Federal Criminal Charges

Domestic Violence Conviction Will Eliminate Your Second Amendment Rights.

Published on: January 11, 2022 | by Ryan Ramsayer

Many lawyers who are not Michigan Gun Crimes Lawyers, fail to fully understand or appreciate the interplay between State and Federal firearms laws. This can lead to the catastrophic loss of rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

An example of this would be the Federal Firearms Law found at 18 United States Code § 922(g)(9), which provides that even a single conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence will result in the loss of many of your Second Amendment rights, including the shipping, transporting, possession, or receipt of a firearm or ammunition that has been shipped in or affects interstate commerce. In plain language, any domestic violence conviction will eliminate your ability to legally purchase or possess or ammunition for any purpose. This includes keeping a firearm of any kind in your home for self-defense.

Oftentimes this impact is overlooked because local attorneys are members of a State Bar and focused on State penalties. The average State attorney doesn’t often consider Federal Penalties. They are also often focused on the more pressing penalties of jail, probation, or fines.

Avoiding Sexting, CSAM and Child Porn Criminal Charges in Michigan

Published on: December 21, 2021 | by Ryan Ballard

Sexting my seem innocent enough when between consenting adults, but when under age people are involved you may find yourself charged with a sex offense which could lead to years in prison. Offenses involving child pornography in the State of Michigan are aggressively prosecuted requiring an equally aggressive criminal defense.

Is sexting illegal in Michigan?

Sexting can be criminal and several statutes have been used to prosecute sexting and CSAM (aka child pornography) in Michigan:

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?

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.

Child Pornography Lawyer Explains When Police May Search Your Phone

Published on: August 10, 2021 | by Ryan Ballard

Americans value their privacy. It is considered a right. Americans especially value the right to privacy from government intrusions. The Constitution’s 4th Amendment requires probable cause for a warrant to search or seize a person’s belongings. This is also where we find our right to privacy.

Does the Right to Privacy Apply to Private Cell Phone Companies?

This Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to governmental actions. But what about the actions of private companies? Can private companies search our stuff?

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.