion that remanded the case to the Oakland County Circuit Court for a new trial.

In a 4-2 decision [Justice Hathaway abstained], our High Court held:

In this case, defense counsel failed to exercise  reasonable professional judgment when deciding to forgo particular investigations relevant to the defense, including her
failure to identify the factual predicate of each of the five charged counts of criminal sexual conduct, her failure to consult with key witnesses, and her failure to sufficiently develop the defense presented at trial.  Accordingly, her representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.  Defendant was unfairly prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance.  The key evidence against defendant was the complainant’s testimony.  Therefore, the reliability of defendant’s convictions was undermined by defense counsel’s failure to introduce impeachment evidence and evidence that corroborated defendant’s testimony that defense counsel was unaware of because she decided to forgo those investigations.  Had the impeachment evidence and the evidence that corroborated defendant’s testimony  been introduced, there was a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different.  [Syllabus, page 2]

The effective assistance challenge to Trakhtenberg's conviction, ultimately successful in this case, is a critical component of an accused's basket of Sixth Amendment rights guaranteeing a fair trial.

No word yet as to whether the Oakland County Prosecutor will go forward with a second trial considering Defendant has already served a maximum sentence.  Since the completion of his first set of appeals, the initial trial judge, Judge Tyner, resigned from the Oakland County Circuit Court bench and was succeeded on the case by Judge Daniel O'Brien.

The tough part of criminal sexual assault convictions is that the Michigan Department of Corrections has a bright-line policy whereby the offender must complete sexual abuse counseling prior to achieving eligibility for parole.  Often, convicted offenders maintain their innocence, adhering to a campaign of total denial.  This renders them ineligible for an early parole.

While the resulting extended prison stay is justified for a properly convicted abuser, it is a tragedy if the person is wrongly convicted as concluded by the Michigan Supreme Court in Trakhtenberg.

Meanwhile, in Webster, NY, the criminal justice system attempts to make sense of how William Spengler should have been handled.  Spengler, a paroled murderer, allegedly killed two first responders to a fire he started as a decoy prior to killing himself on Christmas Eve.

It has now come to light that Spengler was paroled after serving a 17-year prison sentence for murdering his grandmother with a hammer.  Prior to his release from prison, 4 consecutive parole boards denied Spengler parole despite finding him to be well-spoken, well-behaved and intelligent.

After being released from prison, Spengler kept to himself for about a decade, until he apparently solicited the assistance of a young neighbor's daughter to purchase a shotgun and an assault rifle.  We now know that these were the weapons used in Spengler's murder-suicide.

Comparing these two cases brings the difficulty of the parole process into focus.  Once a person has been warehoused in prison for several years, what does the justice system do with them upon release?

What about persons wrongfully convicted [or unconstitutionally convicted] such as Trakhtenberg?  If ultimately acquitted, he may be entitled to millions in civil damages.  Will this potential exposure play into the Oakland County Prosecutor's decision to re-try the former automotive engineer who has already served all the prison time he could serve?

Are hardened killers such as Spengler ever truly rehabilitated?  Apparently, there is always a significant risk in allowing such killers to walk free among us.

This blog does not claim to have the answers to these tough questions.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

A few years back, this blog touted Oakland County's "virtual work release" program.  To alleviate chronic jail overcrowding, the Sheriff developed the program which utilizes a global positioning system to ensure that offenders are truly under "house arrest" when they complete their work day.

There is a certain class of offenders, however, that cannot take advantage of the virtual work release program, and must do their time in a physical jail cell.  The Michigan Court of Appeals' decision in People v Pennebaker takes the "house arrest" option away from sentencing judges in felony drunk driving cases.

In Pennebaker, a case originating in the Oakland County Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals held that people convicted of a felony drunk driving offense must perform a minimum of 30-days incarceration pursuant to the drunk driving statute, and that "incarceration" cannot involve "house arrest", no matter how technologically sound the GPS tether system.

 Oakland Circuit Judge Phyllis McMillen, impressed with the Oakland County Sheriff's relatively new virtual work release program, decided to utilize the tether-based monitoring system for the drunk driving punishments she was meting out.  Sounds logical to us over here at the Law Blogger.

