Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

September 2011

Sep 2011
September 28, 2011

COA Opinion: the trial court may recall an alternate juror to replace a juror after deliberations have begun

In People v. Mahone, No. 299056, the Court of Appeals declined to grant a new trial based on erroneous admission of hearsay evidence and affirmed the trial court's decision to replace a distressed juror after deliberations began with an alternate who had been discharged. The defendants were convicted of robbing and sexually assaulting the victim. T

Sep 2011
September 28, 2011

COA Opinion: The Medical Marijuana Act allows an individual to possess 12 plants as a registered patient or caregiver, but those 12 plants may only be possessed by that one person

In Judge Hoekstra's opinion for a unanimous court in People v. Bylsma, No. 302762, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's refusal to dismiss criminal charges under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. In this case, the defendant was in possession of 88 marijuana plants. He was the registered primary caregiver for two patients which, under th

Sep 2011
September 26, 2011

MSC Order: Mungo will return for 3d time to COA to determine application of exclusionary rule

On September 23, 2011, the Supreme Court remanded People v. Michael William Mungo, No. 141160, to the Court of Appeals, for reconsideration in light of Davis v. United States, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011). Davis is the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held 7-2 that the exclusionary rule does not apply where polic

Displaying results 1-6 (of 22)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -