Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2025 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 of Michigan v. Johnny Ray Kennedygreen2 sentences2025While socially significant information, these studies failed to provide the court with an explanation as to why a “particular expert [was] necessary” or the “usefulness of the requested expert to the defense’s case.” See id. 2022However, defense counsel is “obligated to inform himself about the specific scientific area in question and to provide the court with as much information as possible concerning the usefulness of the requested expert to the defense’s case.” Id. (cleaned up). | 3 | 11 |
People of Michigan v. Robert Lance Proppgreen1 sentence2022In Propp I, 330 Mich App at 184-185, the concurring judge analyzed the issue as follows: [W]ith respect to the appointment of a defense expert witness at the state’s expense, I would conclude that defendant satisfied the first part of the “reasonable probability” standard from Moore . . . adopted by the Supreme Court in [Kennedy]. ... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2018Under the framework articulated in Ake, 470 US at 78-83 , and Kennedy, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 5-11, 17-19, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion. -3- Much like the defendant in Ake, 470 US at 78 , defendant in this case has an immensely persuasive interest in the accuracy of a criminal proceeding that places his freedom at issue. 2018Under the framework articulated in Ake, 470 US at 78-83 , and Kennedy, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 5-11, 17-19, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion. -3- Much like the defendant in Ake, 470 US at 78 , defendant in this case has an immensely persuasive interest in the accuracy of a criminal proceeding that places his freedom at issue. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.