Published on: | by

In the case of People v. Pagano, the Michigan Supreme Court has indicated that a traffic stop based only on an anonymous 911 call is invalid. This ruling affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of both the child endangerment drunk driving and open intoxicants in a motor vehicle charges.

As the Pagano opinion indicates, the police received information from central dispatch that a woman was obnoxious and yelling at her children and appeared to be intoxicated.  The 911 caller also provided identifying information about the vehicle driven by the ostensibly intoxicated woman, including the license plate number and make and model of the car.

The Michigan Supreme Court, in the unanimous Pagano opinion, held that information provided to and by the officer failed to establish a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” either that a traffic violation had occurred or that criminal activity was afoot. While the Court acknowledged that the 911 caller was able to appropriately identify the individual involved and the car being driven by her, the tip still did not give rise to anything more than, at best, an “inchoate or unparticularized suspicion” of criminal activity. Otherwise, there was nothing in the record to suggest that the police officer making the traffic stop corroborated the 911 caller’s mere assertion that the driver was drunk.  There was no bad driving observed by the police officer, and the stop was based only on the information provided to the 911 caller.  After all, said the Court, parents can obnoxiously yell at their children without being drunk, and the 911 called also did not indicate that any bad driving was observed.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In this Michigan Intoxicated driving causing death, the defendant Willett entered a no contest plea thereby admitting that he was operating a motor vehicle with the presence of any amount of marijuana in his body, and that the operation of his vehicle caused the death of another, under Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.625(4)(a)and (8).

Mr. Willett was sentenced to 4 to 15 years of imprisonment. Prior to sentencing the defendant, the court questioned him about his marijuana use, and the defendant, then 21 years of age, admitted he used marijuana daily and had started using marijuana at age 14 or 15.  The court concluded the pre-sentencing colloquy by admonishing the defendant and stating to him that it was his use of the drug that lead to the horror of the accident and death. On appeal the defendant argued that the court’s sentence was based on inaccurate information, and the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed.  The case was reversed and remanded.

The facts of this case include an admission from the defendant, at the roadside, that while he was driving, he was getting sleepy and closed his eyes. He crashed into the car in front of him immediately after opening his eyes, creating a multi-vehicle accident leading to the death of one of the vehicle’s occupants.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent Michigan Court of Appeals panel reversed a conviction for Criminal Sexual Conduct First Degree, commonly called rape, due to improper witness vouching. The case involved three expert witnesses, all of whom testified for the government.  In different and sometimes subtle ways, each expert made improper statements about the complaining witnesses (CW) credibility that amounted to their “vouching” for the CW’s credibility.

According to the standard jury instructions utilized in Michigan sex crimes cases it is up to the jury to judge and weigh a witness’s credibility.  In reaching this determination, the jury will be instructed to consider a variety of factors including how well the witness was able to see and hear things and was there anything that might have distracted them; how good is their memory; how do they look and act while testifying and do they seem to be telling the truth or are they trying to evade answering and arguing with the lawyers, do they have any personal interest in how the case is decided, and how reasonable is their testimony when compared with all of the other evidence in the case. See M Crim JI 2.6.

Notice that “what do other people think about the witness’s credibility” is not among the factors for the jury to consider.  Vouching is improper therefore because it “invades the province” of the jury by substituting someone else’s opinion for the jury’s collective determination.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A psychosexual evaluation (PSE) is a psychological assessment administered by a licensed psychologist that collects information about one’s biographical and sexual history.  In addition to the clinical interview, the therapist will also administer several related psychometric tests, and based on both, will provide an opinion relative to the propensity one might have to commit a future criminal sexual act. Beyond the evaluation and determination of criminal recidivism, the PSE should also provide, if necessary, a treatment plan to give the person the tools to control sexual urges and avoid potentially criminal situations in the future.

What subjects are covered in the PSE?

The PSE is lengthy and can take several hours to two days to complete. Questions are centered around the client’s social and sexual history ranging from simple biographical information to very specific and detailed sexual encounters. Questions of a sexual nature will include topics like sexual fantasies, sexual relationships, and masturbation.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In most situations the answer is no, but the most complete answer is “it depends.”   First, it is important to know that restitution is different from fines and costs.  Fines are defined by statute and meant to be punitive. For example, if you were convicted of prescription fraud under 18 USC § 841, you could be fined up to $10,000,000. Costs are generally discretionary and are meant to reimburse the government for the expenses involved in prosecuting you.  Both fines and costs are paid to the government.

Restitution on the other hand is meant to restore the victims of the crime to the place where they stood before the crime was committed. The legal phrase for this is to make the victim “whole.” Generally, the purpose of restitution is to compensate a person who, because of the criminal activity, suffers physical injury or property loss.  These losses may be proximally caused and are payable to the victim if you have been convicted of a qualifying offense.

