People of Michigan v. Lorenzo Donnell Relerford Jr, 327040

Victim Jeanne Hank was strangled in her apartment; property and her Trailblazer were stolen. Relerford and passenger Dantoine Brown were arrested in Hank’s Trailblazer with stolen items; Brown had Hank’s cell phone.
Brown pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and armed robbery, agreed to testify against Relerford in exchange for a 10-year minimum sentence, and testified at Relerford’s first trial.
First trial conviction reversed on appeal for visible shackling; second trial ended in a hung jury. Brown refused to testify at the second and third trials and was declared unavailable; the prosecution read Brown’s first-trial testimony into the record at the third trial.
Relerford consistently claimed he did not participate in the robbery or murder, asserting Brown acted alone and that Hank had given him property and permission to use her vehicle.
At the third trial Relerford was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, and UDAA; he appealed challenging (1) admission of Brown’s prior testimony, (2) the denial of a duress instruction, and (3) alleged ineffective assistance for not eliciting favorable jailhouse statements from a witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Brown’s prior testimony under MRE 804(b)(1)	Brown was unavailable; prior testimony admissible	Prosecutor contributed to Brown’s unavailability by not revoking plea, so prior testimony inadmissible	Admission proper; revoking plea wouldn’t have forced testimony and Confrontation Clause satisfied because original testimony was cross-examined
Whether prosecutor’s actions procured Brown’s unavailability	Prosecution did not intentionally/negligently cause unavailability	Relerford says prosecutor should have revoked plea to compel testimony	Court found no procurement; revocation would enable Fifth Amendment refusal, so prosecutor’s inaction not cause
Denial of duress jury instruction	N/A (prosecution)	Relerford sought duress instruction based on statement that Brown threatened him with a gun	Denial affirmed: duress requires participation to avoid threatened harm; defendant consistently denied participating, so instruction inapplicable
Ineffective assistance for not eliciting jailhouse statements that would've shifted blame	N/A (prosecution)	Relerford: counsel should have elicited prior inmate testimony that defendant said he didn’t kill victim	No ineffective assistance: trial strategy plausibly aimed to discredit the inmate; eliciting exculpatory remark could have undercut defense by corroborating inculpatory remark

People v. Duncan, 494 Mich. 713 (Michigan 2013) (standard of review for trial-court discretionary rulings)
People v. Meredith, 459 Mich. 62 (Michigan 1999) (MRE 804(b)(1) prior testimony hearsay exception discussed)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause: prior testimony with opportunity for cross-examination generally admissible)
People v. Blackston, 481 Mich. 451 (Michigan 2008) (permitting MRE 403 balancing for impeachment of hearsay declarants under MRE 806)
People v. Gillis, 474 Mich. 105 (Michigan 2006) (standards for jury-instruction review)
People v. Pickens, 446 Mich. 298 (Michigan 1994) (framework for ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Johnson, 451 Mich. 115 (Michigan 1996) (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Rockey, 237 Mich. App. 74 (Michigan Ct. App. 1999) (trial strategy presumption in evaluating counsel’s tactical choices)