STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

Aolcus Curiae People V Taylor, 2020 Hich. LEXIS 121 People V (itllder, 2020 Hich. LCXIS B76

SC 159612 SC 160339

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

U.

MARTY BRYAN MILLER, Oakland County C i r c u i t Court 19B2-55278-FY.

AMICUS CURIAE UITH BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF TAYLOR AND UltOER APPEAt

D a t ^ d p v ^ y ^ 2020.

Musjfeegon C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y 2t*m S, Sheridan Dr. Muskegon, Michigan U9kU2 Pro Per

AUG 0 6 2020 Q,^LARRY S. ROYSTER ^

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE DF CONTENTS 1

THDEX OF AUTHORITIES U

JUDGEMENT APPEALED FROM AND RELIEF SOUGHT i l i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED i v

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1

ARGUMENT 5

1. I n Defendant Marty M i l l e r s Case the other a c t s evidence of another i n d i v i d u a l s crimes, evidence of gold s a l e s and the defendants " B a r t e r i n g Family" were ( a ) not off e r e d to shou a common scheme or to shou a " s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y " to the charged act as required, (b) the other a c t s uere not admissible under the "doctrine of chances," and ( c ) The evidence uas not offe r e d f o r a proper pourpose. I t s admission uas not Harmless.

2. The Harmless E r r o r t e s t of L u k i t y , should be r e f i n e d or amended i n a l l cases 7

3. The prosecution f a i l e d to provide u r i t t e n notice to the defense at l e a s t 14 days i n advance of t r i a l , f a i l e d to request o r a l l y on record, of the admittance of the evidence mentioned i n i s s u e s 1 and 2 supra, i n v i o l a t i o n of Michigan Rules of Evidence MRE 40U(b)C2) 11

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 12

PROOF OF SERVICE 13

STniEIMENT OF FACTS

CASE f} iqC2-5527B-FY

PEOPLE U MARTY MILLER H 1 Mich App G37, 7.G7 Nli)2d B92 (19B5).

3URY TRTAL--Marty did not take the stand.

rJo G i l l of P a r t i c u l a r s was f i l e d by t r i a l counsel, and the s u b s t i t u t i o n

of attorneys on 1-20-1953 i s also l i s t e d , fsee Docket Journal and E n t r i e s

attached),

The Prosecution did not F i l e notice to the T r i a l Court or the defense pursuant

to Michigan Rules of Evidence MRE f*Oi*'b) ( 2 ) . There uas a s u b s t i t u t i o n of

counsel, but no " B i l l of P a r t i c u l a r s " uas f i l e d by e i t h e r counsel or the

prosecution. CSee Docket attached, objections i n f r a ) .

NOTE: a l l t r a n s c r i p t pages and E x h i b i t s mentioned her e i n are attached.

On August 13, T 982 two g i r l s ( T i n a ft Gunita Moore) were l i v i n g with

Marty at h i s home i n D e t r o i t , they brought T.3. aka Timmothy Ivan Mann aka

Timmothy Ivan Muhn, Duawyne Karboski C10 more a l i a s e s ) h e r e a f t e r Mann/Muhn, to

Martys 19th Birthday party. Marty did not know Muhn, and t h i s was the f i r s t

time he ever met him. L'nbenounced, to everyone a t the party Muhn was an

escaped co n v i c t from the Michigan Department of Co r r e c t i o n s , (T .T. pgs. 580-

01, n6u-6tt, 959-65) while on escape (2) weeks before t h i s murder before Marty

even knew of Muhns e x i s t e n c e , Muhn robbed the v i c t i m Richard UanHamme and h i s

rcomate Robert Kemming. (Unrelated Robbery/cnnviction) , (T.T, pgs. 3 n i * - 3 2 2 ,

Z2S-Z26,). [footnote 1 ] ,

On August 1 5 , 1 5 B 2 Richard UanHamme uas found by h i s roommate Robert

Kemming at there home i n Royal Dak on ^2 mile and Uooduard. According to the

p o l i c e , Richard VanHamme uas stabbed, and had a cord wrapped around h i s u r i s t ,

and h i s legs uere bound together. He also had strands of h a i r clenced i n h i s

f i s t uhen he uas discovered. C T.T. Pgs. v n S - D O , . The h a i r s uere t e s t e d

and Marty uas excluded as the person Richard Ripped h a i r from u h l l e fending

of f the k n i f e a t t a c k . (T.T. pgs. 9G5-97). TJumerous f o o t p r i n t s and

f i g n g e r p r i n t s throught the house, over 20u photographs, blood s t a i n s i n a

bathroom and on the stove that uere not i n the area uihere Richard VanHamme uas

k i l l e d that uere r e t r i e v e d excluding Marty as one of the p e r p e t r a t o r s . (T.T.

pgs. hU7, h^^>-^!*, 717-15, 722, 7Zr>-Zc). F i n g e r p r i n t s , h a i r blood uere found i n

the v i c t i m s car, that uas found a block auay from the crime scene. And again

i t excluded Marty M i l l e r as one of the per p e t r a t o r s . (T.T. pgs. h9^-"5, 5 0 3 ,

