Hundreds of Michigan killers face resentencing, even parole as prosecutors bemoan caseload Flint — Hundreds of convicted killers could be eligible for resentencing and eventually parole following a Michigan Supreme Court ruling that has short-staffed prosecutors concerned they won't be able to handle the extra caseload while struggling to clear already backlogged dockets. In a 5-2 ruling on April 10, the high court's majority found that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for first-degree murder is an "unconstitutionally cruel punishment" for 19- and 20-year-olds because their brains aren't fully developed. There are 582 defendants whose cases are affected by the Supreme Court's decision, with about 400 in Wayne County, according to the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan. The ruling requires prosecutors to file motions to uphold the life sentences within 90 days; otherwise, the defendants will be resentenced to a term of years, which opens the opportunity for an eventual release back into the community. Supporters of the ruling agreed with Justice Elizabeth Welch, who wrote in the court's majority opinion that a mandatory life sentence for murder defendants who were 19 or 20 years old at the time of their crimes "does not allow for consideration of the mitigating factors of youth or the potential for rehabilitation is a grossly disproportionate punishment." But critics, including relatives of murder victim Montel Wright, said they disagreed with the court's finding that 19- and 20-year-old killers shouldn't serve life prison terms. Montario Taylor walked into Wright's Flint home on Oct. 24, 2016, and fired multiple shots at him before leaving the house, returning and pulling the trigger several more times, according to witnesses who testified in his trial. Wright, 45, died after suffering eight gunshot wounds, with bullets penetrating his body from the front and back. Taylor, who was 20 when he committed the killing, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. "Not only did (Taylor) shoot my brother; he walked outside and then went back in to shoot him again," said the victim's sister, Vhiranda Brown, who has cared for her brother's 16-year-old autistic son since the killing. "He knew exactly what he was doing." In addition to the question of responsibility, prosecutors said the court's ruling will put them further behind on dockets that are already severely backlogged, straining offices that are experiencing staffing problems, while reopening wounds for victims' families. Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said he hasn't decided whether to file motions to fight the resentencing for Taylor or any of the other 43 cases in his office that were affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. Leyton called the court's ruling "an unfunded mandate." "We're just recovering from the COVID backlog, and I don't know how I'm supposed to take on these new cases, because I just don't have the staffing for it," Leyton said. "The court is telling us we need to do all this extra work, but not providing any money for it. There's so much still to do. I haven't made decisions on any of these cases yet. "This is terrible for the public because it’s going to drain our resources," Leyton said. "There’s a very real possibility our resources will get diverted from carjackings and armed robberies to deal with this. The ruling is going to cause all sorts of problems, and prosecutors are already in a hole. This just digs us a deeper hole." The Michigan State Court Appellate Defender Office, which represented Taylor, didn't respond to multiple requests for comment. But in its brief last year to the Michigan Supreme Court, the Appellate Defender Office wrote: "Mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole is cruel or unusual for 18-year-olds because they are less culpable and more amenable to rehabilitation than adults whose brains are fully developed … at 20 years old(.) Montario’s brain was indistinguishable from an 18-year-old’s brain for the purposes of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation." J. Dee Brooks, the Midland County prosecutor and president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, said the Supreme Court ruling has prosecutors' offices scrambling to figure out how to deal with the expected influx of new cases, particularly in Wayne County. “We’ve been talking a lot about this since the decision was announced, and we’re really concerned," Brooks said. "Prosecutor’s offices are already understaffed, and indigent defense is already underserved." Brooks said he has no idea how Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy's office is going to deal with this situation, given that Worthy has "dozens of unfilled assistant prosecutor positions." "The worst part will be contacting the victims' families, and telling them the person who killed their loved ones may be resentenced," he said. "Prosecutors will take the families' wishes into consideration when deciding whether to pursue the life without parole sentences." The cases that triggered resentencings The Supreme Court ruling involved the cases of Taylor and Andrew Czarnecki, who was 19 years old in 2013 when he killed and burned the body of Gavino Rodriguez, a gay man, in Detroit. Czarnecki's conviction in 2018 was hailed by then Attorney General-Elect Dana Nessel, who at the time was president of the Fair Michigan Foundation, which helps Michigan law enforcement agencies and prosecutors solve crimes against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people. The Michigan State Court Defender Appellate Office also represented Czarnecki in the landmark case and did not respond to multiple phone calls for comment. Nessel's office did not reply to a request for comment. The Michigan Supreme Court ruling was applauded by the Sentencing Project, a nationwide group whose research into youth crime was cited in the court's decision. "A wealth of brain science research makes clear that emerging adults are akin to teenagers under 18 — more impulsive, more easily influenced by peers, and also capable of remarkable growth and rehabilitation," the Sentencing Project's attorney, Liz Komar, said in a statement following the ruling. “Young people are especially deserving of second chances and individualized sentencing." Following the Supreme Court's decision, Worthy released a statement, saying it was "tragically ironic that this ruling occurred during  National Victims’ Rights Week. In the course of a week, the Michigan Supreme Court has ordered the resentencing of hundreds of defendants who committed the most serious offense possible: the first-degree murder of another human.  "The MSC has given us six months to review over 400 Wayne County cases. Justice cannot be fair with this timeline. We intend to be thoughtful in evaluating these cases. We must review trial transcripts, MDOC (Department of Corrections) records, medical and psychological records of each of the defendants, review the documents from each of the defense lawyers and find and contact each and every one of the affected families to inform them of this decision," Worthy said. While Worthy said the Supreme Court seems "to care about the plight of victims and the survivor families," her office is "going to need a substantial amount of extra resources to be able to follow the dictates of the Court and do the right thing. The timeline is not realistic.” Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Maria Miller told The Detroit News in an email that it would be "premature" to comment on whether Worthy plans to file motions seeking to uphold the life sentences of any of the 400 Wayne County defendants whose cases were impacted by the Supreme Court ruling. Leyton said he hasn't yet contacted any of the victims' families, including the relatives of Wright. "There's just so much to try to get done after this, and contacting families is one of them," Leyton said. "But we have to make decisions on these cases first." Shironda Wiley, another of Wright's sisters, said she wasn't aware of the Supreme Court ruling that cited the case of her brother's murderer until The News contacted her. She said she doesn't think Taylor, the man who killed her brother, should get a new trial. "At the end of the day, if you're 19 or 20, you know what you're capable of," Wiley said. "My brother didn't bother anybody, and now his son doesn't have a father; my sister is a single parent taking care of my brother's son. That's what (Taylor) did to our family." Strain on resources? Brooks, the Midland County prosecutor and PAAM president, said the Supreme Court decision will further stretch the resources of an already strained indigent defense system. "This is going to cause a bunch of new motions and new hearings, and indigent caseloads are already too heavy," he said. "... And prosecutors already have a much higher caseload of indigent cases than is allowed by the Michigan Indigent Defense Council. According to the Michigan Indigent Defense Council's standards, "defender organizations, county offices, public defenders, assigned counsel, and contract attorneys should not exceed the caseload levels adopted by the American Council of Chief Defenders — 150 felonies or 400 non-traffic misdemeanors per attorney per year." A 2022 PAAM study of 28 Michigan prosecutors' offices found staffing shortages in all of the agencies that participated. "One hundred percent of the ... participating counties are understaffed; 11 participating counties were more than 10 attorneys short of the optimal level; another eight participating counties were understaffed by four to eight attorneys; (and) the prosecutor staffing shortage across all participating counties totaled 293 attorneys," the study said. "Understaffed prosecutor offices are not merely a problem that is relevant to the prosecutors themselves," the study concluded. "Like any overloaded system, the prosecutor understaffing situation results in cases taking longer to make their way through the courts. Thus, justice is delayed for victims of crime, and defendants have not been held responsible for their crimes. Further, defendants remain in an uncertain situation for a longer period of time." Scott Pickerd and Mark Kelsey are among the defendants whose cases are affected by the Supreme Court's decision. Pickerd was 20 and Kelsey 19 in 1992 when they and two other members of a group of friends called "The Family" killed G. Christopher Thompson. The victim, the son of a Kent County Sheriff's Office lieutenant, was shot eight times in Oakhill Cemetery in Plainville Township in Kent County, before the group tossed his body in a trash bin miles away. Pickerd and Kelsey were convicted of first-degree murder, with their accomplices convicted of lesser crimes. Neither Pickerd nor Kelsey has new cases or attorneys listed in the Kent County court system. Merrilyn Thompson, the victim's mother, told The News she was angered by the news of the Supreme Court decision. "I wasn't too happy about it, I'll tell you," Thompson said. "I don't know what to think right now. I'm still waiting to hear back from (the Kent County Prosecutor's Office). I don't know if I want them to fight (the two inmates being resentenced) or not. I'll wait until the prosecutors contact us, and we'll see." The Supreme Court ruling follows a 2022 decision by the state's high court to require resentencing for 18-year-olds who were sentenced to life in prison following murder convictions. The state court's rulings expanded a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Miller v. Alabama, that held mandatory life sentences for first-degree murder defendants under the age of 18 was a form of cruel and unusual punishment because youth are less culpable and have greater capacity for rehabilitation.  Leyton said his office had 26 cases that were affected by the Michigan Supreme Court's 2022 decision requiring the resentencing of 18-year-olds. "I still haven't completed all my Miller v. Alabama cases," Leyton said. "I have no idea how I'm going to handle all these new cases. You're talking about thousands of hours that's going to take staffing that we simply don't have." ghunter@detroitnews.com (313) 222-2134 @GeorgeHunter_DN This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Hundreds of Michigan killers face resentencing, even parole as prosecutors bemoan caseload

