Is the Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee relevant?

I believe as lawyers that a main objective in our lives is to make a difference; to effect for good the lives of others and justice in our community, state and country. In realty that doesn’t always happen, and it is a continued fight especially in our complicated world and difficult economic times.

CJaP has made a difference, and continues to have the ability to directly affect legislation and court rules. Two examples: In October the Supreme Court, contrary to the advocated position of almost every other entity, adopted our recommendation that respondents, for good cause, be allowed to subsequently file a motion to terminate or modify a personal protection order. Last week the Supreme Court again adopted our recommendation, infra, to address a concern of importance to the Court. Our diversity and ability to address areas of concern to the Court is a valued commodity. We are an important, vital committee and with that there is also great responsibility.

My wish is two-fold: Happy holidays, and please for the next year make every effort to participate in committee meetings. We need you; the Bar, legislature and Supreme Court needs you. And we need all of you. It is that diversity that makes us relevant. It is the principled exchange of ideas that earns the respect of our colleagues and effects upcoming legislation and court rules.

Judge David A. Hoort

8th Judicial Circuit Court

http://judgedavidhoort.blogspot.com/

“Some times, good things happen, for many reasons, and because of many people.”

----------------------------------------

12/08/2011

Michigan Supreme Court Adopts MCR Amendment to Address People v Richmond

By order (PDF) issued today, the Supreme Court has adopted the following amendment to MCR 7.205:

(E)
Emergency Appeal.
(1)-(2)[Unchanged.]
(3) Where the trial court makes a decision on the admissibility of evidence and the prosecutor or the defendant files an interlocutory application for leave to appeal seeking to reverse that decision, the trial court shall stay proceedings pending resolution of the application in the Court of Appeals, unless the trial court makes findings that the evidence is clearly cumulative or that an appeal is frivolous because legal precedent is clearly against the party’s position. The appealing party must pursue the appeal as expeditiously as practicable, and the Court of Appeals shall consider the matter under the same priority as that granted to an interlocutory criminal appeal under MCR 7.213(C)(1). If the application for leave to appeal is filed by the prosecutor and the defendant is incarcerated, the defendant may request that the trial court reconsider whether pretrial release is appropriate.
(F)-(G)[Unchanged.]

The amendment is effective January 1, 2012. It addresses the situation that arose in People v Richmond, 486 Mich 29 (2010), in which a prosecutor’s dismissal of a case following a trial court’s suppression of evidence in the case resulted in a finding that the appeal of the suppression order was moot. According to the staff comment, under the amendment a party could pursue an interlocutory appeal of a trial court suppression order and in most cases would be entitled to a stay in the case. The language adopted was offered by the State Bar's Criminal Law and Jurisprudence committee in the event the Court decided an amendment was needed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Sam Smith for the language recommended by CJaP and adopted by the Supreme Court!!!