5 0 8 - 0 9 ) . '.'umerous items uere taken, including but not l i m i t e d to some gold

chains and charms. Martys p r i n t s uere a l l e g e d l y found on the fr o n t door of the

vi c t i m s home, no blood uas on them. Marty sold gold to numerous gold dealers

i n the area. Only 3 of the 1 0 items from one of the gold dealers uas alleged

by the prosecution to have been from t h i s crime. ( I n f r a )

Approximately 1 month l a t t e r Marty uas a r r e s t e d f o r t h i s crime. The

prosecution alleged Multiple t h e o r i e s ; ( 1 ) that Muhn Committed t h i s crime and

that Marty e i t h e r aided him or helped him i n t h i s crime or they both committed

[1] I t i s apparent that Muhn uent back to murder both Kemming and UanHamme, but Kemming uas not horns. See case 1 g n ^ - S O n O B-FH Complaint 1 9 n 2 - ? 1 7 B 5 - X ; Ouly 2 5 , 1 9 n 2 .1 September 2 7 , 1 5 0 2 ; Record ^2SG6B Timothy Gum Mann aka Duane Karbouski aka Timmothy Ivan Muhn. Convicted on November 1 f t , 1 9 5 3 a f t e r h i s capture. Evidence received i n 2 0 1 8 from Kathleen Shaffer Parole Hoard Counslor TX: 3 1 3 - f t O B - 0 5 6 7 (see attached complaint/uarrant).

the crime together or tha t Marty committsri t h i s crime and T-'uhn helped Marty

(T.T. pgs. 225, n5C-5l) [footnote 2 ] . Muhn was s t i l l on escape and was not

present during Martys t r i a l . Muhn has never been a r r e s t e d i n t h i s case.

In Duly Marty uas e n l i s t e d i n the U.S. Ai r Force. fT.T. 0 9 0 ) .

"n September 9, 19fl2 Marty uas arr e s t e d and charged u i t h F i r s t Degree

Felony Murder contrary to MCL 75n.316Cb) (See attached complaint).

Susan Tamm an eye uit n e s s t e s t i f i e d , a f t e r a l i n e u p , phcto-lineup and i n

court present that Marty uas NOT one of the tuo suspects she sau f l e e i n g from

the crime scene, uiearing gloves (T.T. pgs. 772-77:5, 7 7 7 ) . Her s i s t e r Mary Tamm

from F l o r i d a , gave a w r i t t e n statement, to O f f i c e r Johnson. This Dissapeared.

(T.T. pgs 75B-G0) .

There uias Objections to the admittance of the gold sold by Marty (T.T.

775 -785 ) , There uas also objections to gold sold by Marty on t h i s same date

that uas not alleged to have come from t h i s crime, but uas admitted.(T.T. B2fi-

3 2 ) .

Elanore S t a b i l e , a c l e r k at the gold chest store t e s t i f i e d a f t e r being

shoun 7 pages of drauings of the s t o l e n items from t h i s crime, that she did

not buy any of those items from Marty. That the items she bought have been

Melted doun, destroyed (T.T. pgs 796-97; see Recipts evidence provided by

Marty and L i s t of Items attached; r e f e r r i n g to People v M i l l e r , I M Mich App

637,639 Supra).

Robert Suain t e s t i f i e d that he gave Marty tuo of the three chains he

sold to Mrs. S t a b i l e and provided copies of the o r i g i n a l purchase r e c e i p t s for

[2] Wo evidence about uho committed uhat acts of the crime uere submitted at t r i a l , other than prosecutors statement. A r r e s t warrant for Marty attachsd.

the chains sold. CT.T. pgs. 1 2 7 1 - B 1 ) . After questioning Mr. Suain about h i s

b a r t e r i n g ways uhen he gave Marty t h i s gold (T.T. 1 2 9 f i ) . The Prosecution

s t a t e d i n clo s i n g arguments they had never seen a more B a r r t e r i n g Family I n

h i s l i f e . (TT. pgs. ^hZS). Placing Martys Family on t r i a l and pr e j u d i c i n g the

defense.

I n c l o s i n g arguments the prosecutor John S l e v i n gave arguments as to

Muhn committing t h i s murder. (T.T. pgs. 1 3 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 3 4 1 - 4 2 ) . Because of these

statements the j u r y uas given Aiding Abetting Jury I n s t r u c t i o n s (T.T. pgs.

