SADO and MAACS Roster Attorneys to Argue Before the Michigan Supreme Court at its March Session

Arguments Scheduled for March 4 & 5, 2020
SADO and MAACS roster attorneys will argue cases before the Michigan Supreme Court on March 4 & 5, 2020:

SADO’s Erin Van Campen will present argument for the defendant in People v Ihab Masalmani (Docket No. 154773) on the issue of whether the trial court properly considered the Miller factors as potentially mitigating circumstances when exercising its discretion to impose a sentence of life without parole (LWOP). Particularly, the Court directed the parties to address: (1) which party, if any, bears the burden of proof of showing that a Miller factor does or does not suggest a LWOP sentence; (2) whether the sentencing court gave proper consideration to the defendant’s “chronological age and its hallmark features” by focusing on his proximity to the bright line age of 18 rather than his individual characteristics; and (3) whether the court properly considered the defendant’s family and home environment, which the court characterized as “terrible,” and the lack of available treatment programs in the Department of Corrections as weighing against his potential for rehabilitation. The case is set for argument at the afternoon session on March 4, 2020.

MAACS roster attorney Cecilia Quirindongo Baunsoe will argue for the defendant in People v Brad Stephen Haynie (Docket No. 159619), in which the Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether assault and battery is a necessarily included offense of assault with intent to commit murder; and if so (2) whether a rational view of the evidence in this case could support a conviction for assault and battery. The case is set for argument at the afternoon session on March 4, 2020.

SADO’s Kristin LaVoy will argue for the defendant in People v Arthur Lerone Jemison (Docket No. 157812), in which the Court directed the parties to address whether permitting an expert witness to testify by two-way interactive video, over the defendant’s objection, denied the defendant his constitutional right to confront witnesses and, if so, whether this error was harmless. The case is set for argument at the morning session on March 5, 2020.

The Supreme Court’s case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties are available here.

Watch live streaming arguments here.