# Opposition Brief — Michigan v. Williams > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_2067%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1987 - **Citation:** 481 U.S. 1069 ## Text EDITOR'S NOT« a THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE WILL BE ISSURD. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA! o* Petitioner-Appeliant lu oO € =< 4 ms = 175 EF Teffers Detr + MY 4R207 r a 3 Aq - an Dated: | =, 2d LAW OFFICES 978 East Je Detroit, Michigar 48207 LAW OFFICES 978 East Jetferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 (313) $67-2333 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pas Ree AP PRR ETOP Ee Pe oko ead Oa aos RA bee ea Seale Eek ae we ee i COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW......... ] COUNT mM LM TEE. OF TE CBGBs 6 os eh ECR ORE KEAR OCDE ODS RES DS 1 Bane Lio. ee Lee WUE 5 6 a oes eee Aa ee eee Rede dena ea ee ARGUMENT: THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS BASED UPON THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF FEDERAL CASE LAW AND THE PETITIONER'S ELIANCE UPON FEDERAL CASE LAW IS MISPLACED Bay LiL eS he KOC AS SSA Ak AE SER RR OR oe Ke 2 ARGUMENT: THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ATTACHES UPON ARREST WAS BASED UPON THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF MICHIGAN LAW, WHICH THE PETITIONER FAILS TO AbUmwoe OR AMALYZE ss casei e eee ccs aac nss eeu 4 RONEN 65GB Se O54 6 aaa ee eo EELS SRA RE Ae OSES OS Ue ee OS EO OY 6 LAW OFFICES 9785 East Jefferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 (313) 567-2333 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASE PAGE Barker v. Wingo 407 U.S. 514; 92 U.S. Ct. 2182; 33 L. Ed. 24 101 (1972)....... 5 Dillincham v. United States 493 0:6; GOs. 56 6: Ct. 2092 46 lis. BAe. 24 208: (1971S) sess cine A Hardy v. United States Sa Use, Bees Oe Pees SES Fs A 293 CAOGA) a oes ac tek ie waeaee en 5 People v. Den Uye 320 Mich 477: 31 N.W.2d 699 (1948)... ccccscr sera rercesesesece 5 People v. Grimmett 388 Mich 590; 202 N.W.2d 278 (1972), overruled on other grounds, 390 Mich. 245, 258 CUS Si akass teased acdnatsnaan 5 People v. Fiorini (on rehearing), 59 Mich. App. 243; 229 N.W. 2d 399 (1975)..... 5 United States v. Kaufman Re ie Oe OR a ee eee ee ee ree ee ee ee ae ee ee ee 5 United States v. Marion 404 U.S. 307: 92 S. Ct. 455: 30 L. E@. 468 (1971)...e002«. 3,475 United States v. McDonald 456 UsvSs 22 102 6. Ct. 1497: 71 LL. £4. 24 696 (1962) <2 vac vers 4,5 STATUTES Mich. Gop. taws Ann. § 768.8 occ c cscs an ei secnsessaeaeesdsteas eee 3 CONSTITUTION CE sg FS V0 oi kc eee ORCA ASSERT EKER EOD EE EAS OD 3 Const. 1963, Art. i, el A re ree ee re Sere eae rer rk ea 3 i LAW OFFICES 975 East Jefferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 (313) $67-2333 NO. 86-1604 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner, RONNIE WILLIAMS, Respondent. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI CHIAMP & WENGER, P.C. LISA WENGER (P30725 Avplicant to Suprem 975 E. Jefferson Detroit, MI 48207 (313) 567-2333 cr \ j e Cour Counsel for Respondent LAW OFFICES 978 East Jefferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 (313) $67-2333 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHERE A 23-MONTH DELAY EXISTS BETWEEN THE ARREST AND ARRAIGNMENT OF THE DEFENDANT ON FORMAL CHARGES, DOES THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ATTACH UPON THE ARREST (IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED, INTERROGATED AND RELEASED ON RECOGNIZANCE)? COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 13, 1983, defendant was arrested without a warrant for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in violation of Mich. Comn. Laws Ann. Subsection 333.7401(2?)(a), taken to the police station, interrogated and then released on recoonizance without a @date to appear in court. In September 1983, after analysis of the substance taken from defendant at the|- time of his arrest was found to be heroin, a complaint and warrant for defendant's arrest was issued. In June 1985, while investigating =’ unrelated matter, the police discovered the outstanding warrant and again arrested defendant. LAW OFFICES 978 East Jefferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 (313) 567-2333 No efforts were made by the police to serve the warrant between the date of issuance, September 16, 1983, and the date of the unrelated search in June, 1985. Following his waiver of preliminary examination, Defendant successfully moved to dismiss based on lack of sveedy trial. