Opinion ID: 830746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: conclusion

Text: The majority’s decision to grant reconsideration and reverse the Court of Appeals judgment rests on no new information and on no “palpable error.” Because I • That the Duncan plaintiffs, and the class members they purport to represent, will in fact be convicted of the crimes with which they are charged or of some lesser offense; • That inactions of the state and the Governor will have caused such convictions; that is, these inactions will have so prejudiced the defense that the Duncan plaintiffs and the class they purport to represent will have been denied their Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial; • That the trial courts in the three named counties will be unable or unwilling to correct such results by ordering new trials on the basis of a finding of deficient performance and prejudice to the individual defendants; and • That it is likely that if the Duncan plaintiffs are granted the preconviction declaratory and injunctive relief they seek, this will redress the situation for them and for the class they purport to represent. 9 Duncan, 284 Mich App at 254-255. 7 continue to believe that our order of April 30 correctly rejected defendants’ arguments in favor of its motions for summary disposition, I dissent. CAVANAGH and HATHAWAY, JJ., join the statement of KELLY, C.J. 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. July 16, 2010 _________________________________________ d0714 Clerk