Arthur J. Tarnow

Michael Stokes was convicted in Michigan state court of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and habitual offender status after representing himself at trial following a dispute with his appointed counsel over trial strategy. He filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the convictions on the ground that he did not validly waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The district court found that Stokes did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive counsel because the trial court compelled him to proceed pro se without adequately resolving his complaints about counsel, amounting to a structural constitutional error. The court therefore conditionally granted the petition, ordering that the state provide Stokes a new trial with the assistance of counsel within ninety days or release him from custody.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Dresbach, the defendant sought a reduction in his federal prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on the medical conditions of his wife and daughter, after the Bureau of Prisons declined to file a motion for compassionate release. The court denied the motion, finding that the BOP had properly exercised its discretion by considering both medical and non-medical factors as permitted by statute, regulations, and Sentencing Guidelines, and had provided a reasonable basis for its denial. The opinion notes that the BOP's review included the family circumstances raised by the defendant, even though no motion was filed by the BOP, and that the defendant would become eligible for home confinement in February 2012.

criminal law

In this case, Chrysler Group LLC sued Moda Group LLC (doing business as Pure Detroit) and its principals for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and related claims under the Lanham Act and Michigan law, alleging unauthorized use of the phrase "IMPORTED FROM DETROIT" on apparel and accessories following Chrysler's Super Bowl advertising campaign. Chrysler sought a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from selling products bearing the phrase. The court denied the motion, finding that Chrysler failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of success on the merits, as the phrase appeared primarily geographically descriptive rather than protectable, and the factors for likelihood of consumer confusion weighed against Chrysler. The court noted an adequate remedy at law would be available if Chrysler ultimately prevailed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by John Palazzolo challenging his state convictions for two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to interview and present witnesses who could have supported his defense that the sexual acts were consensual and that the victim had conspired to falsely accuse him. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court conditionally granted the writ, finding that counsel's performance was deficient and that the omitted testimony created a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial. The court reasoned that the witnesses' accounts directly addressed consent and credibility issues central to the state court's guilty verdict based on the victim's testimony. The state was ordered to retry the petitioner or release him within 100 days.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Arthur Bell's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1989 Michigan convictions for first-degree felony murder and felony firearm possession arising from the 1988 shooting death of William Thompson. The district court determined that the state court's rejection of Bell's Brady claim—based on undisclosed exculpatory evidence regarding alternative suspects and witnesses—was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The court also found that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present alibi witnesses who would have placed Bell elsewhere at the time of the crime, contrary to clearly established federal law. As a result, the court conditionally granted the writ of habeas corpus, ordering Bell's release unless the state retries him within a specified period.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether DiPonio Construction had any obligation under the NLRA to bargain with the Union for a new collective bargaining agreement after the prior CBA terminated, with DiPonio claiming it fell under section 8(f) and thus imposed no duty, while the Union and NLRB argued it was governed by section 9(a). DiPonio filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment on the issue and later added a breach of contract claim, but the Union and intervening NLRB moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report recommending dismissal, holding that the claims raised representational issues within the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB rather than suits for violation of contracts under section 301 of the LMRA. The court also rejected in part the magistrate's denial of sanctions and imposed Rule 11 sanctions on DiPonio.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by Michigan prisoner Roy Blackmon, who was convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and felony firearm. Blackmon challenged his convictions on grounds that the trial court improperly admitted evidence and testimony about his alleged membership in the Schoolcraft Boys gang, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct by emphasizing this evidence during opening statements and witness examinations despite limited relevance to identification or motive. The district court found that the gang-related evidence was erroneously admitted, lacked probative value, and rendered the trial fundamentally unfair in violation of due process, while the prosecutor's actions compounded the prejudice. Accordingly, the court conditionally granted the amended habeas petition, ordering the state to retry Blackmon or release him from custody.

criminal lawprocedure

In Davenport v. Genesee County, plaintiffs challenged the verification process for recall petitions seeking to place the question of removing Flint Mayor Dayne Walling on the November 2010 ballot, alleging that clerks arbitrarily invalidated signatures and that a challenge by 'Friends of Dayne Walling' was improper, in violation of their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They moved for a preliminary injunction to compel placement of the recall on the ballot. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, as the clerks followed standard procedures including signature matching and statutory review timelines, and the state has a strong interest in regulating elections to ensure fairness. The court noted some possible errors in signature validation but held that these did not meet the high burden for injunctive relief.

electionscivil rights

The case involved Terrence Williams's federal habeas petition challenging his Michigan state convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and related firearm offenses stemming from a 2002 shooting. Williams claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate a plea offer and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the writ solely on the ineffective-assistance claim, finding that counsel's failure to relay the plea offer violated Williams's Sixth Amendment rights. The court did not reach the sufficiency claim and ordered relief limited to that ground.

criminal lawprocedure

In Daniel v. Palmer, Marvel Daniel, convicted of second-degree murder after a bench trial in Michigan state court, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction on multiple grounds, primarily ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the case, present a defense, and call witnesses, as well as related claims about the trial judge and sentencing. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan conducted evidentiary hearings on the ineffective assistance claims and found that counsel's deficiencies prejudiced the defense. The court conditionally granted the petition, ordering that the state provide a new trial within ninety days or release the petitioner from custody. The decision rested on the determination that the state court's rejection of the ineffective assistance claim was contrary to clearly established federal law under Strickland v. Washington.

