Views
3 years ago

Lewis Langham, Jr. - Thomas M. Cooley Law School

Lewis Langham, Jr. - Thomas M. Cooley Law School

236 THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW

236 THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:2 determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest.” 24 In reaching its decision, the Court discussed why police and prosecutors cannot make the probable-cause determination without judicial oversight: Once the suspect is in custody . . . the reasons that justify dispensing with the magistrate’s neutral judgment evaporate. There no longer is any danger that the suspect will escape or commit further crimes while the police submit their evidence to a magistrate. And, while the State’s reasons for taking summary action subside, the suspect’s need for a neutral determination of probable cause increases significantly. . . . When the stakes are this high, the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate is essential if the Fourth Amendment is to furnish meaningful protection from unfounded interference with liberty. 25 Moreover, the Court found historical support for its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment: At common law it was customary, if not obligatory, for an arrested person to be brought before a justice of the peace shortly after arrest. The justice of the peace would “examine” the prisoner and the witnesses to determine whether there was reason to believe the prisoner had committed a crime. If there was, the suspect would be committed to jail or bailed pending trial. If not, he would be discharged from custody. . . . This practice furnished the model for criminal procedure in America immediately following the adoption of the Fourth Amendment. 26 While the Court recognized that the state systems may vary, it notably stated that a state “must provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty, and this determination must be made by a 24. Id. at 114, 120–22. 25. Id. at 114. 26. Id. at 114–16 (internal citations omitted).

2011] PRELIMINARY-EXAMINATION REFORM 237 judicial officer either before or promptly after arrest.” 27 Looking back some thirty years, the Court noted: ‘“The awful instruments of the criminal law cannot be entrusted to a single functionary. The complicated process of criminal justice is therefore divided into different parts, responsibility for which is separately vested in the various participants upon whom the criminal law relies for its vindication.”’ 28 IV. THE PRELIMINARY-EXAMINATION PROCESS IN MICHIGAN Historically, Michigan has recognized the importance of preliminary examinations. The Michigan Constitution of 1835 allowed for indictment by grand jury only, and a preliminary examination was required if a suspect was to be held before the grand jury convened. 29 And in 1859, the Michigan Legislature passed Public Act 138, which recognized “the increased importance of the preliminary examination.” 30 In 1972, People v. Duncan consolidated three cases to decide whether a defendant was entitled to a preliminary examination following an indictment by a grand jury. 31 Looking at a legislative history of preliminary examinations, the Michigan Supreme Court focused on Public Act 175, issued in 1927: The state and accused shall be entitled to a prompt examination and determination by the examining magistrate in all criminal causes and it is hereby made the duty of all courts and public officers having duties to perform in connection with such examination, to bring them to a final determination without delay except as it may be necessary to secure to the accused a fair and impartial examination. 32 The court acknowledged that “in the absence of a clear statutory provision for a preliminary examination following presentment or an 27. Id. at 125 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). 28. Id. at 118 (quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 343 (1943)). 29. See People v. Duncan, 201 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Mich. 1927), overruled by People v. Glass, 627 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2001). 30. Id. at 632. 31. See id. at 630-31. 32. Id. at 632–33 (quoting 1972 Mich. Pub. Acts 175, Ch. VI, §1); see also MICH. COMP. LAWS §766.1 (2012) (using the same language).

Douglas Lewis, No Horsing Around - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Benchmark Column - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Jack Rooney - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Benchmark Magazine - Winter 2009 - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Benchmark - Trinity Term 2007 - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Annual Report - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Mark Dotson - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Benchmark - Michaelmas Term 2006 - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Benchmark - The Thomas M. Cooley Law School Magazine - Hilary ...
Starting a Law School (PDF) - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Benchmark Trinity 9/04 - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Professionalism Group, A Noble Mission - Thomas M. Cooley Law ...
Dennis E. Benner, Giving Back - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Kevin Robbins, Judging Today's Youth - Thomas M. Cooley Law ...
Judge Michael F. Skinner 1952 - 2010 - Thomas M. Cooley Law ...
Benchmark Column - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Trinity 2003 Benchmark - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Benchmark - The Thomas M. Cooley Law School Magazine
Disability Access Guide (pdf) - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Cooley's High Tech Courtrooms - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Legal Ease Wine & Cheese Benefit - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Visionary Looks Ahead - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
LL.M. U.S. Legal Studies Program Guide (pdf) - Thomas M. Cooley ...
Alex M. Johnson, Jr. - University of Virginia School of Law
the mission of the school of law - St. Thomas University
[+][PDF] TOP TREND School Law: What Every Educator Should Know, A User-Friendly Guide: What Every Teacher Should Know [FREE]
Justice Thomas E. Brennan - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Robert Agacinski - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Hilary 2006 - Thomas M. Cooley Law School
You Were There - Thomas M. Cooley Law School