Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

One issue that is gaining traction in the Michigan criminal justice system is the concerns of criminal defense attorneys having a defendant’s constitutional rights violated. The matter has been raised amid COVID-19, and our courts move to many online hearings. To gain insight into this issue, we spoke to several of the top criminal defense lawyers in our state.

Scott Grabel is the founder of Grabel and Associates, which is known as the top criminal defense firm in the state of Michigan. When asked about the concerns of online proceedings, Grabel stated, “There is a lot of constitutional rights being bent right now. There are major limitations to what can be accomplished online and what cannot. There is an outcry from public defenders in New York with in-custody clients, and that has spread directly into our circuit courts. We are definitely in a wait and see the pattern.”

William Amadeo is a partner at McManus and Amadeo in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a Senior Associate for Grabel and Associates. Amadeo is known as the top criminal defense lawyer in Washtenaw County and provided commentary on the subject. Amadeo said, “This is a nightmare for all involved. The defendant may be compromised, and when we are back to business, as usual, we will be busier than ever before. There are severe limitations to what can be accomplished virtually. We certainly cannot do jury trials or preliminary exams this way. We need to work as a team to develop outside of the box solutions. Our court clerks and staff need to be treated with more respect than ever before; they will be the ones to the right the ship when the dust clears.”

The United States Supreme Court has recently ruled to limit the rights of people accused of crimes. The Supreme Court declared that states can bar defendants from using the “insanity defense” in criminal cases. This ruling basically allows states to determine what they will allow for defenses in that area. The case at hand is a Kansas murder case where the defendant was convicted and is sentenced to death for killing four members of his family. The man used a rifle to kill his wife, two teenage daughters and his wife’s grandmother. He did not kill his son, who was nine years old at the time of the murders back in 2009. The crimes were committed just after Thanksgiving where the man had lost his job and his wife had filed for divorce.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the state of Kansas did not violate the United States Constitution by eliminating the insanity defense in that state. In Kansas, defendants cannot make the argument that they were insane and not able to form any moral judgement in an effort to excuse them from any criminal responsibility. Kansas law, however, allows defendants to make an argument saying that they did not form the necessary intent to commit the crime due to a mental defect. The state of Kansas, along with Utah, Montana, and Idaho have all removed the traditional insanity defense.

The Law In Michigan

The Detroit Free Press has reported Michigan the first coronavirus case at Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility. This brings the number of state prisoners to 24 along with seven Michigan Department of Corrections employees that have tested positive for the disease. What this means to the future of criminal justice in our state is up for debate. To gain insight into the matter, we spoke to three of the top criminal lawyers in our state.

Scott Grabel is the founder of Grabel and Associates and has built a firm that is known as the top criminal defense team in the state of Michigan. Grabel provided commentary when he said, “The biggest concern is that we don’t know where the end will be. Michigan Senator Erika Geiss told the press that Huron Valley Women’s Correctional Facility had failed women, and the coronavirus intersects with underlying issues. The biggest issue is that inmates cannot stay 6 feet apart from one another. This is a crisis that is growing worse by the day. The criminal justice community needs to come together right now.”

William Amadeo is a partner at McManus and Amadeo in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a Senior Associate for Grabel and Associates in Lansing, Michigan. Amadeo is known as the top criminal defense lawyer in Washtenaw County and provided commentary when he said, “Resolutions, am I the only one that sees the need for this right now? I have been in touch with 18 prosecutors today to try and resolve matters. Four of them answered, and most are in a wait and see mode. I have absolutely no issue going to trial, but this is a time when we need to look outside of the box. I’ll leave the ball in the prosecutor’s court right now.”

Did you know that up until now, if you were charged with a misdemeanor it was not required that the prosecutor provide you with the police report used to charge you? Previously, it was left to the prosecutor whether they wanted to share items of discovery like a police report with you or your attorney. In most places, getting a police report was as simple as following the rules specified by each prosecutor’s office when making a request. In most places, prosecutors were not hiding the ball when it came to handing over items of discovery in misdemeanor cases. Unfortunately, there are still some places where defendants are not receiving the proper access to police reports and other discovery because it wasn’t required of them to provide this information until now. The Michigan Supreme Court made this decision with a 5-2 vote in favor of the change.

What Is Discovery?

Discovery in a criminal case generally includes any police reports, surveillance videos or witness statements made in relation to an alleged crime. It is basically the written or recorded information used to charge someone with a crime. The sharing of this information is essential to the fairness of criminal procedure. Information gets recorded anytime an officer interviews a witness or the defendant themselves in relation to an alleged crime. The combination of all of these interviews and other investigations end up in a series of documents that end up becoming the entirety of a police report, which is then submitted to a prosecutor for the authorization of criminal charges.

It is fairly common knowledge that if you have a court date, you are expected to show up on time for that date. In a criminal case, you are personally required to be present for most all hearings. In a civil case, the requirement to be personally present is typically relaxed, and attorneys routinely appear on their client’s behalf for many court proceedings. If any party is unable to make it to court, then the court usually allows for absences due to good reasons like sickness or other unavoidable issues. In the present case, Oakland County Ciruit Court Judge Leo Bowman decided that contagious pneumonia was not reason enough for a man in his court to miss a scheduled court date on a civil matter.

Original Case Details

Howard Baum ended up in Bowman’s court over a money situation dispute where Baum lent over $1 million to some extended family and the money has not since been paid back to Baum’s satisfaction. This case has taken several years, and Baum has never been late, nor does he have any criminal record whatsoever. On this date Baum was scheduled to appear in front of Bowman for a hearing related to this case. Baum had been battling flu-like symptoms for months and on this day ended up at Lake Urgent Care where he was diagnosed with pneumonia that was contagious to others. He was advised by doctors to avoid contact with others until completion of a five-day course of antibiotics. The report ended with the doctor stating that “he is at risk for spreading his illness.”