If you are criminally charged with Sexual Assault, known in Michigan formally as Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC), be weary of attorneys claiming online to be "Criminal Sexual Conduct Defense Attorney" or similar just to get Google rankings when they in-fact have no special concentration on defending those accused of CSC at all and are in-fact just general criminal defense practitioners.
Unlike them, at Prain Law PLLC, we specifically concentrate on defending those accused of Criminal Sexual Conduct in Michigan; Michigan CSC Defense Attorney Brian J. Brian has repeatedly taken these cases to jury trial year after year, again and again, and received verdicts of NOT GUILTY of Criminal Sexual Conduct.
Even in our cases that don't go to trial, Brian's perseverance and take-no-prisoners, work-all-night if that's what it takes to win endurance have resulted in amazing plea deals including Misdemeanors with no jail, complete dismissals under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11, and other outstanding results that you may not think are possible. Prain Law is the real deal. Here's a great idea - if you're considering hiring a defense attorney for your CSC case, ask that attorney "How many Criminal Sexual Conduct cases have you ever taken to trial? How often? What were the results?"
RELATED: Michigan Court of Appeals - Rape Shield procedures do not apply at Preliminary Examination.
As a law practice concentrated on defending those accused of Sexual Assault criminal charges, we know all too well that evidence that once existed seems to go missing more times than we'd like to believe. It may be body cam evidence of witness interviews, documents, scientific test results, or other things. Can anything be done about this problem in your Criminal Sexual Conduct case?
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, criminal prosecutions must comport with prevailing notions of fundamental fairness.
In California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a person accused of a crime (i.e., like Criminal Sexual Conduct) is guaranteed a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. This has led to the establishment of what the Supreme Court said "might loosely be called the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence." United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982).
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, if exculpatory evidence is lost or destroyed by the government, due process is violated. "Exculpatory" means evidence favorable to the accused on the issues of guilt or punishment. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a criminal defendant's due process rights are violated if the Prosecution suppresses evidence material to guilt or punishment, regardless of whether the suppression was done in bad faith or not.
In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the Supreme Court held that police have a duty to preserve and present evidence to the Prosecution and the accused, and that evidence was lost, withheld, or destroyed by police does not protect the Prosecution from Constitutional claims. The police are an arm of the Prosecution for Brady purposes, and the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Prosecutor's don't have to give exculpatory evidence just because only the police had it and the materials were “not in the possession of the Prosecution” themselves. Rather, the Prosecution has a duty to learn of any evidence known to police or others on their "team."
When evidence is lost or destroyed by the government, there are two standards, depending on on whether the evidence can be deemed to have been exculpatory, or whether that is unknown (i.e., only "potentially useful").
On the one hand, in Brady (the same case mentioned above), the Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." In other words, when the evidence is capable of being classified as exculpatory, good or bad faith is irrelevant.
On the other hand, in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) the Supreme Court held that: “the Due Process Clause requires a different result when we deal with the failure of the State to preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant.” Youngblood was a case where the government failed to preserve and test biological, scientific DNA evidence in a Sexual Assault prosecution where it was unknown whether the results would have helped the Defendant or not. In cases like this where the lost or destroyed evidence is only potentially useful, due process is only violated where the Defendant can show bad faith on the part of the government.
Because due process and fundamental fairness is so important, when we defend a client accused of Sexual Assault (Criminal Sexual Conduct), we thoroughly review the existing "discovery" materials to determine, based on our experience, what other evidence may have once existed which has not been provided to us by the Prosecution through the Court process. We then make more specific requests for those potentially missing items, up to and including filing a Motion to Compel Discovery in Court. If we learn that evidence which once existed has been destroyed, we then attempt to determine whether the evidence would meet the definition of "exculpatory," or if not whether the loss or destruction was done in bad faith.
If the lost or destroyed evidence was exculpatory, we may bring a Motion to Dismiss the Criminal Sexual Conduct Charges entirely, regardless of the reason for loss or destruction. In the alternative, we may argue for dismissal if there is bad faith, even if it cannot be determined whether the evidence was exculpatory.
If you or someone you know is facing Sexual Assault prosecution in Michigan, Prain Law, PLLC would be happy to assist. Prain Law, PLLC can be reached anytime at (248) 731-4543 or using our online contact form.