Cases for Argument - October 2020
The following criminal cases are scheduled for argument before the Michigan Supreme Court on October 7 & 8, 2020:
CALENDAR CASES
People v Paul J. Betts, Jr, Docket No. 148981
• SORA/Punishment/Ex Post Facto Clause
The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., taken as a whole, amount to “punishment” for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions, US Const, art I, § 10; Const 1963, art 1, § 10; see People v Earl, 495 Mich 33 (2014), see also Does #1-5 v Snyder, 834 F3d 696, 703-706 (CA 6, 2016), cert den sub nom Snyder v John Does #1-5, 138 S Ct 55 (Oct 2, 2017); (2) if SORA, as a whole, constitutes punishment, whether it became punitive only upon the enactment of a certain provision or group of provisions added after the initial version of SORA was enacted; (3) if SORA only became punitive after a particular enactment, whether a resulting ex post facto violation would be remedied by applying the version of SORA in effect before it transformed into a punishment or whether a different remedy applies, see Weaver v Graham, 450 US 24, 36 n 22 (1981) (“the proper relief . . . is to remand to permit the state court to apply, if possible, the law in place when his crime occurred”); (4) if one or more discrete provisions of SORA, or groups of provisions, are found to be ex post facto punishments, whether the remaining provisions can be given effect retroactively without applying the ex post facto provisions, see MCL 8.5; (5) what consequences would arise if the remaining provisions could not be given retroactive effect; and (6) whether the answers to these questions require the reversal of the defendant’s conviction pursuant to MCL 28.729 for failure to register under SORA. Leave was granted on this case after oral argument on the application was heard at the Court’s March 2019 session. The case is set for argument at the morning session, October 7, 2020. Mr. Betts is represented by SADO’s Jessica Zimbelman.
ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPLICATIONS
People v Kristopher Allen Hughes, MSC No. 158652
• Cell Phone Data Search/Effect of
Prior Warrant
The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the probable cause underlying the search warrant issued during the prior criminal investigation authorized police to obtain all of the defendant’s cell phone data; (2) whether the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone data was extinguished when the police obtained the cell phone data in a prior criminal investigation; (3) if not, whether the search of the cell phone data in the instant case was within the scope of the probable cause underlying the search warrant issued during the prior criminal investigation; (4) if not, whether the search of the cell phone data in the instant case was lawful; and (5) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the search of the cell phone data in the instant case on Fourth Amendment grounds. The case is set for argument at the morning session, October 7, 2020. Mr. Hughes is represented by MAACS roster attorney Gary D. Strauss.
In re Christopher Ross, Jr, (Minor), MSC No. 158764
• Juvenile Adjudications/New Trial
Standard/Application of Strickland
The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether appeals from juvenile adjudications for criminal offenses are governed by the time limits for civil cases or by the time limits for criminal cases, see MCR 7.305(C)(2); (2) whether the standard for granting a new trial in a juvenile delinquency case is the same as the standard for granting a new trial in a criminal case, compare MCR 3.992(A) with MCR 6.431(B); (3) whether juveniles who claim a deprivation of their due process right to counsel must satisfy the two-part test set forth in Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 (1984); and (4) whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision to grant the respondent a new trial based on evidence that trial counsel did not obtain or present. This case is set for argument at the morning session, October 8, 2020.
People v Treshaun Lee Terrance, Docket No. 159516
Double Jeopardy/Issue Preclusion
The Court directed the parties to address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the jury in the defendant’s first trial, when it acquitted him of first- and second-degree murder, necessarily decided an issue of ultimate fact such that the issue-preclusion aspect of the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the crime of torture arising out of the same criminal incident. The case is set for argument at the morning session, October 8, 2020. Mr. Terrance is represented by SADO’s Angeles Meneses and Jackie McCann.
The Supreme Court’s case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties are available at https://courts.michigan.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/oral-arguments/2020-2021/pages/default.aspx
Watch live streaming arguments at https://courts.michigan.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/oral-arguments/live-streaming/pages/live-streaming.aspx
by John Zevalking
Associate Editor
Current Articles
- The CDRC Expands!
- Second Look: One path forward (Part 2 of 3)
- A message to trial judges (from the appellate courts)
- Does v Whitmer
- Is the failure to hold a probable cause conference a ticket to getting out of prison?
- SADO seeks summer interns
- SADO expands to unprecedented levels
- SADO and MAACS Attorneys to argue before MSC at October session
- Opinion: Judge used legal system to mistreat a child
- Changes coming to youth appellate defense
Subscriber Comments