Posts Tagged ‘Criminal Defense Lawyers in Michigan’

Michigan Medical Marijuana Law – Another Swipe at Medical Marijuana Law Taken By Michigan Court of Appeals

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

Last week, we wrote about the Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling that medical marijuana dispensaries are illegal if they involve the sale of marijuana. This week, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a ruling that further limits the application of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).

This newest case involves Brian Reed, who undisputedly suffers from chronic back pain due to a degenerative disc disease. After Mr. Reed heard about the passage of the Michigan medical marijuana law, he asked his doctors about becoming a medical marijuana patient. The two doctors he asked said they would not recommend that Mr. Reed use marijuana since they received federal funding, and marijuana—even for medical use—is illegal under federal law. It was at this point that Mr. Reed began growing weed in his yard. The marijuana was spotted during an aerial surveillance by law enforcement on August 25, 2009. On September 16, 2009, Mr. Reed finally obtained certification from a doctor to use medical marijuana. He received his registry identification card from the State of Michigan on October 6, 2009. Then, on October 16, 2009, he was arrested and charged with manufacture of marijuana.

As we discussed, the Michigan Court of Appeals previously stated in the case of People v. Kolanek that a person can use the Section 8 Affirmative Defense of the MMMA if they receive a physician’s marijuana recommendation before their arrest. Mr. Reed argued that he should be free from prosecution, because even though he received a physician recommendation after he was caught growing the pot, this recommendation still occurred before his arrest. The Michigan Court of Appeals, however, decided to limit their ruling in Kolanek. Now, for the affirmative defense to apply, the physician statement must occur before the commission of the offense.

As criminal defense lawyers that practice medical marijuana law, we know that the courts have been trying to limit the application of the MMMA. Hopefully, one day the Michigan Legislature will make changes to the law to clear up the confusion. But for now, patients and caregivers must be completely in compliance with the law, or they face misdemeanor or felony marijuana charges. If you have an issue regarding the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act or any other drug crime, it is best to consult with a skilled attorney.

Criminal Defense – Immigration Consequences of a Criminal Conviction

Friday, July 29th, 2011

Something criminal defense attorneys should be very aware of is that defendants who are not United States citizens and are found guilty of, or plead guilty to, certain crimes may face deportation from the United States. Deportation is one of the worst possible scenarios for many defendants, as it could result in them leaving their families and livelihoods behind in the United States.

There are certain categories of crimes that can often trigger the immigration consequence of deportation. The first category is called “aggravated felonies,” though certain misdemeanors are included, as well. In this first category are theft crimes and crimes of violence, such as assaultDUI, and any crime that carries a potential sentence of more than 1 year of imprisonment.

The second category of crime that can trigger deportation is “crimes of moral turpitude.” In general, this encompasses crimes with intent to defraud or steal, crimes with an intentional or reckless infliction of harm to person or property, crimes with some sort of malice, and sex crimes. Thus, courts have held that murderrapeburglarywhite collar crimes, and more are considered crimes of moral turpitude.

The third category of crimes that can lead to deportation includes crimes that are specifically listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This category includes most drug crimes, domestic violence, PPO violations, and firearm offenses.

This list is not meant to be all inclusive, and it is very possible that a conviction for any other type of crime could also result in harm to ones immigration status. That is why we recommend contacting a highly-skilled defense lawyer who knows and understands the deportation consequences of a guilty plea or conviction. As you can see, there are many criminal charges that could cause difficulty for a person who is not a citizen of the United States. If you are not a citizen and are facing a criminal prosecution, you need to make sure your criminal defense attorney is aware of your immigration status. At Kronzek & Cronkright, PLLC, we work with highly-qualified immigration attorneys to assist our clients with this issue. As a general proposition, no non-citizen should make a decision about entering a negotiated plea agreement without carefully considering the immigration consequences. We have helped numerous clients with these complex and difficult decisions and are available to consult with you or your loved one.

Michigan Settlement Law – Detroit, Michigan City Council Members Ordered Into Federal Court

Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff ordered the 9 members of the Detroit City Council to appear before him to explain why it has taken so long to pay a settlement to two men who claim they were groped and assaulted by two Detroit police officers. In March of 2011, officials at the City of Detroit agreed to settle this case for $50,000, though no formal action has been taken yet to pay the men their award.

Judge Zatkoff ordered the City Council to his courtroom so they could explain what Zatkoff says is “deliberate indifference” regarding the payment of this settlement. The judge granted a short adjournment of the hearing to give the city more time to get the case resolved. Judge Zatkoff’s courtroom is in Port Huron, Michigan.

As Michigan attorneys, we know how important it is for our clients to be able to rely on final settlements. It is not fair that cities like Detroit say they will pay for misconduct damages that were caused by their police officers, but then wait an unreasonable amount of time to follow through with that agreement. This is not the first time Detroit, Michigan officials have unreasonably delayed payment in a court case. Earlier this year, a judge in another case ordered the City of Detroit to pay around $20,000 in fines on top of a $25,000 settlement because the delay on payment to the plaintiff was too long.

The attorneys at Kronzek & Cronkright commend Judge Zatkoff for his tough stance in this case. Like everyone else, police officers sometimes make mistakes or behave poorly, and we think they should be held accountable for their actions.

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.

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.

Miranda Warnings – Age Must Be Considered in Interrogations, Supreme Court Rules.

Tuesday, June 21st, 2011

If you watch cop shows or lawyer shows on TV, you’ve heard the phrase, “You have the right to remain silent.” This warning is part of the Miranda warnings that police officers must give to someone who: (1) is in custody, and (2) is being interrogated.  It is based on a suspect’s Fifth Amendment Constitutional Right. On June 16, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that age must be taken into account by police when determining whether these Miranda warnings must be given. Courts must also take a suspect’s age into account when deciding whether a confession given without a Miranda warning will be admissible in court. Every aggressive criminal defense attorney carefully examines an entire arrest process to determine whether the police have violated their client’s 5th Amendment right. Justice Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion that states, “It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave.” However, Justice Alito wrote for the losing dissent that “safeguarding the constitutional rights of minors does not require the extreme makeover of Miranda that today’s decision may portend.” The criminal defense attorneys at Kronzek & Cronkright agree that this new ruling is an “extreme makeover” of Miranda.

When a defendant confesses to a crime, that defendant still has a chance of getting their case dismissed by challenging the voluntariness of the confession and other important factors. If you or someone you know has confessed to a crime, now is the time to hire an aggressive defense attorney. Your attorney should think about all of the possible issues in your case to help you determine what should be the next step in your criminal defense. The right attorney is critical to protecting your freedom and your future.