SADO Attorneys to Argue Before Michigan Supreme Court at March Session

Arguments Heard on March 6 & 7, 2019
SADO attorneys are scheduled to argue before the Michigan Supreme Court at its session, March 6-7, 2019, in the following cases:

ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPLICATIONS

People v James David Urban, Docket No. 156458.

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the Court of Appeals in People v Coy, 243 Mich App 283, 302 (2000), set forth the appropriate standard for the admission of a potential DNA match when it held that “some qualitative or quantitative interpretation must accompany evidence of the potential match,” (2) if not, what standard should govern the admission of a potential DNA match, and (3) whether, under the appropriate standard, the potential DNA match was properly admitted in this case, where the expert’s report indicated that the match was supported to a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” Argument will be heard at the morning session, March 6, 2019. Mr. Urban is represented by SADO’s Peter Van Hoek.

People v John Antonya Moss, Docket No. 156616.

The Court directed the parties to address whether adoptive siblings are related by blood or affinity and whether the proper definition of “affinity” is that found in Bliss v Caille Bros Co, 149 Mich 601 (1907), or People v Armstrong, 212 Mich App 121 (1995). Argument will be heard at the morning session, March 6, 2019. Mr. Moss is represented by SADO’s Christine Pagac.

People v Paul J. Betts, Jr, Docket No. 148981 (to be argued at the same session with People v Snyder, Docket No. 153696)

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., amount to “punishment,” and (2) whether the defendant’s conviction pursuant to MCL 28.729 for failure to register under SORA is an ex post facto punishment, where the registry has been made public, and other requirements enacted, only after the defendant committed the listed offense that required him to register. Argument will be heard at the afternoon session, March 6, 2019. Mr. Betts is represented by SADO’s Jessica Zimbelman.  

People v David Allen Snyder, Docket No. 153696

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., amount to “punishment,” and (2) whether the defendant’s conviction pursuant to MCL 28.729 for failure to register under SORA is an ex post facto punishment, where the registry has been made public, and other requirements enacted, only after the defendant committed the listed offense that required him to register. Argument will be heard at the afternoon session, March 6, 2019. Mr. Snyder is represented by SADO’s Sofia Nelson.  

People v Kareem Amid Swilley, Jr, Docket No. 154684

 The Court directed the parties to address whether it is reasonably likely that the trial court’s questioning of witnesses improperly influenced the jury by creating the appearance of advocacy or partiality against a party. Argument will be heard at the morning session, March 7, 2019. Mr. Swilley is represented by Michigan Innocence Clinic's Imran Syed.

People v Alonzo Carter, Docket No. 156606

The Court directed the parties to address whether the defendant was properly assigned 10 points under Offense Variable 12 (OV 12), MCL 777.42. Argument will be heard at the morning session, March 7, 2019. Mr. Carter is represented by SADO’s Doug Baker.

Find the Supreme Court’s case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties here.

Watch live streaming arguments here.