Court Opinion

ID: 9655797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:22:14.406325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:22.064443
License: Public Domain

Butzel, J.
(dissenting). I concur in Justice Bushnell’s opinion for reversal except in his reference to People v. Crandell, 270 Mich 124, where the facts were dissimilar to those here under consideration and where this Court was. unanimous for affirmance, except for Justice Bushnell’s sole dissent. In the instant ease, Justice Sharpe has stated what transpired both at the trial and on the motion for new trial. It might be added to Justice Bushnell’s reasons for reversal that if the police officers and the various authorities were so afraid of mob violence, as was alleged, and ascribed that'as the reason.for disposing of the case from arrest to conviction in the few hours before dawn, then the defendant would have had similar reason to fear such violence. Defendant was arrested between 12:30 a.m. and 2 a.m. He went through the form of a trial. The proceedings were over by 5 :30 a.m. The judge was aroused from his sleep about 3 a.m. and came to the courthouse. Photographers took a group picture of the judge, numerous police officers, the mayor of Flint and defendant. The actions speak for themselves. It would be a sad commentary on law enforcement if such a procedure is necessary. Notwithstanding the unusual facts in the case, and placing full credence in the testimony of the police officers and the *82stenographic record of what occurred, I do not believe that there was due process of law such as is vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States and that of this State. It would create a bad precedent to go into the law books. In addition to the cases cited in Mr. Justice Bitshnell’s opinion, see Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45 (53 S Ct 55; 77 L ed 158), in which the supreme court of the United States quoted with approval from Commonwealth v. O’Keefe, 298 Pa 169, 173 (148 A 73), as follows:
“A prompt and vigorous administration of the criminal law is commendable and we have no desire to clog the wheels of justice. What we here decide is that to force a defendant, charged with a serious misdemeanor, to trial within 5 hours of his arrest is not due process of law, regardless of the merits of the case.”
The instant case was disposed of in even less than 5 hours after the arrest. The delay of almost 24 years in asking for a new trial defendant ascribes tó lack of funds with which to pursue his legal remedies. In the meantime, he has been in prison. It is far better to grant him a new trial, even at the risk of not being able to obtain some witnesses at this late date, than to put our stamp of approval on the improper procedure as outlined.
The conviction should he reversed and defendant remanded to the custody of the sheriff for a new trial.