Franklin Anderson rule in Michigan

9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1974–1993 0 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
The PEOPLE v. Cesarzgreen ill · 1969 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1979 2 sentences 1979Compare People v Cesarz, 44 Ill 2d 180; 255 NE2d 1, 4 (1969); United States v Zeiler, 427 F2d 1305, 1307 (CA 3, 1970); State v Keel, 5 NC App 330, 335-336; 168 SE2d 465, 468-469 (1969). 1979Compare People v Cesarz, 44 Ill 2d 180; 255 NE2d 1, 4 (1969); United States v Zeiler, 427 F2d 1305, 1307 (CA 3, 1970); State v Keel, 5 NC App 330, 335-336; 168 SE2d 465, 468-469 (1969).	2	2
State v. Keelgreen ncctapp · 1969 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1979 2 sentences 1979Compare People v Cesarz, 44 Ill 2d 180; 255 NE2d 1, 4 (1969); United States v Zeiler, 427 F2d 1305, 1307 (CA 3, 1970); State v Keel, 5 NC App 330, 335-336; 168 SE2d 465, 468-469 (1969). 1979Compare People v Cesarz, 44 Ill 2d 180; 255 NE2d 1, 4 (1969); United States v Zeiler, 427 F2d 1305, 1307 (CA 3, 1970); State v Keel, 5 NC App 330, 335-336; 168 SE2d 465, 468-469 (1969).	2	2
People v. Cartergreen mich · 1982 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See People v Carter, 415 Mich 558, 596 ; 330 NW2d 314 (1982). [6] Defendant had been convicted of breaking and entering when he was nineteen. [7] The grant order provided that "the delayed application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is granted, limited to the issue of whether pretrial identification procedures deprived the defendant of a fair trial." [8] Because defendant was not in custody, the first Franklin Anderson rule does not apply. 1993See People v Carter, 415 Mich 558, 596 ; 330 NW2d 314 (1982). [6] Defendant had been convicted of breaking and entering when he was nineteen. [7] The grant order provided that "the delayed application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is granted, limited to the issue of whether pretrial identification procedures deprived the defendant of a fair trial." [8] Because defendant was not in custody, the first Franklin Anderson rule does not apply.	1	1
People v. Andersonred mich · 1973 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975 1 sentence 1975It is well-established that such direct evidence of the out-of-court identification is per se inadmissible where there was a denial of defendant’s right to counsel when that identification was made, Gilbert v California, 388 US 263, 273 ; 87 S Ct 1951 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1178 (1967), People v Franklin Anderson, supra, at 169. 3 We hold that the same per se exclusionary rule applies to the first Franklin Anderson rule, creating a preference for corporeal identifications, as well as to the second, relating to the right to counsel. 4 Since defendant was not given the oppor tunity to have counsel present	1	1
Escobedo v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1964 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975 2 sentences 1975The cases to which the defendant refers are in -custody not pre-custody cases. ” (Emphasis added.) The “focus” test derives from Escobedo v Illinois, 378 US 478, 490 ; 84 S Ct 1758, 1765 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977, 986 (1964), where it was held that the right to counsel attaches "where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect”. 1975The cases to which the defendant refers are in -custody not pre-custody cases. ” (Emphasis added.) The “focus” test derives from Escobedo v Illinois, 378 US 478, 490 ; 84 S Ct 1758, 1765 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977, 986 (1964), where it was held that the right to counsel attaches "where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect”.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Anderson green mich · 1974 2 sentences 1993We reiterated that "[i]t is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule . . . .” Id. citing People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974). 1993We reiterated that "[i]t is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule . . . .” Id. citing People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974).	4	1974–1993
People v. Lee green mich · 1974 2 sentences 1979In People v Lee, 391 Mich 618, 625 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court 697 held that the right to have counsel present at a photo showup attaches once a defendant is placed in custody, and not, as defendant herein contends, when the investigation "focuses” upon an individual: "The Franklin Anderson rule [1] attaches with custody. 1979In People v Lee, 391 Mich 618, 625 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court 697 held that the right to have counsel present at a photo showup attaches once a defendant is placed in custody, and not, as defendant herein contends, when the investigation "focuses” upon an individual: "The Franklin Anderson rule [1] attaches with custody.	4	1975–1979
People v. Jackson green mich · 1974 2 sentences 1980In the former case, the Court noted that the Franklin Anderson rule, while closely allied with the right to counsel, was based on the Court’s assessment of the reliability of eyewitness identification and its power to govern the taking of evidence in Michigan courts. 391 Mich 323, 338 . 1980In the former case, the Court noted that the Franklin Anderson rule, while closely allied with the right to counsel, was based on the Court’s assessment of the reliability of eyewitness identification and its power to govern the taking of evidence in Michigan courts. 391 Mich 323, 338 .	3	1974–1980
People v. Coles green michctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972). 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972).	1	1979–1979
People v. Kachar green mich · 1977 2 sentences 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972). 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972).	1	1979–1979
People v. Cotton green michctapp · 1972 2 sentences 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972). 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972).	1	1979–1979
People v. Richards green michctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972). 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972).	1	1979–1979