Problem: The Oakland County Prosecutor took issue with the meaning of the word "incarceration", arguing at both Pennebaker's sentencing and on appeal that house-arrest does not cut it; felony drunk drivers must actually sit down for a minute in the county jail.  The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing Judge McMillen's sentence, and sending the case back to McMillen for re-sentencing.

In doing so, the intermediate appellate court quoted the following language from one of its earlier decisions on point:

Under no circumstances can we reasonably  conclude that confinement in one’s
home or apartment is the equivalent of confinement “in  jail.”  This is so even
where, as here, the conditions of home confinement require the person confined to
go directly to work, to return home immediately from work, and to be at home at
all times unless approval is given by  a probation officer.  Home detention does
not include the highly structured setting of a prison or jail.  One cannot remain on
the phone for extended periods, invite friends for extended visits, order a pizza,
watch television during periods of one’s own choosing, or have free access to the
refrigerator in jail.   

 We here at the Law Blogger would like to know what you think about the difference between tether-based "house arrest" and a jail sentence.  We welcome your comments.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Leon Walker with his former
spouse in happier times

There is an interesting privacy law criminal case percolating through the appeals courts that originated here in Oakland County.  The case involves the alleged hacking access by a husband of his former wife's computer.

Last Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court denied Leon Walker's application for leave to further appeal from a Michigan Court of Appeals order that similarly rejected his effort to quash the criminal information filed in his case.


On appeal, Walker's lawyers have asserted that the legislature did not intend to criminalize the domestic relations nature of his conduct.  Also, although Walker did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute, he simply asserted that the evidence adduced by the prosecutor at the preliminary examination did not comport with the proscribed conduct set forth in the statute.

The case now goes back down to Oakland Circuit Judge Martha Anderson for further proceedings and trial.

Back in 2009, Walker suspected his wife was having an affair.  Employed as a computer technician for Oakland County, he had expertise on how to access computers.  Allegedly, he hacked into a computer that the prosecutor alleges had been gifted to his wife, discovering evidence of the affair.

This blog covered the case in an earlier post when the matter seemed to be heading for trial.

In speaking with Mr. Walker yesterday [he contacted our law firm], he said he is looking forward to his trial when all the facts will come out before a jury.  Among those facts, he says the laptop computer at issue in the case was premarital and that he never gifted it to his former wife.

Walker also claims that the Oakland County Sheriff, or their computer expert, may be responsible for evidence spoilation; they claim to have lost or misplaced his laptop.

Although the Supreme Court declined to decide the case at this time, some of the Justices hinted at their concern that the language in the statute is very broad and could be used to criminalize otherwise legal conduct.

Justice Marilyn Kelly, who voted to hear the appeal, stated her concern in the High Court's order:

The factual basis for one of the charges against defendant is that he allegedly accessed his wife’s e-mail account without her permission.   This may be the first time in the 33 years since MCL 752.795 became law and the 16 years since it was amended to its present form that the statute has been used as the basis for criminal charges for the behavior in question. 

Justice Kelly goes on to note that the Michigan legislature submitted a bill to the House Judiciary Committee last year seeking to amend the unauthorized computer access statute.  This bill would carve-out an express exception in the statute for spouses, provided that certain conditions were satisfied.

We will be keeping an eye on this hot case.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

The Oakland County Sheriff's interpretation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and the Controlled Substances Act has forced two local marijuana facilities to lock their doors.  One of the pot-growing operations, Big Daddy's Hydro, in Oak Park, closed voluntarily; the other facility, right here in Commerce Township where this blog post is being composed, was the subject of a task-force raid.

The Oakland Press ran a front-page story on Saturday about Big Daddy's Hydro.  The facility was on the receiving end of an Oakland County Sheriff's raid back in January.  Since then, the owners were resolved to carry on their operation; an operation they insisted was legal under the MMA.  Sounds like a movie might be in there somewhere.

Before Hollywood came knocking to negotiate the movie rights to this true crime drama, however, Big Daddy's in Oak Park locked its doors.  The decision was based on the observations of its management group that "patients" were being shook down on the street after leaving the facility.  Also, it did not help that four members of the management group were charged with distribution felonies by the Oakland County Prosecutor.

Big Daddy's is consolidating pot growing and distribution operations into their Chesterfield Township facility in Macomb County, and in Detroit.  Therefore, Big Daddy's alleged violations of the MMA or the Controlled Substances Act are now in the hands of Prosecutors Eric Smith and Kym Worthy.

