A new ruling out of the Michigan Court of Appeals has set a serious precedent for defendants facing charges related to terrorism. Read the basic breakdown.

1. Crisis Center Calls Not Privileged in Terrorism Prosecution
A new ruling out of the Michigan Court of Appeals has set a serious precedent for defendants
facing charges related to terrorism. Here’s the basic breakdown: An individual called a mental
health hotline and spent around 80 minutes on the phone with an emergency services specialist.
During the call, the individual made specific threats of violence. After the call concluded, the
specialist reported the call to 911 operators.
The individual was charged with one count of
threat of terrorism (based on the call) and one
count of possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony (discovered at arrest).
Part of the prosecution’s case then relied on
testimony from the emergency services
specialist who took the call as well as
recordings from the call itself. Later in the
process, a circuit court granted the defendant’s
request to exclude the testimony of this
specialist and the call recording on the grounds that both represented privileged information.
The prosecutor in the case then challenged this ruling, and the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed
that the privilege normally present in these types of calls was lost when the defendant made
threats of violence against identifiable third party targets. In other words, there is no privileged
information when it comes to specific threats that might reasonably be carried out. If you’re
facing prosecution for a threat-of-terrorism charge, it’s vitally important that you speak with a
Van Buren County criminal attorney to protect your privileged conversations and to be fully
aware of your rights.
It’s also worth noting that the court reminded the defendant that he has full control over waiving
privilege on his communications should he wish to introduce them as evidence in his defense.
The threats and context surrounding them are considered admissible regardless due to the
specific way in which they interact with threat-of-terrorism laws.
For more information or questions about how this ruling might affect your case? Please contact
Peter J. Johnson Law Office, PLLC today at 269.982.1100 or visit
www.AttorneyPeterJohnson.com.