Archive for the ‘For Your Information’ Category

« Older Entries

Michigan Medical Marijuana Attorney – Possession of Firearms Illegal under Federal Law for Medical Marijuana Users

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

With the passing of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act in 2008, people in Michigan who use medical marijuana within the bounds of that law are protected from prosecution in Michigan courts. The same does not hold true for the federal courts, however. Marijuana use—even for medical purposes—is still completely illegal under federal law. As one might imagine, this can cause a number of confusing situations in different areas of the law. One of these areas is the right to possess firearms.

The federal statute numbered 18 U.S.C. §922(g) prohibits certain classes of individuals from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition. One of those classes includes people who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance. Under the federal drug scheduling laws, marijuana is classified as an illegal Schedule 1 controlled substance. Until recently, there was a question of whether this class of people who cannot ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition under federal law includes those people who are legal medical pot patients in states like Michigan. But, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives answered this question in a memo sent out last September. The memo states, “Therefore, any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

The firearms lawyers at Kronzek & Cronkright, PLLC are aware that many gun shop owners and operators are now asking gun purchasers whether they are medical cannabis patients. The shop owners do not want to get into trouble for selling a firearm or ammunition to a person they know or have reasonable cause to believe is an unlawful user of or addicted to an illegal controlled substance. Selling guns or ammo to a medical marijuana user is a violation of federal law.

For many medical marijuana patients, it is tough to hear that they can no longer possess, transport, ship, or receive guns while they are legal patients. Some may even choose to give up their patient status and stop using weed altogether in favor of keeping their firearms rights. If you are facing this choice, it would be a good idea to contact a criminal defense attorney.

Posted in Firearm Charges, For Your Information, Gun Charges, Medical Marijuana, Michigan State Law | No Comments »

Michigan Murder Charges – Michigan Legislature Attempting to Draft Caylee’s Law

Friday, July 15th, 2011

Crimes occur all over the world. So much so, that most people do not think twice when criminal reports are broadcasted on the nightly news. However, every once in a while there is a case that seems to interest the entire country—a case that has an outcome that shocks many, gives a skilled criminal defense attorney recognition for doing what seems impossible, and leaves lawmakers questioning if more laws should be passed or if existing ones should be more strictly enforced. The July 5, 2011 verdict in the Casey Anthony trial is one of those cases.

In response to the Anthony verdict, Michigan lawmakers are trying to make it a felony for failing to report that a child is missing if more than 24 hours pass from the time that the child disappears. Michigan Senator Rick Jones is currently drafting this bill, which if passed, will be called Caylee’s Law. There are many who are applauding Senator Jones’ efforts. Yet, he is not the only one who is trying to combat crimes of this nature through legislation. Tonya Schuitmaker, another Michigan lawmaker, is trying to get a law passed that will require those who find a dead body to swiftly report the news to the police. There is a possibility that either one or both of the bills might become the law in Michigan.

There are advantages and disadvantages in having both bills made into laws. Supporters of Caylee’s Law believe that if put into effect, there will be less missing children, as parents will have to be more aware of the whereabouts of their children. Also, supporters believe that missing children in Michigan may be found quicker and before any harm occurs to them. Similarly, the requirement to report a dead body may also allow criminals to be caught and cases to be solved at a faster rate. As a result, Michigan’s top criminal lawyers may experience an increased case load as the number of reported homicides may go up, and those criminals will need representation.

According to opponents, top defense attorneys could have their hands full and police departments may be overrun with reports resulting from the passage of such laws. Some who oppose Caylee’s Law believe that this new law may be passed merely out of anger and as an emotional reaction to the Anthony case. It has also been argued that parents may become overly cautious and report a child missing who may not be missing at all. Similarly, requiring the reporting of a discovered dead body could result in people mistakenly reporting something as a dead body that might not even be a body. As a result, police department phonelines could become flooded with frivolous calls, which could prevent officers from being able to handle more serious matters.

However, no matter if one is for or against the passage of either bill, there is a possibility that Michigan may soon have new laws added to the long list of already-existing laws. As a result, people accused of homicide will need to seek out the best Michigan criminal defense attorneys to represent them.