People v. McNeill green michctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972). 1979"It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule.” People v James Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), see also, People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974), People v McNeill, 81 Mich App 368 ; 265 NW2d 334 (1978), People v Coles, 79 Mich App 255 ; 261 NW2d 280 (1977), People v Richards, 76 64 Mich App 695; 256 NW2d 793 (1977), but see People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 89 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977), People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763 ; 197 NW2d 90 (1972).	1	1979–1979
Gilbert v. California green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1975It is well-established that such direct evidence of the out-of-court identification is per se inadmissible where there was a denial of defendant’s right to counsel when that identification was made, Gilbert v California, 388 US 263, 273 ; 87 S Ct 1951 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1178 (1967), People v Franklin Anderson, supra, at 169. 3 We hold that the same per se exclusionary rule applies to the first Franklin Anderson rule, creating a preference for corporeal identifications, as well as to the second, relating to the right to counsel. 4 Since defendant was not given the oppor tunity to have counsel present 1975It is well-established that such direct evidence of the out-of-court identification is per se inadmissible where there was a denial of defendant’s right to counsel when that identification was made, Gilbert v California, 388 US 263, 273 ; 87 S Ct 1951 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1178 (1967), People v Franklin Anderson, supra, at 169. 3 We hold that the same per se exclusionary rule applies to the first Franklin Anderson rule, creating a preference for corporeal identifications, as well as to the second, relating to the right to counsel. 4 Since defendant was not given the oppor tunity to have counsel present	1	1975–1975
Stovall v. Denno green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1975The cases to which the defendant refers are in- custody not pre- custody cases. " (Emphasis added.) [6] The "focus" test derives from Escobedo v Illinois, 378 US 478, 490 ; 84 S Ct 1758, 1765 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977, 986 (1964), where it was held that the right to counsel attaches "where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect". [7] United States v Wade, 388 US 218 ; 87 S Ct 1926 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967), Gilbert v California, 388 US 263 ; 87 S Ct 1951 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1178 (1967), Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293 ; 87 S 1975The cases to which the defendant refers are in- custody not pre- custody cases. " (Emphasis added.) [6] The "focus" test derives from Escobedo v Illinois, 378 US 478, 490 ; 84 S Ct 1758, 1765 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977, 986 (1964), where it was held that the right to counsel attaches "where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect". [7] United States v Wade, 388 US 218 ; 87 S Ct 1926 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967), Gilbert v California, 388 US 263 ; 87 S Ct 1951 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1178 (1967), Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293 ; 87 S	1	1975–1975
United States v. Wade green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1975The cases to which the defendant refers are in- custody not pre- custody cases. " (Emphasis added.) [6] The "focus" test derives from Escobedo v Illinois, 378 US 478, 490 ; 84 S Ct 1758, 1765 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977, 986 (1964), where it was held that the right to counsel attaches "where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect". [7] United States v Wade, 388 US 218 ; 87 S Ct 1926 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967), Gilbert v California, 388 US 263 ; 87 S Ct 1951 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1178 (1967), Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293 ; 87 S 1975The cases to which the defendant refers are in- custody not pre- custody cases. " (Emphasis added.) [6] The "focus" test derives from Escobedo v Illinois, 378 US 478, 490 ; 84 S Ct 1758, 1765 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977, 986 (1964), where it was held that the right to counsel attaches "where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect". [7] United States v Wade, 388 US 218 ; 87 S Ct 1926 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967), Gilbert v California, 388 US 263 ; 87 S Ct 1951 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1178 (1967), Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293 ; 87 S	1	1975–1975
United States v. Ash green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 1974In People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323, 337 ; 217 NW2d 22 (1974), we adhered to our Anderson approach after consideration of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in United States v Ash, 2 413 US 300 ; 93 S Ct 2568 ; 37 L Ed 2d 619 (1973). 625 In the companion case of People v [James] Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), we stated that: "It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule * * .” The Franklin Anderson rule attaches with custody. 1974In People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323, 337 ; 217 NW2d 22 (1974), we adhered to our Anderson approach after consideration of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in United States v Ash, 2 413 US 300 ; 93 S Ct 2568 ; 37 L Ed 2d 619 (1973). 625 In the companion case of People v [James] Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 422 ; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), we stated that: "It is the fact of custody that requires implementation of the Franklin Anderson rule * * .” The Franklin Anderson rule attaches with custody.	1	1974–1974

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529 (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.26 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check