1 4 7 0 - 7 2 ) . E l e v a t i n g the crime to F i r s t Degree Murder. The j u r y questioned

these i n s t r u c t i o n s as Marty not being the a c t u a l stabber/murderer, they uiere

i n s t r u c t e d "no i t does not matter", they were given a copy of Courts E x h i b i t

One CX-1 ( a t t a c h e d ) , and i n s t r u c t e d to continue d e l i b e r a t i o n s . T h i s uas

confusing to both the defense and the J u r y , as the l e t t e r s from J u r o r s c l e a r l y

shou, they DID MOT want to f i n d Marty G u i l t y of murder, because they did not

belie v e Marty had the i n t e n t to committed the crime. But the i n s t r u c t i o n s

given gave them no choice. F i r s t Degree Murder or Mot G u i l t y . ( J u r y V erdict

form unattainable; see attached l e t t e r s from Juror C h r i s t i n e S t e f f a n i , end

Juror Malinda Welch).

C l e a r l y Marty's i n a b i l i t y to defend himself at such a young age i s

apparent. On A p r i l 1 2 , 1 9 0 3 Marty uas ev e n t u a l l y convicted 1 s t Degree Fellony

Murder, and sentenced on A p r i l 2 7 , 1 9 B 3 to " L I F E " . T r i a l Counsel did not knou

hou to defend Marty. (See attached Judgement of Sentence.)

COURT NOTICE: Most i f not a l l of the evidence i n t h i s Amicus Curiae uas not

submitted by Appellate Counsel to the Michigan Court of Appeals or t h i s court

on the o r i g i n a l appeal of r i g h t , (see People v M i l l e r , Supra).

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PACE

People V M i l l e r , 1M Mich App 637, 367 N.lil.2d 892 (1985) 1,4,5,8,10 People V Taylor, 2020 Mich. LEXIS 121 5 People V Wilder, 2020 Mich LEXIS 872 5,7 People V Denson, 500 Mich 385, 902 rJ.l iJ.2d 306 (2017) 5.9,10,12 People V Mardlin, Mich 609; 790 W.b].2d 607 (2010) 5 People V Burns, i*9h Mich 104; 832 N.W.2d 738 ( ) 5 People V Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 217; 7̂ *9 N . l i l . 2 d 272 (2008)... 6 People V VanderUliet, Uhh Mich 52, 508 N . l i J . 2 d 1 H (1993) 6 People V Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 806 rMi!.2d 371 (2011 ) 7 People V L u k i t y , 460 Mich kdU; 596 M . l i J . 2 d 607 (1999) 7,9,10 People V P a r s l e y , 500 Mich 1033; 897 N.liJ.2d 7h2 (2017) 7,10 People V L y l e s , 501 Mich 107; 905 r J . U . 2 d 199 (2017) 8,9

MICHIGAN COMPLIED LAblS

MCL § 768.27 6 MCL § 768.27(35) 7 MCL § 769.26E.] 8,9

MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE

MRE § it03 6 MRE § itDff(a) 5,10 MRE § 40£t(b) 12

MRE § 4 0 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) 5,6 MRE § 4 0 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) 1 ,6,7,8,11

i i

aUDGEMENT APPEALED FROM AND RELIEF SOUGHT

This Amicus Curiae i s brought under MCR 7,305(h)(1) end under the two pending ceses of People v T e y l o r , 2020 Mich LEXIS 121, S C 159612 end People v U l l d e r , 2020 Mich. LEXIS 876, SC 160339 which both ceses deal u i t h e common Issue of HermXess E r r o r as u e l l as independent Issues as i n d i c a t e d I n f r a .

ISSUE I .

( 1 ) whether the other-acts evidence o f f e r e d to shou a a common plan, scheme, or system contained e " s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y : to the charged act as required by People v Denson, 500 Mich 385, UUZ; 902 N . I J.2d 306 (2017); (2) whether the other-acts evidence was admissible under the "doctrine of chances," see People v Har d l l n t*87 Mich 609, 616-617; 790 N.U.2d 607 (2010); and (3) I f the evidence was not o f f e r e d for B purpose, whether i t s admission was harmless.

ISSUE I I .

whether the harmless e r r o r t e s t of People v L u k l t y , i*60 Mich hBU; 596 N.li].2d 607 (1999), should be r e f i n e d or emended I n a l l cases, see gener e l l y People v P a r s l e y , 500 Mich 1033, 1033; B97 N.U.2d (2017) ( L A R S E N D . , c o n c u r r i n g ) , or where the question turns on the ev e l u a t l o n of c o n f l i c t i n g testimony a t t r i a l .

ISSUE I I I .

Whether the prosecution f a i l e d to provide w r i t t e n n otice to the defense or the court a t l e a s t 11* days p r i o r to t r i a l , whether they f a i l e d to request o r a l l y on the record of the admittance of evidence mentioned i n Is s u e s 1 end 2. I n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of Michigan Rules of Evidence MRE

( b ) ( 2 ) .

Accordingly, Marty Bryan M i l l e r , seeks review because the Is s u e s r a i s e d h e r e i n i n v o l v e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s of major s i g n i f i c a n c e to the s t a t e • s j urisprudence. And herein asks t h i s Court to grant t h i s Amicus Curaie or order other appropriate r e l i e f .

i l l

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1 . I n Defendant Marty M i l l e r s Case the other acta evidence of another i n d i v i d u a l s crimes were ( a ) not o f f e r e d to ahoui a common scheme or to show a " s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y " to the charged act as requi r e d , (b) the other a c t s were not admissible under the "doctrine of chances," and ( c ) The evidence uias not o f f e r e d f o r a proper pourpose. I t s admission uas not Harmless.

