23 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences2017Such an argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality. [Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).] But, again, “[o]therwise improper prosecutorial conduct or remarks might not require reversal if they address issues raised by defense counsel.” Dobek, 274 Mich App at 64 ; see also People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 592-593 ; 629 NW2d 411 (2001) (“[T]he prosecutor’s comments must be considered in light of defense counsel’s comments. [A]n otherwise improper remark may not rise to an error requiring reversal when the prosecutor is respondin 2017Such an argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality. [Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).] But, again, “[o]therwise improper prosecutorial conduct or remarks might not require reversal if they address issues raised by defense counsel.” Dobek, 274 Mich App at 64 ; see also People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 592-593 ; 629 NW2d 411 (2001) (“[T]he prosecutor’s comments must be considered in light of defense counsel’s comments. [A]n otherwise improper remark may not rise to an error requiring reversal when the prosecutor is respondin | 2 | 4 |
People v. Dalessandrogreen2 sentences2025Such an argument undermines the defendant’s presumption of innocence and “impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2019See id.; see also People v Dalessandro, 165 Mich App 569, 579-580 ; 419 NW2d 609 (1988) (finding the prosecutor’s comments characterizing the defense as “red herrings” and “lies” to be improper); People v Kent, 157 Mich App 780, 794 ; 404 NW2d 668 (1987) (disapproving the prosecutor’s remark that defense counsel was attempting to mislead the jury with “fairy tales” and “misleading statements”). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Kanaangreen1 sentence2024Unger, 278 Mich App at 236 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Wise
green
2 sentences2020Such an argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality. [People v Wise, 134 Mich App 82, 102 ; 351 NW2d 255 (2004) (citations omitted).] 1 This Court explained in People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015), that a fairer label for most claims of prosecutorial misconduct would be “prosecutorial error,” while only the most extreme cases rise to the level of “prosecutorial misconduct.” However, we will use the phrase “prosecutorial misconduct” because it has become a term of art. -4- Additionally, it is improper for a prose 2020Such an argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality. [People v Wise, 134 Mich App 82, 102 ; 351 NW2d 255 (2004) (citations omitted).] 1 This Court explained in People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015), that a fairer label for most claims of prosecutorial misconduct would be “prosecutorial error,” while only the most extreme cases rise to the level of “prosecutorial misconduct.” However, we will use the phrase “prosecutorial misconduct” because it has become a term of art. -4- Additionally, it is improper for a prose | 8 | 1991–2020 |
People v. Fyda
green
2 sentences2022Further, this type of “argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality.” People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 461 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010) (citation omitted). 2022Further, this type of “argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality.” People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 461 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010) (citation omitted). | 4 | 2017–2022 |
People v. Unger
green
2 sentences2021Such an argument “undermines the defendant’s presumption of innocence” and “impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021Such an argument “undermines the defendant’s presumption of innocence” and “impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 4 | 2018–2021 |
People v. Light
neutral
2 sentences2021It is also “improper for a prosecutor to make a personal attack on defense counsel, suggesting to jurors in closing argument that counsel is intentionally trying to mislead them.” People v Light, 480 Mich 1198 , 1198; 748 NW2d 518 (2008). 2021It is also “improper for a prosecutor to make a personal attack on defense counsel, suggesting to jurors in closing argument that counsel is intentionally trying to mislead them.” People v Light, 480 Mich 1198 , 1198; 748 NW2d 518 (2008). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Dobek
green
2 sentences2017Such an argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality. [Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).] But, again, “[o]therwise improper prosecutorial conduct or remarks might not require reversal if they address issues raised by defense counsel.” Dobek, 274 Mich App at 64 ; see also People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 592-593 ; 629 NW2d 411 (2001) (“[T]he prosecutor’s comments must be considered in light of defense counsel’s comments. [A]n otherwise improper remark may not rise to an error requiring reversal when the prosecutor is respondin 2017Such an argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality. [Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).] But, again, “[o]therwise improper prosecutorial conduct or remarks might not require reversal if they address issues raised by defense counsel.” Dobek, 274 Mich App at 64 ; see also People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 592-593 ; 629 NW2d 411 (2001) (“[T]he prosecutor’s comments must be considered in light of defense counsel’s comments. [A]n otherwise improper remark may not rise to an error requiring reversal when the prosecutor is respondin | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2017People v Rodriguez, 251 Mich App 10, 30 ; 650 NW2d 96 (2002). 2017People v Rodriguez, 251 Mich App 10, 30 ; 650 NW2d 96 (2002). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Callon
green
2 sentences2025Furthermore, otherwise improper remarks by the prosecutor might not require reversal if they respond to issues raised by the defense.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 330 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003). 2025Furthermore, otherwise improper remarks by the prosecutor might not require reversal if they respond to issues raised by the defense.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 330 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Bahoda
green
2 sentences2020People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 282-283 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995). 2020People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 282-283 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Cooper
green
2 sentences2020Such an argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality. [People v Wise, 134 Mich App 82, 102 ; 351 NW2d 255 (2004) (citations omitted).] 1 This Court explained in People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015), that a fairer label for most claims of prosecutorial misconduct would be “prosecutorial error,” while only the most extreme cases rise to the level of “prosecutorial misconduct.” However, we will use the phrase “prosecutorial misconduct” because it has become a term of art. -4- Additionally, it is improper for a prose 2020Such an argument impermissibly shifts the focus from the evidence itself to the defense counsel’s personality. [People v Wise, 134 Mich App 82, 102 ; 351 NW2d 255 (2004) (citations omitted).] 1 This Court explained in People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015), that a fairer label for most claims of prosecutorial misconduct would be “prosecutorial error,” while only the most extreme cases rise to the level of “prosecutorial misconduct.” However, we will use the phrase “prosecutorial misconduct” because it has become a term of art. -4- Additionally, it is improper for a prose | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Kent
green
2 sentences2019See id.; see also People v Dalessandro, 165 Mich App 569, 579-580 ; 419 NW2d 609 (1988) (finding the prosecutor’s comments characterizing the defense as “red herrings” and “lies” to be improper); People v Kent, 157 Mich App 780, 794 ; 404 NW2d 668 (1987) (disapproving the prosecutor’s remark that defense counsel was attempting to mislead the jury with “fairy tales” and “misleading statements”). 2019See id.; see also People v Dalessandro, 165 Mich App 569, 579-580 ; 419 NW2d 609 (1988) (finding the prosecutor’s comments characterizing the defense as “red herrings” and “lies” to be improper); People v Kent, 157 Mich App 780, 794 ; 404 NW2d 668 (1987) (disapproving the prosecutor’s remark that defense counsel was attempting to mislead the jury with “fairy tales” and “misleading statements”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Abraham
green
1 sentence2016Abraham, 256 Mich App at 273 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.