DUI Trials

What Does Michigan Law Say About Jury Nullification?

Published on: December 15, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

The black letter law in Michigan suggests that juries have the power but not the right to exercise jury nullification.[i] Nevertheless, the practice of law is all shades of gray, and the arguments made by lawyers are often in the penumbras of black letter law.

For example, some Michigan cases have indicated that nullification may be argued where nullification is a recognized legal defense. Because a trial judge may exclude a defense attorney from presenting to the jury evidence supporting a defense that has not been recognized by the legislature[ii], the judge can preclude a lawyer from arguing for nullification.

This does not mean that the power of nullification can be taken away from the jury, and a judge cannot explicitly tell a jury that they are precluded from exercising jury nullification. In one Michigan case where a judge told the jury that jury nullification was inconsistent with the recognized power of the jury, the verdict of guilty was reversed.[iii] In support of their reversal, the court indicate that:

Why Aren’t Juries Informed of Their Right to Nullification?

Published on: December 15, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

In the United States juries are not informed by the judge of their right to nullification because the case law addressing jury nullification remains oblique. It is therefore commonly said that in the United States juries are empaneled to resolve issues of fact, but when it comes to nullification, juries have the right but not the power to judge the law. Consequently, a judge will never directly instruct a jury than they judge the law. The reverse is also true; a judge will not instruct a jury that they may not judge the law. In a criminal case, the litigants are also precluded from advising the jury of their right to nullification.

When looking at the history of nullification in the Untied States, it is clear that while the breadth of jury nullification in our criminal justice system has ebbed and flowed it has never entirely gone away. Today a jury sitting on a criminal case may engage in nullification. Since nullification remains a part of our criminal justice system, the question that obtains is this; how much influence can, or should, the judiciary have in limiting or otherwise influencing the jury’s right to nullify? Said differently, as “keepers of the law,” what role do judges have in explaining or refuting nullification?

In looking at the question of whether or not jurors should be informed of their right to nullify, Irwin A. Horowitz has this to say:

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?

How Long Should a Marijuana User Wait Before Safely Operating a Car?

Published on: May 7, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

It can be difficult for a marijuana user to subjectively assess their level of impairment. Even worse, there is no way for a marijuana user to objectively evaluate their level impairment. So, after consuming marijuana medically or recreationally, how can a marijuana user make a safe decision about driving?

This uncertainty is what makes marijuana-related DUI charges in Michigan so complicated. You may feel fine to drive, but under the law, it’s not how you feel—it’s how your behavior is perceived and how well you can perform critical driving tasks. Unlike alcohol, where we have clear BAC limits, marijuana impairment is subjective and varies from person to person. That means two people could consume the same amount of cannabis, and one could be legally impaired while the other may not be—yet both could be arrested depending on how they appear during a traffic stop.

Before we get to that question, let’s do a quick review of Michigan’s OWI laws as it relates to drugs. In Michigan, you can be charged (and potentially convicted) if you are either impaired or intoxicated by alcohol, drugs, or any combination thereof. Specifically, Michigan’s OWI law references impairment or intoxication caused by alcohol, controlled substance or “other intoxicating substance.” See Michigan Compiled Laws Sec. 257.625.

Defending Drinking Drivers 2024 Update Now Available

Published on: August 10, 2020 | by Barone Defense Firm

Defending Drinking Drivers, written by DUI defense attorney Patrick Barone

2024 Edition – Defending Drinking Drivers

The Barone Defense Firm is pleased to announce that the 2024 Edition of Patrick Barone’s Defending Drinking Drivers is now available from the publisher, Amazon, and wherever fine books are sold. Known as “revision 40,” the current Edition contains many new sections and model defense motions.

