Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In the field of criminal defense, the witness list is a standard requirement. The list will be required 30 days before trial or based upon the scheduling order provided by the circuit court judge. While many lawyers feel the need to make an extensive witness list, this may not always be in the best interest of the client. Sometimes less is more. Today, we will discuss why there are times when placing no witnesses on the list may be a wise decision for the criminal defense lawyer.

Scott Grabel is the founder of Grabel and Associates and has created a criminal defense team that is known as the top in the state of Michigan. When asked about the witness list, Grabel stated, “This is not a one size fits all proposition. The lack of a witness list can be as helpful as a long one may serve. It is not the defense counsel’s burden to prove the case, and there are times when solely playing defense is the best strategy for the client.”

William Amadeo is a partner at McManus and Amadeo in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a Senior Associate for Grabel and Associates. Known as a top trial lawyer, Amadeo stated, “When you are doing voir dire, you have to teach the jury who has the burden and connect with them. If you can review the questionnaire on the jury pool, you can learn a lot about them and whether they will understand the lack of a witness or hold it against your client. This process differs significantly from county to county. Sometimes it makes sense to limit the time of trial; sometimes the best move is to make it as long as possible. There is no rulebook for trial strategy in our state.

Sometimes in criminal law, a case appears unwinnable. For example, if your client was caught with child pornography and the prosecution can authenticate the illegal material. While that is not a case that you would take to trial, there are ways to provide a layer of protection for your client. One such way is to have the client examined with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2).

The MMPI-2 can be utilized to detect personality disorders. If a disorder is detected that can provide support that the defense attorney can place into the sentencing memorandum to help provide insight as to why the defendant has been charged with the crime.

Scott Grabel of Grabel and Associates provided insight into the mmPI-2 when he stated, “This is a test that most people do not have an extensive knowledge of. Generally, the test will be given by a Ph.D. in clinical psychology to determine a disorder. While this does not mean that the defendant is incompetent, it does provide an added element of a defense which is essential at sentencing.”

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled back in 2007 in the case of People v. Labelle that passengers riding in a vehicle did not have the ability or standing to challenge a police search of their personal property within that vehicle. Since 2007, this has been the rule that Michigan Courts have routinely followed. The Supreme Court back then ruled that a passenger in a vehicle did not have any expectation of privacy while riding in someone else’s vehicle. That has now all changed due to the case of People v. Mead. As of April of this past year, passengers riding in a vehicle may now challenge a search under the Fourth Amendment.

In the Mead case, the defendant Larry Mead was a passenger in the car of a woman he had met earlier that day. The vehicle was stopped by police due to an expired license plate. The police officer in this case noticed Mead sitting in the backseat holding onto a backpack sitting in his lap. The officer asked the driver to step out of the vehicle and asked her if he could search the vehicle. Once both Mead and the driver were outside the vehicle, the officer then searched the vehicle, including Mead’s backpack. Upon searching Mead’s backpack, the officer found about 10 grams of methamphetamine, marijuana (now legal), prescription pills and a digital scale.

Mead pushed his case to trial, and during the trial process his attorney objected to the search as being illegal and without consent. The trial court ruled against his attorney stating that Mead did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy for his backpack as a passenger of the car under the legal standard in Labelle. Mead was ultimately convicted at trial and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. On appeal the Michigan Supreme Court overturned this decision and Labelle stating that, “a passenger’s personal property is not subsumed by the vehicle that carries it for Fourth Amendment purposes.” What this is basically saying is that you will retain your Fourth Amendment right against an illegal government search of your person or property even as a passenger in a vehicle. The court stated this pretty bluntly by saying that “a person can get in a car without leaving his Fourth Amendment rights at the curb.” In this case the Supreme Court stated that there was no reason for the officer to believe that the backpack in the backseat had any connection to the driver of the vehicle and noted that it was apparent that the backpack belonged to Mead who was sitting in the backseat as stated earlier.