Decision holding mandatory life without parole unconstitutional

Decision holding mandatory life without parole unconstitutional

COA 352569 PEOPLE OF MI V JOHN ANTONIO POOLE Opinion

People v Poole (Docket No. 352569) decided January 18, 2024

The State Appellate Defender Office celebrates today’s outcome for our client John Antonio Poole. As an 18-year-old child, Mr. Poole was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Now in his 40s, Mr. Poole has a chance at freedom. Today, the Court of Appeals held that all individuals who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as 18-year-olds are entitled to resentencing, regardless of when that sentence was imposed. The mandatory sentence of death in prison for an 18-year-old violates the state constitutional prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment.

More than 250 individuals in Michigan will now have the potential to receive new sentences offering an opportunity for parole. The State Appellate Defender Office is looking forward to representing many of those individuals in their resentencing hearings.

Mr. Poole’s attorney Maya Menlo said: “We are gratified by this decision. Mr. Poole and so many others like him who received unconstitutional life without parole sentences, deserve an opportunity to demonstrate that they are capable of rehabilitation.”

Read the court’s decision here

COA 352569 PEOPLE OF MI V JOHN ANTONIO POOLE Opinion 20240118_c352569_158_352569.opn

RESTORE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
RESTORE YOUR PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR DRIVER LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR PAST (Expungements)

Call our Office for a free case evaluation
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550

Komorn Law – Federal Courts and All Michigan Courts

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Evidence in Michigan Courts: A Guide to Rules 401-411

Evidence in Michigan Courts: A Guide to Rules 401-411

Understanding the Foundation: A Summary of Michigan Rules of Evidence 401-411

The Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE), specifically Rules 401-411, lay the groundwork for what evidence can be presented in court and how it might influence the outcome of a case. This article aims to provide a clear and concise overview of these foundational rules, drawing from the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook.

Rule 401: Test for Relevant Evidence

This rule is the cornerstone of admissibility. Evidence is considered relevant if it “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and the fact itself is “of consequence in determining the action.”

In simpler terms, relevant evidence helps make the case for or against a party through its connection to the underlying issues.

Rule 402: General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

As long as evidence doesn’t run afoul of the Constitution, the Michigan Rules of Evidence, or other legal principles, relevant evidence is generally admissible. This rule reinforces the notion that all pertinent information should be considered by the court to reach a just decision.

Rule 403: Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

Even relevant evidence can be excluded if its potential for harm outweighs its probative value.

This means the court may decide not to allow evidence if it:

  • Is unfairly prejudicial towards a party, creating undue sympathy or animosity.
  • Confuses the jury or distracts them from the main issues of the case.
  • Wasted time due to being repetitive or unnecessary.
  • Presents cumulative evidence, meaning similar points have already been established.

Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Have you been charged with a crime?

Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law  248-357-2550

Beyond the Basics: Rules 404-411

While Rules 401-403 establish the core principles of evidence admissibility, the subsequent rules delve deeper into specific types of evidence.

These include:

Character Evidence: Rules 404-410 limit the use of character evidence to prove or disprove an act on a particular occasion. Exceptions exist for specific situations, such as in criminal cases where self-defense is an issue.

Habit and Routine Evidence: Rule 406 allows evidence of a person’s habit or routine to be admitted if it’s relevant to an issue in the case.

Similar Occurrences: Rule 407 governs the admissibility of evidence of similar occurrences, generally excluding them unless they are highly probative of a specific issue.

Compromise and Offers to Compromise: Rule 408 limits the admissibility of compromise negotiations to prevent chilling settlements and encourage open communication.

Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements: Rule 410 protects defendants from having their withdrawn pleas or plea discussions used against them in certain legal proceedings.

Liability Insurance: Rule 411 generally prevents the use of evidence of liability insurance to prove or disprove negligence, though exceptions exist for other purposes like establishing agency or ownership.

Understanding the nuances of these rules is crucial for anyone involved in the legal system, from judges and attorneys to litigants and legal scholars. The Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook provides a comprehensive guide to navigating these complexities, ensuring fair and just outcomes in Michigan’s courts.

Important:

This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance.

The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.

Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.

