The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday considered a pair of cases that deal with resentencing people serving long prison terms for crimes they committed as children.
One case, People of MI v. James Gregory Eads, involves a man serving 50 to 75 years for a 1992 second degree murder, when the defendant was 16 years old.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared giving minors mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional in 2012. Michigan Courts have been expanding upon that ruling in the years since, often using the reasoning that young people’s brains aren’t fully developed and that they deserve a second chance in society.
In 2022, the court found handing minors a life sentence, even with the possibility of parole, for second degree murder was still cruel or unusual, in violation of the state constitution. On Wednesday, Eads’ attorney argued that same principal applied to lengthy terms that could effectively mean life in prison as well.
In their line of questioning, justices seemed to agree, at times pointing out the difficulty anyone has at earning parole their first time eligible.
In an interview after the hearing, defense attorney Phillip Comorski said he believes the judges were curious where the limit for an acceptable sentence lies.
“Should it be a term that they abide by like a sentencing guideline or should it be a particular number that, if you exceed that, it’s presumptively disproportionate?” Comorski asked.
He suggested whatever the court decides could have consequences beyond this case. Another big question could be how far a possible win for his client should reach.
“Does this apply to all capital cases? Does this apply to violent cases only or does this apply to situations where no violence was used but it’s a life sentence anyway?” Comorski asked.
Meanwhile, the prosecution said it hopes the court starts limiting how often it orders new sentences for people convicted of crimes they committed while young.
Jon Wojtala is appellate chief with the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.
"Where this path ends, we can't predict. So that's one of the reasons why we keep bringing these cases when they are decided against us, whether it's in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme Court, to try to figure out where the contours of where these decisions are going to lead to,” Wojtala said in an interview.
He said every time the courts declare years-old punishments unconstitutional, victims, their families, and others impacted must relive their past pain.
The appellate court ruled in favor of the defense.
The second case the Michigan Supreme Court took up Wednesday, People of MI v. Donyelle Michael Black, involves a resentencing hearing for one of Michigan’s remaining juvenile lifers.
As part of his resentencing, the man’s lawyers would like to use expert testimony from a psychiatric exam he underwent to show his growth as a person since his conviction for a 1987 rape and murder he committed while 15.
Black’s legal team argues he has since finished his GED, earned a college degree, and participated in other prison programming, despite being sentenced to life without parole.
But the prosecution argues, for Black to use his own evidence, he must undergo an evaluation with its expert too. Prosecutors said having both sides would give the court a fuller picture for re-sentencing.
Defense attorney Charity Lee argued forcing that evaluation would violate her client’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That’s, in part, since the defense wouldn’t know how prosecutors could plan to use that forced exam.
“We believe there are many ways to seek truth. And we believe there are many ways to seek truth and protect the accuracy of information while also protecting our client’s constitutional rights,” Lee said after the hearing.
Lower courts ruled against the defense.
