Legal Opinion

People v. Vaughn

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 2012No. Docket 142627PublishedCited by 343 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, C.J.

We granted defendant’s application for leave to appeal to determine whether defendant is entitled to a new trial because the circuit court closed the courtroom during voir dire in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. We hold that a defendant’s right to a public trial is subject to the forfeiture rule articulated in People v Carines 2 and that the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that defendant’s failure to assert his public trial right necessarily “forecloses the later grant of relief.” 3 In applying the Carines forfeiture rule to defendant’s appeal, however, we conclude that…

2Cases cited68 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  4. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by343 opinions

  1. People v. LockridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 2015
  2. People v. SchraubenMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. People v. RussellMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. People v. SteanhouseMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. Martez Bickham v. Thomas WinnCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2018

338 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API