Like fines, restitution in federal criminal cases is most often set forth in statutes. Examples of federal crimes where restitution would be ordered include crimes of violence crimes of fraud, and federal crimes involving child exploitation and child pornography. See 18 U.S. Code § 3663A. In these instances, the court is required to order restitution.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Patrick Barone and Keith Corbett Federal Criminal Defense LawyersThe best way to understand federal prescription fraud is to look at a case where this has happened. For example, the United States Department of Justice and the State of New York recently announced an indictment on federal health care fraud charges on a licensed pharmacist and business owner in New York.

The basic allegations are that the pharmacy owner paid off customers (in other words, provided kickbacks) to fill fake prescriptions at his pharmacy. The pharmacy would then bill the prescriptions to Medicaid and Medicare.

However, the government alleges that the prescriptions drugs were never actually given to the customers. Alternatively, that drugs of lesser value were given, and that it was a scheme to fraudulently get reimbursed by Medicaid and Medicare.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Once you have been arrested on a Federal Complaint and Warrant, the government must hold a preliminary exam with 14-21 days unless you consent, and good cause is shown. Otherwise, the rules require that you be released. However, you can only be held on a complaint. You cannot be prosecuted further on a complaint and warrant.  To prosecute you further, the government must either file an information or obtain an indictment.

To better understand this, it is helpful to consider that when the government believes that you have committed a felony over which the federal courts have jurisdiction, the prosecution for this crime may be initiated by the government in one of three ways. The most common of the three is the criminal indictment. However, in certain circumstances, the government may determine that there is a need to forgo the grand jury and instead will prepare and file a complaint. This procedure is governed by Rules 3-5.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

A complaint, and the necessary probable cause to support it, may be based in whole or in part on hearsay. According to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a complaint must contain the essential facts of the crime alleged, and must be presented to a magistrate judge, under oath. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, in reviewing the warrant and deciding whether to issue an arrest warrant, the magistrate judge must determine whether the complaint establishes probable cause to believe 2 things; first that the crime alleged has been committed and that second that the defendant committed it.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A new law in Michigan makes it somewhat less likely that persons charged with misdemeanor drunk driving, including first and second DUI offenses, will go to jail. This is because Public Act No. 395 of 2020, which was signed into law by Governor Whitmer on January 4, 2021, creates a rebuttable presumption against incarceration for most misdemeanor offenses, including most misdemeanor drunk driving offenses.  The effective date of the new law is March 24, 2021.

The new law amends Michigan Compiled Laws Section 769.5. Subsection 3 of this law indicates that there is a rebuttable presumption that a person convicted of a misdemeanor will be sentenced to a fine, or community service, or some other non-specified non-jail and non-probation sentence. The only circumstances under which a sentencing judge may depart from this presumption is if they state on the record “reasonable grounds” for doing so. The term “reasonable grounds” is not defined.

The law also provides that if the offense in question is punishable by both a fine and imprisonment, the court can impose one but not the other, or both. However, if the court does impose both a fine and incarceration, or just incarceration, then as indicated, the Judge must articulate on the record reasonable grounds for doing so.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A package of new laws allows some of Michigan’s repeat drunk drivers to possibly avoid mandatory minimum jail sentences. As a result of these changes, mandatory minimum sentences have been modified or removed from Michigan’s drunk driving statute, and this means that Judges may now sentence a drunk driver to any term of imprisonment, from zero days up to the maximum otherwise provided for the offense.  The new law does not change the applicable fines or maximum possible terms of imprisonment, it only eliminates the mandatory aspects of the minimum sentences, making it possible for some repeat DUI offenders to avoid incarceration.

Legislative History of the New Michigan DUI Laws

These changes arose out of House Bill 5845, which was introduced in June 2020.  The proposed law went through several permutations until it was approved by both houses by a vote of 506 to 38 in December 2020.  Shortly thereafter it was introduced to Governor Whitmer. The Bill was signed into law by the Governor on January 4, 2021 and becomes effective on March 24, 2021.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

President Biden recently signed an executive order seeking to have the rules applicable to sexual misconduct cases reviewed.  Previously, President Trump had increased the due process of rights of the accused, bringing them more in line with the constitutional rights afforded those accused of sexual assault crimes in state and federal courts.

What Happens if a Student is a Victim of Sexual Assault?

If a college student believes that they have been sexually assaulted and want to bring the perpetrator to justice, they have many choices.  They can go to the police just as with any other crime.  Alternatively, they can report it their school. Or they can do both. Or they can have both done for them. Much of this will depend on the particular school involved.

Continue Reading ›
Contact Information
280 N Old Woodward Ave #200
Birmingham, MI 48009
Phone: 248-306-9158
2155 Butterfield Dr #305A
Troy, MI 48084
Phone: 248-306-9158
39 S Main St #20
Clarkston, MI 48346
Phone: 248-306-9158
Federal Eastern District Court for Michigan has courthouses located in Ann Arbor, Flint, Port Huron, and Bay City, whereas the Western District Court has courthouses located also in in Lansing, Kalamazoo and Marquette in Michigan's upper peninsula. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Barone Defense Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design