Legal Question in Criminal Law in Michigan

My grandson, age 20, was arrested for MIP. At his first appearence he was told by the Magistrate that he could use this appearence as his arrainment and not have to appear the next week as scheduled. He said OK and said he wanted an attorney. The Magistrate said, fine, go hire one. My Grandson said could not afford one and would like a Court Appointed Attorney. The Magistrate said that the Court will not appoint an attorney for such a small case. He then pleaded guily because he thought he had no other choice. The Question! Did the Magistrate act correctly?? Is she allowed to tell someone that the court will not appoint an attorney because the case is a small case?? It does not seem right. If it is not, is there consequences for Magistrates, Judges, etc.that violate Laws that are in place to protect citizens from People in authority. People that would deny them rights mandated by the State, only because they did not know that they had the right to an attorney?? Also if she did overstep her atthority would this be grounds for dismissal of the MIP case??


Asked on 10/26/12, 11:38 am

1 Answer from Attorneys
Timothy Klisz Klisz Law Office, PLLC

A Court Appointed attorney is not a free attorney, for one thing. No, a Court does not have to appoint an attorney to a defendant if they are not going to send them to jail. MIP cannot result in jail, so they acted correctly. He would still have to repay the CAA, so that at least saved him a few hundred dollars. Tim Klisz kliszlaw.com

Read more
Answered on 10/26/12, 11:46 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in Michigan