SADO and MAACS attorneys to argue in Michigan Supreme Court March session

State Appellate Defender Office’s Steven Helton, Jacqueline McCann, Angeles Meneses, Michael Waldo, and Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System (MAACS) roster attorney Rachel Wolfe will present argument to the Michigan Supreme Court on issues including closed courtrooms, waiver of counsel, speedy trial rights, and whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) violates the separation of powers or due process or impinges on the right to an impartial judge. Arguments are set for March 1 and 2 at the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing.  The SADO and MAACS attorneys and cases include:

• Angeles Meneses, People v Travis Michael Johnson, MSC No. 163073 (COA No. 351308)

MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii)/Impartial Judge

The court directed the parties to address whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) deprives criminal defendants of their right to appear before an impartial judge, see Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510, 532 (1927), or otherwise prevents the judicial branch from “accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions,” see Nixon v Administrator of General Services, 433 US 425, 443 (1977). The case is set for argument on March 1, at 1 p.m.

• Matt Monahan, People v Kelwin Dwayne Edwards, MSC No. 163942 (COA No. 354647)

MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii)/Separation of Powers/Due Process


The court directed the parties to address: (1) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) violates separation of powers by assigning the judicial branch “‘tasks that are more properly accomplished by [the Legislature],’” Mistretta v United States, 488 US 361, 383 (1989), quoting Morrison v Olson, 487 US 654, 680-681 (1988); see also Houseman v Kent Circuit Judge, 58 Mich 364, 367 (1885); (2) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) violates due process by creating a “‘potential for bias’” or an “objective risk of actual bias,” Caperton v A T Massey Coal Co, Inc, 556 US 868, 881, 886 (2009), quoting Mayberry v Pennsylvania, 400 US 455, 465-466 (1971); see also, e.g., Williams v Pennsylvania, 579 US 1, 8-9 (2016); and (3) should the Court find MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) facially unconstitutional under either theory, what remedy follows. The case is set for argument on March 1, at 1:45 p.m.

 • Steven Helton, People v Anthony Joseph Veach, MSC No. 160469 (COA No. 342394)

Closed Courtroom

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the Macomb Circuit Court relied on its pretrial courtroom closures or the defendant’s failure to object to those closures to justify closing the courtroom for the defendant’s trial and, if so, whether that reliance was erroneous; (2) whether the closure of the courtroom during the defendant’s trial was a partial or total courtroom closure and whether this issue affects the defendant’s claim of error; and (3) what remedy, if any, is available to the defendant, if constitutional or statutory error occurred. The case is set for argument on March 1, at 2:05 p.m.

• Jacqueline McCann, People v Frank King, MSC No. 162327 (COA No. 346559)

Waiver of Counsel

The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the trial court’s failure to comply with the requirements of People v Anderson, 398 Mich 361 (1976) and MCR 6.005(D) did not warrant reversal; and (2) whether the standard of review for unpreserved constitutional errors set forth in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 764 (1999), should apply where a criminal defendant argues on appeal that his waiver of counsel was invalid. The case is set for argument on March 1, at 3:15 p.m.

• Rachel K. Wolfe, People v Demario Deshawn Bonds, MSC No. 163110 (COA No. 346871)

Speedy Trial Rights


The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the 26-month delay between the defendant’s arrest and his trial violated the defendant’s speedy trial rights. People v Williams, 475 Mich 245 (2006); Barker v Wingo, 407 US 514, 532 (1972); and, if so, (2) whether defense counsel’s failure to raise a speedy trial violation claim on direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and warrants relief from judgment. The case is set for argument on March 2, at 10 a.m.

The public can watch the live streaming arguments on the Michigan Supreme Court’s webiste at www.courts.michigan.gov/courts/supreme-court.

––––––––––––––––––––

Subscribe to the Legal News!

http://legalnews.com/subscriptions

Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more

Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year

Three-County & Full Pass also available

 

––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available