 

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Legal Consequences of Rescheduling Marijuana – 2024

Legal Consequences of Rescheduling Marijuana – 2024

January 16, 2024

On August 29, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reportedly recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that marijuana be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA is currently reviewing HHS’s recommendation.

When considering whether to schedule or reschedule a controlled substance, DEA is bound by HHS’s recommendations on scientific and medical matters.

However, DEA has also stated that it has “final authority to schedule, reschedule, or deschedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act.”

A previous CRS Insight outlined policy considerations related to rescheduling marijuana. This Legal Sidebar provides additional information on the legal consequences of the possible move of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.

Current Legal Status of Cannabis Under the CSA

Cannabis and its derivatives generally fall within one of two categories under federal law: marijuana or hemp. Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies the cannabis plant and its derivatives as marijuana (some provisions of the statute use an alternative spelling, “marihuana”).

The CSA definition of marijuana excludes

(1) products that meet the legal definition of hemp and (2) the mature stalks of the
cannabis plant; the sterilized seeds of the plant; and fibers, oils, and other products made from the stalks and seeds.

Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA.

Federal law defines hemp as the cannabis plant or any part of that plant with a delta-9
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of no more than 0.3%. The non-psychoactive compound cannabidiol (CBD) falls within the legal definition of hemp. Hemp is not a controlled substance under the CSA.

Substances become subject to the CSA through placement in one of five lists, known as Schedules I through V.

Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I in 1970 when it enacted the CSA. A lower schedule number carries greater restrictions under the CSA, with controlled substances in Schedule I subject to the most stringent controls. Schedule I controlled substances have no currently accepted medical use.

It is illegal to produce, dispense, or possess such substances except in the context of federally approved scientific studies, subject to CSA regulatory requirements designed to prevent abuse and diversion.

RESTORE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
RESTORE YOUR PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR DRIVER LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR PAST (Expungements)

Call our Office for a free case evaluation
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550

Unauthorized activities involving Schedule I controlled substances are federal crimes that may give rise to large fines and significant jail time. DEA is required to set annual production quotas for Schedule I controlled substances manufactured for use in approved research.

In addition to the general regulatory framework that applies due to marijuana’s Schedule I status, some provisions of the CSA apply specifically to marijuana. For instance, 21 U.S.C. § 841 imposes mandatory minimum prison sentences for persons convicted of criminal CSA violations involving set quantities of specific controlled substances, including marijuana. In addition, 21 U.S.C. § 823 creates special registration requirements for those who manufacture marijuana for research purposes.

In sharp contrast to the stringent federal control of marijuana, in recent decades nearly all the states have changed their laws to permit the use of marijuana (or other cannabis products) for medical purposes.

In addition, twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have passed laws removing certain state criminal prohibitions on recreational marijuana use by adults.

As the Supreme Court has recognized, states cannot actually legalize marijuana because the states cannot change federal law, and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws.

So long as marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, all unauthorized activities involving marijuana are federal crimes anywhere in the United States, including in states that have purported to legalize medical or recreational marijuana.

Nonetheless, Congress has granted the states some leeway to allow the distribution and use of medical marijuana.

In each budget cycle since FY2014, Congress has passed an appropriations rider barring the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using taxpayer funds to prevent states from “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” Courts have interpreted the appropriations rider to prohibit federal prosecution of state-legal activities involving medical marijuana.

However, it poses no bar to federal prosecution of activities involving recreational marijuana.

Moreover, the rider does not remove criminal liability; it merely limits enforcement of the CSA in certain circumstances while the rider remains in effect. While official DOJ policy has varied somewhat across Administrations, recent presidential Administrations have not prioritized prosecution of state-legal activities involving marijuana.

Komorn Law – Federal Courts and All Michigan Courts

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Michigan Marijuana Sales Surpassed $3 Billion In 2023

Michigan Marijuana Sales Surpassed $3 Billion In 2023

In 2023 according to sources on the internet the Michigan  lottery made 46 million , liquor taxes made $31.5 billion this year, a slight increase from previous projections but close to $400 million less than the previous year.  Marijuana about 3 billion.

Michigan’s legal marijuana retailers experienced remarkable success in 2023, generating an impressive $3 billion in cannabis sales. Notably, the sales soared even higher in December, surpassing all previous records.

Licensed businesses achieved a remarkable milestone last month, generating an impressive $279.9 million in total sales, as revealed by the latest state sales data. This outstanding performance sets a new record, surpassing the previous highest monthly earnings of $276.7 million, which were accomplished in July of the previous year.

All recorded sales for 2023, including both adult-use and medical purchases, reached a staggering $3,057,161,285.85, as reported by Michigan’s Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA). This figure surpasses the previous year’s total of $2.29 billion by approximately one-third, highlighting the remarkable growth within the industry.

See the CRA Reports

 

RESTORE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
RESTORE YOUR PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR DRIVER LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR PAST (Expungements)

Call our Office for a free case evaluation
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550

Detroit casinos report $116.2M in December revenue, $1.237B for year

DETROIT, Jan. 9, 2024 — The three Detroit casinos reported $116.2 million in monthly aggregate revenue (AGR) for the month of December 2023, of which $111.4 million was generated from table games and slots, and $4.8 million from retail sports betting.

The December market shares were:

MGM, 44%
MotorCity, 32%
Hollywood Casino at Greektown, 24%
Monthly Table Games, Slot Revenue, and Taxes
December 2023 table games and slot revenue increased 2.9% when compared to December 2022 revenue. December’s monthly revenue was also 46.6% higher than November 2023. From Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, the Detroit casinos’ table games and slots revenue decreased by 2.7% compared to the same period last year.

The casinos’ monthly gaming revenue results were mixed compared to December 2022:

MGM, down 0.7% to $50.6 million
MotorCity, up by 5.1% to $34.7 million
Hollywood Casino at Greektown, up by 7.5% to $26.1 million
In December 2023, the three Detroit casinos paid $9.0 million in gaming taxes to the State of Michigan. They paid $8.8 million for the same month last year. The casinos also reported submitting $13.8 million in wagering taxes and development agreement payments to the City of Detroit in December.

Quarterly Table Games, Slot Revenue, and Taxes
For the fourth quarter of 2023 that ended Dec. 31, aggregate revenue was down for all three Detroit casinos by 12.9% compared to the same period last year. Quarterly gaming revenue for the casinos was:

MGM: $118.6 million
MotorCity: $84.4 million
Hollywood Casino at Greektown: $66.2 million
Compared to the fourth quarter of 2022, MGM, MotorCity, and Hollywood Casino at Greektown were down by 17.7%, 11.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. The three casinos paid $21.8 million in gaming taxes to the state in the fourth quarter of 2023, compared to $25.0 million in the same quarter last year.

Monthly Retail Sports Betting Revenue and Taxes
The three Detroit casinos reported $30.4 million in total retail sports betting handle, and total gross receipts were $4.8 million for the month of December. Retail sports betting qualified adjusted gross receipts (QAGR) in December 2023 were up by $3.1 million when compared to December 2022. Compared to November 2023, December QAGR increased 54.9%.

December QAGR by casino was:

MGM: $291,171
MotorCity: $2.3 million
Hollywood Casino at Greektown: $2.2 million
During December, the casinos paid $180,822 in gaming taxes to the state and reported submitting $221,005 in wagering taxes to the City of Detroit based on their retail sports betting revenue.

Annual Revenue for Table Games, Slots, and Retail Sports Betting
The total yearly aggregate revenue of $1.237 billion — a slight decrease of 3.1% compared to last year — by the three Detroit casinos for slots, table games, and retail sports betting was generated by:

Slots: $984.1 million (80%)
Table games: $238.7 million (19%)
Retail sports betting: $14.0 million (1%)
The casinos’ market shares for the year were:

MGM, 46%
MotorCity, 31%
Hollywood Casino at Greektown, 23%
Compared to 2022, slots and table games yearly gaming revenue for the three casinos were as follows:

MGM, down by 6.0% to $564.0 million
MotorCity, down by 5.8% to $373.6 million
Hollywood Casino at Greektown, up by 9.5% to $285.2 million
Aggregate retail sports betting qualified adjusted gross receipts (QAGR) for 2023 was down by 25.7% to $14.0 million compared to last year, with MGM totaling $2.3 million, MotorCity totaling $5.0 million, and Hollywood Casino at Greektown totaling $6.7 million.