criminal lawprocedure

In Leavey v. City of Detroit, white plaintiff Kathleen Leavey, serving as Interim Corporation Counsel for the City, sued the City and Chief Judge Atkins after she was not retained in her role following a January 2009 phone call in which she referred to the 36th District Court as a "ghetto court" while discussing payment of a large judgment against the court. Leavey alleged First Amendment retaliation for protected speech and reverse racial discrimination under federal and Michigan law. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants, holding that her comments during the internal work call did not touch on a matter of public concern and that she failed to identify similarly situated comparators to support her discrimination claim.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employment

This case was a class action lawsuit under ERISA by former Sears HVAC sales associates who were transitioned to a new entity called SHIP and denied severance benefits under the company's Transition Pay Plan. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, denied most of the defendants' motions, and ordered the defendants to pay benefits to the class. The core reasoning was that the defendants' denial of benefits was procedurally defective and arbitrary and capricious because the new SHIP positions did not qualify as comparable jobs under the plan's criteria, particularly as they did not utilize the associates' current sales skills, and the plan administrator applied a blanket policy of denial without proper individualized review. The court also found that exhaustion of administrative remedies was futile for the class members.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Williams v. Birkett, petitioner Murad Williams sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the revocation of his probation and youthful trainee status under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act following his guilty plea to unarmed robbery. The district court found that the revocation proceedings violated multiple constitutional protections, including the lack of notice of charges or hearing rights, the absence of any hearing, denial of the petitioner's opportunity to speak, and ineffective assistance from appointed counsel who failed to raise due process objections. After reviewing the record, transcripts, and arguments, the court unconditionally granted the habeas petition based on these cumulative violations during the 2004 resentencing before the state trial judge. The decision modified in part the magistrate judge's report and recommendation while adopting its core findings on the procedural deficiencies.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In United States v. Smith, the defendant was charged with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance after police intercepted a package containing heroin addressed to a Detroit residence and conducted a controlled delivery. Agents stopped and detained the defendant as he left the home in his vehicle, recovering the package from his waistband, and he moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The court granted the motion to suppress, holding that the stop was an investigative detention requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The decision rested on the conclusion that the facts known to officers at the time of the stop—the defendant's act of signing for the package and briefly looking up and down the street—did not provide a particularized and objective basis for suspecting him of a crime, and his subsequent conduct could not retroactively justify the initial stop.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a federal habeas corpus petition in which the district court previously granted relief to petitioner on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a Michigan state criminal case, issuing a conditional writ requiring the state to afford a new trial within 90 days. When the state took no steps to comply—such as transferring the petitioner, setting bond, appointing counsel, or scheduling proceedings—the court issued an unconditional writ, ordered expungement of the conviction, and barred reprosecution. Respondent moved for immediate consideration and a stay of that order pending appeal. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the state's complete noncompliance with the conditional writ justified the unconditional relief under Sixth Circuit precedent, as the state had been given an opportunity to cure the constitutional error but failed to do so.

criminal lawprocedure

David Schauer was convicted in Michigan state court of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for allegedly assaulting his teenage daughter and received a sentence of fifteen to thirty years' imprisonment. He petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming prosecutorial misconduct by vouching for the complainant's credibility and ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to prejudicial hearsay and the vouching statements. The district court conditionally granted the writ, determining that the state courts' rejection of these claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent on due process and the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerns a habeas corpus petition filed after the petitioner's 2004 Michigan convictions for assault with intent to commit murder, felonious assault, and carrying a weapon with unlawful intent. The court had previously granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel, ordering the state to provide a new trial within ninety days. After the state failed to comply with that deadline and offered no excuse, despite denial of its stay requests by both the district court and the Sixth Circuit, the court issued an unconditional writ. The court vacated and ordered expungement of the convictions, and barred reprosecution, citing precedents allowing such relief when a state inexcusably fails to act within the prescribed period to avoid rewarding noncompliance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Daniel Barry Couch's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Michigan state court conviction for second-degree murder following a party incident that led to the victim's death by beating. The federal district court conditionally granted the petition, finding that the petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice when the trial court refused a continuance to retain preferred counsel and that he received ineffective assistance from his court-appointed trial counsel. The court reasoned that these constitutional violations entitled the petitioner to relief, ordering the state to provide a new trial within ninety days or release him from custody. Claims regarding withheld exculpatory evidence, insufficient causation evidence, and perjured testimony were rejected for lack of merit.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Wiecek v. Lafler, petitioner Dustin Wiecek, convicted by a Michigan jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a physically helpless person, sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claimed the state trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and to present a defense by excluding excerpts from the complainant's journal, including a poem describing her prior alcohol-induced blackouts and related conduct, which he sought to use for impeachment and to support his theory of consent. The district court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation in part, conditionally granting the writ on that claim while adopting the recommendation on the remaining claims. The court reasoned that the exclusion was constitutional error, not harmless under the Brecht standard, because there were no eyewitnesses, the complainant had no memory of the events, the jury acquitted on the related poisoning charges after extended deliberations, and the journal provided the strongest evidence of blackout behavior and a possible motive to accuse. The court ordered that the state afford Wiecek a new trial within ninety days or release him.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Davis v. Lafler, a prisoner who had filed a habeas corpus petition and related post-judgment motions sought court-ordered access to legal authorities, including unpublished decisions and older published cases unavailable in the prison library or via electronic databases like LEXIS and Westlaw. The district court granted the motion, requiring respondent's counsel to provide paper copies of any such authorities cited in pleadings, as well as ordering the court itself to do the same for authorities it relies upon. The court reasoned that lack of access to cited authorities would hamper the pro se petitioner's ability to understand and assert his legal rights, raising concerns about the appearance of justice. The order specifies particular volumes of reports (such as pre-1970 Federal Reporter and Michigan Reports) that counsel must supply if unavailable to the petitioner.

criminal lawprocedure