Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 775.7 (2026)

Expenses of certain witnesses for people; order directing payment.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Act 175 of 1927

775.7 Expenses of certain witnesses for people; order directing payment.

Sec. 7.

Whenever any person shall attend any court of record as a witness in behalf of the people of this state, upon request of the public prosecutor, or upon subpoena, or by virtue of a recognizance for that purpose, and it shall appear that such person has come from any other state or territory of the United States, or from any foreign country or that such person is poor, the court may, by an order to be entered on its minutes, direct the county treasurer of the county in which the court may be sitting, to pay such witness such sum of money as shall seem reasonable for his expenses; and no fees shall be allowed or paid to witnesses on the part of the people in any criminal proceeding or prosecution except as is provided in this section and act.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17477 ;-- CL 1948, 775.7

FormerLaw Notes:

See section 7 of Ch. 169 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5684; CL 1871, § 7483; How., § 9058; CL 1897, § 12009; and CL 1915, § 15902.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2000–2007 · leading case: People v. Wilson, 619 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Wilson, 619 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “PRESERVATION OF THE ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Wilson argues that the trial court should have suppressed Jones’ testimony because, as the alleged accomplice in this shooting, he testified for the prosecution in exchange for leniency.”

Riley v. Jones, 476 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “The court should have suppressed the testimony of the alleged accomplice Werner Isaac who testified in ' exchange for leniency from the prosecution in violation of MCL 775.7; MSA 28.1244. III. The admission of the complainant’s [David Pepper’s] in-court identification of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.