Michigan Sex Crime Attorneys Blog

Michigan news reports that a Berrien Springs massage therapist and former pastor has pleaded guilty to two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault. The Berrien County sex crime charges stem from an incident where Johan Albert Abrahams of St Joseph allegedly inappropriately touched a woman’s breast and thigh. WSBT news reveals that Berrien County Trial Judge Scott Schofield has sentenced the man to 90 days in jail, 90 days tether, five years probation, as well as requiring Abrahams to pay restitution and fines and costs. He must also register as a Michigan sex offender.

If you are under investigation for any sex crime, consulting with a knowledgeable sex crimes defense lawyer in Michigan immediately is important to begin preparing your defense.

Criminal sexual conduct (CSC) in Michigan is a generic term referring to sex crimes such as rape, statutory rape, and child molestations. CSCs are divided into 4 categories, and a conviction of any level may significantly impact your freedom and your future. Michigan law divides CSCs into the following categories:
• 1st Degree CSC: Criminal sexual conduct first degree involves some sort of penetration of the alleged victim is sometimes referred to by a layperson as rape.
• 2nd Degree CSC: Criminal sexual conduct second degree involve touching of a sexual nature of an intimate body part without some form of penetration.
• 3rd Degree CSC: Criminal sexual conduct third degree is sometimes referred to by the lay person as statutory rape and involves some sort of penetration of the alleged victim.
• 4th Degree CSC: Criminal sexual conduct fourth degree involve touching of a sexual nature of an intimate body part without some form of penetration.

Continue reading

Central Michigan Life news reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Unit has recently changed its definition of forcible rape to include males as victims, updating the definition and bringing it more in line with Michigan’s model law.

The new law does not distinguish between genders and defines rape as: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Previously, the FBI had defined rape as only a crime against women, classifying rape as the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

Since 1975 however, Michigan has had a more broader model law and recognizes various types of sexual conduct as criminal, including touching or other contact, as well as penetration with a breast, genital or buttock as a sex crime. The FBI’s new definition is more narrowly focused than Michigan’s, making only penetration a sex crime.

If you have been charged in Michigan with any form of sexual contact, it is important to speak with a Michigan sex crimes defense attorney immediately to begin preparing your defense. Because Michigan’s law is so broad many situations involving sexual conduct may lead to a sex crimes investigation and charges being filed. Consulting with a sex crimes defense lawyer in Michigan right away may be a crucial first step in protecting your future.

Continue reading

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled against hearing an appeal from a sexual-assault trial where a screen was used to block a witness from seeing the man accused. At issue is whether the placement of the screen deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to confront his accuser.

In a brief statement, the Supreme Court simply noted that it is “no longer persuaded that the questions … should be reviewed.” However the significant constitutional issues raised by the used of the screen remain.

Here Ronald Rose, a western Michigan man faces at least 25 years in jail after being convicted of sexual assault in a 2008 trial. Rose was accused of showing pornographic pictures to his wife’s 8-year-old sister and brother, and sexually abusing the girl. During the trial the one-way screen was used to keep the 8-year-old from seeing Rose. However, the screen was not used when another young witness testified. The screen – rather than providing a legitimate means to protect juveniles who may be anxious about testifying in court – was more like a theatrical prop – “the most prejudicial thing he’d ever seen in a criminal trial,” stated Rose’s Michigan sex crimes defense lawyer Scott Grabel.

The U.S. Constitution provides many protections designed to ensure criminal defendants are given a fair trial. One of these protections is the 6th Amendment, which provides that a defendant is entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Where a minor is involved, MCL 600.123 provides alternative procedures for presenting child witness testimony, while accounting for the accused’s constitutional rights. Using a screen is not one of those procedures expressly permitted. Here, Rose was denied his constitutional right to confrontation and deserves a new trial.

Continue reading

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear argument next week in a case involving the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. The confrontation clause generally provides the right of an accused to “confront” a witness testifying against him or her at trial by way of cross-examination. In Williams v. Illinois, a case involving rape and DNA evidence, the court will review whether an accused’s constitutional rights to confront his accuser are violated when a laboratory analyst testifies at trial about DNA results when the analyst didn’t actually perform the testing.

How this case is decided case will have a significant impact on Michigan criminal trials including rape and other sex crimes. Often, DNA evidence is used to either identify or rule out a potential suspect in a crime. How this evidence is presented at trial may be a crucial factor in whether a defendant is found guilty or innocent. If you are under investigation for a Michigan sex crime, it is critical to speak with an experienced Michigan sex crime lawyer who can immediately begin investigating your matter and in the event of a trial, provide a vigorous defense.

In Williams, the Illinois State Police Laboratory sent biological evidence to be tested at a Maryland lab. The accused was arrested for a separate crime and submitted to a blood test. His DNA matched the DNA profile generated from the Maryland Lab. At trial an Illinois lab analyst testified about the DNA match, but admitted that she didn’t participate in any of the testing in Maryland and that her conclusions were based on an independent review. Williams was subsequently convicted of rape. Illinois higher courts affirmed this ruling, determining that because the lab analyst could be cross-examined and lab report itself was not submitted into evidence, the confrontation clause was not violated.

However, previous case law over the last few years has strongly debated the question of whether the lab analyst who performs a test – such as a DNA test or a blood alcohol test – must be present to testify. In 2004 in Crawford v. Washington, the court determined that prosecutors may not use statements from witnesses who are not available to testify, even where the statements are reliable. This determination has been applied to lab reports. In 2009 in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the court noted, “Confrontation is designed not only to weed out the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well. Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.”

Continue reading