|
No. 129152 129154
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Jeffrey Caminsky |
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
vs (Wayne - Sullivan, B.)
|
|
|
Cedric Pipes, |
|
Daniel J. Rust |
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| -------------------------------------------. |
|
|
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
vs (Wayne - Sullivan, B). |
|
|
| Julian Dale Key, |
|
Jonathan B. D. Simon |
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| _______________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
129152 - Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
129152 - Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
129152 - Defendant-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
129154 - Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
129154
- Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
129154 - Defendant-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Background
In a joint trial, Cedric Pipes and Julian Key were convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of a three-year-old child; they were sentenced to life in prison. Both Pipes and Key made statements to police about the crime. At trial, the court admitted those statements into evidence and instructed the jury that each statement was only to be considered against the defendant who made it. The trial court made this decision after both defendants made an offer of proof at an earlier hearing, indicating that they were going to testify. In fact, neither defendant testified at trial. In an unpublished 2-1 opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed both convictions. The Court of Appeals cited Bruton v United States, 391 US 123; 88 S Ct 1620; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968), in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is deprived of his right to confrontation when his codefendant’s incriminating confession is introduced at a joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant. One Court of Appeals judge dissented, arguing that the defendants had waived their right to claim constitutional error because they told the trial court that they would testify and the trial court’s decision was based upon that offer of proof. The prosecutor appeals.
Top of Page
|
