Notable Cases

Favorable Outcome People v. Peeler, Michigan Supreme Court Case No. 163672

The Michigan Supreme Court issued its Opinion on June 28, 2022 extending fundamentally important criminal law protections provided by preliminary examinations in state court felony cases to those who like my client in this case are accused by a “one-man grand jury." The charges in this and related cases alleged criminal violations by state employees or officials arising from the complex circumstances of the Flint Water Crisis.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Peeler affirms the importance of procedural safeguards, like preliminary examinations, in all criminal proceedings; that “adherence to proper procedure serves as a guarantee to the general public that Michigan’s courts can be trusted to produce fair and impartial rulings for all defendant, regardless of the severity of the charged crime.”

The unique “one - man grand jury” procedure used in this case is referred to in the Opinion as a deviation from those protections, as “a Star Chamber comeback.” The procedure was used in this case to investigate in secret and to file an indictment that required a trial without a preliminary examination.

A preliminary examination, on the other hand requires the presence of the accused, permits cross-examination of defense witnesses and allows the defendant’s challenge to the prosecution case before a required trial.

The same opinion also holds in the case on another defendant charged by the same “one-man grand jury” that the state law used to empower the judge to act as a “one-man grand juror” did not authorize the judge to use an indictment to charge criminal offenses.

Read more about this case in the media:

Favorable Outcome People v. Peeler, Michigan Supreme Court Case No. 163672
The Michigan Supreme Court issued its Opinion on June 28, 2022 extending fundamentally important criminal law protections provided by preliminary examinations in state court felony cases to those who like my client in this case are accused by a “one-man grand jury." The charges in this and related cases alleged criminal violations by state employees or officials arising from the complex circumstances of the Flint Water Crisis.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Peeler affirms the importance of procedural safeguards, like preliminary examinations, in all criminal proceedings; that “adherence to proper procedure serves as a guarantee to the general public that Michigan’s courts can be trusted to produce fair and impartial rulings for all defendant, regardless of the severity of the charged crime.”
The unique “one - man grand jury” procedure used in this case is referred to in the Opinion as a deviation from those protections, as “a Star Chamber comeback.” The procedure was used in this case to investigate in secret and to file an indictment that required a trial without a preliminary examination.
A preliminary examination, on the other hand requires the presence of the accused, permits cross-examination of defense witnesses and allows the defendant’s challenge to the prosecution case before a required trial.
The same opinion also holds in the case on another defendant charged by the same “one-man grand jury” that the state law used to empower the judge to act as a “one-man grand juror” did not authorize the judge to use an indictment to charge criminal offenses.
Read more about this case in the media:
- The New York Times
- Washington Post
Favorable Outcome Carpenter v. United States, 138 S Ct 2206 (2018)
The US District Court denied a pre-trial motion to suppress Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) that used cell tower tracking data to locate the defendant near the scene of several robberies. The Court of Appeals affirmed holding the data were like business records that deserved no Fourth Amendment protection. The United States Supreme Court granted Certiorari. On July 24, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed. It held that an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes in the records of physical movements captured through CSLI. On remand, the appeals court affirmed the defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence in light of Dean v. United States, 137 S Ct 1170 (2017), because the trial court had not taken mandatory gun violation sentences into account when sentencing the defendant, and sent the case back to the trial court for re-sentencing.
Read more about this case in the media:
The story of the Carpenter case was the subject of an article in DBusiness magazine, Cellular Defense, by Norman Sinclair, July 16, 2019.
Appealed Calhoun v. United States
The defendant was convicted on federal robbery charges after a lengthy trial. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. The United States Supreme Court granted Certiorari, on November 2, 2018, vacated the lower court judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S Ct 1204 (2018).
Appealed Jefferson v. United States
The defendant was convicted of racketeering and gun charges after a lengthy trial. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 28, 2019, vacated the lower court judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S Ct 2319 (2019). On remand, the appeals court vacated the gun conviction and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.