People of Michigan v. Cameron Davon Wright, 348251

Background

In 2013, Andre Davis was killed in a drive-by. Wright was later identified as Davis’s shooter in a separate prosecution; investigators reopened the case in 2017–2018.
Curtis Swift was an eyewitness to the 2013 shooting and had told others he wanted Wright to admit the shooting; in mid-January 2018 Swift became fearful and then disappeared; his body was found January 19, 2018 with two cell phones missing.
Multiple witnesses placed Swift in a vehicle connected to Davis’s murder and described Wright pressuring witnesses not to identify him; after Swift’s death some witnesses changed statements to identify Wright as Davis’s shooter.
On January 17, 2018, Nguyen saw Wright walking toward Swift’s home; cell-tower data placed Wright and Derrick Banks near Swift’s residence between about 8:53–9:41 p.m.; Wright also texted Banks to “come in now.”
Wright was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, felony-firearm (second offense), and felon-in-possession for Swift’s killing; he raises multiple evidentiary, constitutional, and trial-error claims on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury request to rehear testimony	Court properly instructed jury to use notes/collective memory and could ask again	Court should have reheard Nguyen, Stokes, Hairston testimony on request	Waived by defense counsel’s acquiescence; no relief
Sufficiency of evidence	Evidence (cell data, witness placement, motive, texts) supports conviction	Evidence was circumstantial and insufficient to prove Wright killed Swift	Viewed favorably to prosecution; conviction upheld
Self-incrimination — phone passcode	Passcode obtained lawfully because Wright was on parole and consented to searches	Passcode was compelled by threat of parole revocation; violation of Fifth Amendment	Court found compulsion but admission of phone evidence was harmless error
Forfeiture by wrongdoing / Confrontation Clause	Swift’s out-of-court statements about fear and pressure were admissible because Wright caused unavailability	Admission violated Confrontation Clause because statements were testimonial	Evidence supported intent and procurement of unavailability; admission proper
Former testimony (Adams prelim)	Adams’s preliminary-exam testimony admissible; prosecutor used due diligence to locate her	Wright lacked similar motive at prior proceeding; Confrontation Clause violated	Due diligence shown; defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine; admission proper
Reasonable-doubt supplemental instruction	Additional examples and “not 100%” language misstated burden and prejudiced defendant	Instruction was legally correct and overall accurate	No plain error; instruction acceptable
Judicial bias	Prior proceedings and judge’s sentencing comments show bias	Judge presided over related matters but did not demonstrate disqualifying bias	Heavy presumption of impartiality not overcome; no recusal
Prosecutorial misconduct & ineffective assistance	Prosecutor misstated content of deleted texts and attacked defense; counsel ineffectively failed to object	Prosecutor’s arguments were reasonable inferences; any misstatements cured by instructions	Remarks were proper or harmless; no ineffective assistance shown

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation and Miranda warnings)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause)
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (parolee’s Fifth Amendment protections and compelled statements)
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994) (reasonable-doubt instruction standards)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
United States v. Sanchez, 334 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (passcode compelled by parole threats is testimonial and protected)
People v. Burns, 494 Mich. 104 (Mich. 2013) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing standard under MRE 804(b)(6))
People v. Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488 (Mich. 2011) (waiver of objection to jury instruction responses)
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (Mich. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
People v. Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (Mich. 2000) (sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)