People of Michigan v. Mario Keeream Jackson
326805
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- Early morning July 25, 2014: officer in a marked Detroit scout car observed Jackson in the street, saw him walk to a parked car, remove a handgun from his waistband, and drop it through the open rear window; a loaded gun was recovered and Jackson (a felon) was arrested.
- A discovery order required production of any scout car video; Technical Services reported no scout car video existed for the incident time.
- Detective Van Raaphorst explained scout-car recordings are triggered by events (door opening, lights, mics) and are routinely retained only for limited periods unless triggered; a memo referenced an incorrect date/time entry.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence; trial court denied the motion, finding no bad faith and that any video likely would not have been exculpatory.
- Prosecutor commented in rebuttal about what a preserved video would have shown; defense argued misconduct. Defense also argued ineffective assistance for failing to object when the prosecutor discussed fingerprint testing (MSP did not test prints because the submission form mistakenly indicated the gun was seized from a person).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for felon-in-possession and felony-firearm, rejecting claims of due-process violation, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to preserve scout-car video violated due process | State: technical services searched and no video existed; retention policy applied; no bad faith | Jackson: missing video was potentially exculpatory and destroyed through bad faith or gross negligence | No due-process violation; defendant failed to show video would be exculpatory or that police acted in bad faith |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct in rebuttal regarding missing video | State: rebuttal responded to defense suggestion police lied; comments permissible response | Jackson: prosecutor made factual assertions unsupported by evidence about what video would show | Not reversible; prosecutor’s rebuttal responded to defense and did not deny fair trial |
| Whether prosecutor misstated facts about fingerprints and that required objection | State: prosecutor’s remarks responsive to defense; admitted he was not an expert and told jury not to rely on it | Jackson: prosecutor asserted facts about fingerprint likelihood without evidence | Remarks improper in part but downplayed and jury instructed; no reasonable probability of different outcome, so harmless |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor’s fingerprint comments | State: no preservation for new trial motion; counsel argued fingerprint issue in closing | Jackson: failure to object to improper factual assertions prejudiced defense | Not ineffective; no reasonable probability of different result even if objection made |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (bad-faith required to show due-process violation for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s suppression of materially exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- People v. Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (routine destruction of evidence does not establish bad faith for due-process claim)
- People v. Johnson, 197 Mich. App. 362 (defendant must show evidence was potentially exculpatory and was withheld)
- People v. Jones, 468 Mich. 345 (prosecutor may respond to defense accusations in argument)
- People v. Vaughn, 491 Mich. 642 (standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)