8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Corbitt v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2018And an improper sentencing policy can only be cured by a change in practice, not a change of words. 9 For a discussion of these issues, see LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 21.2(a)-(c). -8- Corbitt v New Jersey, 439 US 212 ; 99 S Ct 492 ; 58 L Ed 2d 466 (1978) (“a State may encourage a guilty plea by offering substantial benefits for return for the plea.”). 2018And an improper sentencing policy can only be cured by a change in practice, not a change of words. 9 For a discussion of these issues, see LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 21.2(a)-(c). -8- Corbitt v New Jersey, 439 US 212 ; 99 S Ct 492 ; 58 L Ed 2d 466 (1978) (“a State may encourage a guilty plea by offering substantial benefits for return for the plea.”). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. City of Louisvillegreen2 sentences1977See Thompson v Louisville, 362 US 199 ; 80 S Ct 624 ; 4 L Ed 2d 654 (1960). 3 Regarding this so-called waiver rule, Professor Moore states: "Denial places defendant in the dilemma of resting without oifering any evidence, thus risking a conviction, or putting in evidence which might result in filling the gaps in the government’s case. 1977See Thompson v Louisville, 362 US 199 ; 80 S Ct 624 ; 4 L Ed 2d 654 (1960). 3 Regarding this so-called waiver rule, Professor Moore states: "Denial places defendant in the dilemma of resting without oifering any evidence, thus risking a conviction, or putting in evidence which might result in filling the gaps in the government’s case. | 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. Robinson
green
2 sentences1979The principal issue presented is whether there must be a post-trial hearing, such as was required in People v Robinson, 390 Mich 629 ; 213 NW2d 106 (1973), in cases such as Wynn and Schwartz where, in the course of the trial, there was á hearing regarding the prosecution’s failure to produce the witness and a finding, at trial or on appeal, that the efforts to produce him were insufficient. 1979The principal issue presented is whether there must be a post-trial hearing, such as was required in People v Robinson, 390 Mich 629 ; 213 NW2d 106 (1973), in cases such as Wynn and Schwartz where, in the course of the trial, there was á hearing regarding the prosecution’s failure to produce the witness and a finding, at trial or on appeal, that the efforts to produce him were insufficient. | 2 | 1979–1980 |
People v. Carpenter
green
1 sentence2021Therefore, to the extent that this evidence was offered for a purpose other than to negate the intent element of the charged offenses, the evidence was not barred by the rule stated in Carpenter, supra, even though it dealt with defendant’s limited mental capacity. [Id. at 355-358 (citations omitted).] -3- In the case before us, it is unclear whether trial counsel was aware of Yost because he did not testify at the post-trial hearing. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2019The prosecutor additionally pointed out that the subject juror’s involvement with criminal investigations was merely “one stint” in a varied term of military service and pointed out that defense counsel was at liberty to ask about that juror’s “full range of duties.” We find this Court’s opinion in Johnson, 245 Mich App 243 , instructive. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2018The relevant colloquy reads: Defense counsel: As your honor knows, it’s the practice of this Court to sentence to the top of the guidelines after a defendant goes to trial – The Court: Sometimes higher.8 Courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have sometimes struggled to articulate the precise line between rewarding a defendant for pleading guilty, which is routine in plea bargains, and punishing a defendant for asserting his constitutional right to trial.9 See United States v Jackson, 390 US 570 ; 88 S Ct 1209 ; 20 L Ed 2d 138 (1968) (statute found unconstitutional where trial by j 2018The relevant colloquy reads: Defense counsel: As your honor knows, it’s the practice of this Court to sentence to the top of the guidelines after a defendant goes to trial – The Court: Sometimes higher.8 Courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have sometimes struggled to articulate the precise line between rewarding a defendant for pleading guilty, which is routine in plea bargains, and punishing a defendant for asserting his constitutional right to trial.9 See United States v Jackson, 390 US 570 ; 88 S Ct 1209 ; 20 L Ed 2d 138 (1968) (statute found unconstitutional where trial by j | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Daoust
green
1 sentence2006MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows: Although the post-trial standard for granting a new trial on the basis of juror bias is a demanding one, People v Daoust, 228 Mich App 1 (1998), the allegation of bias in this case is unusually compelling and raises a serious question regarding whether defendant received a fair trial. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Strand
green
2 sentences1998The neighbor had known defendant for about forty years; the friend had been a friend and hunting partner of defendant’s girlfriend for about three years, and had stored some of defendant’s belongings for him the last time defendant was in jail, although he claimed that he only met defendant twice. *546 The facts of this case are similar to those in People v Strand, 213 Mich App 100 ; 539 NW2d 739 (1995), where the defendant moved for a new trial after two jurors testified in a post-trial hearing that they learned during the course of the trial that the defendant had a prior sexual assault conv 1998The neighbor had known defendant for about forty years; the friend had been a friend and hunting partner of defendant’s girlfriend for about three years, and had stored some of defendant’s belongings for him the last time defendant was in jail, although he claimed that he only met defendant twice. *546 The facts of this case are similar to those in People v Strand, 213 Mich App 100 ; 539 NW2d 739 (1995), where the defendant moved for a new trial after two jurors testified in a post-trial hearing that they learned during the course of the trial that the defendant had a prior sexual assault conv | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.