|
No. 119818
| The
People of the |
|
Janet M. Boes (989) 790-5330 |
| State
of Michigan, |
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Saginaw
-- Kaczmarek, R.)
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Joe Jones,
|
|
Lester O. Pollak (517) 787-1830 |
|
Defendant-Appellee.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan Amicus
Curiae Brief>>
Background
Defendant Jonathan Joe Jones was found guilty of first-degree murder
and conspiracy to commit murder, for helping stomp to death a man who
took Jones’ television and sold it to support a drug habit. The
Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, citing prosecutorial
error. The prosecution erred by asking the only eyewitness to the incident
if the witness had taken and passed a polygraph test, the Court of Appeals
held in an unpublished opinion. In Michigan, evidence that a witness
has taken and passed a polygraph test is not admissible at trial. The
prosecutor appeals, arguing that the defense attorney opened the door
for introduction of the inadmissible polygraph test. The prosecution
points out that the defense attorney asked a detective during cross-examination,
before the eyewitness was called, whether the eyewitness had not given
several versions of the incident and had taken a polygraph test. By
bringing up the polygraph, the defense attorney probably led the jury
to conclude that the eyewitness had not passed the test, the prosecution
argues. Therefore, the prosecution was bound to respond by asking the
eyewitness about the outcome of his polygraph, the prosecution contends.
The defense argues that the prosecution could have asked the judge for
a curative jury instruction, rather than ask about the outcome of the
polygraph. The defendant further argues that the prosecutor had no authority
to compound the error of referring to the polygraph.
|
