136 N.W.2d 44 (Mich.App. 1965), 73, People v. Schram
|Docket Nº:||Cal. No. 73.|
|Citation:||136 N.W.2d 44, 1 Mich.App. 279|
|Opinion Judge:||Before QUINN, P J, and BURNS and T G KAVANAGH, JJ,|
|Party Name:||PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Clayton SCHRAM, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before QUINN, P.J., and BURNS and T. G. KAVANAGH, JJ.,|
|Case Date:||July 19, 1965|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Michigan|
[1 Mich.App. 281] Michael Clayton Schram, in pro. per.
T. G. KAVANAGH, Judge.
On September 26, 1958, Fred Piper, the proprietor of Piper's Tavern was tending bar when a man entered, ordered a beer, and stationed himself near the rear exit. He brandished a sawed-off shotgun and announced a holdup.
Piper reached for a gun and the robber shot him. The robber then dropped his gun and fled.
Subsequently Fred Piper identified Mark Brock as the holdup man and Brock was arrested pursuant to a warrant on January 20th, 1959, examined on January 27th and the criminal information was filed February 19, 1959.
In the meantime on January 5, 1959 the police learned that a second man was involved in the crime and on January 27th a warrant was issued against defendant, Michael Clayton Schram. Schram was arrested on January 30, examined on February 18, bound over for trial and a separate information was filed on February 19, 1959.
Thereafter, on March 4, 1959, the prosecutor moved to consolidate the cases for trial and after hearing arguments from both sides the court granted the motion.
During the trial, two of the jurors had a brief conversation with the prosecutor outside of the courtroom.
Counsel for the defendant Schram reported this to the Court and the judge conducted [1 Mich.App. 282] an examination, questioning the prosecutor and both jurors in the presence of the defendant's attorney and the court reporter.
The court denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial and permitted the trial to continue. At its conclusion the jury found both defendants guilty.
The matter is here on defendant Schram's appeal alleging the following errors:
1. The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction depriving the defendant of a fair trial and the equal protection of the laws when it granted the people's motion to consolidate the cases for trial after separate complaint, warrant examination, and information.
2. The court erred in not granting defendant's motion for a mistrial because of the improper conversation between the prosecutor and members of the jury.
3. The defendant was convicted on perjured testimony.
4. The verdict is in direct contradiction to the great weight of the evidence.
5. The Court erred in not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP