SADO Attorneys to Argue Before Michigan Supreme Court at January Session
Arguments to be heard January 10 and 11, 2018
Four SADO attorneys will present arguments to the Michigan Supreme Court at the January session.
Marilena David-Martin will argue for the defendant-appellee on the prosecutor’s appeal in People v. Lonnie James Arnold on Wednesday, January 10, 2018, in the morning session. The defendant was sentenced to 25 to 70 years in prison for indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person. In People v Campbell, 316 Mich App 279, 300 (2016), a panel held that, after Lockridge, trial courts must sentence a defendant convicted of indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person to serve one day to life under MCL 750.335a(2)(c). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address: (1) whether MCL 750.335a(2)(c) requires mandatory imprisonment for one day to life for a person who commits the offense of indecent exposure by a sexually delinquent person, or whether the sentencing court may impose a sentence within the applicable guidelines range; (2) whether the answer to this question is affected by Lockridge; and (3) whether Campbell was correctly decided.
Kristin Lavoy will argue for the defendant-appellee in an oral argument on the prosecutor’s application in People v. Tremel Anderson, also in the January 10 morning session. At defendant’s preliminary examination, the district court refused to bind defendant over for trial because it found that the sole witness presented by the prosecutor was not credible. The circuit court refused to reinstate the charges, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court directed the parties to address: (1) the manner in which a magistrate judge may consider the credibility of witnesses at a preliminary examination when determining whether to bind over a defendant, in light of People v Yost, 468 Mich 122, 128 n 8 (2003), which instructs that a magistrate should not refuse to bind a defendant over when the evidence conflicts or raises reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges in this instance.
Adrienne Young will argue for the defendant-appellant in a mini-oral argument on the application in People v. Darrell John Wilder on Thursday, January 11, 2018, in the morning session. The defendant was charged with various weapon offenses. At trial, the defense called defendant’s wife, who testified that they had no guns in their house and that defendant did not own a gun. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked whether she knew of defendant’s prior weapons convictions, finding that defense counsel’s questions on direct examination opened the door for the prosecutor’s cross-examination. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, holding that the cross-examination was proper. The Supreme Court directed oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant’s wife about defendant’s prior weapons convictions, (2) whether the prosecutor improperly raised a collateral issue to admit evidence of defendant’s prior felony convictions through impeachment, and (3) whether any error was harmless.
Katherine Marcuz will argue for the defendant-appellee in a mini-oral argument on the application in People v. Virgil Smith on Thursday, January 11, 2018, in the afternoon session. In May 2015, State Senator Virgil Smith was charged with domestic violence, malicious destruction of personal property, felonious assault, and felony-firearm. The Wayne County Prosecutor entered into a plea agreement with Smith that required him to resign from office and not hold elective or appointed office during a five-year probationary term. The circuit court struck the provisions of the plea that barred Smith from holding elective or appointed office as violating the state constitution’s separation of powers clause. The circuit court also denied the prosecutor’s motion to vacate the plea. A Court of Appeals majority upheld the circuit court’s invalidation of the plea agreement provisions that required Smith to resign from office and to forego holding public office during his probationary term. The Supreme Court directed oral argument on the prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether a prosecutor’s inclusion of a provision in a plea agreement that prohibits a defendant from holding public office violates the separation of powers; (2) whether the validity of the provision requiring defendant to resign from public office was properly before the Court of Appeals because defendant resigned from the Senate after the circuit court struck that part of the plea agreement and, if so, whether it violates the separation of powers or is void as against public policy; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by voiding terms of the plea agreement without affording the prosecutor an opportunity to withdraw from the agreement.
The above issues and summaries are taken or adapted from the summaries on the Michigan Supreme Court’s website. Find the full summaries and the briefs filed in the cases here.
Watch live-streaming of the oral arguments here.
Marilena David-Martin will argue for the defendant-appellee on the prosecutor’s appeal in People v. Lonnie James Arnold on Wednesday, January 10, 2018, in the morning session. The defendant was sentenced to 25 to 70 years in prison for indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person. In People v Campbell, 316 Mich App 279, 300 (2016), a panel held that, after Lockridge, trial courts must sentence a defendant convicted of indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person to serve one day to life under MCL 750.335a(2)(c). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address: (1) whether MCL 750.335a(2)(c) requires mandatory imprisonment for one day to life for a person who commits the offense of indecent exposure by a sexually delinquent person, or whether the sentencing court may impose a sentence within the applicable guidelines range; (2) whether the answer to this question is affected by Lockridge; and (3) whether Campbell was correctly decided.
Kristin Lavoy will argue for the defendant-appellee in an oral argument on the prosecutor’s application in People v. Tremel Anderson, also in the January 10 morning session. At defendant’s preliminary examination, the district court refused to bind defendant over for trial because it found that the sole witness presented by the prosecutor was not credible. The circuit court refused to reinstate the charges, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court directed the parties to address: (1) the manner in which a magistrate judge may consider the credibility of witnesses at a preliminary examination when determining whether to bind over a defendant, in light of People v Yost, 468 Mich 122, 128 n 8 (2003), which instructs that a magistrate should not refuse to bind a defendant over when the evidence conflicts or raises reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges in this instance.
Adrienne Young will argue for the defendant-appellant in a mini-oral argument on the application in People v. Darrell John Wilder on Thursday, January 11, 2018, in the morning session. The defendant was charged with various weapon offenses. At trial, the defense called defendant’s wife, who testified that they had no guns in their house and that defendant did not own a gun. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked whether she knew of defendant’s prior weapons convictions, finding that defense counsel’s questions on direct examination opened the door for the prosecutor’s cross-examination. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, holding that the cross-examination was proper. The Supreme Court directed oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant’s wife about defendant’s prior weapons convictions, (2) whether the prosecutor improperly raised a collateral issue to admit evidence of defendant’s prior felony convictions through impeachment, and (3) whether any error was harmless.
Katherine Marcuz will argue for the defendant-appellee in a mini-oral argument on the application in People v. Virgil Smith on Thursday, January 11, 2018, in the afternoon session. In May 2015, State Senator Virgil Smith was charged with domestic violence, malicious destruction of personal property, felonious assault, and felony-firearm. The Wayne County Prosecutor entered into a plea agreement with Smith that required him to resign from office and not hold elective or appointed office during a five-year probationary term. The circuit court struck the provisions of the plea that barred Smith from holding elective or appointed office as violating the state constitution’s separation of powers clause. The circuit court also denied the prosecutor’s motion to vacate the plea. A Court of Appeals majority upheld the circuit court’s invalidation of the plea agreement provisions that required Smith to resign from office and to forego holding public office during his probationary term. The Supreme Court directed oral argument on the prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether a prosecutor’s inclusion of a provision in a plea agreement that prohibits a defendant from holding public office violates the separation of powers; (2) whether the validity of the provision requiring defendant to resign from public office was properly before the Court of Appeals because defendant resigned from the Senate after the circuit court struck that part of the plea agreement and, if so, whether it violates the separation of powers or is void as against public policy; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by voiding terms of the plea agreement without affording the prosecutor an opportunity to withdraw from the agreement.
The above issues and summaries are taken or adapted from the summaries on the Michigan Supreme Court’s website. Find the full summaries and the briefs filed in the cases here.
Watch live-streaming of the oral arguments here.
Subscriber Comments