People v. Doyle

13 Citing cases

  1. In re Osborne

    459 Mich. 360 (Mich. 1999)   Cited 21 times
    Explaining that "[t]iming does matter" and that a disqualifying conflict-of-interest for a prosecutor untimely noticed "may have quite a different remedy, or no remedy at all, if noticed at a later stage of the proceedings."

    These include the extent to which knowledge has been shared by the disqualified lawyer and the disqualified lawyer's role within the prosecutor's office. Modified on other grounds ( On Rehearing), 161 Mich. App. 743; 411 N.W.2d 730 (1987). For these reasons, we direct further inquiry into this matter.

  2. People v. Roath

    No. 358198 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2022)

    can occur in situations where the prosecutor has a personal, financial, or emotional interest in the litigation or a personal relationship with the accused. People v Herrick, 216 Mich.App. 594, 599; 550 N.W.2d 541 (1996); People v Doyle, 159 Mich.App. 632, 641-642; 406 N.W.2d 893 (1987), mod on other grounds (On Rehearing) 161 Mich.App. 743; 411 N.W.2d 730 (1987). After a determination has been made that a conflict of interest exists with regard to a prosecutor, the question then arises whether the entire prosecutor's office must be disqualified.

  3. People v. Mienkwic

    No. 347863 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2021)

    Prosecutors are not ordinary attorneys: they occupy a special position in our system of jurisprudence to "obtain justice, not merely to convict;" and to preserve "public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the criminal justice system." People v Doyle, 159 Mich App 632, 643-644; 406 NW2d 893 (1987), mod in part on other grounds on reh 161 Mich App 743; 411 NW2d 730 (1987). Prosecutors therefore owe unique a duty to the accused and to the citizenry at large to ensure that criminal trials both are fair and appear fair.

  4. People v. Bahoda

    No. 316879 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 14, 2016)

    As discussed earlier, Legghio did not have a conflict of interest that implicated defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel because there was no conflict of interest when he consulted with defendant, and he did not represent defendant when the alleged conflict of interest arose. Further, it is the prosecutor or the prosecutor's office that must have a conflict of interest to warrant disqualification, as where the defendant is a former client of the prosecutor, People v Doyle, 159 Mich App 632, 641; 406 NW2d 893 (1987), mod on rehearing 161 Mich App 743; 411 NW2d 730 (1987), or where the "defendant's former defense counsel joins the prosecutor's office that is pursuing the case against the defendant." People v Davenport, 483 Mich 906, 906; 762 NW2d 163 (2009).

  5. Rymal v. Baergen

    262 Mich. App. 274 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that two months was enough to establish close temporal proximity where there was an ongoing pattern of abuse during that time

    The determination of the existence of a conflict of interest is a fact question that is reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard of MCR 2.613(C). Buchanan v. City Council of Flint, 231 Mich App 536, 547; 586 NW2d 573 (1998); People v. Doyle, 159 Mich App 632, 641; 406 NW2d 893 (1987), modified on other grounds ( On Rehearing), 161 Mich App 743; 411 NW2d 730 (1987). A trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous only where we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

  6. People v. Pfaffle

    246 Mich. App. 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 56 times
    Reviewing double jeopardy allegation for plain error only

    See People v Noble, 238 Mich. App. 647, 660; 608 N.W.2d 123 (1999) (requiring direct examination of the record and individualized evaluation). See People v Doyle, 159 Mich. App. 632, 641; 406 N.W.2d 893 (1987) ( Doyle I), mod on other grounds (On Rehearing) 161 Mich. App. 743; 411 N.W.2d 730 (1987) ( Doyle II), ("[T]he determination of the existence of a conflict of interest is a question of fact and should be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of MCR 2.613[C]."). See In re Osborne, 459 Mich. 360, 368-369; 589 N.W.2d 763 (1999); People v Harris, 144 Mich. 12, 13-14; 105 N.W. 715 (1906).

  7. People v. Mayhew

    236 Mich. App. 112 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 189 times
    Holding that where no errors occur, "a cumulative effect of errors is incapable of being found"

    The disqualification of a prosecutor because of a conflict of interest can occur in situations where the prosecutor has a personal, financial, or emotional interest in the litigation or a personal relationship with the accused. People v Herrick, 216 Mich. App. 594, 599; 550 N.W.2d 541 (1996); People v Doyle, 159 Mich. App. 632, 641-642; 406 N.W.2d 893 (1987), mod on other grounds (On Rehearing) 161 Mich. App. 743; 411 N.W.2d 730 (1987). After a determination has been made that a conflict of interest exists with regard to a prosecutor, the question then arises whether the entire prosecutor's office must be disqualified. Doyle, supra at 644.

  8. People v. Herrick

    216 Mich. App. 594 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 17 times

    Case law involving the disqualification of prosecutors because of a conflict of interest falls into two main subject categories. People v. Doyle, 159 Mich. App. 632, 641; 406 N.W.2d 893 (1987), modified on rehearing 161 Mich. App. 743; 411 N.W.2d 730 (1987). The first involves disqualification for conflicts arising from a professional attorney-client relationship, such as when the prosecutor has become privy to confidential information.

  9. In re Osborne

    230 Mich. App. 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, 446 U.S. [350, 348] (footnote omitted). In People v. Doyle, 159 Mich. App. 632, 641; 406 N.W.2d 893 (1987), mod on other grounds (On Rehearing), 161 Mich. App. 743; 411 N.W.2d 730 (1987), this Court noted that cases discussing the disqualification of prosecutors fall into two categories. The first category "involves disqualification for a conflict of interest arising out of some professional, attorney-client relationship, as when the defendant is a former client of the prosecuting attorney."

  10. Wilson v. Warren

    CASE NO. 05-CV-70541 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2007)

    . . ." People v. Pfaffle, 246 Mich. App. 282, 291 (2001); see People v. Doyle ( on rehearing), 161 Mich. App. 743, 744-45 (1987). Even if someone had moved to disqualify the Crawford County Prosecutor's Office, it is doubtful that the party could have prevailed.