People v. Frazier

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Frazier

720 N.W.2d 747, 477 Mich. 851

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 14, 2006

Docket131041

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 720 N.W.2d 747 (People v. Frazier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Frazier, 720 N.W.2d 747, 477 Mich. 851 (Mich. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Leave to Appeal Granted September 14, 2006.

The application for leave to appeal is granted. The parties are directed to include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the exclusionary rule applies to fruits of a confession extracted not by police misconduct, but by the abandonment of retained counsel during the interrogation, a critical stage of proceedings, in violation of United States v Cronic,466 US 648 (1984); and, if so, (2) whether the inevitable discovery doctrine of Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 (1984), applies in such circumstances; and, if so, (3) whether the exclusionary rule should be applied narrowly as suggested in United States v Ceccolini, 435 US 268 (1978), when the information derived from the confession is the identity of witnesses. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is denied, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Leave to Appeal Granted September 14, 2006.

The application for leave to appeal is granted. The parties are directed to include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the exclusionary rule applies to fruits of a confession extracted not by police misconduct, but by the abandonment of retained counsel during the interrogation, a critical stage of proceedings, in violation of United States v Cronic,466 US 648 (1984); and, if so, (2) whether the inevitable discovery doctrine of Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 (1984), applies in such circumstances; and, if so, (3) whether the exclusionary rule should be applied narrowly as suggested in United States v Ceccolini, 435 US 268 (1978), when the information derived from the confession is the identity of witnesses. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is denied, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 N.W.2d 747, 477 Mich. 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frazier-mich-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack