Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
February 9, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
132421 & (83) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
Cross-Appellee,
v SC: 132421
COA: 258397
Wayne CC: 04-001084-01
BERNARD CHAUNCEY MURPHY,
Defendant-Appellee,
Cross-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12, 2006
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall
include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether trial counsel’s failure to respond to
the prosecutor’s interlocutory application for leave to appeal, which resulted in the
reversal of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, should be viewed as structural error
under United States v Cronic, 466 US 648; 104 S Ct 2039; 80 L Ed 2d 657 (1984), or
whether it should be reviewed under the two-part standard for evaluating claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel enunciated in Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104
S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); and (2) whether, under either standard, the appropriate
remedy is reversal of the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial, or whether a
second appellate review of the trial court’s suppression ruling should be conducted with
the defendant being afforded constitutionally adequate representation. The application
for leave to appeal as cross-appellant remains pending.
The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense
Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups
interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court
for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Until further order from this Court, we DIRECT the Court of Appeals, in all cases
involving preconviction appeals by the prosecution, to inform defense counsel in writing
that they must file a timely response to the application. Cf. MCR 6.005(H)(3). In the
2
alternative, defense counsel may promptly communicate to the Court of Appeals in
writing that the client has directed defense counsel not to respond to the prosecution’s
interlocutory appeal.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
February 9, 2007 _________________________________________
s0206 Clerk