The more recent raid on the Commerce Township facility presents an example of an increasingly sophisticated approach to medical marijuana enforcement by the Oakland County Prosecutor.  This bust was executed by a joint task force with a federal component; the DEA.  [Remember, marijuana remains illegal in any form under federal law.]  Also, the Sheriff has commented publicly that the facility violated the Controlled Substances Act, not the MMA.

Criminal defense attorney Neil Rockind was quoted in the Oakland Press yesterday as saying, "They can try to describe it any way they want.  I know what happened...and if they want to pursue a case then I'll be there."  Yeah, sounds like Neil; never one to shy away from high-stakes criminal defense litigation.

The Michigan Court of Appeals handed prosecutors a serious weapon when it issued its People v McQueen decision last month.  The published, thus binding, decision of the Court of Appeals runs a lance through most MMA distribution schemes; at least if those involved want to make any money from their elaborate growth and distribution operations.

This brings us back to the intent of the medical marijuana referendum that passed overwhelmingly by Michigan voters in the 2008 election.  The MMA is designed to encourage a "grow-your-own" and "trade-among-friends" approach to distribution.

From the outset, those involved in growing pot have been looking to make money from the provisions of the MMA.  Because the Act is silent on pot sales, a legal debate has, er, cropped-up about whether distribution via sale is permitted or proscribed by the Act.

Also, as the Law Blogger has pointed out time and again; the premise of patients getting medical attention from marijuana, although legitimate in a number of cases, is a complete sham in the overwhelming number of patient-care provider relationships.  This scam will likely bring down the MMA in the end.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Hard to believe that right here in Oakland County, Michigan, there is sufficient crime to sustain a nearly $2 million dollar a year crime lab.  Yet that is what Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard will be announcing this morning in conjunction with his department's request for an expanded crime lab.

Sheriff Bouchard is expected to tout the Oakland County crime lab's accreditation by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors; the first lab in Michigan to achieve such status.  Allocation of the resources for the proposed expansion (up to 3 additional employees and the constantly advancing hi-tech equipment with which they will work) seems like politically rough terrain in these times.

Apparently, the expansion will allow Oakland County to by-pass the lab operated by the Michigan State Police, thereby significantly reducing delays.  The MSP crime lab has been flooded with additional work since the City of Detroit shuttered its crime lab amid claims of mismanagement and abuse; claims that are being investigated by the MSP.

This blogger recently experienced the effects of the MSP lab's processing delays in a felony case in Oakland County.  It took the Oakland County Prosecutor nearly 8-months to confirm blood reports tying my client to a crime scene.

The prosecutor ended up sending the blood-work to a private lab in Virginia.  During the months it took to process the evidence, my client was sent to prison on another unrelated matter from Detroit.  

Although the delay was not the accused's fault, he sat in prison on dead time in my case, willing to plead guilty and get his Oakland County case over with.  This was not possible due to the evidentiary delays.  Not that I am asking you to shed any tears for this hardened skell; but we pay for such delays one way or another.

If an expanded lab lessens delays, expedites justice, and eases the burden on the state lab, that's all good.  It's just a shame that our community sports enough crime to make such an arena possible.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

It's still too early to tell if Michigan's new "Super Drunk" driving law is having an effect on making our roadways safer.  The law took effect last November.

Some following the law have noted that due to plea deals, many convicted of this law are going to rehab rather than jail.  One of the provisions of the law was to double the jail term from 90 to 180 days for convicted super drunk drivers.

According to Eaton County district judge Harvey Hoffman, an early proponent of the new law, more folks are jumping into sobriety courts, or extended rehabilitation programs.   Judge Hoffman cites chronic jail overcrowding as a chief factor in sentencing super drunks to rehabilitation over a six-month jail bit.

Of course, here in Oakland County, there is no such thing as a plea bargain and the prosecutor no longer participates in district sobriety courts.  If you are charged under the Super Drunk law, you will not get an offer to reduce the charge to impaired driving, even if it is your first offense.  Your fate will be in the hands of your sentencing judge.

By comparison, the Eaton County prosecutor has a new policy in super drunk cases of approving a plea reduction to impaired in exchange for the accused's assent to enter into a sobriety court program, forcing the offender to come to terms with their drinking problem. 

