By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court overturned precedent and ruled on decisions this past session that will overhaul the way prosecutors and defense attorneys alike approach certain cases.
Many decisions passed down in the 2025-26 term that ended July 31, changed precedent on how cases could be handled, the evidence allowed to be presented and sent more rounds of resentencing down the pipeline.
Some of the consequential cases included orders to expand double jeopardy protections due to prosecutorial misconduct, probation terms not being able to bar the use of cannabis simply because of its federal status and warrantless DNA testing being considered an unreasonable search.
The biggest difference for defense attorneys is a change in the mental health defense, which allows for mental health to be added into evidence.
The Supreme Court also made decisions that would further burden the courts with continued resentencing, a particular thorn in the side of prosecutors and defenders alike in recent years as they face staffing shortages to handle the amount of cases coming down the pipeline.
This year, the Supreme Court ruled some mandatory life-without-parole sentences for felony convictions before a 1980 court decision are unconstitutional as well as 50-to 75-year-sentences for minors convicted of second degree murder.
Other resentencing cases, such as the juvenile lifers that were resentenced under the 2025 Michigan Supreme Court decisions in People v. Czarnecki and People v. Taylor perpetuated the need for more employees in the State Appellate Defender’s Office and funding to chase all the cases they needed to resentence.
Now, Jessica Zimbelman, deputy director of SADO, said just beginning this resentencing with the parole board should start as soon as possible, as it will be a long-term process and deals with a large population of elderly people.
She said even with a whole host of people sitting in prison with unconstitutional sentences, they struggle finding attorneys to represent people. Finding representation is what she spends most of her days doing, she said, even as she represents three of the felony murder resentencing cases herself.
On the prosecutorial side, Calhoun County Prosecutor Dave Gilbert said the biggest effect from the resentencing is not on the prosecutors themselves, but the victims.
Gilbert said when someone who has been in prison for 20 years gets to have “another bite at the apple,” it dredges up old memories and forces victims to relive traumatic experiences.
“They’re not looking at the victim's rights. They're looking at the rights of the suspect,” Gilbert said.
He said this is another example of judges “legislating from the bench.”
Matthew Schneider, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said since he started working in the Supreme Court in 1998, there is more animosity now than in the past between the justices and the prosecutors. He said the Supreme Court has reversed lots of cases, leading to questions on how they should handle cases going forward.
Gilbert said prosecutors only have a certain amount of time to bring their petitions and investigate the case in resentencing, putting pressure on smaller offices with fewer attorneys or large offices like Wayne County, which has received 400 cases on their desk since the resentencing order.
“We have to show clear and convincing evidence that this person basically cannot be rehabilitated, and how do you do that? That's quite a burden for us,” Gilbert said.
For the criminal culpability changes based on mental state, the court would allow defendants to bring evidence of legal insanity to be used as a defense.
Justice Noah Hood wrote in the majority opinion that he knew the decision to overturn a ruling in People v. Carpenter “carries with it a deluge of logistical, operational, and funding challenges that will have both immediate and distal impacts on our court” and that “it will create widespread slowdowns in criminal cases, which will affect defendants awaiting trial, victims and witnesses waiting for their day in court, and the public, which has a continuing interest in courts administering criminal cases as quickly as we can do it fairly.”
But, Zimbelman said, the decision really “allows people who are on trial to give the full picture of what's going on with their particular client to the jury.”
“From the perspective of criminal defense attorneys, it's a critical piece of evidence that juries have been prohibited from hearing for decades,” Zimbelman said.
However, this is not a total 180-change, but a return to form, in which Michigan had practiced mental illness evidence for 30 years before People v. Carpenter, which she said was wrongly ruled.
She said the only way it complicates any court processes is the addition of more expert witnesses, but she does not see this as a total complication but a “vital protection of our client's constitutional right to put on a defense.”
There are still details up for debate with a Michigan Court Rule on how to administer the changes currently up for public comment.
Zimbelman also touched on the marijuana use ruling, which abided by the state legalization instead of the federal law. She said the ruling proved the idea that probationary conditions need to be personalized and geared toward rehabilitation, not overruling statute.
“Any time in criminal law we have a bright-line rule that prohibits something without considering the individualized person, that's a problem,” Zimbelman said.
Gilbert agreed, saying there is no purpose to prohibit something if it was not part of the problem in the first place.
For the DNA case, Zimbelman said it just “makes sense” to her that you need a warrant for “the most personal information.”
Another recent change that has been causing headlines from the Supreme Court is the changes to the Sex Offenders Registry Act, in which the court ruled unanimously to pull sex offenders off the list with crimes pre-dating 2011. The order has led to questions on who would be taken off by the Department of State Police as a result of the order.
Gilbert said the Supreme Court has found it to be an “ex post facto penalty,” and that it isn’t considered part of breaking the law, meaning that person should not be subject to that penalty.
Schneider said the problem of laws consistently changing and prosecutors needing to react to it is not new, but there is work to do to respond to them, especially in cases of sentencing.
There has been an increase in decisions like this that change proceedings though since the pandemic, Schneider said. A lot of these stem from the composition of the court, being more open to resentencing and reform conversations as well as a general approach shift, in which many prisoners were making motions under the compassionate release statute.
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court overturned precedent and ruled on decisions this past session that will overhaul the way prosecutors and defense attorneys alike approach certain cases.
Many decisions passed down in the 2025-26 term that ended July 31, changed precedent on how cases could be handled, the evidence allowed to be presented and sent more rounds of resentencing down the pipeline.
Some of the consequential cases included orders to expand double jeopardy protections due to prosecutorial misconduct, probation terms not being able to bar the use of cannabis simply because of its federal status and warrantless DNA testing being considered an unreasonable search.
The biggest difference for defense attorneys is a change in the mental health defense, which allows for mental health to be added into evidence.
The Supreme Court also made decisions that would further burden the courts with continued resentencing, a particular thorn in the side of prosecutors and defenders alike in recent years as they face staffing shortages to handle the amount of cases coming down the pipeline.
This year, the Supreme Court ruled some mandatory life-without-parole sentences for felony convictions before a 1980 court decision are unconstitutional as well as 50-to 75-year-sentences for minors convicted of second degree murder.
Other resentencing cases, such as the juvenile lifers that were resentenced under the 2025 Michigan Supreme Court decisions in People v. Czarnecki and People v. Taylor perpetuated the need for more employees in the State Appellate Defender’s Office and funding to chase all the cases they needed to resentence.
Now, Jessica Zimbelman, deputy director of SADO, said just beginning this resentencing with the parole board should start as soon as possible, as it will be a long-term process and deals with a large population of elderly people.
She said even with a whole host of people sitting in prison with unconstitutional sentences, they struggle finding attorneys to represent people. Finding representation is what she spends most of her days doing, she said, even as she represents three of the felony murder resentencing cases herself.
On the prosecutorial side, Calhoun County Prosecutor Dave Gilbert said the biggest effect from the resentencing is not on the prosecutors themselves, but the victims.
Gilbert said when someone who has been in prison for 20 years gets to have “another bite at the apple,” it dredges up old memories and forces victims to relive traumatic experiences.
“They’re not looking at the victim's rights. They're looking at the rights of the suspect,” Gilbert said.
He said this is another example of judges “legislating from the bench.”
Matthew Schneider, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said since he started working in the Supreme Court in 1998, there is more animosity now than in the past between the justices and the prosecutors. He said the Supreme Court has reversed lots of cases, leading to questions on how they should handle cases going forward.
Gilbert said prosecutors only have a certain amount of time to bring their petitions and investigate the case in resentencing, putting pressure on smaller offices with fewer attorneys or large offices like Wayne County, which has received 400 cases on their desk since the resentencing order.
“We have to show clear and convincing evidence that this person basically cannot be rehabilitated, and how do you do that? That's quite a burden for us,” Gilbert said.
For the criminal culpability changes based on mental state, the court would allow defendants to bring evidence of legal insanity to be used as a defense.
Justice Noah Hood wrote in the majority opinion that he knew the decision to overturn a ruling in People v. Carpenter “carries with it a deluge of logistical, operational, and funding challenges that will have both immediate and distal impacts on our court” and that “it will create widespread slowdowns in criminal cases, which will affect defendants awaiting trial, victims and witnesses waiting for their day in court, and the public, which has a continuing interest in courts administering criminal cases as quickly as we can do it fairly.”
But, Zimbelman said, the decision really “allows people who are on trial to give the full picture of what's going on with their particular client to the jury.”
“From the perspective of criminal defense attorneys, it's a critical piece of evidence that juries have been prohibited from hearing for decades,” Zimbelman said.
However, this is not a total 180-change, but a return to form, in which Michigan had practiced mental illness evidence for 30 years before People v. Carpenter, which she said was wrongly ruled.
She said the only way it complicates any court processes is the addition of more expert witnesses, but she does not see this as a total complication but a “vital protection of our client's constitutional right to put on a defense.”
There are still details up for debate with a Michigan Court Rule on how to administer the changes currently up for public comment.
Zimbelman also touched on the marijuana use ruling, which abided by the state legalization instead of the federal law. She said the ruling proved the idea that probationary conditions need to be personalized and geared toward rehabilitation, not overruling statute.
“Any time in criminal law we have a bright-line rule that prohibits something without considering the individualized person, that's a problem,” Zimbelman said.
Gilbert agreed, saying there is no purpose to prohibit something if it was not part of the problem in the first place.
For the DNA case, Zimbelman said it just “makes sense” to her that you need a warrant for “the most personal information.”
Another recent change that has been causing headlines from the Supreme Court is the changes to the Sex Offenders Registry Act, in which the court ruled unanimously to pull sex offenders off the list with crimes pre-dating 2011. The order has led to questions on who would be taken off by the Department of State Police as a result of the order.
Gilbert said the Supreme Court has found it to be an “ex post facto penalty,” and that it isn’t considered part of breaking the law, meaning that person should not be subject to that penalty.
Schneider said the problem of laws consistently changing and prosecutors needing to react to it is not new, but there is work to do to respond to them, especially in cases of sentencing.
There has been an increase in decisions like this that change proceedings though since the pandemic, Schneider said. A lot of these stem from the composition of the court, being more open to resentencing and reform conversations as well as a general approach shift, in which many prisoners were making motions under the compassionate release statute.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://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
