 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Wemigwans3/4/2003
App 439, 443; 341 NW2d 519 (1983). This determination is made on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 449.
The Michigan Supreme Court has observed that "due process of law" is essentially the legal equivalent of procedural fairness. In re Chrzanowski, 465 Mich 468, 486; 636 NW2d 758 (2001). The concept of "due process of law" as it is embodied in the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, §17, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution demands that a law shall not be unreasonable and shall bear substantial relation to the object being sought. Whether a foreign jurisdiction gave sufficient due process to a defendant for purposes of enhancing criminal charges depends on the degree of similarity between the substantive and procedural laws of the foreign jurisdiction compared to the laws in Michigan. Courts must examine the facts and circumstances of the case for any intolerably high risks of unfairness. Chrzanowski, supra at 486. Simply put, if the foreign jurisdiction subjected a defendant to a law or procedure that offends traditional notions of fairness as expressed in Michigan and federal constitutional jurisprudence, then the defendant was not afforded sufficient due process protections in the foreign jurisdiction, and the prior convictions cannot be used in Michigan courts for purposes of enhancing criminal charges.
Here, defendant does not contend that the substantive law supporting the tribal convictions fails to correspond substantially to Michigan's drunk driving laws. The drunk driving law applicable in the tribal court is identical to Michigan's statute (the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Legislature adopted, in full, the Michigan OUIL statute.) Thus, whether defendant was afforded sufficient due process protections turns on the degree of similarity in the rules of criminal procedure of the tribal court compared to Michigan.
There are many significant similarities between the criminal procedure followed in the tribal court and the procedure followed in Michigan courts. The record establishes that defendant was informed of the following rights and opportunities: to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusations against him; to be confronted with witnesses against him; to have a speedy and public trial in which he could present witnesses in his favor; to have a trial by jury, in which the government has the burden to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; to be protected against self-incrimination and to be free from the threat of double jeopardy; to have counsel at his own expense; and to be protected against cruel or unusual punishment, excessive bails, or fines. Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 USC §1302. These rights are substantially similar to rights afforded defendants in Michigan courts.
The tribal court informed defendant of his rights prior to accepting each of his guilty pleas. In both prior cases before the tribal court, the tribal judge tested defendant's competency before accepting his pleas. The record establishes that defendant acted freely, made a knowing and voluntary waiver of the many rights that were enumerated to him prior to his pleas, and made an intelligent, informed and conscious decision to plead guilty in each case. In so doing, defendant received the benefit of sentencing agreements that eliminated the threat of long-term incarceration. In addition to the protections of the Indian Civil Rights Act, defendant had, among other things, the right to access the tribal appellate courts. Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Code §§1.513, 1.514. Defendant elected not to assert his right to seek appeal of the tribal convictions.
The only significant difference between the procedural process afforded in the two judic
Page 1 2 3 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|