The 0.17 blood alcohol level which triggers the new law is not an outrageously high BAC.  On average, the BAC of an arrested driver is 0.16; very close to the super drunk threshold.

So the best thing to do is simply stay off the roads when you've had too much to drink; that way, we're all safer.  If you cannot do that, go on ebay and purchase a "Big Blue Book" as a compulsory 12-step program may be in your future.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Veteran defense lawyer Michael McCarthy (L)
and veteran prosecutor John Skrzynski

Prosecutors cannot take their time once they make the decision to prosecute a case.  Generally, the law does not reward any party that sleeps on their rights and duties.

Normally, the prosecutor has a certain period of time, known as the "statute of limitations", within which to charge a crime.  An exception to this rule is murder; there is no statute of limitations on a murder charge.

The Oakland County Prosecutor recently brought two cases that alleged murders that took place in 1978 and 1968, respectively.  The 1968 case charged Nolan Ray George, a suspected serial killer, with the first degree murder of Gwendolyn Perry.  Likewise, the 1978 case charged Wilburn Cooper with first degree murder.  

Cooper's jury convicted him in two hours flat.  As for Mr. George, his defense lawyer, veteran attorney Michael McCarthy attempted to keep out evidence of so-called "prior bad acts"; two prior murders.  Oakland Circuit Judge Michael Warren ruled the other murders admissible; George also was jury convicted in short order.

Forty years, thirty years, or ten; if the prosecutor can marshal evidence to prove the elements of an open murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt, murderers should pay the price for their heinous crimes.  The competing interest, of course, is that any evidentiary trail grows ice cold over the decades; a defense is very difficult to mount with the passage of an ocean of time. 

Mr. McCarthy was probably asked why on earth he would represent a serial killer a dozen times if he was asked once.

The criminal justice system requires seasoned defense lawyers to force the government to prove its case; each and every time.  Only in this fashion do we maintain our individual liberties and avoid becoming a police state.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed amicus briefs in two medical marijuana cases pending in Michigan appellate courts; one case is from Oakland County, the other from Isabella County.

The Oakland County case, the well-known People v Redden debacle, involved whether an unregistered marijuana user could nevertheless assert the defenses set forth in the Medical Marijuana Act. That case is pending before the Michigan Supreme Court.

In the AG's Redden brief, the assertion is that only qualified patients may avail themselves of the statutory defenses set forth in the MMA. The Court of Appeals held otherwise.

The case from Isabella County tests whether anyone can earn a profit from their pot-growing efforts.

We will monitor each of these cases and report back to our readers.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper has elected to prosecute a Rochester Hills man for accessing his wife’s email account. The emails were accessed from a computer that the husband purchased for family use.

The criminalization of conduct involving computers and privacy has had federal and state law components. For example, in the federal realm, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was initially passed to proscribe electronic eavesdropping and was significantly expanded in 1986 from traditional “wired” forms of electronic communication, to include all forms of digital electronic communication.

A few years earlier, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act outlawed electronic espionage. The federal computer crime scheme also features several “technology-neutral” provisions allowing prosecution for a variety of criminal acts involving a computer.

By creating a statutory right to privacy in Internet communications, the federal law creates an expectation of privacy in our digital transmissions and provides a tool for selective prosecution.

But does that expectation of privacy extend to a marital home? To the family computer?

A Rochester Hills woman, Clara Walker, is the complaining witness in the Oakland County case against her third (former) husband, Leon Walker. The husband purchased a family computer and set-up a gmail account for his wife. Shortly thereafter, suspecting his wife was conducting an affair with her second husband, Mr. Walker accessed his spouse’s gmail account to get the proof.

Apparently, his suspicions were well-founded as the couple was divorced last year.

The price of this confirmation, however, was high. Walker has been charged with unauthorized access to a computer; a five-year felony charge due to Walker's circumstances. The case, charged early last year, has kicked around the 51st District Court and the Oakland County Circuit Court since March, surviving the defendant's motion to dismiss.  Trial has been scheduled for Valentines Day.

The unauthorized computer access provisions of the Michigan Penal Code under which Walker has been charged are part of a 1979 statute designed to combat identity theft and computer hacking.  The provisions in the act create a presumption that access to another person’s computer file or digitized data was unauthorized. Various access or password-related exceptions are available to rebut the statutory presumption.

