People of Michigan v. Derrick Derron Remus, 327599

Background

On June 25, 2014, shots were fired into and at a gathering at Yalondthe Williams’s home in Detroit; two guests (Randall and Beverly) were killed and two (Brooks and Walker) were wounded.
Yalondthe had told defendant Derrick Remus not to come while guests were present; defendant nonetheless returned and was rebuffed. Shortly after, gunfire occurred.
Witness Tyrone Walker saw a vehicle drive up, observed a back-seat shooter fire into the home, and testified that the gun flash illuminated the shooter’s face, enabling identification as defendant.
Walker initially told police the shooter was Yalondthe’s ‘‘ex‑boyfriend’’ (fearing defendant’s family nearby) but later identified defendant by name; another inmate (Fernandez) overheard defendant confessing in a holding cell.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of second‑degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, felon‑in‑possession, intentional discharge at a dwelling, and felony‑firearm; the court imposed lengthy consecutive and concurrent prison terms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct — closing: identification remarks	Prosecutor fairly summarized Walker’s and Yalondthe’s testimony showing identification of defendant	Prosecutor misstated evidence and mischaracterized Yalondthe as an eyewitness	No misconduct; prosecutor argued reasonable inferences from testimony and jury instruction cured any prejudice
Prosecutorial misconduct — gun‑flash remark	Remark was a reasonable inference from Walker’s testimony that flash illuminated defendant’s face	Remark asserted a fact not in evidence (no expert on flash brightness)	No misconduct; jury could infer brightness from Walker’s testimony and common experience
Ineffective assistance — failure to object at trial	N/A	Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor’s remarks	No relief; objections would have been futile because remarks were proper, so counsel’s failure was not deficient
Preservation and review standard	Prosecutor’s remarks should be reviewed for plain error if not objected to	Defendant argued errors required reversal despite lack of contemporaneous objection	Issues unpreserved; reviewed for plain error — none found to have affected substantial rights

Key Cases Cited

People v Bennett, 290 Mich. App. 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve prosecutorial‑misconduct claim)
People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
People v Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (test for prosecutorial misconduct: denial of fair and impartial trial)
People v Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (Mich. 1995) (prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from evidence)
People v Launsburry, 217 Mich. App. 358 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (prosecutor not required to state inferences in bland terms)
People v Watson, 245 Mich. App. 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (prosecutor may not argue facts not in evidence)
People v Ackerman, 257 Mich. App. 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (curative jury instruction can cure prejudice)
People v Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (jurors presumed to follow jury instructions)
People v Simon, 189 Mich. App. 565 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (jurors may use common sense in evaluating evidence)
People v Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (Ginther hearing/new‑trial requirement to preserve ineffective‑assistance claim)
People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (Mich. 2002) (de novo review of ineffective‑assistance claims; factual findings for clear error)
People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (Mich. 2012) (two‑part Strickland standard applied in Michigan)
People v Thomas, 260 Mich. App. 450 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objections)
People v Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (Mich. 1973) (procedure for evidentiary hearing on ineffective‑assistance claims)