Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

The Tuscola County District Court in Caro held a Preliminary Examination yesterday for a 26 year old Sebewaing man facing 20 counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct, Third Degree - a 15 year felony.

A Preliminary Examination is an evidentiary hearing where the Prosecutor must introduce evidence in support of each of the necessary elements of every charge. Provided that all components of the charges are supported by at least a scintilla of evidence, the Judge must transfer the case to the next highest court for trial. A charge lacking sufficient evidentiary support must be dismissed at the District Court level.

The charges allege that the young man had consensual sex with a girl under the age of 16, but over the age of 13 (formerly known as statutory rape). The incidents took place over the course of several months in 2005, at the girl's mother's home in Gagetown (at the time the Defendant was 21 or 22 years old, and the young lady was 14 or 15).

The Bay City Defense Lawyer came under some criticism for a line of questioning that he pursued. Some attorneys even characterized the inquiry as "aimless". Team RLG disagrees.

Specifically, the Defense Lawyer established that he "made numerous attempts to question the alleged victim prior to the preliminary examination, but ..." the victim declined to speak to the attorney.

In a case where the only evidence is the testimony of the Victim, the Defendant's entire fate hinges on witness credibility - or lack thereof. Accordingly, both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court have repeatedly held that the right to explore witness credibility is indispensable to a fair trial. In fact, it is an aspect of the Right to Confront Witnesses, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. More specifically, under current Michigan case law, evidence of hostility toward the Defense can be considered as evidence of lack of credibility.

Because the victim's consent is not a defense to the charge formerly known as "statutory rape", these cases are all too often seen as indefensible. And for that reason, Team RLG must applaud the Defense Lawyer in this matter for his ingenuity. He spotted a toehold that most would have overlooked, and exploited it to the fullest. Most importantly, he put the Prosecutor's evidence to the test - which, in the final analysis, is the very heart and soul of our American system of criminal justice.

Sebewaing Man Charged With Slew Of Sex
Crimes Heading Back To Tuscola County Circuit
Court, The Bay City Times, March 13, 2010

Let's face it - the easy way out is for Lansing Criminal Defense Lawyers to blame overzealous prosecution as the primary reason for excessive jail sentences. The hard part is admitting that the Criminal Defense bar shoulders an important portion of that responsibility.

Day in and day out, in court rooms all across Michigan - from Detroit, to Pontiac to Grand Rapids and back - Defense attorneys routinely contribute to imposition of excessive sentences through inadequate preparation, lack-luster advocacy, inattention to detail and incomplete knowledge.

Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure has long required that most felony sentences comport with the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines. In a nutshell, the Guidelines are a complex formula which assess both the Criminal Defendant's prior criminal record as well as the unique facts of the crime. The final outcome of that analysis is a numerical score.

The Defendant's score tells the Judge what sentence to impose. Under the law, the Judge may only depart from the recommended sentence if he finds substantial and compelling reasons that would support a different outcome.

A body of Michigan case law exists which interprets many of the sentencing criteria included in the Sentencing Guidelines. Those cases shed more light on some of the more confusing sentencing considerations.

A commonly misunderstood sentencing criteria is Prior Record Variable #7. That variable assesses points for "subsequent or concurrent" felony convictions. Courts have been known to confuse that variable with the criteria relating to the Defendant's prior conviction history - and to assess additional, unjustified points.

Those additional points can translate into additional years in prison for the the Criminal Defendant. And that is yet another reason why the Criminal Defendant must ensure that he has an adept, alert and knowledgeable Defense Lawyer at his side, at every stage of the process.

Commissioner: Closing jail post means inmates 'should be cheering plan', Lansing State Journal, February 6, 2010

The topic of sex crimes is front and center in the Ann Arbor media - and for good reason. After receiving multiple reports of a man committing indecent exposure in the area - the Ann Arbor Police are on the lookout for a serial "flasher".

On Monday, February 8, 2010, two men were charged - in an apparently unrelated matter - with criminal sexual conduct for having sex with 2 teenage girls, under the age of 16. What is unusual about the criminal complaint is that it charges the men with Criminal Sexual Conduct, First Degree - the most serious charge possible under the Michigan criminal sexual conduct statutes. Potential penalties include incarceration - for up to life in prison.

Absent any additional aggravating circumstances, sex with a minor between the ages of 13 and 16 can bring a charge of Criminal Sexual Conduct, Third Degree. The possible penalties under that statute include prison for up to 15 years. Moreover, the statute is unusual in that probation is not an option.

A component of Michigan Criminal Justice is the Prosecutor’'s right to decide which charge is appropriate under the circumstances. Bowing to public hysteria, however, is nothing more than an abdication of Prosecutorial discretion.

Two Ypsilanti men charged in rape of two underage girls, A2 Ann Arbor Journal, February 8, 2010