Two prior convictions, or an amount involved in the crime between $1000 but less than $20,000, elevates this computer crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.  Cooper has received criticism for charging an individual for alleged conduct which was resolved in family court. As she'll tell you; "happens all the time."

The case recently began receiving national attention when Walker, formerly an IT professional for Oakland County, cast Attorney Ray Cassarr aside in favor of "Feiger Law".  Figures.

Mr. Walker’s trial, over which Oakland Circuit Judge Martha Anderson will preside, should present some interesting evidence. The private family circumstances leading to the Walker's divorce proceedings may be deemed relevant to the criminal case.  Also, given the way the statute is worded, some interesting defenses can be presented to a jury. Among them, the defense counsel could focus the jury on whether a spouse’s separate email account on a family computer is private and whether there is an expectation of privacy in such an account when your husband has the password.

Any conviction will most likely be appealed.  We here at the Law Blogger will keep an eye on this one for you.  Expect updates.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@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/

Judge Wendy Potts has been conducting an interesting pilot program on the jury process in Oakland Circuit trials.  She maintains the only courtroom in one of Michigan’s busiest venues where jurors are encouraged to submit written questions to witnesses, take notes during the trial, and discuss the case during their morning and mid-afternoon breaks.

Once the jury is empanelled, each juror is provided a notebook with all the jury instructions and, in civil cases, a set of stipulated trial exhibits for their convenient reference (or distraction) throughout the trial. 

The jurors welcome the opportunity to interact with the input of proofs.  Judge Potts instructs jurors to avail themselves of the opportunity to submit written questions to each witness called to testify.   

These are significant modifications to the “classic” jury trial in Michigan.  In other county trial courts, jurors are expressly instructed not to discuss the case with anyone during the trial (which may take several days, even weeks).  In the classic jury trial model, jurors must keep the facts of the case to themselves until they retire to the jury room for deliberations with their chosen colleagues.  Nor are jurors usually given notebooks to write down their thoughts.

In Judge Potts’ court, however, jurors are encouraged to take a stab at figuring out just what is really going on by writing out their own questions at the conclusion of examination by the attorneys.  Judge Potts fields the written questions and discusses them with the lawyers in a bench conference to determine whether the question(s) should be posed to the witness.  

This has an obvious effect on how the proofs of the case are submitted to the jury.  Once the attorneys complete their scripted examinations, the jurors have the opportunity to follow-up.

Instead of keeping what they have just seen and heard to themselves for the duration of the trial, they are permitted to discuss the testimony, as it unfolds; including the answers to their own questions. 

No such a thing as a “dumb question”, right… 

On Thursday and Friday of this week, I had the opportunity to sample Judge Potts’ experimental jury trial method in a criminal felony case.  At least one juror had a question for every witness.  Judge Potts asked the attorneys at the bench whether we wanted the question posed to the witness.  

While I did not mind the (benign yet telling) questions posed by the jurors, it concerned me, as defense attorney, that the jurors were free to discuss the case while the proofs were going in.  

But would jurors, so encouraged, seek other means of obtaining information about the case?  Perhaps they would Google the names of witnesses or the attorneys.  Judge Potts expressly warned them not to do this.

It is in the nature of trial attorneys to want control of the information being submitted to the fact finder.  After all, ours is a results-oriented business.  

In the jury trial that concluded today, my client was acquitted.  It was difficult to tell weather the innovations had any effect on this outcome.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

43rd District Court Judge Robert Turner says it is one of the worst pieces of legislation he has ever seen.  He made that assessment of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) back in June 2009 when dismissing pot growing charges brought by the Oakland County Prosecutor against Robert Lee Redden and Torey Alison Clark.

Last week, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Oakland Circuit Court Judge Martha Anderson's reinstatement of the criminal charges against Redden and Clark.  Now, the accused Madison Heights couple will either have to plead or go to trial.

At the time of the raid on the couple's residence, the Oakland County Sheriff seized 1.5 ounces of pot, some nominal cash, and about 21 small plants.  Three weeks prior to the raid, each defendant had submitted to a medical certification exam with Dr. Eric Eisenbud (not making it up) of Colorado (and of the recently founded Hemp and Cannabis Foundation Medical Clinic) and applied for a medical marijuana card pursuant to the MMA.  Their cards, however, had not been issued at the time of the raid.