Hundreds of Michigan killers face resentencing, even parole as prosecutors bemoan caseload #MichiganSupremeCourt #Resentencing #ParoleReform

Michigan Supreme Court won't intervene in divorced couple's dispute over frozen embryo Lansing — Michigan's high court declined to intervene Friday in a dispute over a divorced couple's frozen embryo with one justice saying the "weighty issues arising from in vitro fertilization" should instead be addressed by the state Legislature. Before their divorce in 2020, Sarah and David Markiewicz — now both 47 years old — had chosen to preserve a fertilized embryo created through a cryogenic process. A lawyer for Sarah Markiewicz argued that she should be able to implant the embryo, even after the divorce. But a lawyer for David Markiewicz contended that it was inappropriate to relegate him to some sort of uninterested sperm donor. In an order Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court said it was not persuaded that "the question presented should be reviewed by this court." The order featured a brief statement and explanation from Justice Brian Zahra. "Our Legislature is the appropriate body to decide the weighty policy questions presented not just in this case but also by the science of in vitro fertilization more generally," Zahra wrote. "I call on the Legislature to address these issues and not abdicate its policy-making function to this court through inaction." More: Michigan Supreme Court weighs future of frozen embryo in divorce dispute Zahra said the case raises questions about how the law "should classify and treat human embryos, frozen or otherwise, which, at a minimum, have the potential to develop into autonomous human beings." "This question implicates some of the most perplexing debates in society, invoking deep-seated and conflicting beliefs about morality, ethics, religion, human life and personal autonomy," the justice wrote. There are also questions about whether embryos should be treated as property or "as persons with independent interests" and about whether control over embryos’ fates should be granted in divorce on the basis of a preexisting contract, a court decision, child custody law or some other method, Zahra wrote. Zahra is the lone Republican-nominated justice on the seven-member Michigan Supreme Court. The court heard arguments in the Markiewicz v. Markiewicz case on April 9. Sarah Markiewicz, who is postmenopausal, wanted to preserve the right to implant the embryo, arguing it was likely her last chance to have a child if she chose to do so. She has said she would not require her ex-husband to contribute monetarily or parentally to the child's upbringing. However, David Markiewicz wanted the embryo either donated to science or destroyed because he did not want another child born from his DNA and would feel obligated to help raise the child if he or she were born. The couple's agreement with the IVF clinic indicated that, in the event of divorce, the future of any frozen embryos would be determined by court order. A Macomb County Circuit Court judge previously ruled that the embryo was marital property and, because David Markiewicz was the only one to contribute biologically to the process, the embryo was "more his than hers." The decision was upheld on appeal in a 2-1 ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. "The embryo was created by taking an egg from Sarah’s sister, which was then fertilized by sperm from David," the appeals panel ruled in December 2023. "Although Sarah nobly went through various procedures during the entire IVF process, those resulted in three children being born and were not directly related to the creation of the embryo at issue in this case." In her appeal, Sarah Markiewicz attempted to invoke protections under a constitutional amendment adopted by Michigan voters in 2022 that enshrined the right to abortion and other reproductive functions in the Michigan Constitution. She invoked the constitutional amendment on the grounds that it protected fertility care. cmauger@detroitnews.com Staff Writer Beth LeBlanc contributed. Want to comment on this story? Become a subscriber today. Click here. This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Michigan Supreme Court won't intervene in divorced couple's dispute over frozen embryo

