appointment defense in Michigan

2019On December 21, 2018, our Supreme Court entered an order vacating the portion of this panel’s opinion that addressed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for the appointment of a defense expert in computer forensics and remanding the case to this Court for reconsideration of that issue in light of the Court’s subsequent opinion in People v Kennedy, 502 Mich 206 ; 917 NW2d 355 (2018), in which our Supreme Court recently clarified the appropriate standard to apply when determining whether an indigent criminal defendant is entitled to the appointment of a defense expert at government e

2019On December 21, 2018, our Supreme Court entered an order vacating the portion of this panel’s opinion that addressed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for the appointment of a defense expert in computer forensics and remanding the case to this Court for reconsideration of that issue in light of the Court’s subsequent opinion in People v Kennedy, 502 Mich 206 ; 917 NW2d 355 (2018), in which our Supreme Court recently clarified the appropriate standard to apply when determining whether an indigent criminal defendant is entitled to the appointment of a defense expert at government e

2017Additionally, defendant’s reliance on People v Leonard, 224 Mich App 569, 580-581 ; 569 NW2d 663 (1997), for the proposition that a defendant has a due process right to the appointment of a defense expert, is misplaced.

2017Additionally, defendant’s reliance on People v Leonard, 224 Mich App 569, 580-581 ; 569 NW2d 663 (1997), for the proposition that a defendant has a due process right to the appointment of a defense expert, is misplaced.

2019Id. at 57-58; [People v] Heft, 299 Mich App [69,] 79[; 829 NW2d 266 (2012), lv den 495 Mich 875 (2013)]; [People v] Johnson, 197 Mich App [362,] 365[; 494 NW2d 873 (1992), lv den 442 Mich 931 (1993)]. [Clark I, unpub op at 2-3.] We also rejected defendant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for the appointment of a defense expert in computer forensics, relying on authorities that were governing at the time of our decision.

2019Id. at 57-58; [People v] Heft, 299 Mich App [69,] 79[; 829 NW2d 266 (2012), lv den 495 Mich 875 (2013)]; [People v] Johnson, 197 Mich App [362,] 365[; 494 NW2d 873 (1992), lv den 442 Mich 931 (1993)]. [Clark I, unpub op at 2-3.] We also rejected defendant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for the appointment of a defense expert in computer forensics, relying on authorities that were governing at the time of our decision.

2019People v Clark, 920 NW2d 578 (2018) (Clark II). -1- In Clark I, we rejected all of defendant’s appellate arguments.

2019In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. [Clark II, 920 NW2d at 578 .] We again affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences because the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for the appointment of a defense expert in computer forensics was not erroneous under Kennedy.

2019Specifically, we looked to People v Carnicom, 272 Mich App 614, 616 ; 727 NW2d 399 (2006), for the proposition that “MCL 775.15 provides a trial court with discretion to authorize payment for an expert witness -2- for an indigent defendant.” Clark I, unpub op at 5.1 We also quoted from our Supreme Court’s then-controlling case law for the proposition that, “ ‘[a]s MCL 775.15 makes clear, a trial court is not compelled to provide funds for the appointment of an expert on demand.’ ” Clark I, unpub op at 6, quoting People v Tanner, 469 Mich 437, 442 ; 671 NW2d 728 (2003), overruled by Kennedy, 50

2019Without an indication that expert testimony would likely benefit the defense, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a defendant’s motion for appointment of an expert witness. [Clark I, unpub op at 6, quoting Carnicom, 272 Mich App at 617 .] Our reasoning for upholding the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for the appointment of a defense expert in computer forensics was as follows: In this case, defendant asserts that an expert in computer forensics “could have potentially recovered the missing video and could have informed the jury and the judge about how the video

2015People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 441 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).

2015People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 441 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).

1978Therefore the holding of Crampton in regard to full time law enforcement officers is not controlling in this case." Wolney, supra, at 67 .

1978Therefore the holding of Crampton in regard to full time law enforcement officers is not controlling in this case.” Wolney, supra, at 67 .