At the couple's preliminary examination before Judge Turner, the prosecutor argued that: a) the defendants were required to abstain from "medicating" with marijuana while their applications to the State of Michigan's Department of Community Health were pending; and b) the defendants did not have a bona fide physician-patient relationship with Dr. Eisenbud.

Judge Turner indicated that the MMA was confusing relative to what constituted a reasonable amount of marijuana.  The defendants in this case were found with an ounce and a half; the MMA allows 2.5 ounces.

Judge Turner made the following ruling:

For that reason, I believe that section 8 entitles the defendants to a dismissal, even though they did not possess the valid medical card, because section 8 says if they can show the fact that a doctor believed that they were likely to receive a therapeutic benefit, and this doctor testified to that.  And Dr. Eisenbud is a physician licensed by the State of Michigan.  And that’s the only requirement that the statute has.  You don’t have to be any type of physician, you just have to be a licensed physician by the State of Michgan.

So, based on that, I find section 8 does apply.  And I believe I’m obligated to dismiss this matter based on section 8 of the statute.

 Under the applicable court rules, the prosecutor appealed the district court dismissal to the Oakland Circuit Court.  In reversing her district court counter-part, Judge Anderson held that Judge Turner improperly acted as a finder of fact in dismissing the case.  Judge Anderson also questioned whether the couple could avail themselves of the MMA's affirmative defenses at all, due to their purported failures to comply with the provisions of the act; i.e. keeping the pot segregated and locked-up, and waiting until they received their cards from the Department of Community Health prior to growing their pot.

At the time of the Madison Heights bust, however, the couple could not have received marijuana cards because the DCH had not started issuing the cards.  To date, almost 30,000 certifications have been issued.

In their opinion last week affirming Judge Anderson, the Court of Appeals held that the MMA's affirmative defenses were available to defendants even though they did not have their cards at the time their pot was confiscated.  The Court of Appeals held against defendants, however, on the basis that, at the time of their preliminary examination in district court, their affirmative defense under the MMA was incomplete and thus created fact questions.

The Court found the following fact issues to be unresolved at the conclusion of the exam: the bona fides of the physician-patient relationship; whether the amount of marijuana found in the residence was "reasonable" under the Act; and whether the marijuana was being used by defendants for palliative purposes, as required by the Act.

The most interesting thing about the Court of Appeals' Redden decision is the scathing concurring opinion of Judge Peter D. O'Connell.  Judge O'Connell wrote separately because he would have more narrowly tailored the affirmative defenses available in the MMA, and because he wished to "elaborate" on some of the general discussion of the Act set forth in the briefs and at oral argument.

Elaborate he did.  Judge O'Connell's 30-page opinion first notes that the possession, distribution and manufacture of marijuana remains a federal crime and further notes that Congress has expressly found the plant to have "no acceptable medical uses."

In what will undoubtedly become a classic line from his opinion, Judge O'Connell writes, "I will attempt to cut through the haze surrounding this legislation."  The judge is skeptical that folks are really using pot to "medicate" and suspects that they are using the plant for recreational purposes.

He also takes note of the poor quality of the legislation to the extent that it conflicts with other provisions set forth in the Health Code.

Judge O'Connell next takes a tour de force through the legislative history of the MMA.  Here, we learn that the act was based on model legislation proposed by lobbyists known as the Marijuana Policy Project of Washington D.C.  The group advances both the medicinal and recreational uses of marijuana.

"Confusion", and lots of it, is how Judge O'Connell views the MMA.  In one of the many footnotes to his opinion, the Judge warns against all marijuana use until the score is settled, once and for all, by the Michigan Supreme Court:

Until our Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation of this act, it would be prudent for the citizens of this state to avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law.  I again issue a stern warning to all: please do not attempt to interpret this act on your own. Reading this act is similar to participating in the Triwizard Tournament described in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: the maze that is this statute is so complex that the final result will only be known once the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to review and remove the haze from this act.

Euan Abercrombie, 1st year student at the Hogwarts school would probably remark; "Wow".

For their part, the criminal defense bar, commenting via listserv, have basically gone wild over the concurring opinion, with its multiple web site references and pictures of marijuana advertisements.  The consensus among the defense bar, however, is that the majority opinion is correct and that Judge Anderson, at the end of the day, got it right; Redden was not the cleanest case to dismiss under the Act.

Finally, it seems that the Oakland County Sheriff and Prosecutor correctly anticipated last week's Court of Appeals' decision.  A few weeks prior to the issuance of the Redden decision, they conducted a series of dispensary raids, ruffling tons of feathers along the way.

For some preliminary guidance, we have prepared a legal guide for the MMA for those seeking to use marijuana for legitimate palliative purposes under the Act.  Take note, however, that at least one appellate jurist would have folks managing chronic "pain" with prescription meds until the medical marijuana mess is sorted out by our Supreme Court.

April 2011 Update:  As we've warned our readers, and as Judge O'Connell warned in his opinion, marijuana possession remains a federal crime.  This week, the feds raided a warehouse-style dispensary in Commerce Township.  The law enforcement action is covered in this article in the Oakland Press.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

This year, Halloween falls on a weekend.  If you are making party plans that include any heavy drinking, think twice before getting behind the wheel.

Persons caught operating a motor vehicle after bing-drinking, or with a high tolerance for alcohol, will face stiffer penalties beginning October 31, 2010.  If a driver's blood alcohol (BAC) is measured at more than .17 grams per 100 milliliters, (more than double the legal limit) then the new enhanced penalties will apply.

Those penalties include a one-year license suspension for first-time "super drunks"; an increase in the potential maximum jail sentence from 93-days to 180-days; higher fines; and mandatory use of an "ignition interlock" device.  The new law also features the longest alcohol rehabilitation treatment requirement on the books; one-year.

Once a conviction under this new law is abstracted to the Secretary of State, the driver's license will be suspended for one-year.  After a 45-day "hard suspension" where all driving privileges are suspended, a person can apply for restricted driving privileges for the balance of the year provided, however, that an " ignition interlock" device has been installed in the vehicle.  Under the old law, the hard suspension was only for 30-days and there was no interlock requirement.

Installing an interlock device will cost you about $50 and up to $100 per month to maintain.

Also, there are new penalties created under the Super Drunk law relative to operating an "interlocked" vehicle with a BAC of more than .025.  If a driver's probation is violated in this fashion, the Secretary of State will double the driver's license restriction by imposing a new 365-day suspension from the date of violation.

Beware if you lend your vehicle to a convicted Super Drunk on probation.  The new law requires impoundment and immobilization of any vehicle driven by a person under interlock restriction that is caught operating a vehicle without the device.  The owner of the vehicle is responsible for impoundment and storage costs.

Only time will tell whether this new law results in safer roadways.  There is no doubt that the tougher drunk driving laws implemented over the past 20-years have reduced (but not eliminated) drunk-driving related injuries and deaths.

One concern from within the trenches is how county prosecutors will use the new law in their charging decisions at district court.  Last year, the Oakland County Prosecutor stopped offering the lesser included offense of impaired driving to those charged with drunk driving.  This blog wonders whether a Super Drunk first offender will be offered a plea under the standard "Operating While Intoxicated" law, thereby avoiding the new interlock costs and restrictions as well as the other enhanced penalties.

If such plea reductions are not tendered under appropriate circumstances, the new law could result in many unnecessary jury trials.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstsonlegal.com

In January 2000, Van Chester Thompkins of Southfield committed a drive-by style shooting, killing one victim and wounding another.  He was convicted by an Oakland County Jury in May 2002 of first degree murder, assault, and a variety of weapons charges.

The case was initially assigned to now-retired Judge Richard Kuhn and subsequently re-assigned to Judge Michael Warren. Thompkins was represented at trial by West Bloomfield attorney, Lawrence Kaluzny.

From these local beginnings, this case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

Thompkins was apprehended in Columbus, Ohio nearly a year after the shooting and questioned extensively by Southfield PD detectives.  During his custodial interrogation, the suspect refused to answer the detectives' questions for several hours.

Nearly three-hours into the mostly one-way interrogation, the following exchange occurred:

     Detective:  "Do you believe in God?"

     Thompkins:  "Yes."

     Detective:  "Do you pray to God?"

