People of Michigan v. Robert Michael Bashara
326324
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Victim Jane Bashara was found murdered (strangulation with blunt-force trauma) on Jan 25, 2012; defendant Robert Bashara was tried by jury and convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, solicitation of murder, first-degree premeditated murder, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering; he received life sentences and lengthy terms for other counts.
- Phone-tower data, witness testimony, payments to Joseph (Joe) Gentz, and defendant’s post-murder conduct (solicitations to kill Gentz, attempts to influence witnesses/media, placing a gun in a safety-deposit box) were central to the prosecution’s circumstantial case linking Bashara to the plot and killing.
- Gentz (a cognitively impaired acquaintance) confessed, implicated Bashara, and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder; later he executed a postconviction affidavit recanting aspects implicating Bashara, but at a hearing he repudiated that affidavit and testified consistently with earlier statements.
- Defense complained of numerous alleged errors: ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to call witnesses/evidence, investigator funding), venue/pretrial publicity and voir dire procedures, denial of opportunities to present defense evidence, admission of Gentz’s statements, jury instruction on reasonable doubt, lost/preserved evidence (e.g., Jane’s clothing, surveillance tapes), prosecutorial misconduct, and sufficiency/cumulative error.
- The trial court denied postconviction relief; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in an extensive opinion, finding no plain error, no constitutional violations, counsel’s conduct within strategic bounds, and the evidence sufficient to support the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Bashara) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance was reasonable and trial strategy was sound; defenses were presented | Counsel failed to present witnesses/evidence, failed to admit Gentz statements, and misused investigators | Affirmed: defendant did not overcome Strickland presumption; claims abandoned or without factual showing of prejudice |
| Venue & jury selection (pretrial publicity) | Court’s voir dire, questionnaires, and attorney questioning adequately protected impartiality | Publicity and local bias required change of venue or sequestered voir dire | Affirmed: extensive voir dire and use of questionnaire cured publicity; no community bias or plain error |
| Right to present defense / discovery issues | Prosecution met obligations; investigators and defense had sufficient access; delays or missing items not shown to be Brady material | Denial of investigator funds, failure to provide contact info, failure to preserve clothing/surveillance, denial of laptop impeded defense | Affirmed: no Brady/Youngblood showing of suppressed, material, or bad‑faith loss; defense not substantially prejudiced; no constitutional violation |
| Admission of Gentz statements & confrontation | Statements were non-testimonial (informal to acquaintances) and admissible under MRE 801(d)(2)(E); independent evidence supported conspiracy | Admission violated Confrontation Clause; insufficient independent evidence of conspiracy | Affirmed: statements non‑testimonial; ample independent circumstantial evidence of conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statement test under the Confrontation Clause)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (no fixed formula required for defining reasonable doubt; instructions reviewed as whole)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable material evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due process claim for failure to preserve evidence requires bad faith)
- Jendrzejewski v. People, 455 Mich. 495 (1997) (venue and publicity considerations; voir dire scrutiny)
- Tyburski v. People, 445 Mich. 606 (1994) (methods for voir dire in high‑publicity cases)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (reasonable doubt instruction standard)