By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
A bench majority with five members nominated by the Michigan Democratic Party will be seated in January, and one of the new Michigan Supreme Court’s first big set of cases will deal with juveniles sentenced to life without parole seeking either short sentences or parole.
The high court – featuring the elected Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and the newly added Justice-elect Kimberly Thomas – will hear eight cases as oral arguments beginning 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2025. It will mark the first oral argument session with the new 5-2 bench, which now has Michigan Republican Party-nominated Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement and Justice Brian Zahra in the minority. The cases will be presented in person at the Michigan Hall of Justice and livestreamed on the court’s website.
Among them are four life without parole cases, three of which deal with juveniles and are to be heard together in the court’s afternoon session on January 22.
The cases include People v. Langston (MSC Docket No. 163968), People v. Poole (MSC Docket No. 166813), People v. Taylor (MSC Docket No. 166428) and People v. Czarnecki (MSC Docket No. 166654).
Poole, Taylor and Czarnecki involved juvenile life without parole challenges. John Poole was convicted of first-degree murder for a crime he committed when he was 18 years old. Montario Taylor was 20 years old at the time of his offense, and Andrew Czarnecki was 19 years old.
Poole asks the court to determine if the Court of Appeals was correct when it ruled the high court’s ruling in People v. Parks applies retroactively to cases that have become final after the expiration for periods of review.
Czarnecki asks the court to determine if Parks – which ruled mandatory life without parole sentences for 18-year-old defendants convicted of murder were unconstitutional – should be extended to 19-year-old defendants.
Taylor asks the same of the court regarding 20-year-olds, and if its separate precedent in People v. Hall should also be overruled to do so.
Langston doesn’t involve a juvenile lifer but asks whether an adult life without parole sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment given the circumstances of the case. Thomas will be required to recuse herself from the case because she was the attorney for the defendant prior to her election to the bench. A different attorney will also be presenting the defendant’s argument.
The high court will also hear the following four cases in January:
Mann v. City of Detroit (MSC Docket No. 166619): This case involves the Governmental Tort Liability Act and whether the city of Detroit had immunity from suit for a metal pole protruding from a sidewalk that caused the plaintiff to trip. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff that the poll was a part of the sidewalk and that a sidewalk immunity exemption did not apply. The Court of Appeals reversed and agreed with the city, ruling the pole was not part of the sidewalk itself. The high court has been asked to determine whether the exemption applies given the circumstances.
Webster v. Osguthorpe (MSC Docket Nos. 166627-8): The case involves a medical malpractice claim evaluated in 2020, in which the panel awarded nearly $200,000 to the plaintiff. The defendants rejected it, resulting in a jury trial in which a jury granted the plaintiff more than that evaluation panel – $565,000, to be exact. The trial court granted the award over the defendants’ objections, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the high court has now been asked to determine whether the Macomb Circuit Court had discretion to apply an older version of court rules and if the award of sanctions was justified.
Janetsky v. County of Saginaw (MSC Docket Nos. 166477-8): a case involving the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. The plaintiff is an assistant prosecutor in Saginaw County who claims her immediate supervisor brokered an allegedly unlawful plea deal. The chief assistant prosecutor was reported but was alleged to have created a hostile work environment, resulting in a lawsuit. The trial court dismissed some defendants but kept the case alive. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, granting summary disposition to the defendants on all claims. The high court has been asked to determine whether the key defendant was entitled to immunity from tort liability, among other questions.
Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority (MSC Docket No. 166663): Another Whistleblowers’ Protection Act case, the plaintiff sued claiming the defendant retaliated against him for making statements to the director about a coworker’s improper coding of a 911 call as a shots-fired incident instead of one in which someone was actually shot, delaying the response and potentially contributing to the victim’s death. The trial court held a report of a suspected violation of common law was not protected by the WPA. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The high court has been asked to determine whether reporting a common law violation like gross negligence is protected under the WPA, and if the defendant was entitled to summary disposition.
Gongwer News Service
A bench majority with five members nominated by the Michigan Democratic Party will be seated in January, and one of the new Michigan Supreme Court’s first big set of cases will deal with juveniles sentenced to life without parole seeking either short sentences or parole.
The high court – featuring the elected Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and the newly added Justice-elect Kimberly Thomas – will hear eight cases as oral arguments beginning 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2025. It will mark the first oral argument session with the new 5-2 bench, which now has Michigan Republican Party-nominated Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement and Justice Brian Zahra in the minority. The cases will be presented in person at the Michigan Hall of Justice and livestreamed on the court’s website.
Among them are four life without parole cases, three of which deal with juveniles and are to be heard together in the court’s afternoon session on January 22.
The cases include People v. Langston (MSC Docket No. 163968), People v. Poole (MSC Docket No. 166813), People v. Taylor (MSC Docket No. 166428) and People v. Czarnecki (MSC Docket No. 166654).
Poole, Taylor and Czarnecki involved juvenile life without parole challenges. John Poole was convicted of first-degree murder for a crime he committed when he was 18 years old. Montario Taylor was 20 years old at the time of his offense, and Andrew Czarnecki was 19 years old.
Poole asks the court to determine if the Court of Appeals was correct when it ruled the high court’s ruling in People v. Parks applies retroactively to cases that have become final after the expiration for periods of review.
Czarnecki asks the court to determine if Parks – which ruled mandatory life without parole sentences for 18-year-old defendants convicted of murder were unconstitutional – should be extended to 19-year-old defendants.
Taylor asks the same of the court regarding 20-year-olds, and if its separate precedent in People v. Hall should also be overruled to do so.
Langston doesn’t involve a juvenile lifer but asks whether an adult life without parole sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment given the circumstances of the case. Thomas will be required to recuse herself from the case because she was the attorney for the defendant prior to her election to the bench. A different attorney will also be presenting the defendant’s argument.
The high court will also hear the following four cases in January:
Mann v. City of Detroit (MSC Docket No. 166619): This case involves the Governmental Tort Liability Act and whether the city of Detroit had immunity from suit for a metal pole protruding from a sidewalk that caused the plaintiff to trip. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff that the poll was a part of the sidewalk and that a sidewalk immunity exemption did not apply. The Court of Appeals reversed and agreed with the city, ruling the pole was not part of the sidewalk itself. The high court has been asked to determine whether the exemption applies given the circumstances.
Webster v. Osguthorpe (MSC Docket Nos. 166627-8): The case involves a medical malpractice claim evaluated in 2020, in which the panel awarded nearly $200,000 to the plaintiff. The defendants rejected it, resulting in a jury trial in which a jury granted the plaintiff more than that evaluation panel – $565,000, to be exact. The trial court granted the award over the defendants’ objections, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the high court has now been asked to determine whether the Macomb Circuit Court had discretion to apply an older version of court rules and if the award of sanctions was justified.
Janetsky v. County of Saginaw (MSC Docket Nos. 166477-8): a case involving the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. The plaintiff is an assistant prosecutor in Saginaw County who claims her immediate supervisor brokered an allegedly unlawful plea deal. The chief assistant prosecutor was reported but was alleged to have created a hostile work environment, resulting in a lawsuit. The trial court dismissed some defendants but kept the case alive. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, granting summary disposition to the defendants on all claims. The high court has been asked to determine whether the key defendant was entitled to immunity from tort liability, among other questions.
Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority (MSC Docket No. 166663): Another Whistleblowers’ Protection Act case, the plaintiff sued claiming the defendant retaliated against him for making statements to the director about a coworker’s improper coding of a 911 call as a shots-fired incident instead of one in which someone was actually shot, delaying the response and potentially contributing to the victim’s death. The trial court held a report of a suspected violation of common law was not protected by the WPA. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The high court has been asked to determine whether reporting a common law violation like gross negligence is protected under the WPA, and if the defendant was entitled to summary disposition.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
