|
|
Monday, January 12, 2015
By Michael Nichols
Categories: Michael J. Nichols, Drug Crimes
The Michigan Court of Appeals has overturned a conviction for second-degree murder and granted a new trial – holding that the testimony of the prosecutor's “gang expert” impermissibly tainted the verdict. In the case: “People v. Kaleb Raynardo-Charles Hampton," the Court of Appeals granted the defendant a new trial because of the improper testimony of the government’s “gang expert.” The Court ruled that the testimony violated a rule of evidence (MRE 404(a)) that prohibits opinions that a person acted in conformity with a character trait. In this case, the prosecutor used the testimony "... to show that, on a particular occasion, a gang member acted in conformity with character traits commonly associated with gang members.” People v. Bynum, 496 Mich. 610, 615-616, 852 N.W.2d 570 (2014).
The Court of Appeals pointed out that the officer’s pronouncements of the defendant’s guilt permeated his testimony. The Court pointed to three specific instances in which the officer testifying as a “gang expert” crossed the line. First, the officer testified that the defendants “purposely” entered enemy territory to “avenge some sort of gang disrespect they felt was done…” Second, that the defendants drove “into this hornet’s nest…purposely as gang members attempting to avenge disrespect.” Finally, that the defendants “were just intending to shoot at that entire neighborhood that was full of rival gang members to prove a point.” The Court went on to reiterate that even in the analogous context when the expert testimony “begins to resemble the defendant’s circumstances and characteristics too closely,” it impermissibly approximates “substantive evidence of guilt.” People v. Murray, 234 Mich.App. 46, 55, 593 N.W.2d 690 (1999).
It is fundamental to our justice system that the jury alone decides guilt or innocence. The Court of Appeals pointed out that experts are not allowed to give their opinions as to guilt or innocence for two main reasons. First, their opinions are unnecessary because the ultimate decision of guilt or innocence is the jury’s alone. Second, the opinion of a police officer testifying as a “gang expert” is highly prejudicial, and therefore inadmissible under MRE 403. The “gang expert’s” testimony is limited to general characteristics of gang culture for appropriate purposes. Conduct in conformity with general gang characteristics is not an appropriate purpose, and therefore the Court of Appeals held it is inadmissible.
Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney Mike Nichols, an adjunct professor of forensic evidence at the Western Michigan University Cooley Law School says "The Court of Appeals got this one right. It is encouraging to see the Court recognize the power of testimony from so called 'gang experts,' and limiting such testimony when appropriate." If you have been charged with a crime and need lawyers with knowledge, skill and the drive to stay on the cutting edge of the law, call the Nichols Law Firm today and speak with attorneys who are committed to results at 517-432-9000.