Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

Jerome Hamilton of Southfield, Michigan, age 17, faces his third consecutive Jury Trial for a single Homicide allegedly committed on October 15, 2008.

The victim, Catherine Blain, 21, was the night manager of a Lathrop Village restaurant. As she left work heading to her parked car, she was allegedly accosted by Mr. Hamilton - who attempted to rob her. Miss Blain resisted and Hamilton reportedly shot her in the head.

Neither of the first two Juries were able to reach a unanimous verdict. That forced the Judge to declare mistrials (dismissals), because jury unanimity is required in criminal cases.

The gunman was aided by two accomplices, one of whom was the getaway driver. The Circuit Court Judge in Pontiac, Michigan has already sentenced the driver to life in prison.

Pursuant to what amounts to a sentence bargain, the second accomplice has agreed to finger Hamilton as the trigger man. The deal slashes the accomplice's potential prison sentence from up to life in prison down to as few as 11 years.

Ironically, the very sentence bargain that elicited that testimony may be the very evidence that left the Juries with doubts about the case. That is because the Judge informs the Jury that they may consider "witness interest" as evidence of incredibility.

A new legal team will handle the third trial. Those lawyers will raise the defense of Alibi. Reportedly, the Defendant's uncle will testify that he was with the Defendant at the time of the homicide - in another part of Metro Detroit.

The Defense of Alibi is sometimes known as the "perfect defense". The obvious reason is that, if the jury believes that the Defendant was not present at crime scene, then his participation was impossible.

In this case, however, the perfect defense may turn out to be the perfect clincher - for the Prosecution. That is because the Defendant's uncle was present in the Court Room during the first two trials, yet the Alibi defense was never mentioned.

Facts like those can open the door to Prosecutorial questions about witness failure to come forward. The point of that questioning is to impeach the credibility of the witness.

The wild card is whether the perception of false defense-witness testimony will taint the Defendant's entire case. In a prosecution where two separate Juries have reviewed the same evidence and declined to find guilt, staying the course may be the safest bet.

Teen to be tried 3rd time in Rib Rack killing, The Detroit Free Press, February 22, 2010

Though a judge may impose a sentence of incarceration under the MichiganDomestic Assault Statute, the real minefield that the Criminal Defendant must navigate includes the Court's bond conditions and conditions of probation.

For the first-time offender with a clean criminal record, those are the stages of the criminal process where jail terms are most commonly handed down. That is because, in many such cases, the Court offers the Defendant a strictly probationary sentence - with complete dismissal of charges without conviction - upon successful completion of the Court's requirements.

Of the nearly 8,000 Domestic Assault cases filed each year in Michigan's Wayne County and Detroit Courts, many involve mutually hostile relationships between estranged spouses, divorcing spouses and other such couples. In other words - many of the victims have axes to grind.

Typically, bond and probationary conditions strictly prohibit the Defendant from any contact whatsoever with the victim. Most Judges emphasize that "no contact" means no letters, no email, no instant messages, no telephone calls, no third-party messages and no physical proximity within a certain perimeter.

And therein lies a formula for disaster - for even the Defendant with the best of intentions. An example of how the situation can unexpectedly spin out of control involves Sam Riddle, a former top aide to ex-Detroit Councilwoman Monica Conyers.

Mr. Riddle had been charged under the Domestic Assault Statute for allegedly assaulting his live in companion, former State Representative Mary Waters. Riddle's bond conditions included a no-contact order. According to Riddle - he was present at a Birmingham, Michigan theater when he inadvertently encountered Ms. Waters. Riddle's version is that Ms. Waters initiated communication.

Fast forward to the Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit. Mr. Riddle is standing before Judge Gregory Bill. We cannot know exactly what is running through Judge Bill's mind. What most Criminal Defense Lawyers do know, however, is that few court settings bring down immediate jail time like a bond violation hearing.

Meanwhile, Judge Bill is mulling over his list of options. Topping that list, of course, is serious jail time. Finally, the Judge announces his decision: The Court will monitor and supervise Mr. Riddle's whereabouts through an electronic tether affixed to Mr. Riddle's ankle - 'until further order of the Court'.

Riddle's response? "Man, I can't wear my cowboy boots with this thing on".

And with that, we can only hope that the Defendant has a competent, effective and alert Criminal Defense Lawyer by his side to keep track of priorities.

Riddle Ordered To Wear Tether, Hits Back At Critics, The Detroit News, February 19, 2010