invocation privilege in Michigan

2026Accordingly, this general policy against retrials and governmental harassment leads us to agree with Kennedy’s general premise that a “defendant’s valued right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Kennedy, 456 US at 673 .

2026The Court first acknowledged that a “defendant’s valued right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Id. at 673 .

2025Given that the gun involved in the offense was registered in the witness’s name, the witness had a “reasonable basis . . . to fear incrimination.” See Dyer, 425 Mich at 578 .

2023That is, it could be reasonably argued that the prosecution sought to admit evidence of defendant’s past possession of guns because, if he possessed guns in the past, it made it more likely that he possessed the guns found in this case. -7- Mich 484, 495-496; 596 NW2d 607 (1999).

2023Moreover, given that the prosecution’s argument for similarity is that the images of the other guns “depicted the same conduct as the charged offenses—gun possession,” it could be reasonably argued that the prosecution’s invocation of the doctrine of chances is nothing more than an attempt to admit “character evidence in disguise[.]” Id.

2022The sudden-emergency doctrine may be invoked to rebut a statutory presumption of negligence, White II, 482 Mich at 139 , and may also be considered in cases where there is no such presumption, Murner v Thorpe, 284 Mich 331, 335 ; 279 NW 849 (1938) (rejecting the defendant’s invocation of the doctrine to excuse his driving at high speeds without headlights because the emergency was of the defendant’s own making).

2022“To come within the purview of the sudden-emergency doctrine, the circumstances surrounding the accident must present a situation that is unusual or unsuspected.” White I, 275 Mich App at 622 .

2022The sudden-emergency doctrine may be invoked to rebut a statutory presumption of negligence, White II, 482 Mich at 139 , and may also be considered in cases where there is no such presumption, Murner v Thorpe, 284 Mich 331, 335 ; 279 NW 849 (1938) (rejecting the defendant’s invocation of the doctrine to excuse his driving at high speeds without headlights because the emergency was of the defendant’s own making).

2022The sudden-emergency doctrine may be invoked to rebut a statutory presumption of negligence, White II, 482 Mich at 139 , and may also be considered in cases where there is no such presumption, Murner v Thorpe, 284 Mich 331, 335 ; 279 NW 849 (1938) (rejecting the defendant’s invocation of the doctrine to excuse his driving at high speeds without headlights because the emergency was of the defendant’s own making).

2018However, constitutional error may potentially arise if the witness’s invocation of a privilege denies a defendant the right to confront a witness, see id. and Gearns, 457 Mich at 186-187 , or if due process is violated by a prosecutor’s misconduct in making a “ ‘conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege,’ ” Gearns, 457 Mich at 188 , quoting Namet v United States, 373 US 179, 186 ; 83 S Ct 1151 ; 10 L Ed 2d 278 (1963).

2018However, constitutional error may potentially arise if the witness’s invocation of a privilege denies a defendant the right to confront a witness, see id. and Gearns, 457 Mich at 186-187 , or if due process is violated by a prosecutor’s misconduct in making a “ ‘conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege,’ ” Gearns, 457 Mich at 188 , quoting Namet v United States, 373 US 179, 186 ; 83 S Ct 1151 ; 10 L Ed 2d 278 (1963).

2018See People v Joseph, 384 Mich 24, 29-30 ; 179 NW2d 383 (1970), citing Hoffman v United States, 341 US 479, 486-487 ; 71 S Ct 814 ; 95 L Ed 1118 (1951); see also Castro, 129 F3d at 229 .

2018See People v Joseph, 384 Mich 24, 29-30 ; 179 NW2d 383 (1970), citing Hoffman v United States, 341 US 479, 486-487 ; 71 S Ct 814 ; 95 L Ed 1118 (1951); see also Castro, 129 F3d at 229 .

2018However, constitutional error may potentially arise if the witness’s invocation of a privilege denies a defendant the right to confront a witness, see id. and Gearns, 457 Mich at 186-187 , or if due process is violated by a prosecutor’s misconduct in making a “ ‘conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege,’ ” Gearns, 457 Mich at 188 , quoting Namet v United States, 373 US 179, 186 ; 83 S Ct 1151 ; 10 L Ed 2d 278 (1963).

2018However, constitutional error may potentially arise if the witness’s invocation of a privilege denies a defendant the right to confront a witness, see id. and Gearns, 457 Mich at 186-187 , or if due process is violated by a prosecutor’s misconduct in making a “ ‘conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege,’ ” Gearns, 457 Mich at 188 , quoting Namet v United States, 373 US 179, 186 ; 83 S Ct 1151 ; 10 L Ed 2d 278 (1963).

1998MCR 2.314(B)(2); Jordan v Sinai Hosp of Detroit, Inc, 171 Mich App 328, 345 ; 429 NW2d 891 (1988).

1998MCR 2.314(B)(2); Jordan v Sinai Hosp of Detroit, Inc, 171 Mich App 328, 345 ; 429 NW2d 891 (1988).

1995A proper invocation of the rule of law established in Smith would require a demonstration that defendant unambiguously requested counsel, something that defendant is unable to demonstrate. [2] Because the prosecution's statements were not improper, we do not comment concerning whether an allegation of misconduct by a prosecutor, usually defined as occurring when the prosecution's actions deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial, see, e.g., People v Legrone, 205 Mich App 77, 82-83 ; 517 NW2d 270 (1994), properly may be raised with respect to actions taken at a sentencing hearing.

1995A proper invocation of the rule of law established in Smith would require a demonstration that defendant unambiguously requested counsel, something that defendant is unable to demonstrate. [2] Because the prosecution's statements were not improper, we do not comment concerning whether an allegation of misconduct by a prosecutor, usually defined as occurring when the prosecution's actions deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial, see, e.g., People v Legrone, 205 Mich App 77, 82-83 ; 517 NW2d 270 (1994), properly may be raised with respect to actions taken at a sentencing hearing.

1917The language of the court in Harris v. Township of Clinton, 64 Mich. 447 ( 31 N. W. 425 , 8 Am.

1917The language of the court in Harris v. Township of Clinton, 64 Mich. 447 ( 31 N. W. 425 , 8 Am.