Case: United States v. Lanier Court: U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit ( Published Opinion ) Judges: Moore, Stranch, and Donald Issues: A juror’s extraneous communications with a state prosecutor; Remmer v. United States; United States v. Davis; United States v. Herndon; United States v. Shackelford; United States v. Frost; United States v. Rigsby Summary: Where the district court failed to investigate a juror’s extraneous communications with a state prosecutor, the court v

Case: People v. North Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Issues: Motion to suppress; Probable cause to extend the traffic stop & conduct a search of the vehicle; People v. Williams; Due deference; People v. Shipley; People v. Dagwan; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11; People v. Armendarez; People v. Kazmierczak; Illinois v. Caballes; People v. Kimble Summary: The court held that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppres

Case: People v. Cleveland Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Issues: Sentencing; People v. Lockridge; People v. Steanhouse Summary: Noting that the trial court was no longer required to find substantial and compelling reasons for departing from the guidelines, and that the prosecution failed to show any error, the court affirmed defendant’s sentence. He pleaded guilty to first-degree home invasion and was sentenced to 6 months to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Case: People v. Wood Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Published Opinion ) Judges: K.F. Kelly and Stephens; Concurring in part, Dissenting in part - Murray Issues: Motion to suppress; Mootness; People v. Richmond; Search & seizure; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11; Probable cause; People v. Beuschlein; People v. Garvin; United States v. Ross; People v. Kazmierczak; The automobile exception to the warrant requirement; People v. Levine; “Huffing”; MCL 752.272 &

Case: People v. Johnson Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Issues: Waiver of the family court’s jurisdiction over the trial; Whether it was proper for the defendant-juvenile to be tried as an adult under MCL 712A.4(4); In re Fultz; People v. Lane; MCL 712A.4(4)(a)-(f); People v. Pett; Whether it was purely speculative to conclude that he would not take advantage of or participate meaningfully in programming; Whether the trial court relied exclusively on

Case: Block v. Galbraith Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Judges: Per Curiam - Stephens, K.F. Kelly, and Murray Issues: Child custody dispute; The Child Custody Act (CCA) (MCL 722.21 et seq.); MCL 722.24(1); MCL 722.25(1); Eldred v. Ziny; Hunter v. Hunter; Best interests of the children; MCL 722.23; Harvey v. Harvey; Heltzel v. Heltzel; Spires v. Bergman; Foskett v. Foskett; The Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC) (MCL 700.1101 et seq.); Proper

Case: People v. Root Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Judges: Per Curiam – Sawyer, Hoekstra, and Beckering Issues: Motion to suppress confession; People v. Vaughn; Miranda v. Arizona; Custodial interrogation; Stansbury v. California; Howes v. Fields; Oregon v. Mathiason; United States v. Patterson (7th Cir.); United States v. LeBrun (8th Cir.); People v. Hill; Tankleff v. Senkowski (2nd Cir.); Statements after Miranda warnings; Oregon v. Elstad; Missou

Case: In re Jackson Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Issues: Whether the respondent-juvenile’s plea was understanding, voluntary, and accurate; MCR 3.941(C)(1) & (3); A juvenile’s plea of admission or no contest; MCR 3.941(A); Explanation of the possible dispositions; MCR 3.941(C)(1)(b); MCL 712A.18; MCL 712A.18(1)(a), (b), (d), & (e); Ensuring the accuracy of the plea by questioning of the juvenile or other means; MCR 3.941(C)(3)(a); Waiver; In re Tie

Case: People v. Devowe Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Issues: Sufficiency of the evidence to prove defendant removed the electronic monitoring device; MCL 771.3f; People v. Wolfe; People v. Unger; People v. Kanaan; Circumstantial evidence;People v. Henderson; People v. Nowack; Right to confrontation; U.S. Const. amend. VI; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 20; People v. Yost; Crawford v. Washington; People v. Fackelman; People v. Nunley; Ineffective assistance

Case: Morgan v. Morgan Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion ) Issues: Divorce; Marital property division; Gates v. Gates; Sands v. Sands; Cunningham v. Cunningham; Berger v. Berger; McDougal v. McDougal; Sparks v. Sparks; Book of business; Postema v. Postema; McNamara v. McNamara; 401(k); Dissipation of marital assets; Reeves v. Reeves; Woodington v. Shokoohi; Whether there was “confusion” in the judgment; Spousal support/health insurance; Moore v. Moore; At