     Thompkins:  "Yes."

     Detective:  "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that poor boy down?"

     Thompkins:  "Yes."

Kaluzny's motion to suppress this statement was denied by the trial judge.  On the basis of this one-word confession, the jury convicted Thompkins, who is doing a life sentence in Coldwater, MI.

The conviction was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals and affirmed in an unpublished opinion issued in February 2004.  Detroit appellate attorney Elizabeth Jacobs challenged the lower court's rulings on the motions to suppress Thompkins' statement and to suppress defendant's identification by the surviving shooting victim.  Jacobs also raised issues of trial misconduct by the Oakland County Prosecutor, claiming that Kaluzny's failure to raise the issue below rendered Thompkins' legal representation constitutionally deficient.

The intermediate appellate court disposed of Jacobs' argument on the suppression issue with the following ruling:

Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statements to the police. Defendant asserts that the police improperly continued to interrogate him after he “implicitly” invoked his right to remain silent by failing to answer the officers’ questions. We disagree.

The record discloses that defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and, according to the interrogating officer, verbally acknowledged that he understood those rights. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the record does not demonstrate that defendant asserted his right to remain silent. Although defendant refused to sign the advice of rights form, he continued to talk with the officer, albeit sporadically. He answered questions with brief responses, or by nodding his head, but never said he did not want to talk or that he was not going to say anything. “When a defendant speaks after receiving Miranda warnings, a momentary pause or even a failure to answer a question will not be construed as an affirmative invocation by the defendant of a right to remain silent.” The trial court did not clearly err in concluding that defendant voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and that he did not subsequently invoke his right to silence. Defendant’s statements were properly admitted into evidence.

The Michigan Supreme Court declined Defendant's invitation to further review his case.

Once a convicted defendant exhausts all avenues of appeal in a state court, that defendant can avail himself of the federal courts via a petition for habeas corpus.  Thompkins habeas petition was denied in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (in Detroit).

In a remarkable opinion from the United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Thompkins' conviction was reversed.  The federal appellate court was unimpressed with the above analysis from it's Michigan counterpart; inferring that their unpublished opinion was weak on judicial application of significant precedent.  The federal appellate court also believed the state appellate court got the facts of Thompkins' interrogation wrong.

The 6th Circuit relied on the prior and seminal SCOTUS decisions of Miranda v Arizona and North Carolina v Butler, which establish an accused individual's right to remain silent, and imposes a "heavy burden" on the state to demonstrate that a suspect, once advised of this right, has waived his privilege against self-incrimination.

In reversing the 6th Circuit, the SCOTUS held that by answering "yes" to the detective's questions about God, Thompkins gave an "implied" waiver of his rights and further, that from now on, defendants must expressly and unambiguously state their intent to remain silent to their interrogators.  Also, police are no longer required to obtain written waivers executed by a defendant.

The case provides a slight advantage to police interrogators in that they can now continue to question a suspect until he affirmatively asserts his Miranda rights.  In the police interrogation context, many people are simply not inclined to do so thus, our Miranda rights may have less meaning under the hot lights of persistent, aggressive and skillful police interrogation.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
www.clarkstonlegal.com

In 1989, I completed an 18-month stint as a research attorney with the Court of Appeals.  My next job was an associate attorney position in the appellate section of Plunkett & Cooney, then a Detroit-based firm.  Another attorney that joined the firm at the same time was Maura Corrigan.

At the time, Corrigan narrowly missed a choice (political) federal appointment as the U.S. Attorney for Detroit in the Bush 41 era.  It was a professional perk to work alongside Justice Corrigan for two-years before she was appointed to the Court of Appeals; subsequently getting elected to the Michigan Supreme Court.

In yet another example of how fast and wide legal information is spread via the Internet, an excellent podcast series known as "Assistance of Counsel" kicks-off with an interview with Justice Corrigan.  Assistance of Counsel is the product of former-Oakland County Prosecutor Paul Stablein, a partner in the Royal Oak firm of Flood, Lanctot, Connor & Stablein.

Stablin says, over time, the other Justices will be interviewed along with jurists from all levels of our legal system.  What a fantastic resource to learn about who our elected jurists are, and what they think.  

Good luck with the podcasts Paul; and keep your informative posts about our state's great common law tapestry coming.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com