In 2023, the three Detroit casinos paid the state $99.0 million in wagering taxes for slots and table games, and $528,314 in wagering taxes for retail sports betting. In 2022, they had paid $101.8 million and $711,087 for each, respectively.

Fantasy Contests
For November, fantasy contest operators reported total adjusted revenues of $1.8 million and paid taxes of $149,915.

From Jan. 1 through Nov. 30, fantasy contest operators reported $21.3 million in aggregate fantasy contest adjusted revenues and paid $1.8 million in taxes.

Gambling in any form is for entertainment purposes only. If someone has a gambling problem, please call the state’s 24-hour, toll-free helpline at 1-800-270-7117 or the MGCB’s responsible gaming section at 1-888-223-3044. Visit the Responsible Gaming page of the MGCB website for information on self-exclusion programs including the Disassociated Persons List and the Internet Gaming and Sports Betting Responsible Gaming Database, and DontRegretTheBet.org for additional tools to game responsibly.

The Michigan Gaming Control Board shall ensure the conduct of fair and honest gaming to protect the interests of the citizens of the state of Michigan. Learn more at Michigan.gov/MGCB.

How is the money spent?

Komorn Law – Federal Courts and All Michigan Courts

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Evidence in Michigan Courts: A Guide to Rules 301-302

Evidence in Michigan Courts: A Guide to Rules 301-302

Michigan Rules of Evidence: A Guide to Rules 301-302

Presumptions, those inferences drawn from established facts, play a crucial role in both civil and criminal cases in Michigan.

However, their application is carefully regulated by the Michigan Rules of Evidence, specifically Rules 301 and 302.

This article delves into these rules, providing a clear understanding of their purpose, scope, and practical implications for legal professionals and anyone interested in the intricacies of Michigan’s evidentiary landscape.

Rule 301: Presumptions in Civil Cases

This rule governs the burden of proof related to presumptions in civil proceedings.

It states that unless a statute or other rule dictates otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut it.

This burden of production, however, is distinct from the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who originally had it.

In essence, a presumption shifts the responsibility to present evidence to the opposing party, but the ultimate responsibility to convince the court of their claim rests with the party bearing the initial burden.

The Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook further clarifies the application of Rule 301.

It emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between rebuttable and conclusive presumptions.

Rebuttable presumptions, as described above, can be overcome by evidence, while conclusive presumptions are mandatory inferences that must be accepted by the jury.

The handbook also provides examples of common presumptions, such as the presumption of sanity, the presumption of legitimacy of a child born in wedlock, and the presumption of ownership arising from possession of property.

Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Have you been charged with a crime?

Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law  248-357-2550

Rule 302: Presumptions in Criminal Cases

For criminal proceedings, Rule 302 takes a different approach. It governs presumptions against a defendant, whether recognized at common law or created by statute.

Unlike Rule 301, Rule 302 doesn’t impose a burden of production on the defendant to rebut a presumption.

Instead, it emphasizes that the prosecution retains the ultimate burden of proving all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless it’s political of course.

The handbook elaborates on this key distinction.

It explains that the jury must be instructed that they may, but are not required to, infer the existence of the presumed fact from the basic facts presented.

This ensures that the jury retains its ultimate power to decide guilt or innocence based on the totality of the evidence, without being coerced by a presumption (in a perfect world).

Key Takeaways:

Civil cases: Presumptions in civil cases shift the burden of production, not the burden of persuasion, to the party against whom the presumption is directed.

Criminal cases: Presumptions against defendants in criminal cases do not shift the burden of proof. The jury must be instructed that they may infer the presumed fact, but are not obligated to do so.

Further Considerations:

The Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook offers valuable insights into the nuances of these rules, including the specific wording of jury instructions, the interplay of presumptions with other evidentiary rules, and the potential limitations of certain presumptions.

For legal professionals navigating complex cases involving presumptions, studying the handbook and consulting relevant case law is crucial for ensuring a comprehensive understanding and effective application of these rules.

By understanding the intricacies of Rules 301 and 302, legal professionals and anyone interested in Michigan’s evidentiary rules can navigate presumptions with confidence, ensuring fair and just outcomes in both civil and criminal proceedings.

Important:

This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance.

The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.

Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.

 

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.