Michigan Preliminary Exams
The Strategic Gatekeeper
in Felony Defense
A Guide to One of the Most Important Early Stages in a Felony Case
Summary
A preliminary examination (“prelim”) is the first major evidentiary hearing in a Michigan felony case. It is where a district court judge decides whether the prosecution has shown probable cause—a very low standard—that a crime occurred and that the defendant may have committed it. A bindover is the most common outcome, but the hearing remains strategically valuable. It allows the defense to cross‑examine witnesses, challenge weak evidence, preserve constitutional issues, and begin shaping the case long before trial.
Background
Every Michigan felony begins in district court. Before a case can move to circuit court, the prosecutor must present enough evidence to justify continuing the prosecution. At the preliminary exam, the judge must answer two questions:
-
Was a crime committed?
-
Is there probable cause to believe the defendant committed it?
If the answer to both is yes, the case is bound over to circuit court. If not, charges may be dismissed or reduced.
The standard of proof at this stage is probable cause, which is dramatically lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required at trial. The uploaded document illustrates this difference by comparing probable cause to “approximately 3 on a scale of 0–100,” versus “90–93” for trial—an analogy meant only to show how low the bar is.
Opinions
From a defense perspective, the preliminary exam is one of the most important early opportunities to shape the case. Even when a bindover is expected, the hearing allows counsel to:
-
Cross‑examine witnesses under oath
-
Expose inconsistencies or gaps in memory
-
Challenge questionable evidence, including search‑and‑seizure issues
-
Lock in sworn testimony for impeachment at trial
-
Force the prosecution to reveal details not found in police reports
-
Build a record for later motions, including motions to suppress or quash the bindover
For example, in cases involving controlled substances—including marijuana—testimony at the prelim may reveal whether evidence was seized lawfully or whether statutory defenses might apply later.
What’s at Stake
The preliminary exam can influence the direction of the entire case:
-
Case Bound Over: The most common result; the case proceeds to circuit court.
-
Charges Dismissed: Rare, but possible if probable cause is not established.
-
Charges Reduced: The judge may find probable cause only for a lesser offense.
-
Adjournment: Occurs when witnesses are unavailable or discovery is incomplete.
-
Plea Agreement: Sometimes reached before or during the hearing.
A bindover is not a finding of guilt. It simply means the prosecution met the minimal threshold required to continue the case.
In Closing
The preliminary examination is not about winning or losing the case—it is about building the defense. At Komorn Law, the goal is to leave the hearing with a strong record: cross‑examination that exposes weaknesses, objections that preserve constitutional issues, and testimony that can be used later to challenge the prosecution’s case. As the document states, “The preliminary exam is the beginning of your defense — and we treat it with the seriousness it deserves.”
FAQs
Q: Is the preliminary exam the same as a trial?
A: No. The judge is not deciding guilt—only whether probable cause exists.
Q: Will I have to testify?
A: Almost never. Defendants typically do not testify at prelims.
Q: Can charges be dismissed at this stage?
A: Yes, but it is uncommon. Dismissal occurs only when the prosecution fails to meet the low probable‑cause standard.
Q: What if the police search was illegal?
A: Your attorney can begin raising Fourth Amendment issues at the prelim, preserving them for later motions.
Q: Why hold the prelim if the case will likely be bound over?
A: Because it provides sworn testimony, discovery advantages, and opportunities to challenge evidence that may shape the entire defense strategy.
Related Links & Sources
-
Michigan Court Rules – Preliminary Examinations (MCR 6.110)
-
Michigan Compiled Laws – Criminal Procedure
-
Michigan Controlled Substances Statutes (including PHC and MRTMA references)
-
Komorn Law PLLC – Criminal Defense Resources
Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call 248-357-2550.
More Articles
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)
Case Summary The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s conviction for...
Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineOverview Although both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress...
A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude...
What is the Exclusionary Rule?
What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the...
More
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Manslaughter
Case Summary These two cases examine the boundaries of involuntary manslaughter. In People v Aiyash, a gas‑station clerk locked an agitated customer and three patrons inside the store, after which the customer shot the patrons. In People v Sherrill, the defendant...
Michigan begins 2026 with New Laws
Michigan’s 2026 legal landscape includes major tax reforms—most notably the gas‑tax increase from 31¢ to 52.4¢ per gallon—along with cannabis tax changes, wage increases, consumer protections, and transparency laws.Michigan begins 2026 with a slate of new laws...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Appeal
Michigan appellate courts issued several significant decisions refining how convictions are reviewed, when relief from judgment is appropriate, and how procedural errors must be preserved. These cases collectively clarify retroactivity, evidentiary‑weight standards,...
Coalition Forms to Support Voter Approved MRTMA
New Coalition Forms To Support Voter Approved Cannabis ActMichigan’s adult‑use cannabis framework was not created by accident. It was built through a deliberate, voter‑driven process culminating in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). The Act...
Michigan Court of Appeals Orders City of Taylor to Release Police Misconduct Records
Case Summary The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that the City of Taylor must comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by the ACLU of Michigan seeking police misconduct records dating back to 2021. The request covers documents involving...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Home Invasion
Case Summary In People v Berry, the defendant co‑owned a home with his former partner. After moving out and negotiating a buyout, he re‑entered the home with another individual before the agreement was finalized. Both were charged with first‑degree home invasion. The...