Defendant answers "YES"

The People of the State of Michigan answers "NO"

2. The Harmless E r r o r t e s t of L u k i t y , should be r e f i n e d or amended i n a l l cases.

Defendant answers "YES"

The People of the State of Michigan answers "NO"

3. The prosecution f a i l e d to provide w r i t t e n notice to the defense of t r i a l court a t l e a s t ^k days p r i o r to t r i a l , whether they f a i l e d to request o r a l l y on the record of the admittance of evidence mentioned i n i s s u e s 1 and 2 i n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of Michigan Rules of Evidence MRE kUU(b)(2),

Defendant answers "YES" ( t r a n s c r i p t s speak volumes).

The People of the State of Michigan answers "NO"

Iv

ARGUMENT

ISSUE I .

I n defendant MARTY MILLERS Case, the other a c t s evidence of another i n d i v i d u a l s crimes, evidence of gold s a l e s and the defendants " B a r t e r i n g Family" were ( a ) not o f f e r e d to shoy a common scheme or to shou a " s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y " to the charged act as required, (b) the other a c t s ware not admissible under the "doctrine of chances," and ( c ) The evidence uas not of f e r e d f o r a proper pourpose. I t s admission uas not Harmless.

As I n Taylor 2020 Mich. LEXIS 121, uhether the other-acts evidence o f f e r e d to shou a common plan, scheme, or system contained a " s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y " to the charged act as required by People v Denson, 500 Mich 3S5, 403; 902 N.lil.2d 306 (2017); (2) uhether the other-acts evidence uas admissible under the "doctrine of chances," see People v Mardlin, 4B7 Mich 605, 616-617; 790 N.lil.2d 607 (2010); (3) i f the evidence uas not o f f e r e d under MRE 4 0 4 C b ) for a purpose, whether i t s admission uas harmless. People v Wilder, 2020 Mich. LEXIS 876. And uhether the character admission v i o l a t e d MRE 4 0 4 ( a ) . OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE A. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

As i n Taylor Marty M i l l e r argues the t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by allowing the prosecution to introduce other a c t s of Muhn/Mann robbing the vi c t i m s tuo weeks p r i o r to Marty haveing ever met Muhn/Mann. A d d i t i o n a l l y , statements to defense witnesses by the prosecution t h a t h i s personal f e e l i n g s uere t h a t he has never seen a more "bar t e r i n g f a m i l y " i n h i s l i f e . And evidence of gold that Marty sold to a gold dealer that uas given to him by h i s c u s i n Robert Suain that produced o r i g i n a l purchase r e c e i p t s , and drauings vieued by t r i a l prosecution witnesses t h a t they did not buy any of the s t o l e n items (drawings) from defendant, (see) People v M i l l e r , 141 Mich App 637; 367 N.W.2d H92 (19B5), pursuant to MRE 4 0 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) . Review for abuse of d i s c r e t i o n of a t r i a l courts d e c i s i o n to admit evidence. People v Burns, 494 Mich 104,

110; 832 W[iJ2d 738. "An abuse of d i s c r e t i o n occurs when the court chooses an outcome that f a l l s outside the range of reasonable and p r i n c i p l e d outcomes." People V Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 217; 749 NU12d 272 (2008).

Marty M i l l e r agrees with t h i s Courts a n a l y s i s i n T a y l o r , supra a t ['6-* 9 ] . However i n Marty's case there was no 14 day notice given to the defense or the t r i a l court by the prosecution, (see docket and t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t s attached.) D i r e c t l y v i o l a t i n g MRE 40 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) . Therefore (1) the evidence uas not o f f e r e d for a proper purpose. (2) the evidence was o f f e r e d only f o r the purpose of propensity. UanderVllet, 444 Mich a t 74. (3) the probative value of the evidence uas s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by the danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e . UanderUliet, 444 Mich a t 75-75; MRE 403. (see j u r o r l e t t e r s a t t a ched), The t r i a l court I n t h i s case did not conduct a balancing t e s t as set f o r t h i n MRE 403. I d . F i n a l l y , when admitting other a c t s evidence under MRE 4 0 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) , the court may provide a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n under MRE 105. I d . at 75. I n Martys case no l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s were given as to the admittance of the evidence or consideration of the evidence, There was an aiding and abetting i n s t r u c t i o n given (see CX-1 attached) but i t did not cure the e r r o r s they were not harmless. Marty had no p r i o r record of Robery or Murder. There was no s i m i l a r i t y i n any act s admitted by Mann/Muhn or the evidence admitted of Gold t r a n s a c t i o n s against defendant. There was no plan or scheme o f f e r e d by the prosecution as to Martys i n t e n t to to commit the crime. No motive, Mann/Muhns a c t s of robbing the v i c t i m 2 weeks p r i o r to Marty knowing Man/Muhn or the v i c t i m s was pu r l y p r e j u d i c i a l and entered i n t o the t r i a l improperly v i o l a t i n g MRE 4 0 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) and was t o x i c to the r i g h t to due process under both the Michigan C o n s t i t u t i o n and the United States C o n s t i t u t i o n of the r i g h t to a F a i r T r i a l , and the r i g h t to Due Process. Although Martys case does not invo l v e sexual a c t s with minors and i s a felony murder case of a 36 year old male v i c t i m , the r i g h t to due process and the r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l under the S i m i l a r Acts S t a t u t e Michigan Complied Law MCL 768.27. As i n T a y l o r , the value of the evidence was s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by the danger of u n f a i r

