People v. Mathis

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. I do not concur in the mandates of People v Purdy, 46 Mich App 630; 208 NW2d 581 (1973), or People v D’Argis, 44 Mich App 186; 205 NW2d 19 (1972).

The use of the magic words is not the only way to impart to a defendant the realization of his right to call witnesses and examine them and to cross-examine the witnesses that have been called against him. The trial court said:

"The Court: Do you understand if you had a trial you would have certain rights at that trial. For instance, you have a right to have your lawyer with you; he could assist you…