Criminal Evidence

What is the History of Jury Nullification?

Published on: December 15, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

In the United States, we obtained much of our initial original jurisprudence from England. This “precedence” is called the common law. Because the English common law had such an impact on the development of our law it makes perfect sense that the English common law tradition of jury nullification directly influenced early American criminal trials. In the colonies, both the right to a jury trial, and the jury’s associated nullification powers, were viewed as vital to ensuring liberty.

The Founders, all of whom had the personal experience of living under an oppressive and capricious government, also believed in the importance of the right to nullification, particularly when viewed through the lens of liberty and freedom from tyranny. As one historian observed, “The writings of Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and other founders–Federalists and Anti-federalists alike–all support the belief in a jury responsible for deciding both fact and law.” Similarly, jury trials and nullification were respected throughout the early days of U.S. history.[i]

Nevertheless, as the common law developed the question remained about if and how nullification would be incorporated into our system of governance. While the right to a jury trial is mentioned repeatedly throughout our founding documents, the word “nullification” is absent from all of them. Consequently, the United States Supreme Court had to grapple with this issue, and attempt to resolve it. However, their precedent regarding nullification has never entirely resolved the role of the jury in a criminal case or even the propriety of nullification.

Why Would a Jury Choose to Nullify the Law?

Published on: December 2, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

As previously explained, jury nullification occurs when a jury fails to follow the instructions of the court and instead returns a verdict contrary to those instructions. UN Appeals judge and constitutional law expert Geoffrey Robertson suggests that an independent jury can disregard the strict letter of the law set forth in these instructions and return their verdict of acquittal due to feelings of “sympathy or humanity” or simply based on common sense.

Jury instructions themselves can be part of the problem. Jury instructions are summations of the law and reflect the litigants’ best efforts to distill often complex laws in chunks that can be understood and applied by the jurors when evaluating the facts presented to them at trial.

However, when it comes to criminal cases and the tacit but often necessary application of constitutional law principals, these “chunked summations” of the law are rife with potential pitfalls. According to Duke University School of Law Professor Brandon Garrett, the use of constitutional rights in jury instructions—and in evidentiary practice more generally—is a subject that deserves far more attention in the bar and in scholarship.[i]

Jury Nullification is Consistent with the Concept of Limited Government

Published on: December 1, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that citizens accused of crimes have an absolute right to a speedy, public, trial by an impartial jury. But this right to trial by an independant jury trial was not invented in the United States. In an article in the British Library, Author Geoffrey Robertson remarked that the modern independent jury, and their right to jury nullification, arises out of the rights and limitations originally set forth in the Magna Carta.

Notice the difference in what Robertson indicates and what the U.S. Constitution indicates. Robertson refers to an independent jury whereas our Constitution refers in Article III, Sec. 2, simply to trial by jury, and the Sixth Amendment to an impartial jury. Is this a distinction without a difference? Does the Sixth Amendment, in using the word impartial also connote independence?

In the modern age, this concept of impartiality is most often thought of in the context of the jury’s fact-finding role, in which jurors must be “free of prejudice.” But from a historical perspective, might the word “impartial” as used in the Sixth Amendment also reference impartiality to, and independence from, the law itself?

What to Expect as your Case Moves Through the Michigan Juvenile Criminal Court

Published on: November 25, 2021 | by Michael Boyle

The criminal procedure applicable to the Michigan Juvenile Criminal Courts is similar to but much different from the procedures utilized and applicable to the Michigan Adult Criminal Courts. The purpose of this article is to give a brief yet concise summary of these differences. If you are charged as an adult or juvenile offender, or if you are the parent of someone so charged, then your lawyer will be able to give a more detailed explanation of what to expect while your case is pending.

How Does a Juvenile Case Begin?

In the adult court, the case begins when a criminal complaint is filed. Most often, complains are accompanied by warrants, and require that you appear for an arraignment. In the juvenile court, the complaint is called a petition. They both list what the allegations. This is just one of the many differences in the juvenile justice system.

Understanding and Defending a SCRAM Violation in Michigan

Published on: November 20, 2021 | by Michael Boyle

Note: what follows is a summary recapitulation of Michigan DUI Lawyer Mike Boyle’s CDAM presentation. Lawyers wishing to know more about how to defend an alleged SCRAM violation may wish to review these materials for more in-depth information:

Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring, or SCRAM, is an alcohol monitoring tether that is used throughout the State of Michigan by courts, judges, and probation officers to monitor abstinence of defendants and probationers from alcohol consumption. There are mixed views regarding the use of SCRAM as a tool to assist in sobriety and for abstinence, but more concerning is the reliability and usefulness of this device.

What is a SCRAM?

Would Kyle Rittenhouse Have Been Acquitted in Michigan?

Published on: November 19, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

The only way to know the answer to this question would be to actually try the case in front of a Michigan Jury. One thing for certain however is that Kyle Rittenhouse would have been allowed to raise a claim of self defense had the case happened here in Michigan. Presumably, if it was the exact same testimony and evidence, same jurors, judge and prosecutor, then yes, Kyle Rittenhouse would have been acquitted here in Michigan too.

