955 N.W.2d 488
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendants Antonio Caddell and Ricco William‑Salmon were tried jointly (separate juries) for hired murders in Detroit (victims: Corey Reed; Ben Keys; Laura Zechman). Both faced first‑degree murder, conspiracy, and felony‑firearm charges; Caddell faced additional solicitation counts.
- William‑Salmon initially pleaded guilty to second‑degree murder and felony‑firearm in exchange for a sentence and an agreement to cooperate and testify truthfully; he later testified inconsistently at a first trial of Caddell, and the prosecutor moved to vacate his plea for breach.
- During Caddell’s trial an extended deadlock dispute arose: jurors sent notes complaining a single juror (Juror #3) refused to meaningfully deliberate; the trial court questioned Juror #3 privately, found her not credible, removed her, and seated an alternate.
- After deliberations resumed, Caddell was convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to life without parole on murder/conspiracy counts; William‑Salmon was later convicted at joint retrial and sentenced to life without parole.
- On appeal the court (Michigan Court of Appeals) vacated Caddell’s convictions and remanded for a new trial because removal of Juror #3 created a reasonable possibility the removal was based on her views of the merits; the court affirmed William‑Salmon’s convictions, rejecting his challenges to plea‑vacatur timing, admission of his plea statements, the forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing admission of a witness’s prior statements, and other evidentiary/prosecutorial claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror removal vs. mistrial (Caddell) | State: court properly investigated alleged refusal to deliberate and permissibly removed noncooperative juror for good cause. | Caddell: court should have declared mistrial or kept juror because removal intruded on deliberation secrecy and risked eliminating a juror for views on the merits, violating unanimity/due process. | Court: removal crossed into deliberative process; record showed reasonable possibility removal stemmed from juror’s views on merits → plain error; vacated Caddell’s convictions; remand for retrial. |
| Admission of other‑acts evidence (Eastside Barbershop and retaliatory hits) (Caddell) | Prosecutor: evidence was admissible under MRE 404(b) to show motive, role as hired killer, and lack of fabrication. | Caddell: evidence was propensity‑based and unfairly prejudicial. | Court: admissible for motive/identity and not unfairly prejudicial; no plain error. |
| Vacation of guilty plea (William‑Salmon) | Prosecutor: plea may be vacated under MCR 6.310(E) where defendant failed to comply (did not cooperate/testify truthfully); timing of motion was within court rule. | William‑Salmon: he complied sufficiently and motion to vacate was untimely. | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion—evasive, inconsistent testimony and subsequent failure to cooperate supported vacatur; timing was not restricted by rule. |
| Admission of prior statements via forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing (Slappey) (William‑Salmon) | Prosecutor: defendants intimidated/threatened witness to procure unavailability, satisfying MRE 804(b)(6) and permitting admission without violating Confrontation Clause. | William‑Salmon: statements were hearsay and violated confrontation. | Court: factual finding that defendants intended to and did procure witness unavailability was not clearly erroneous; statements were admissible under MRE 804(b)(6) and did not violate confrontation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (establishes juror duty to deliberate and supports giving instructions to encourage consensus)
- United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (emphasizes secrecy of deliberations and limits on intruding into jurors’ mental processes)
- United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105 (permits careful investigation when substantial evidence of jury misconduct arises; trial judge best positioned to assess credibility)
- United States v. Brown, 823 F.2d 591 (adopts "any possibility" test cautioning against discharging juror where discharge may stem from juror’s view of evidence)
- People v. Walker, 504 Mich. 267 (describes appropriate deadlocked‑jury instruction and coercion concerns)
- People v. Burns, 494 Mich. 104 (sets test for forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing under MRE 804(b)(6): intent and causation of unavailability)
- People v. Tate, 244 Mich. App. 553 (recognizes trial court authority to excuse jurors for cause to preserve fair and impartial jury)