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, held that the right to a speedy trial attaches upon arrest, and is not Gependent upon whether the defendant is kept in custody. The appellate court, then, reviewed the record and conclude? that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in Gdismissince the charges against defendant. REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS BASED UPON THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF FEDERAL CASE LAW AND THE PETITIONER'S RELIANCE UPON FEDERAL CASE LAW IS MISPLACED AND MISLEADING The prosecutor araues that a defendant who is arrested put not confined [between arrest and arraianment on the formal charges] does not have a sixth amendment right to a speedy trial. He contends there is no lecal requirement to brinc the Defendant to trial after the arrest and issuance of the arrest warrant and, thus. the speedy trial inquiry is inappropriate.!/ne so contends, even though he has admitted throughout the proceedings that the Defendant was arrested in 1983 but not brought to trial for 23 months. The Petitioner distinauishs the arrest of Ronnie Williams, arguing, “that's not an arrest for the purpose of a speedy trial Ly Transcript of proceedings Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit, pp. 6, 7. LAW OFFICES 97S East Jefferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 (313) $67-2333 = right” and attempts to set up two standards for arrests: one which would trigaer the Sixth Anen@nent quarantees and the other which would not. */There is no such distinction in the law. The Sixth Amendment provides that “fLiln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial * * *," US Const, Am VI. In Michigan, the riacht to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1 $20 and Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 768.1. Althouch the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial provision has no application until the putative defendant in some way becomes an “accuse”, United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313; 92 S. Ct. 455, 459; 30 L. Ed. 2d 468, 474 (1971), the constitutional richt to a speedy trial commences upon either formal indictnent or vu; actual restraint of the accused. 404 U.S. 307, 320. The Petitioner quotes and emphasizes a passace from Marion to support his theory that an arrested defendant, who has not been indicted for formally arraiqned!, must be restrained, or in | custody, before the riacht to a speedy trial is triagered. The reliance upon this passage is misplaced and Petitioner atten ts to mislead by selectively quoting only a portion of @ section of the opinion which, when placed in the vroper context, supports the Respondent's position. Following the passace quoted by the Petitioner, the Court stated, “Invocation of the speedy trial provision thus need not 3/ await indictment, information, or other formal charge. But we 2/ Transcript of proceedings Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit, p. &. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, p. 13. 3/ The court, at fn. 12, quotine from the ABA Standard's Relating to Speedy Trial, n. 10, supra, at G, defined the time at which the beginning of the delay period should be computed as “the date the charce is filed, except that if a defendant has been continuously held in custody or on bail or Seven anaes until that date to answer for the fron the sane criminal episode, then tne time for trial should commence runnine from the date he was held to answer." Rule 2.2.(a). (emphasis addec.) ws LAW OFFICES 975 East Jefferson Detrou, Michigan 48207 (313) 867-2333 | decline to extend the reach of the amendment to the period prior to arrest. Until this event occurs, a citizen suffers no restraints on his liberty and is not the subject cof public accusetion; his situation does not compare with that of a defendant who has been arrested and held to answer." 404 U.S. 307, 321. Reading this section of the opvinion in its entirety, alona with fn. 12 of the opinion, it is clear that the Sixth Amendment guarantee applies to the situation where a defendant is arrested and released and that it is the actual arrest which causes the defendant to suffer the restraints upon his liberty that enaace the particular protections of the sveedy trial provision of the Sixth Anendment. Further, in United States v. McDonald, 456 U.S. 1; 102 S. Ct. 1497; 71 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1982), the court specifically states that, “in addition to the period after eaiannens, the period | between arrest and indictment must be considered in evaluatine a speedy trial clause clain,” citing Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64; 36 S. Ct. 303; 46 L. Ed. 2d 205 (1975). In this case, the actual restraint of