This is all speculation, but a brand-new case in Michigan may shed light on the question. The name of the case is People of the State of Michigan v Leandrew Martin. The case arose out of the Jackson County Circuit Court, and was decided on November 18, 2021. In this case, the Michigan Court of Appeals set aside multiple felony convictions because the defendant’s lawyer had failed to request a jury instruction for self-defense despite the fact that a claim of self-defense had been established at trial. The court held that this mistake was so bad that the verdict had to be set aside finding that the defendant’s attorney was “ineffective.”

The case arose out a bar fight and during the fight the defendant shot ten times into a crowd, leaving one person with a serious injury caused by ricocheted bullet that struck the foot. The defendant was a felon and was not in lawful possession of the pistol. Because of this the defendant’s lawyer thought he was not entitled to raise self-defense. It’s not clear why the defendant’s lawyer believed this to be true because Michigan’s laws of self-defense do not require that a defendant be in lawful possession of the weapon in order to raise a claim of self defense.

How to Defend an Alleged SCRAM Violation According to Boyle

Published on: November 16, 2021 | by Barone Defense Firm

Barone Defense Firm Partner and Senior Trial Attorney Michael J. Boyle recently was one of the guest presenters at the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan (CDAM) Fall Conference at Boyne Mountain. The annual seminar was attended by hundreds of criminal defense attorneys from throughout the State of Michigan. CDAM is one of the largest and well-respected membership groups in the State and is dedicated to the improvement of criminal advocacy across all practice areas in the criminal justice system.

Boyle accepted the invitation to speak and was the only attorney that presented on two topics. He presented on Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring, known as SCRAM, and he also did a presentation on Self-Defense and understanding Michigan’s Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrines.

Boyle has enjoyed the opportunity over the last several years to be part of the process of educating and teaching other lawyers the complex understanding and best practice techniques in representing clients on multiple disciplines. He has presented on numerous occasions for the Michigan Association of OWI Attorneys (MIAOWIA), the State Bar of Michigan Marijuana Law Section, CDAM, and the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL).

How to Permanently Lose your Firearms Rights in One Simple Step

Published on: November 8, 2021 | by Ryan Ramsayer

Over the years of defending “criminals” I have encountered many honest citizens who have made a simple mistake and now find themselves facing felony charges, prison time, the loss of career, and the loss of their 2^nd Amendment rights, simply by making a mistake in understanding how they should transport a firearm. Unfortunately, ignorance of the law is not a defense. The price of education once in the legal system can be steep. To avoid this fate, this article seeks to clarify the frustrating and contradicting laws regarding how to transport firearms.

Oftentimes, my clients are pulled over for a simple speeding ticket. After the cop gets their license, registration, and proof of insurance, they are on their way to a warning or simple fine. However, as a throw away question, the officer asks if they have any drugs or guns in the car. Honest and law-abiding citizens are more than happy to tell the cop that they have a pistol unloaded in the case on the back seat or separated from the ammunition and placed in the glovebox.

The simple traffic stop instantly becomes a full-on investigation as the officers then begin asking questions designed to elicit admissions. Since people with Concealed Pistol Licenses (CPL) have an affirmative duty to report the CPL and that they are carrying, the lack of that initial statement from an honest person tells the cop that there is no CPL. This makes the act a felony and soon an arrest and a night or more in jail await someone who thought they were transporting a pistol safely.

Michigan DUI Attorney Michael Boyle Moderates Legal Seminar on Blood Alcohol Testing

Published on: October 18, 2021 | by Barone Defense Firm

Michigan drivers arrested under suspicion of intoxicated driving will have their bodily drug and alcohol levels tested by the police. When drugs including marijuana are suspected, a police officer will see if that distinct marijuana smell is present. Many OWI lawyers near me wrongly believe that DUI cases involving blood tests can’t be defended. The Michigan DUI lawyers at the Barone Defense Firm alcohol, the police will take and test a blood sample. The forensic method used for blood testing is considerably more complicated. Our law firm however believe that in some ways blood test cases are easier to defend. This belief is born out of a comprehensive knowledge about this complex scientific method.

To help other lawyers understand forensic blood testing in DUI cases, the Michigan Association of OWI Attorneys (MIAOWIA) periodically presents seminars on this topic. Barone Defense Firm founding criminal defense attorney near me Patrick Barone, and Partner Michael Boyle, were both closely involved in the creation of MIAOWIA, and Mr. Boyle currently serves as an officer to the group.

As an example of Mr. Boyle’s expertise as well as his commitment to helping other lawyers get better at defending Michigan DUI cases involving blood test evidence, in early October 2021, he served as a host, moderator, and presenter for the Michigan Association of OWI Seminar on Blood Alcohol. Mr. Boyle is an original member of MIAOWIA, which is membership dedicated to the education and training of attorneys throughout the State of Michigan in the complex litigation and representation of individuals charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs.

Can Police Search My Phone or Computer to Search for Child Pornography?

Published on: June 2, 2021 | by Ryan Ballard

To complete an investigation and, ultimately, file charges for child pornography, law enforcement will almost always attempt to seize and search the electronic devices they believe could contain illegal material. The way police gain access to these devices can be an important issue in child pornography cases (called Child Sexually Abusive Material in Michigan). There are three categories in which police can seize electronic devices to search for evidence of a crime: with consent, with a warrant, without a warrant or consent.

Consent

The easiest way for police to get access to phones and computers in a child pornography investigation is to get consent from the person they’re investigating. If police come to your home and ask to see your electronic devices without a warrant, you should respectfully decline and call the Michigan sex crimes lawyers at the Barone Defense Firm immediately.