Ultimately, the Anthony case has gotten the country’s attention and has Michigan lawmakers hard at work trying to pass new laws. The Anthony case has also shown that a skilled attorney working on a homicide defense can produce a favorable and seemingly impossible verdict of not guilty for a defendant who was already assumed guilty in the eyes of many. The criminal defense team at Kronzek & Cronkright salutes Attorney Baez for fighting against all the odds to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and its strong presumption of innocence that helps all of us. God Bless America.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Child Abuse Cases, For Your Information, Homicide Charges, Michigan State Law, Murder, Murder Charges, News on Crime, Proposed State Law | No Comments »

Michigan Criminal Law – Squatters Not Protected Against Warrantless Police Searches Says Michigan Court of Appeals

Friday, July 1st, 2011

A squatter is defined as: “a person who settles on land or occupies property without title, right, or payment of rent.” In a case that was recently decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals, a Detroit area man met that definition. He owned a home, but he was thrown out of the home after Hamtramck, Michigan authorities condemned the house for having no running water or working toilet. It was illegal for the owner or others to use or occupy the home because it was condemned.

However, one night a neighbor notified the police that someone was staying in the house. The police arrived at the home to find the resident / squatter watching television. He invited them into the home and they found incriminating evidence, include Cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The resident / squatter argued that he had a right against a warrantless search of his home based on the 4th Amendment. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that squatters have no protection against warrantless police searches in a home where they live illegally, even if they own the home. In this case the resident was living in his home unlawfully since it had been condemned.

As top criminal attorneys, we understand that Americans have the right under the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We regularly challenge police searches when law enforcement either did not have a search warrant or, even though they had a search warrant, the warrant was insufficient. Our defense lawyers fight to defend the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

If you are being investigated for a crime or have been charged with a crime, it is not too late to get a top criminal lawyer involved in your case. Your attorney will be your advocate in and out of court when it comes to defending you from criminal charges and violations of your Constitutional rights.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Drug Charges, Drug Crimes, For Your Information, Searches, Warrantless Searches | No Comments »

“SlutWalk” in Grand Rapids Encourages Michigan Residents to Stop Blaming Victims of Sexual Assault

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

Last Saturday, anyone in downtown Grand Rapids likely heard chanters crying: “However we dress, wherever we go, yes means yes, and no means no!” The crowd had gathered for “SlutWalk Grand Rapids,” an event organized by the National Organization for Women of Greater Grand Rapids encouraging others to stop blaming victims of sexual assault based on how they dress.

Top criminal attorneys know that many people have misconceptions about who is to blame in sex crime cases–particularly if a female victim is dressed in skimpy clothing. “Men can walk around in their shorts with no shirt on and no one thinks a thing about it,” explained Ionia resident Corinn Fuller, 22. “Women, if they wear a sports bra to go jogging they’re victimized. I’ve been in groups of people and they see people walking by and say ‘oh, they’re dressed like a slut, they must be asking for it…”

However, statistics show that dressing a certain way does not necessarily safeguard against rape and sexual assault. In the United States alone, one in every six women have been raped or the victim of attempted rape–in fact, sexual assault is so common that someone is victimized every 45 seconds. It is highly unlikely that in every rape or sexual assault the way the person was dressed was a fundamental factor. Rockford resident Clara Rouse, 22, has similar sentiments. “It’s not you personally that causes whatever happens,” she relayed. “If someone’s going to rape you, they’re going to rape you regardless if you’re dressed like this or if you’re in a baggy T-shirt and shorts.”

Regardless of whether one is a top criminal lawyer or not, this is an important issue that applies to everyone. All women have a right to decide how they want to dress without a fear of rape or sexual assault. It is very commendable that so many Michigan residents gathered to support a great cause and raise sex crime awareness.  When we work together to eliminate the public stigma and bias, we allow the legal system to function as it is intended – - in the best interest of all citizens.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Assault Charges, For Your Information, News on Crime, Sexual Offenses | No Comments »

Top Criminal Attorneys Applaud US Supreme Court Ruling, Reinforcing Sixth Amendment

Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

It’s no secret that the best part of being from the United States is enjoying the rights and freedoms that our Constitution awards us. Throughout its long history, the U .S. Constitution has been amended many times. Some of these amendments relate to criminal law.

Therefore, it’s understandable why top criminal attorneys nationwide are particularly protective of the Sixth Amendment. Setting forth rights in criminal prosecutions, the Sixth Amendment protects defendants during the legal process. Under this amendment, defendants of criminal charges are entitled to:

  • A speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of peers.
  • Be informed of the charges against him or her, as well as the cause of the accusation.
  • Confront accusers and present favoring witnesses to the court.
  • Obtain defense lawyers, even if it is a court appointed attorney because he or she does not have enough money to hire a lawyer.