p r e j u d i c e . The drawlings of the s t o l e n items drawn by the v i c t i m s roomate were

c l e a r l y done by the prosecutions witness and Ms. S t a b i l e the owner of the gold shop c l e a r l y s t a t e d she did not buy the Items on the drauings (attached) from Marty. Instead of f i l i n g a w r i t t e n notice or o r a l n o t i c e , the prosecution r e l i z e d they were I n e r r o r of MRE tfOU(B)(2) for f a i l i n g to f i l e n o t i c e . And to cover t h i s e r r o r up the prosecution simply s t a t e d " I v never seen a more bart e r i n g f a m i l y i n my l i f e . Michigan Complied Law MCL 765.27(35) s t a t e s i n pa r t ;

"Only those a c t s of the defendant may be used as evidence against a defendant, not those of a t h i r d person may he used as evidence against a defendant."

very p r e j u d i c i a l and u n f a i r and i n f a c t given undue or preemptive weight by the j u r y . As t h i s Court c l e a r l y agreed i n using People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 611; B06 NU2d 371 (2011). I t was c l e a r t h a t t h i s evidence was admitted i n v i o l a t i o n of MRE f t O ^ t(b)(2) and was admitted and outweighed by the danger of u n f a i r prejudice to the j u r y , as t h e i r l e t t e r s c l e a r l y show.

ISSUE I I . The Harmless E r r o r t e s t of L u k i t y , should be r e f i n e d or amended I n a l l cases.

I n addressing whether the harmless e r r o r t e s t of People v L u k i t y , ^60 Mich UBh; 596 N .til. 2d 607 (1999) should be r e f i n e d or amended i n a l l c a s e s , see ge n e r a l l y People v P a r s l e y , 500 Mich 1033, 1033; B97 N . l i l . 2 d 7^2 (2017) (LARSEN, 3. c o n c u r r i n g ) , or whether the question turns on the e v a l u a t i o n of c o n f l i c t i n g testimony at t r i a l . People v Wilder. 2020 Mich. LEXIS B76.

Martys case i s a p e r f e c t case for both the amending the harmless e r r o r t e s t for a l l cases (as L u k i t y did not e x i s t on Martys appeal) and the question turns on the e v a l u a t i o n of c o n f l i c t i n g testimony at t r i a l . I n t h i s case the c o n f l i c t i n g testimony of Stolen Gold va. Purchased Gold, and whether or not

Mann/Muhns act were p r e j u d i c i a l or harmless e r r o r , even though they uere I n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of the MRE i i 0 ^ ( b ) ( 2 ) i n f a l l i n g to provide u r i t t e n or o r a l submission Ik days p r i o r to t r i a l or during the t r i a l .

The admittance of the testimony of Gold chains uas misleading to the Ju r y and the Court of appeal M i l l e r at U 1 Mich App 637 a t [*2-*h] Because the Prosecutor f a i l e d to comply u i t h MRE hnt*{h)(2) it b a s i c a l l y j u s t used the t r i a l as an e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t f i n d i n g hearing, i t had nothing to do u i t h the G u i l t or Innocence of the Defendant. This I s c l e a r l y shou by the statements by the prosecution of a "Ba r t e r i n g Family" The act s of h i s fami l y are judged against Marty because the prosecutor f a i l e d to comply u i t h MRE hUk(b)(2). Mann/Muhns act s of Robbing the v i c t i m also uere p r e j u d i c i a l because these crime took place p r i o r to t h i s case and p r i o r to Marty even knowing who Mann/Muhn uas. Even over o b j e c t i o n the evidence of Mann/Muhn robbing the v i c t i m and h i s roomate uas admitted. The f a c t a of t h i s case were not c l e a r l y and a c c u r a t e l y given to the court of appeals. The evidence here of the j u r y ' s l e t t e r ' s are i n f a c t Newly Discovered Evidence, the date on the l e t t e r s from the j u r y members of Martys t r i a l i n 19B3 c l e a r l y shou the l e t t e r s uere w r i t t e n by two of them i n 2017. The j u r y members uere s t i l l p rejudiced by the s i m i l a r a c t s or others, and Marty uas not judged by h i s own a c t s . Had these a c t s not been alloued there uould have been a ' d i f f e r e n t outcome' i n t h i s case. So as i n U l l d e r "Preserved, n o n c o n s t i t u t l o n a l e r r o r s are subject to harmless-error r e v l e u , governed by MCL 769.26[.]" L y l e s , 501 Mich a t 117. MCL 769.26 provides:

No judgement or v e r d i c t s h a l l be set aside [*10] or reversed or a neu t r i a l be granted by any court of t h i s s t a t e i n any c r i m i n a l case, on the ground of m i s d i r e c t i o n of the j u r y , or the improper admission or r e j e c t i o n of evidence, or for er r o r as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless i n the opinion of the court, a f t e r an examination of the e n t i r e cause, i t s h a l l a f f i r m a t i v e l y appear t h a t the e r r o r complained of has r e s u l t e d i n a miscarrage of j u s t i c e .

"[Wlhether admission of other-acts evidence i s harmless i s a case-s p e c i f i c i n q u i r y ; the e f f e c t of an e r r o r should be determinative by the p a r t i c u l a r s of an i n d i v i d u a l case."' Denson, 500 Mich at 413 n 15. When considering uhether an e r r o r uas harmless, the question i s uhetheur there uoulri have been a " d i f f e r e n c e I n the outcome" had the e r r o r not occurred. L y l e s , 501 Mich at 11 B.

In L u k i t y , 460 Mich at 495, our Supreme Court held t h a t MCL 76R.26 places the burden on the defendant to demonstrate th a t ' a f t e r an examination of the e n t i r e cause, i t s h a l l a f f i r m a t i v e l y appear th a t the e r r o r asserted has r e s u l t e d i n a miscarriage of j u s t i c e . ' " The L u k i t y Court f u r t h e r explained:

[ R ] e v e r s a l i s only required i f such an e r r o r i s p r e j u d i c i a l and ... the appropriate i n q u i r y "focused on the nature of the e r r o r and assesses i t s e f f e c t i n l i g h t of the weight and strength [•11] of the untainted evidence. "The object of t h i s i n q u i r y i s to determine i f i t a f f i r m a t i v e l y appears tha t the e r r o r asserted "underminde[sl the r e l i a b i l i t y of the v e r d i c t . " I n other uords, the e f f e c t of the e r r o r i s evaluated by assessing i t i n the context of the untainted evidence to determine uhether i t i s more probable than not that a d i f f e r e n t outcome uould have r e s u l t e d uithout the e r r o r . Therefore, the bottom l i n e i s t h a t §26 presumes tha t a preserved, n o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r i s not a ground for e r r o r unless " a f t e r an examination of the e n t i r e cause, i t s h a l l a f f i r m a t i v e l y appear" that i t i s more probable than not that the e r r o r was outcome determinative. [ I d . at 495-456 ( c i t a t i o n omitted; second a l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l ) . ]

I n t h i s case the evidence against Marty uas s o l e l y based on an alleged f i n g e r p r i n t found on the front door and Marty denying being there and Marty s e l l i n g Gold a l l e g e d to have come from t h i s crime. No evidence uas submitted tha t i t came from t h i s crime. Only the 14 Karat of the gold s o l d . And the Court of Appeals saying that 3 chains uere a l l t h a t uas s t o l e n and the chains defendant sold uere the same Karat. No evidence of r e c e i p t s uere given to the court of appeals, no evidence th a t there uas 7 pages of J e u e l r y t h a t uas given to the Gold Clerk Marty sold gold to t h i s day. No evidence of the

other Gold Dealers Marty sold to t h i s day tha t had nothing to do with the crime. And no evidence t h a t did not even know wo Mann/Muhn was p r i o r to t h i s crime. A d d i t i o n a l l y Mann/Muhn was an escaped convict from Oackson p r i s o n was also introduced into Martys t r i a l . Martys " B a r t e r i n g Family" as put by the prosecution was also put on t r i a l . The l e t t e r s from the j u r y c l e a r l y show t r i a l counsel had no idea how to defend against the i s s u e s a t hand. Harmess error of L u k i t y Court did not e x i s t i n 1903. This i s why the Ui l d e r Court should also v i s i t the Taylor Court and address the is s u e s of the L u k i t y Court being r e f i n e d or amended i n a l l cases. P a r s l e y , supra at 1033.

This court should address the harmless-error a n a l y s i s by i d e n t i f y i n g the nature of the e r r o r ( s ) at issue so that i t s e f f e c t may he addressed " i n l i g h t of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence." L u k i t y , 460 Mich a t 495. As i n Wilder the t r i a l court knew about Mann/Muhns testimony and erroneously permitted t h i s testimony i n v i o l a t i o n of MRE 404. A d d i t i o n a l l y the testimony by the prosecution as to the "B a r t e r i n g Family" as to Marty being given the chains for working for h i s cusin Robert Swain c l e a r l y shows p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t that cannot be undone e s p e c i a l l y when the drawings of the st o l e n items were shown to the Gold Clerk and she s a i d she did not buy any of the items from Marty. The l i s t was never shown to the Court of Appeals, People V M i l l e r , 141 Mich App 637 at 639-640. The decision made by the Court of Appeals i n (1985) was i n e r r o r as they were not f u l l y informed of the f a c t s of t h i s case. The e r r o r s i n t h i s case were not harmless and should be addressed by t h i s court.

