People of Michigan v. Samuel Joel Burch
333015
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- Samuel Joel Burch was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder, felon in possession of a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony-firearm for the fatal shooting of Zachary Bradburn in a bar bathroom in July 2014; Burch was sentenced to life and concurrent/ consecutive prison terms and appeals.
- Burch’s cousin Reco Burch pleaded to reduced charges and testified for the prosecution; witnesses gave conflicting accounts whether Samuel or Reco fired the fatal shot and whether the shooting was self-defense.
- Prosecution theory: Samuel shot Bradburn after pushing him into the bathroom as Bradburn drew his gun. Alternative prosecution theory: Samuel aided or abetted Reco if Reco was the shooter.
- Defense theories: (1) Reco was the shooter and Samuel was not the killer or an aider/abettor; (2) if Samuel shot, he acted in self-defense (or defense of others).
- On appeal, Burch raised multiple unpreserved claims (Confrontation Clause, ineffective assistance of counsel on several fronts, voir dire limits, and judicial partiality), which the Court reviewed under plain-error or related standards and ultimately affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Burch) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court barred follow-up questions after juror questions (Confrontation Clause) | No plain error; defendant never asked to follow up; court’s policy did not deny confrontation | Court’s blanket policy prevented follow-up and harmed confrontation rights | No plain error; defendant failed to preserve claim and didn’t demonstrate prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to request limiting (propensity) instruction | Counsel strategically declined instruction to avoid highlighting prior-act testimony | Counsel was deficient for not requesting M Crim JI 4.11 to prevent propensity inference | No ineffective assistance; counsel’s choice was a reasonable strategy |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to request defense-of-others instruction | Strategic choice to pursue theory that Reco was shooter and to attack Reco’s credibility | Counsel should have requested instruction as alternative/self-defense theory | No ineffective assistance; consistent and reasonable trial strategy |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to polygraph testimony | Objection could have prevented improper bolstering of witness | Counsel’s failure was unreasonable and prejudicial | No ineffective assistance; strategic reasons not to object and jury instruction addressed reliability of polygraphs |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to juror calling Bradburn a "victim" | Term indicated juror bias prejudicing defendant | Use of "victim" showed jury had prejudged case | No ineffective assistance; term was not prejudicial and objection would be futile |
| Limitations on voir dire (banning mention of self-defense) | Court’s voir dire restriction was proper; defense counsel waived | Restriction denied fair trial by preventing probing juror views on self-defense | Waived by defense counsel; not reviewable on appeal |
| Judicial impartiality — judge referred to decedent as "the victim" | One usage did not show bias or warrant reversal | Single reference proved structural bias requiring automatic reversal | No plain error; one reference amid instructions did not overcome presumption of impartiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Carines v. Michigan, 460 Mich. 750 (1983) (plain-error standard requiring showing of affecting substantial rights)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Reese v. People, 491 Mich. 127 (2012) (limitations on self-defense for initial aggressors and retreat rule guidance)
- People v. Jones, 468 Mich. 345 (2003) (polygraph testimony is inadmissible to bolster witness credibility)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (2008) (trial strategy is afforded wide deference; counsel decisions presumed strategic)
- People v. Stevens, 498 Mich. 162 (2015) (judicial conduct and when comments may be structural error)