ruleflipadvisorygroup
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- Michigan
Location: Michigan 6th Circuit.
I am trying to get some perspectives on the framework for a situation in a low level single class G felony that should not have been prosecuted in the first place and there are several issues including a magisrtate in Michigan signing a search warrant that list the place to be searched as a state of deleware location that local PD emailed the search warrant to a bank employee in Michigan and the warrant does not list any crime or defendant, just an account number and seeks any and all records attached to the account number (literally there is no suspects name or any reference to any suspected crime on the warrant), but I digress, my question relates to a criminal case involving both the right to counsel and disability accommodations.
I am a 100% service-connected disabled veteran with VA-documented mental disability that manifest in cognitive impairment when in high stress and unfamiliar environments or an overload of incoming stimuli which came from toxic exposure while deployed. I requested remote appearance and clear, concise written communication as reasonable accommodations.
The court initially denied the request for remote appearance as untimely and the judge also said it would require a doctor's letter stating it was necessary. I proceeded to obtain a letter from my VA physician expressly stating that I need report remotely due to my condition. Even after that, the court still denied remote appearance. The court also denied requests for clear and concise written communication and document-review assistance in the form of a increased font size, saying those things fell within the role of counsel because I was appointed an attorney.
The problem is that counsel did not actually communicate reliably. There were material communication problems about dates and status, including when he wrote through email that he would stipulate to adjourning a pretrial scheduling hearing that was communicated as necessary for my disability while the ada accommodations were making their way through the appeal process to the chief judge. The attorney never filed for a stipulated adjournment and never informed me that appearance was still necessary which then resulted in a bench warrant issuing. The attorney then proceeded to again communicate in writing that he would back me up that it was his miscommunication. The attorney then sent via email that the next pretrial hearing date would be May 29. Afterwards a few hours later he emailed again saying that the court moved the date to the 28th of May to accommodate his own schedule without my consent or knowledge. On May 28th I called the attorney to ask what time the hearing was the next day and this is when he said that it already happened and that a bench warrant has been issued and that he is discharged upon the issuance of a bench warrant. Which means he washed his hands and did not feel the need to explain anything or even make sure I understood anything. After that, the local indigent defense office agreed that they apparently treated appointed counsel as administratively discharged during active bench-warrant status and not expected to prepare filings while the warrant was active.
So the situation seems to be this: the court denied accommodations (specifically clear and concise written communication) because it said counsel should handle those issues, but then counsel did not communicate effectively, a bench warrant issued, and the indigent defense system then treated counsel's role as essentially ended during the active warrant period. During this period the cheif judge affirmed the ADA coordinators response that those fall within the role of counsel and therefore denied all accommodations including the one that they asked for a physician letter and denied it anyways.
My question is how lawyers would analyze that interaction. Is that primarily a Sixth Amendment effective-assistance issue, an ADA Title II / access-to-courts issue, a procedural due process issue, or some combination of all three? More specifically, can a court rely on the existence of counsel as the reason to deny accommodations when the representation is functionally failing and then later treated as terminated during a liberty-restricting stage of the case?
I also have a question about the warrant mentioned at the top of the post. Please tell me if this was legal without going through some interstate warrant process:
SEARCH WARRANT
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
)SS
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
TO THE SHERIFF OR ANY OFFICER OF SAID COUNTY:
THE AFFIDAVIT having previously been sworn to by the affiant, Detective (**Redacted) before me this day, based on facts stated herein, probable cause having been found; in the name of the People of the State of Michigan I command that you enter the following described place:
Bank of America N.A.