Michigan Supreme Court won't intervene in divorced couple's dispute over frozen embryo #MichiganSupremeCourt #FrozenEmbryo #InVitroFertilization

Gov. Whitmer picks Detroiter for seat on Michigan Supreme Court Lansing — Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced Wednesday that she's selected Court of Appeals Judge Noah Hood, a native Detroiter, to fill a vacant seat on the Michigan Supreme Court. Hood is a graduate of Detroit's Cass Technical High School, Yale College and Harvard Law School, according to his official biography. He previously served as a Wayne County Circuit Court judge. "A proud Detroiter, graduate of Harvard Law and active member of the legal community with both trial and appellate court experience, he will bring important perspectives to the highest court in our state," Whitmer said in a statement. "I want to thank him for his many years of public service and look forward to many more on the Supreme Court." Hood fills a position on the state's high court that was left vacant after Justice Elizabeth Clement announced in February that she planned to step down. Clement was one of two Republican-nominated justices serving on the seven-member court. Now, with Hood in place, Democratic-backed justices will hold a 6-1 majority. Whitmer, who is a second-term Democrat, picked Hood for a position on the circuit court in 2019 and then elevated him to the Court of Appeals in 2022. Before 2019, Hood served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan and the Northern District of Ohio. Hood has been a member of the Detroit Bar Association since 2011, according to the governor's office. "I have had the distinct honor of serving the people of the state of Michigan for the past six years," Hood said in a statement. "I am deeply grateful to our governor for her decision to appoint me to serve on our Supreme Court.  I am also grateful for what it represents. "For as long as I serve, the people will always be able to count on me for even-handed justice."  Hood will have to run for election to the Michigan Supreme Court in 2026. He's Whitmer's second Michigan Supreme Court appointment. In November 2022, Whitmer chose then-state Rep. Kyra Harris Bolden, making her the first Black woman to serve on the state's high court. Also, on Wednesday, Whitmer announced three appointments to the Michigan Court of Appeals, including Christopher Trebilcock, a lawyer who previously represented her campaign in legal matters. Trebilcock has served as legal counsel for the Whitmer for Governor candidate committee and Michigan Transition 2019, her gubernatorial transition operation. Trebilcock has also been a senior principal at the firm Clark Hill, working in the areas of employment litigation, administrative litigation, traditional labor law and election law, according to the governor's office. Trebilcock will fill a partial term following the resignation of Judge Mark Cavanagh.   “Chris is a skilled attorney who will serve the people admirably,” Whitmer said. “He brings decades of experience in many areas of law to the bench and is making history as the first born-and-raised Yooper on the court of appeals.”  Additionally, Whitmer selected Mariam Bazzi, a Wayne County Circuit Court judge, and Daniel Korobkin, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, for positions on the Court of Appeals. Bazzi will fill Hood's term. Korobkin will fill a partial term following the resignation of Judge Jane Markey.   Bazzi will be the first Arab-American woman appellate judge in Michigan’s history, according to the governor's office. cmauger@detroitnews.com Want to comment on this story? Become a subscriber today. Click here. This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Gov. Whitmer picks Detroiter for seat on Michigan Supreme Court

Gov. Whitmer picks Detroiter for seat on Michigan Supreme Court #MichiganSupremeCourt #GretchenWhitmer #NoahHood