the accused occurred _when he was arrested, transported to the station, “booked”, and interrogated. He was, then, released on recognizance, but held to answer the criminal charge as evidenced by the fact that the warrant was never dismissed but was served and prosecuted upon 21 months later. Under United States v. Marion, supra, he was entitled to a speedy trial which he was denied. THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ATTACHES UPON ARREST WAS BASED UPON THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF MICHIGAN LAW, WHICH THE PETITIONER FAILS TO ADDRESS OR ANALYZE The prosecu* .r argues that the Michigan Court of Appeals, in holding that an arrest rather than an arraignment of the accused ———S |} on formal charges tricgers the Sixth Amendment rignt to sneedy trial, misconstrues this court's holdinas [in United States v. | Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313; 92 S. Ct. 455, 459: 30 L. Ed. 2d 468 474 (1971) and United States v. McDonald, 456 U.S. 1; 102 S. Ct. 1497; 71 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1982) ). He chose not to analyze, nor even address the Michigan authority cited in the lower court opinion. In fact, the lower court based its decision upon a Michican Supreme Court case which was factually identical to the instant action. People v. Grimmett, 388 Mich 590; 202 N.W. 2d 278 (1972), overruled on other crounds, 390 Mich 245, 258 (1973). In Grimmett, supra, the defendant contended that his richt toa speedy trial was violated by the 19-month delay between his arrest and his indictment on the charge of assault with intent to commit murder. 388 Mich 590, 601. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the right tc a speedy trial attaches to the period of time between an arrest and an indictment, citine United States v. Kaufman, 311i F. 2d 695 (CA 2, 1963); Hardy v. United States, 11° j | U-S. App. DC 364; 343 F. 2d 233 (1964), then went on to apply the balancing test, as espoused in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514; 92 | S. Ct. 2182; 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972), to determine whether the right to speedy trial had been violated. The above, narrow rule of Grimmett, relied upon by the Michigan Court of Appeals in this case and dispositive of the sole issue before this court, was adopted in People v. Fiorini (on rehearing), 59 Mich. App. 243; 229 N.W. 2d 399 (1975). LAW OFFICES In the case at bar, the lower court held, further, that the $7S East Jefferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 speedy trial right is not dependent upon whether the defendant is kept in custody. People v. Den Uye, 320 M.ch. 477; 31 N.W. 2a (313) 867-2333 699 (1948). The Petitioner failed to address the state authority which, LAW OFFICES 976 East Jefferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 (313) $67-2333 independently, is dispositive of the issue in Respondent's favor. The decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals is correct and is in conformity with federal and state law: and as such, will atfect few others tnan the litigants. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. Respectfully submitted, CHIAMP & WENGER, P.C. BY - (4. ae ~ eds L. CHYAMP ANPT(Pi TSG) Member of Supreme Cotirt Bar 975 E. Jefferson Detroit, MI 48207 (313) 567-2333 ——* BY: ee, As (4% (“a Pa LYSA WENGER OME sy aes Applicant to Supreme Court Bar 975 E. Jefferson Detroit, MI 48207 (313) $67=2333 Dated: May 4, 1987 LAW OFFICES 975 East Jefferson Detroit, Michigan 48207 (313) $67-2333 NO. 86-1604 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner, ee RONNIE WILLIAMS, Respondent. PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of verjurv that a copy of Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Appearance has been served on: Frank J. Kelly, Attorney General 525 W. Ottawa 760 Law Building Lansing, MI 48913 Wayne County Prosecutor 1441 St. Antoine Detroit, MI 48226 ’ by placina said documents in a properly addressed. envelope with postage prepaid and placina said envelope in the United States Mail in the City of Detroit, Michigan, on this 4th day of May, 1987. . Said pleading was filed in the Supreme Court of tne United States by depositing in the United States Mail on this 4th day of May, 1987, addressed as follows: Joseph fF. Spanioi, Jr., Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, D.C. 20543 } AAOL IL Mettopsl Hee tas ¢ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of May, 1987 Paw) ee Wayne County, Michican My Commission Expires: 2/10/88 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_2067%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.