There was abso l u t e l y no connection between Mann/Muhn robbing the v i c t i m and h i s roomate two weeks p r i o r to Marty knowing Mann/Muhn. And no connection to the v i c t i m being robbed i n t h i s case, both had nothing to do with Marty. No connection whatsoever. ti'hich i s c l e a r l y v i s i b l e i n the l e t t e r s from the j u r y , and c l e a r l y v i s i b l e by the i n s t r u c t i o n s to the j u r y f i r s t degree murder or nothing given by the court v e r d i c t form. The t r i a l court errored i n admitting c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y by Mann/Muhn then s t a t i n g defendant helped Man/nuhn k i l l the v i c t i m was not harmless e r r o r . Denson, 500 Mich a t 3G9,

10

392-394, ff06, , M 3 .

Questioning witnesses as to Martys statements about s e l l i n g gold or Mann/Muhn t r y i n g to Murder h i s s i s t e r and parents while the t r i a l uas ongoing. Then Mann/Muhn being convicted of Robbing the v i c t i m and h i s roomate approximately 1 year a f t e r Marty uas convicted of aiding and abetting Mann/Muhn i n t h i s murder which Mann/Muhn has never even been a r r e s t e d or convicted o f . ( s e e s r r e s t Warrant for Mann/Muhn).

This court should accept t h i s amicus c u r r i e and order the harmless e r r o r t e s t to be revised/amended i n a l l cases.

ISSUE I I I The prosecution f a i l e d to provide w r i t t e n notice to the defense a t l e a s t 1 h days i n advance of t r i a l , f a i l e d to request o r a l l y on record, of the admlttence of the evidence mentioned i n is s u e s 1 and 2 supra, i n v i o l a t i o n of Michigan Rules of Evidence MRE m{b)(2).

There i s no evidence i n the Courts Docket as to the prosecution f i l i n g l̂ f days p r i o r to t r i a l or o r a l l y a t t r i a l by the prosecution of any evidence i t intended to use at the t r i a l of Marty M i l l e r . The t r i a l was b a s i c a l l y used as an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing to b a s i c a l l y throw a dart a t to see i f the charges would s t i c k . Any objection a t t r i a l was b a s i c a l l y " f r u i t l e s s " The e n t i r e t r i a l i n t h i s case was F r u i t of the polsonus t r e e . Any evidence submitted by the prosecution a t t r i a l i s i n f a c t t a i n t e d . There uas no B i l l of P a r t i c u l a r s o f f e r e d or requested. There was however, a change of counsel, t h i s may have been confusing to the prosecution and the T r i a l Court and t h i s i s why they v i o l a t e d MRE unU(.b){2) as to the statements as to Mann/Muhn robbing the v i c t i m weeks before the crime Marty i s charged u i t h . This may also e x p l a i n why the prosecution was c a l l i n g Martys family a "B a r t e r i n g Family", t h i s might also e x p l e l n why even though Marty had witnesses t h a t came i n t o the t r i a l and s a i d they gave Marty the gold chains he so l d to the Gold Dealer, or the f a c t t h a t even the prosecutions own witness a f t e r viewing drawings/photos of the j e u l e r y i n question s t a t e d that she did not buy any of those items from Marty. MRE t^Uh

( b ) ( 2 ) could t h i s case possibly be uhat t h i s Rule uas to prevent from happening.

Although the crimes mere someone e l s e s , and the evidence c l e a r l y pointed to t h i s other I n d i v i d u a l as being the murderer I n t h i s case. The prosecution c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n c l o s i n g arguments multiple t h e o r i e s as to hou the crime might have happened uho committed i t . Hou many timea must the t r i a l court err o r under MRE ^^^^^(b) i n admitting evidence regarding other peoples conduct j u s t because the defendant i n t h i s case had no adult record, other than a Larceny from an auto. A recent Graduate of Hazel Park High, e n l i s t e d i n the U . S . A i r Force. Multiple u l t n e s s e s were asked m u l t i p l e questions about Mann/Muhn's conduct. About uiho' s gold Marty s o l d . Not to mention the gold sold on the date of t h i s crime t h a t had nothing to do y i t h t h i s crime whatsoever. I f ever there uas a need to enforce MRE UDf t(b) t h i s i s j u s t such a case. As i n Wilder, the prosecution asked m u l t i p l e witnesses about the f a c t s of Mann/Muhn's crimes tuord the v i c t i m i n t h i s case, from s c i e n t i f i c experts to Po l i c e to the v i c t i m s roomate. These crimes having nothing to do with Marty v i o l a t e d MRE UUh (b) and was done to ambush the defendant a t t r i a l . The testimony was "highly c o n f l i c t i n g " as Marty not even knowing Mann/Muhn p r i o r to h i s Party two days before the crime charged. Wilder at 2 3-2 ' t . There was no other s i m i l a r a c t s between Marty and Mann/Muhn because Marty did not know him. People V Denson, SDO Mich 3 8 5 , ^ t 0 3 ; 902 N.W.2d 306 (2017).