Michigan Supreme Court nixes mandatory life sentences for 19-, 20-year-old murderers Lansing — The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Thursday that individuals who were 19- or 20-years-old when they murdered someone in Michigan should be resentenced. The court in a 5-2 opinion found a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for first degree murder is an "unconstitutionally cruel punishment" for 19- and 20-year-olds because their brains aren't fully developed. One justice said he would extend the ruling to 25-year-old offenders. "As applied to defendants who were 19 or 20 years old at the time of their crime, a mandatory LWOP (life without parole) sentence that does not allow for consideration of the mitigating factors of youth or the potential for rehabilitation is a grossly disproportionate punishment," Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote in the 5-2 majority opinion. The decision split along party lines, with five Democratic-nominated justices supporting the majority and two Republican-nominated justices opposing. In a concurrence, Democratic-nominated Justice Richard Bernstein agreed with the decision but said the line drawn for murders who were 21 years of age or older at the time of the crime was "underinclusive." "I would instead follow the thoughtful conclusions of the many scientific studies presented before us and relied upon in both Parks and these cases, and hold that the turning point for any test, be it a brightline rule or a shifting age-based presumption, starts at age 25 and not age 21," Bernstein wrote. Republican-nominated Justice Elizabeth Clement, joined by Justice Brian Zahra, wrote that first degree murder is "arguably the gravest offense under Michigan law, and it deserves the most severe sentence in Michigan." If a change is needed that recognizes a young person's immaturity or undeveloped neuroscience, the Legislature should be the one to make that change, Clement wrote. "It is one thing for scientific evidence to justify a change in policy from the Legislature, and another thing for that same evidence to support a judicial finding that mandatory LWOP violates our Constitution," she wrote. "The bar for the latter is much higher and I do not believe it has been met." The decision again opens a flood gate for offenders to petition for resenting in courts throughout the state, a reality prosecutors and judges have had to deal with repeatedly as the high court has inched up the age for resentencing in successive opinions over the past decade. Many prosecutors have criticized the decisions, noting the resentencing process requires victims' families to relive the trauma of their loved one's death. eleblanc@detroitnews.com Want to comment on this story? Become a subscriber today. Click here. This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Michigan Supreme Court nixes mandatory life sentences for 19-, 20-year-old murderers

Michigan Supreme Court nixes mandatory life sentences for 19-, 20-year-old murderers #MichiganSupremeCourt #YouthJustice #CriminalJusticeReform

Michigan Supreme Court weighs future of frozen embryo in divorce dispute Lansing — The Michigan Supreme Court will consider in the coming weeks whether to decide the fate of a divorced couple's frozen embryo, including whether the final decision should be guided by laws governing marital property or if it falls under the reproductive rights protections of a constitutional amendment adopted by Michigan voters in 2022. Nick Curcio, an attorney for Sarah Markiewicz, argued before justices Wednesday that Markiewicz should be able to implant the embryo, even after her divorce, arguing in part that her right to do so is protected under fertility rights enshrined in the 2022 Reproductive Freedom for All constitutional amendment. "We think that’s appropriate where Michigan has recognized this constitutional right to fertility care," Curcio said. But Trish Haas, an attorney for David Markiewicz, argued the Supreme Court should not upset past court precedent that has largely sided with parties seeking to avoid procreation. "Imposing unwanted parenthood on a parent is a serious consideration that should not be taken lightly," Haas said, arguing David Markiewicz should not be relegated to some sort of uninterested sperm donor. But Curcio argued the couple's competing procreation rights are not in dispute at this point since the embryo has already been fertilized. Additionally, he noted, the right to abort or not abort has historically been extended to gestational parents such as Sarah Markiewicz. "The procreation has already occurred in these cases," Curcio said. "Conception has already occurred.” Sarah and David Markiewicz were married in 2009 and had four children, three of whom were conceived through an in vitro fertilization that used Sarah's sister's eggs and David's sperm. The couple chose to cryogenically preserve the last fertilized embryo created through that process. The couple were divorced in 2020, which launched a battle in court over the fate of the last embryo. Sarah Markiewicz, who is postmenopausal, wanted to preserve the right to implant the embryo, arguing it was likely her last chance to have a child if she chose to do so. She has said she would not require her ex-husband to contribute monetarily or parentally to the child's upbringing. David Markiewicz wanted the embryo either donated to science or destroyed because he did not want another child born from his DNA and would feel obligated to help raise the child if he or she were born. The couple's agreement with the IVF clinic indicated that, in the event of divorce, the future of any frozen embryos would be determined by court order. The Macomb County Circuit Court ruled that the embryo was marital property and, because David Markiewicz was the only one to contribute biologically to the process, the embryo was "more his than hers." The decision was upheld on appeal by the Michigan Court of Appeals, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. "The embryo was created by taking an egg from Sarah’s sister, which was then fertilized by sperm from David," the appellate panel ruled in December 2023. "Although Sarah nobly went through various procedures during the entire IVF processes, those resulted in three children being born and were not directly related to the creation of the embryo at issue in this case." In her appeal, Sarah Markiewicz attempted to invoke protections under a constitutional amendment adopted by Michigan voters in 2022 that enshrined the right to abortion and other reproductive functions in the state constitution. She invoked the constitutional amendment on the grounds that it protected fertility care. But the Court of Appeals panel in 2023 found the constitutional amendment could not be applied retroactively to a hearing that took place before the amendment was adopted. Even if it could, the panel wrote in December 2023, "the court still would be required to consider the competing views from Sarah and David, and decide whose 'rights' to the disposition of the embryo were to be vindicated and whose 'rights' were to be impaired." Sarah Markiewicz also attempted on appeal to argue that her religious beliefs indicate the embryo is a human life, but the Court of Appeals found she did not present that argument earlier in trial court and could not raise it in appeal. In Wednesday's Supreme Court arguments, six of seven justices participated. Justice Elizabeth Clement did not participate since she is set to resign from the bench on April 30. Justices had several questions about how the constitutional amendment and past case law related to IVF disputes would apply. Justice Elizabeth Welch observed that case law has largely sided with the party wishing to avoid procreation. Justice Brian Zahra questioned which factors the court should weigh more heavily, such as an individual's ability to have a child through other means. Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh questioned whether the father would be considered just a donor under the interpretation posited by Sarah Markiewicz and whether the intent related to the embryo should be measured at the time of the creation of the embryo or at the time of implantation. The justices eventually will decide whether the case should continue in the high court by granting or denying Sarah Markiewicz leave to appeal the lower court decision. eleblanc@detroitnews.com Want to comment on this story? Become a subscriber today. Click here. This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Michigan Supreme Court weighs future of frozen embryo in divorce dispute