In the past, prosecutors were allowed to use written laboratory statements as a replacement for testimony from a live person from the laboratory to verify the lab’s results. However, throughout the 1990′s, several criminal cases were appealed due to the mishandling of evidence by medical examiners or laboratory technicians who never had to answer to their actions in a court of law. The appellate attorneys argued that had a cross-examination of these erring medical examiners or lab techs taken place, then the outcome would have likely been much different in those cases. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laboratory reports could not be admitted into evidence without a “live witness competent to testify to the truth of statements made.”

Just last week however, the Supreme Court took that Constitutional guarantee a step further. In the court’s written opinion in the drunk driving case against Donald Bullcoming, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority that the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the exact lab analyst that performed and reported the main evidence in the trial. Ginsberg stated it must be guaranteed that the testifying witness “received Bullcoming’s blood sample intact with the seal unbroken, that he checked to make sure that the forensic report number and the sample number corresponded and that he performed on Bullcoming’s sample a particular test, adhering to a precise protocol.”

This recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling widened a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by guaranteeing the ability to confront the exact person who was instrumental in their criminal charge. One does not need to be a top criminal lawyer to applaud this decision, as taking these extra precautions are essential to ensuring that innocent Americans are not wrongfully convicted. It is unfortunate that focus is often diverted from this right in an effort to make prosecutions more “cost-effective.” Eliminating the rush will provide a fair trial for all, making sure that the jury makes the correct decision, not a hasty one.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Court-Appointed Attorneys, Drunk Driving Charges, For Your Information, Motor Vehicle Charges, News on Crime | No Comments »

MI Gun Charges – Michigan Judge Deems State Law Banning Stun Guns Unconstitutional

Tuesday, May 31st, 2011

While it is the goal of every top criminal lawyer to successfully represent their client in court, there is one mission that is more important: protecting the Constitutional rights of every American, particularly those who have been criminal charged. Unfortunately, some laws that are meant to protect U.S. citizens end up stepping on our most beloved rights and freedoms. Most recently, both federal and state courts have widely debated the scope of the Second Amendment–most particularly, what type of “arms” the law is referring to.

The state of Michigan is not exempt from the debate over the regulation and use of firearms. Last month, a Bay County judge handed down a decision that will undoubtedly reshape the implementation of gun laws in Michigan. In his decision, 18th Circuit Court Judge Joseph K. Sheeran ruled that the Michigan law banning the possession of stun guns and tasers is unconstitutional.

Judge Sheeran’s decision came from a case where a Bay City party store worker was charged with a gun crime after wearing a stun gun to work for personal protection. In June 2010, law enforcement officials were called to the store after receiving a disturbance complaint. On arrival, they found Dean Yanna, 41, to be in possession of a stun gun, and the defendant was consequently charged under the state law that bans the use or possession of weapons that deliver electrical currents, impulses, waves or beams. Although Yanna’s co-worker had a handgun when police were in the store, he was not charged with a gun crime because he had a permit to carry concealed weapons. Those that are charged under the stun-gun and taser ban generally are not as lucky–violators of this felony crime face significant consequences if convicted, including up to four years behind bars.

Fortunately for Yanna, however, the 18th Circuit Court ruled in his favor. Judge Sheeran concluded that because Michigan law bans (as opposed to regulates) stun guns and tasers, it ultimately violates the Second Amendment. Citing previous landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, the judge ruled that “because the court finds that a stun gun is under the Second Amendment, it likewise follows that states may regulate the ownership and possession in the same manner as any other arm. However, this court holds that a total ban of stun guns… is unconstitutional.”

Although Bay County Assistant Prosecutor J. Dee Brooks says he will ask the Court of Appeals to review Judge Sheeran’s decision, it still could pave the way for major changes to be made in Michigan firearm laws. The delicate balance between the preservation of public safety and Constitutional rights will not always tip in favor of the defendant, and those convicted of gun crimes (including those involving stun guns and tasers) will face serious consequences as a result. Because the stakes are so high, it is essential to contact top criminal attorneys in Michigan for the best protection of your personal freedoms. Having an experienced gun defense lawyer by your side in court will help make sure that your rights are protected in court, ensuring a fair trial for your case.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Felony Crimes, For Your Information, Gun Charges, Local Crimes, Michigan State Law, News on Crime | No Comments »

« Older Entries