COWCLUSIOW AND RELIEF SOUGHT WHEREFORE, Marty B. M i l l a r requests t h i s honorable court to GRANT h i s

Amicus Curiae b r i e f and grant appropriate r e l i e f .

D a t e d : ^ r 3^

#A-172276 Muskegon Corr. T a c i l i t y 2^00 S . Sheridan Dr. Muskegon, M I U9t*U2

2020.

12

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby c e r t i f y t het on 3u6y %\ 2020, X served a forgoing copy of the Motion for Ualver of Fees and Costs and A f f i d a v i t i n support of Motion and Amicus Curiae, i n connection with the cause of People v Taylor and Wilder, 2019 Mich, LEXIS 121, and B76, upon the c l e r k of the Mlchlgen Supreme Court and the counsel of record, by depositing same i n the United States mail u l t h F i r s t C l ass postage f u l l y prepaid by l e g a l Form here a t the Muskegon C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y :

(ilayne County Prosecutor Frank Murphy H a l l of J u s t i c e ^W S t . Antolne D e t r o i t , MI ^8226

CLERK OF THE COURT Michigan Supreme Court Box 30052 Lansing, MI (*B909

I f u r t h e r c e r t i f y t h a t a l l Attachments mantloned he r e i n uere made a part hereof and attached hereto.

T declare t h a t the statements above are true to the best of my

Deted:

a" 2020.

B . / n i l l e r flr-172276 Muskegon Corr. Fee. 2400 S. Sheridan Dr. Muskegon, MI h9^k2 Pro Per

AUG 0 6 2020

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

Amicus Ctiriea People V Taylor, 2020 Mich. LCXI5 121 People V Uilder, 2020 Mich. tEXIS 876

SC 159612 SC 160339

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

V.

MARTY BRYAN MILLER. Oakland County C i r c u i t Court 19S2-55270-FY.

MOTION FOR blAIVER OF FEES AND COSTS FOR AMICUS CURIAE UITH

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF TAVtOR AND WILDER APPEAlI

NOM COMES, Marty B. M i l l e r #172276 and I n support s t a t e s as f o l l o w s , on 3une , 2020. I f i l e d u l t h t h i s court the above a c t i o n and her e i n s t a t e s t h a t , t h i s he l a uneble to pay fees a costs i n t h i s a c t i o n . Aa he has only a st a t e job th a t paya only 1.31 per day. ^ days per ueek. And h e r e i n requests t h i s court to grant h i s indecency. See A f f i d a v i t i n Support of Motion end Amicus Curie attachade hereto made a part hereof.

Dated: 2020.

MaHV/^. M i l l e r A^1'72276 Muskegon C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y 2it00 S. Sheridan Dr. Muskegon, Michigan k9hU2 Pro Per

AUG 0 6 2020

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR UAIVER OF FEES AND COSTS

AND AMICUS CURIAE.

I Marty Bryan M i l l e r , deposes and says t h a t the Information contained herein i s true to the best of my Information Knouledge and b e l i e f . My signature beloui i n d i c a t e s seme.

Re s p e c t f u l l y Submitted,

•ty fif^i: lakegon C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y

2^00 S. Sheridan Or. Muskegon, Michigan 1*9^1*2

^ . 2020. Dated

• 7 0 n r t i - i o

Mr. Marty D. M i l l e r SA-172275 Muskegon C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y 2^D0 S. Sheridan Dr. "uskegnn, Michigan tt^^^f"

c'i_er?K n r THE CCUI^T MICHIGArJ S U P R e M E COURT Box 3 n 0 5 2 Lansing, Michigan ttG9C9

Rc: People v Marty M i l l e r 1902-5527B-FY i n regards to People V T a y l o r , 2D2D Mich. LEXIS 121 and, People V Wilder, 2 n 2 n Mich. LEXT5 B76

SC 1 5 9 6 1 2 SC 1GC37.9

Dear Cler k ;

Enclosed please f i n d for f i l i n g i n the above cause.

Motion f o r Waiver of Fees and Costs A f f i d a v i t i n support of Motion and AMICUS CURIAE People v TAYLOR, 2 0 2 0 Mich. LEXIS 1 2 1 , and P E O P U E V TAYLOR, 2 0 2 0 Mich. LEXIS 8 7 6 ; SC: 1 5 9 6 1 2 and SC 1 6 0 3 3 9 . Proof of s e r v i c e .

Enclosed you u i l l f i n d an O r i g i n a l for the Court.

Thanking you i n advance for your time and cooperation i n t h i s matter.

R e s p e c t f u l l y yours,

Mai^y B . ^ - l i l l e ' r :

AUG 0 6 2020 Q U