Michigan Supreme Court weighs future of frozen embryo in divorce dispute #MichiganSupremeCourt #FrozenEmbryo #DivorceDispute

On Nov. 22, 2022, Kyra Harris Bolden was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, becoming the first Black woman to serve on the court. In 2024. she won reelection.

#KyraHarrisBolden #MichiganSupremeCourt #RepresentationMatters #BlackExcellence #WomenInLeadership

Michigan Supreme Court dismisses case against Livingston Co. teen for filming assault The Michigan Supreme Court dismissed a 2021 assault case against a Livingston County 16-year-old boy after finding he was not properly charged as an adult and he was not armed with a dangerous weapon when he filmed two other boys assaulting a classmate.…

The Michigan Supreme Court dismissed a 2021 assault case against a Livingston County 16-year-old boy after finding he was not properly charged as an adult and he was not armed with a dangerous weapon when he filmed two other boys assaulting a… #MichiganSupremeCourt #TeenJustice #JuvenileCourt

Justice Kyra Harris Bolden Makes History as First Elected Black Woman to Michigan Supreme Court In a historic victory for Michigan, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden has made her mark as the first Black woman ever elected to… The post Justice Kyra Harris Bolden Makes History as First Elected Black Woman to Michigan Supreme Court appeared first on Shine My…

Justice Kyra Harris Bolden Makes History as First Elected Black Woman to Michigan Supreme Court: In a historic victory for Michigan, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden has made her mark as the first Black woman… #JusticeForAll #BlackWomenLead #MichiganSupremeCourt #KyraHarrisBolden #RepresentationMatters

Christopher Schurr will stand trial for the execution of Congolese Refugee and Human Being Patrick Lyoya.
Schurr shot Lyoya in Grand Rapids (the hometown of Breonna Taylor.
#accountabilityseason
#michigansupremecourt #michigan #patricklyoya #congo #christopherschurr #grandrapids

Michigan Supreme Court declines appeal of Grand Rapids cop who killed Black man The Michigan Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal filed by a former Grand Rapids police officer accused of killing Congolese immigrant Patrick Lyoya during a traffic stop. Former officer Christopher Schurr is charged with second-degree murder…

The Michigan Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal filed by a former Grand Rapids police officer accused of killing Congolese immigrant Patrick Lyoya during a traffic stop.


Former officer Christopher Schurr is charged with second-degree… #MichiganSupremeCourt #GrandRapids #BlackLivesMatter