Legal Order Processing/Christina IV
800 Samoset Drive
Newark, DE 19713
Therein to search for, seize, tabulate and make return according to law the following property and things:
Any and all records retained by Bank of America, for account number (**Redacted), including but not limited to; ownership records, full names, dates of birth, email addresses, addresses, phone numbers, full bank account numbers and routing numbers, purchases, other associated accounts, other associated debit/credit cards information, any notices to the account owner of nonsufficient funds, account closure date, and account statements/summaries for May 15, 2024 through June 15, 2024. Said records shall be in digital format and can be emailed to (**Redacted)
I am trying to get some perspectives on the framework for a situation in a low level single class G felony that should not have been prosecuted in the first place and there are several issues including a magisrtate in Michigan signing a search warrant that list the place to be searched as a state of deleware location that local PD emailed the search warrant to a bank employee in Michigan and the warrant does not list any crime or defendant, just an account number and seeks any and all records attached to the account number (literally there is no suspects name or any reference to any suspected crime on the warrant), but I digress, my question relates to a criminal case involving both the right to counsel and disability accommodations.
I am a 100% service-connected disabled veteran with VA-documented mental disability that manifest in cognitive impairment when in high stress and unfamiliar environments or an overload of incoming stimuli which came from toxic exposure while deployed. I requested remote appearance and clear, concise written communication as reasonable accommodations.
The court initially denied the request for remote appearance as untimely and the judge also said it would require a doctor's letter stating it was necessary. I proceeded to obtain a letter from my VA physician expressly stating that I need report remotely due to my condition. Even after that, the court still denied remote appearance. The court also denied requests for clear and concise written communication and document-review assistance in the form of a increased font size, saying those things fell within the role of counsel because I was appointed an attorney.
The problem is that counsel did not actually communicate reliably. There were material communication problems about dates and status, including when he wrote through email that he would stipulate to adjourning a pretrial scheduling hearing that was communicated as necessary for my disability while the ada accommodations were making their way through the appeal process to the chief judge. The attorney never filed for a stipulated adjournment and never informed me that appearance was still necessary which then resulted in a bench warrant issuing. The attorney then proceeded to again communicate in writing that he would back me up that it was his miscommunication. The attorney then sent via email that the next pretrial hearing date would be May 29. Afterwards a few hours later he emailed again saying that the court moved the date to the 28th of May to accommodate his own schedule without my consent or knowledge. On May 28th I called the attorney to ask what time the hearing was the next day and this is when he said that it already happened and that a bench warrant has been issued and that he is discharged upon the issuance of a bench warrant. Which means he washed his hands and did not feel the need to explain anything or even make sure I understood anything. After that, the local indigent defense office agreed that they apparently treated appointed counsel as administratively discharged during active bench-warrant status and not expected to prepare filings while the warrant was active.
So the situation seems to be this: the court denied accommodations (specifically clear and concise written communication) because it said counsel should handle those issues, but then counsel did not communicate effectively, a bench warrant issued, and the indigent defense system then treated counsel's role as essentially ended during the active warrant period. During this period the cheif judge affirmed the ADA coordinators response that those fall within the role of counsel and therefore denied all accommodations including the one that they asked for a physician letter and denied it anyways.
My question is how lawyers would analyze that interaction. Is that primarily a Sixth Amendment effective-assistance issue, an ADA Title II / access-to-courts issue, a procedural due process issue, or some combination of all three? More specifically, can a court rely on the existence of counsel as the reason to deny accommodations when the representation is functionally failing and then later treated as terminated during a liberty-restricting stage of the case?
I also have a question about the warrant mentioned at the top of the post. Please tell me if this was legal without going through some interstate warrant process:
SEARCH WARRANT
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
)SS
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
TO THE SHERIFF OR ANY OFFICER OF SAID COUNTY:
THE AFFIDAVIT having previously been sworn to by the affiant, Detective (**Redacted) before me this day, based on facts stated herein, probable cause having been found; in the name of the People of the State of Michigan I command that you enter the following described place:
Bank of America N.A.
Legal Order Processing/Christina IV
800 Samoset Drive
Newark, DE 19713
Therein to search for, seize, tabulate and make return according to law the following property and things:
Any and all records retained by Bank of America, for account number (**Redacted), including but not limited to; ownership records, full names, dates of birth, email addresses, addresses, phone numbers, full bank account numbers and routing numbers, purchases, other associated accounts, other associated debit/credit cards information, any notices to the account owner of nonsufficient funds, account closure date, and account statements/summaries for May 15, 2024 through June 15, 2024. Said records shall be in digital format and can be emailed to (**Redacted)
