Murder has no Statute of Limitations

Veteran defense lawyer Michael McCarthy (L)
and veteran prosecutor John Skrzynski

Prosecutors cannot take their time once they make the decision to prosecute a case.  Generally, the law does not reward any party that sleeps on their rights and duties.

Normally, the prosecutor has a certain period of time, known as the "statute of limitations", within which to charge a crime.  An exception to this rule is murder; there is no statute of limitations on a murder charge.

The Oakland County Prosecutor recently brought two cases that alleged murders that took place in 1978 and 1968, respectively.  The 1968 case charged Nolan Ray George, a suspected serial killer, with the first degree murder of Gwendolyn Perry.  Likewise, the 1978 case charged Wilburn Cooper with first degree murder.  

Cooper's jury convicted him in two hours flat.  As for Mr. George, his defense lawyer, veteran attorney Michael McCarthy attempted to keep out evidence of so-called "prior bad acts"; two prior murders.  Oakland Circuit Judge Michael Warren ruled the other murders admissible; George also was jury convicted in short order.

Forty years, thirty years, or ten; if the prosecutor can marshal evidence to prove the elements of an open murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt, murderers should pay the price for their heinous crimes.  The competing interest, of course, is that any evidentiary trail grows ice cold over the decades; a defense is very difficult to mount with the passage of an ocean of time. 

Mr. McCarthy was probably asked why on earth he would represent a serial killer a dozen times if he was asked once.

The criminal justice system requires seasoned defense lawyers to force the government to prove its case; each and every time.  Only in this fashion do we maintain our individual liberties and avoid becoming a police state.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Oakland County's Ax-Murdering Teacher-Housewife Receives Habeas Relief

Sorry about that headline.  But this case was all-over your evening news back in 2004, when kindergarten teacher Nancy Ann Seaman axed her long-time husband to death on Mother's Day.

Earlier this month, a federal judge granted Seaman's petition for Habeas Corpus.  Habeas relief is considered when a convicted inmate, having exhausted her state court appeals, sues the warden of her prison in federal court on the theory she is being illegally detained by the State of Michigan in light of constitutional errors in a state court criminal proceeding.

Ms. Seaman was jury convicted of first degree murder before soon-retiring Oakland Circuit Judge John McDonald.  Seven-months after her trial, Judge McDonald reduced Seaman's conviction from first to second degree murder.

Both Seaman and the prosecutor appealed.  The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and reinstated Seaman's first degree murder conviction.  [The linked MCOA opinion contains a fascinating in-court colloquy about premeditation between the prosecutor and trial judge at the hearing on Seaman's motion for a new trial, beginning on page 5.]

The Court of Appeals found (by 2-1) that the trial court abused its discretion by acting as a "thirteenth juror" in reducing the conviction to second degree murder.  The intermediate appellate court also held that premeditation has no set time-frame but rather, can be established in the fleeting moment that it takes to have a "second look" at an imminent homicide.

Dissenting Judge Karen Fort Hood was troubled by the apparent "disconnect" between Seaman's self defense theory and testimony regarding "battered spouse syndrome".  Evidence relative to the latter theory was limited by the trial court.  Judge Fort Hood also commented on what she perceived as a confusion of jury instructions on the two concepts.  See the last two pages of the above link for her concise dissent.

The Michigan Supreme Court declined further review of Ms. Seaman's conviction.

With her state appellate options exhausted, Seaman turned to federal court via Habeas Corpus.  In her initially successful petition, she asserted that she was denied her right to effective trial counsel, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, when Attorney Lawrence Kaluzny did not challenge a ruling by the trial court that limited the testimony of Seaman's expert on "battered spouse syndrome".  [BTW: In Oakland County, you just cannot hire better trial counsel than Larry Kaluzny.]  The federal judge has ordered a new trial for Seaman.

We here at the LawBlogger, however, need you to stay tuned on this one as Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is appealing the federal district court judge's order to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/