Should courts allow prosecutors to refer to complainants as victims

Labeling before adjudication.

Kedero Treasvant was convicted of multiple firearm-related offenses in Michigan, and his appeal raises a key issue about courtroom language—specifically, whether prosecutors can refer to complainants as “victims” before guilt is proven.

Case Summary: People v. Kedero Treasvant, No. 168806

In People v. Kedero Treasvant, the defendant was convicted by a jury in Wayne County Circuit Court of:

• Two counts of discharging a firearm in or at a building causing injury (MCL 750.234b(3))

• Two counts of felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b)

Treasvant was sentenced to 54 months to 15 years for each discharge conviction and two years for each felony-firearm conviction.

The incident involved Treasvant allegedly firing shots into a building, resulting in injuries. During trial, the prosecution referred to the complainants as “victims,” which the defense objected to, arguing it prejudiced the jury and undermined the presumption of innocence.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, but the Michigan Supreme Court has now ordered oral arguments to determine whether the trial court erred by allowing the term “victim” to be used before a verdict was reached

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted oral argument in People v. Kedero Treasvant, Case No. 168806, to address a pivotal issue in criminal procedure: whether trial courts may permit prosecutors to refer to complainants as “victims” prior to a jury’s determination of guilt. This question implicates the presumption of innocence and the fairness of trial proceedings. The Court’s decision will likely have far-reaching implications for trial conduct across Michigan.

Procedural and Legal Background

In the underlying criminal matter, the defendant, Kedero Treasvant, moved to prohibit the prosecution from referring to the complainant as a “victim” during trial.

The trial court denied the motion, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Treasvant sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which has now ordered supplemental briefing and oral argument on whether the trial court’s denial constituted reversible error under Michigan Court Rule 7.312(E) 

The term “victim” carries connotations of criminal wrongdoing and may imply that the defendant has already been found guilty.

Courts across jurisdictions have grappled with this issue, balancing prosecutorial discretion with the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

Legal Stakes and Policy Considerations

What’s at Stake:

• The integrity of the presumption of innocence

• The language permissible in prosecutorial advocacy

• The potential for prejudicial influence on jurors

• Uniformity in trial procedure across Michigan courts

Arguments Supporting Use of “Victim”:

• Statutory definitions may classify complainants as victims based on alleged conduct.

• Prosecutors argue it reflects the nature of the charges and the harm alleged.

• May assist jurors in understanding the narrative of the case.

Arguments Opposing Use of “Victim”:

• Risks prejudicing the jury by implying guilt before adjudication.

• Undermines the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.

• May violate due process protections under the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling will clarify whether trial courts must restrict such terminology or whether its use falls within permissible prosecutorial latitude.

In Closing

People v. Treasvant presents a critical opportunity for the Michigan Supreme Court to define the boundaries of courtroom language in criminal trials. The outcome will influence how courts safeguard the presumption of innocence and manage the rhetorical framing of cases. Legal practitioners, trial judges, and defendants alike await guidance on this nuanced but impactful issue.