Court Opinion

ID: 9852486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:31:15.005845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:28.562271
License: Public Domain

M. S. Coleman, J.
(dissent). My examination of this case fails to leave me with an abiding conviction that the procedures followed deprived defendant of a fair trial. I would affirm.
There can be no claim that Judge Elliott’s verdict was contrary to the evidence. The record reveals more than sufficient testimony to support the trial judge’s finding that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in this murder case.
There can be no claim that defendant was unable to comprehend the events at trial. He was found mentally competent to stand trial. He participated in planning trial strategy, including the request for a bench trial. Judge Elliott several times afforded defendant an opportunity to discharge his attorney or seek a mistrial. Defendant indicated during trial that he wanted to proceed.
There certainly can be no reversible error in Judge Elliott’s conduct. It was impeccable, demonstrating the highest level of patience, fairness and concern for justice. The Court said he exhibited "unusual patience”. The Court of Appeals commended him "for his conduct and in retaining his composure and objectivity under the most trying circumstances”.
The judge was in the untenable position of having good reason to believe that he would be reversed if he dismissed counsel over defendant’s objection. He therefore pursued a wise course in appointing co-counsel to ensure a fair trial.
The judge also was faced with good reason to believe that his declaring a mistrial over objection of the defendant would lead to a finding of double jeopardy upon review.
*223All admit that he conducted himself admirably and patiently heard the case to the end. The defendant received exactly what he requested. I cannot see where the judge erred. In my opinion he is greatly to be commended.
The Court of Appeals, in an excellent analysis could find no reversible error in the conduct of this trial. This Court can point to no specific error. Defendant should stand properly convicted of this murder.
The Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
J. W. Fitzgerald, J.
(for affirmance). Our Olympian view of the specter of justice under fire on the courtroom battle front suggests repugnance at the sulfurous odor and frightful din below. Resisting the subtle siren of suggestion, I share Justice M. S. Coleman’s view that defendant was not deprived of a fair trial in these extraordinary proceedings. I would adopt the excellent opinion of Judge Danhof, writing for a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals, at 46 Mich App 395; 208 NW2d 187 (1973).
Swainson, J., and the late Justice T. M. Kavanagh did not participate in the decision of this case.