MSC Reverses Murder Conviction Based on Suggestive Show Up

-
Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a Saginaw County man whom a jury had convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. In People v Sammons, ____ Mich ____, Decided March 16, 2020 (Docket No. 156189), Justice Cavanagh, joined by Chief Justice McCormack and Justices Viviano, Bernstein, and Clement, concluded that a show up of the defendant to a witness was unduly suggestive because it implied that the defendant was a suspect in the murder. The show up was unnecessary, except for police convenience, because the defendant was in custody at the time. The show up was unreliable utilizing the factors identified in Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188 (1972), and, finally, the prosecution's use of evidence of the identification was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A show up is unlike a corporeal lineup, because in a show up the police show the suspect to the witness singly. 

  It is interesting to note from the facts that the 16-year-old witness, who saw the shooting and gave a description of the shooter to the police only a couple of hours before the show up, testified at the preliminary examination and the trial that he could not identify the defendant at the show up.  The officer in charge, however, testified that the witness had indeed identified the defendant at the show up.  The police did not record anything about the show up procedure.Justices Zahra, joined by Justice Markman, dissented, reasoning that, even though the show up was unnecessary and suggestive, the witness' identification had strong indicia of reliability when looking at the Biggers factors.

 The Court concluded that the show up was unnecessarily suggestive. Not only did the show up violate the recommendations from the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (which can be found here), but also the United States Department of Justice best practices recommendations to law enforcement. The Court reasoned, "Due process protects criminal defendants against 'the introduction of evidence of, or tainted by, unreliable pretrial identifications obtained through unnecessarily suggestive procedures.' Moore v Illinois, 434 US 220, 227; 98 S Ct 458; 54 L Ed 2d 424 (1977)." Further, the Court found, "Show ups have been called 'the most grossly suggestive identification procedure now or ever used by the police.' Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases (New York: Charles C Thomas, 1965), p 28."

 Sammons was represented in the supreme court by Gaetan Gerville-Reache with Warner Norcross in Grand Rapids.  The People were represented by Carmen Rae Fillmore from the Saginaw County Prosecutor's Office.  The trial court judge, who had denied the motions to suppress the identification, was Darnell Jackson.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MSC Rules Duress Defense Applies to 2d Degree Murder Car Crash

-
Image
  Yesterday, in a 4-3 decision with a concurrence and two dissenting opinions, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that duress is an available defense to one form of 2d Degree Murder - willful and wanton disregard that the natural tendency of the act is to cause death or great bodily harm - often referred to as "depraved heart" murder. Justice Bridget McCormack , probably writing her final opinion as a member of the bench, was joined by Justices Bernstein, Cavanagh and Welch in the opinion in People v Gafken , Docket No.  161835 .  Theresa Gafken was convicted of second degree murder in the St. Clair County Circuit Court, MCL 750.317.  The evidence showed she drove her car, while running from the police, at speeds in excess of 100 MPH.   She ran a red light and collided with other vehicles, killing one person and severely injuring several others.  The prosecution's theory was that Gafken had intended to do an act that was in willful and wanton disregard of the likelihood of
Read more

Warrant Needed for a Barn Outside the Curtilage?

-
Image
Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v Brigitte Louise Rousse, Docket No. 358358 (May 5, 2022) , an opinion that held police, with an otherwise valid search warrant, lacked the authority to search the interior of a pole barn located outside the curtilage of the home. An animal control officer discovered a cow loose on the road near the Defendant's home.  Upon returning the cow to its pen, he observed numerous dead animals on the property in various states of decomposition.  He saw three dogs on the property that were emaciated. The Defendant had no explanation for how the animals died.  From one of the pole barns that could be observed from the road and the house, he heard the yipping of dogs.  The officer obtained a search warrant for the property.  However, in the description of the place to be searched, the officer listed only the description of the house, making no mention of the pole barns on the property.  A search of one of the pole barns rev
Read more

My Interview with Justice Maura Corrigan

-
Image
I noticed that the Court of Appeals has issued two published opinions this week dealing with criminal law, but before I post those to our blog, I wanted to alert everyone to a new feature we will be offering to our readers. Today, I am launching a new podcast called "Assistance of Counsel." By following the link here and to the right, you will be able to listen to an exclusive interview I recently had with Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan. Justice Corrigan was gracious enough to sit down with me and discuss various topics dealing with her career, her personal life, the day-to-day operations of the Michigan Supreme Court and the history of the court. Justice Corrigan has been on the Supreme Court since 1999, and the interview is very informative for anyone interested in the inner workings of the Court and Justice Corrigan in particular. Our new podcast offering will be an added feature linked to our blog and to our website, www.floodlaw.com. Soon, as well, our podcast
Read more