Regarding the defense of a DUI with a blood test, the 2024 update contains sample cross-examination of the doctor, nurse, technician, or phlebotomist. This model cross-examination includes sample questions relative to contamination and suggestions for how to approach and perhaps discredit the credibility of this important but often overlooked pr0secution witness. In Chapter Six, Trial, Mr. Barone sets forth a new way of approaching voir dire, and the 2024 update also contains a sample motion requesting attorney-conducted voir dire. Additionally, in his revision of Chapter 6, Mr. Barone provides a unique and compelling explanation for why seating arrangements are an important element of trial and why the court should consider allowing the defendant to sit next to the jury rather than always cede this seat to the prosecutor by default. A sample motion for requesting that the defendant be provided with the “best” seat is also included in this 2024 update.

Barone Busts the Miranda Rights Myth on WUSA9 Television Appearance

Published on: July 30, 2020 | by Barone Defense Firm

Patrick Barone recently provided expert commentary for WUSA9 reporter Evan Koslof. On his Verify news series, Mr. Koslof seeks to shed light and truth on common questions, misconceptions and outright myths. After a video surfaced of a New York warrant’s division officer arresting a protestor off the street and stuffing her into a van, many on social media have questioned the validity of the police action. One contention on social media was that the police were wrong because they apparently did not the protestor her Miranda Rights before they arrested her. Mr. Koslof wanted to know if the Miranda Rights are truly necessary and how a failure to read the Miranda advisement might impact the police action. To help him with these legal issues, Mr. Koslof sought out two experts, a seasoned criminal defense attorney and law school professor. The video and article can be viewed by clicking here.

The central question raised in Mr. Kaslof’s investigation was whether the police are required to read a person their Miranda rights when they are being arrested? The answer by Mr. Barone? – A resounding “no.”

Patrick Barone’s appearance on the WUSA9 news show Verify.

Michigan’s Legalized Recreational Marijuana May Lead to More Impaired Driving Traffic Deaths

Published on: July 2, 2020 | by Ryan Ballard

A research letter recently published in the JAMA Internal Medicine Journal examined the correlation between the legalization of recreational marijuana and traffic fatalities. The letter’s authors Kamer & Warshafsky begin with the proposition that marijuana use impairs driving ability. The authors go on to suggests that because there is a correlation between an increase in traffic deaths and the legalization of recreational marijuana, impaired driving must be the cause. The authors of the letter reviewed data collected from four states: Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. The authors did not look at traffic deaths in Michigan because there isn’t enough data from Michigan yet.

The authors found that traffic deaths increased by 75 per year in Colorado. The authors did not find an increase in traffic deaths in Washington. Overall, the letter predicts that if every state fully legalizes marijuana, traffic deaths would increase by 6,800 every year in the United States. Time will tell whether Michigan will be like Colorado, and see a large increase in traffic deaths, or like Washington where there was no such increase. And time will also tell if any observed increase in Michigan is actually caused by marijuana impaired drivers. The impaired driving lawyers at the Barone Defense Firm note that correlation is not causation, and that the only thing this letter has established is correlation. The authors admit that much more research is needed on this topic, and that their findings were “mixed.”

What’s the difference between impaired by marijuana and under the influence of marijuana?

DUI Defendant’s Constitutional Right to Confront Chemical Test Remains Clear as Mud

Published on: November 30, 2018 | by Patrick Barone

In the past decade, the United States Supreme Court has issued several opinions addressing a DUI defendant’s right to confront a breath or blood test used by the prosecution to prove intoxication at trial. In legal terms, the word “confront” essentially means cross-examine. An example of this confrontation right in the context of a drunk driving case would be the right to cross-examine the police officer who administered a breath test, or the forensic analyst who prepared a blood sample for testing. This issue came before the USSC again in 2018. The name of the case is Stuart v. Alabama. Unfortunately, the USSC declined the opportunity to clarify this issue, and by order dated November 19, 2018, denied the defendant’s petition for review (certiorari).

However, there was a dissenting opinion written by Justice Gorsuch and joined by Justice Sotomayor. This opinion contains some interesting information. Perhaps picking up the cross-examination baton laid down by Justice Scalia, Justice Gorsuch refers to cross-examination as “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” Furthermore, that:

Cross-examination is an essential guard against such mischief and mistake and the risk of false convictions. Even the most well-meaning analyst may lack essential training, contaminate a sample, or err during the testing process.