People of Michigan v. Robert Monya Green
322 Mich. App. 676
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Dec. 15, 2015: James Winbush arranged an online sale of video-game equipment; Robert Monya Green (defendant) arrived and, after being recognized by Winbush, displayed a gun, robbed and shot Winbush.
- Winbush identified defendant at the scene and later from Facebook photos; a detective later showed Winbush a photographic lineup and he selected defendant.
- A one-person grand jury (MCL 767.3; 767.4) convened; only Winbush and his brother Dion Strange testified and an indictment issued.
- Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, armed robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony-firearm; he did not challenge trial conduct or sentences on appeal.
- On appeal defendant argued the one-person grand jury procedure violated his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and confrontation and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object; he claimed prejudice because a preliminary exam (if held) would have exposed weak identifications.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the one-person grand jury did not violate rights (they had not yet attached), counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection, and any error was harmless given conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Green) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether one-person grand jury procedure violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel | No violation because right to counsel attaches only after initiation of adversary proceedings; no formal charge at grand jury stage | Procedure denied right to counsel because it led to indictment without counsel involvement | Held: No violation; right to counsel had not attached at one-person grand jury stage |
| Whether one-person grand jury procedure violated Confrontation Clause | No violation because grand jury is nonadversarial investigatory proceeding; confrontation rights apply at trial after formal charge | Procedure deprived defendant of ability to confront witnesses before indictment | Held: No violation; Confrontation Clause not implicated pre-indictment |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to one-person grand jury | Failure to raise meritless objection is not deficient performance; strong presumption of reasonable strategy | Counsel ineffective for failing to seek preliminary exam or object to grand jury, causing prejudice | Held: Not ineffective; objection would be futile and no prejudice shown |
| Whether any error from grand jury process prejudiced defendant | Any alleged error was harmless because defendant was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt and witnesses were cross-examined at trial | Grand jury testimony deprived defendant of earlier testing of identifications, so prejudice exists | Held: No prejudice; conviction on full trial record cures any procedural error |
Key Cases Cited
- Trakhtenberg v. United States, 493 Mich. 38 (discussing ineffective-assistance standard as mixed question of law and fact)
- Carines v. Caldwell, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Calandra v. United States, 414 U.S. 338 (grand jury is an ex parte investigatory proceeding)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- McGee v. People, 258 Mich. App. 683 (harmlessness of procedural errors when conviction obtained beyond reasonable doubt)
- Farquharson v. People, 274 Mich. App. 268 (one-person grand jury as an alternative charging procedure)
- Morris v. People, 228 Mich. App. 380 (grand jury nonadversarial; function to determine whether to institute criminal proceedings)
- Glass v. People, 464 Mich. 266 (formal initiation of criminal prosecution occurs by indictment or information)