Michigan Sex Crime Attorneys Blog

July 13, 2026

Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies the Rape-Shield Law: What People v. Masi Means for the Defense

A Macomb County man charged with 12 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and four counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct spent years litigating a single evidentiary question before his trial could begin. The complainants are three sisters who began living with him when they were minors. He denies the allegations and is presumed innocent on every count.

The question was this. A 2010 police report described one of the sisters being sexually abused years earlier by another relative, abuse that allegedly included being forced to watch pornography. The defense argued the jury needed that history for a limited purpose: without it, jurors would assume the child could only describe such acts because the defendant committed them. The trial court excluded the evidence under Michigan’s rape-shield statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on a 1998 case that required a criminal conviction for the prior abuse before a jury could ever hear about it.

On July 14, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v. Masi, affirming in part, vacating in part, and sending the case back to the Macomb Circuit Court under a new standard. The opinion was unanimous among the six participating justices, written by Justice Kyra Bolden. It is the most important rape-shield decision in Michigan in a generation, and anyone facing a criminal sexual conduct charge involving a child complainant needs to understand both halves of it.

July 11, 2026

When Does Excluding Evidence Violate the Right to Present a Defense in a Michigan CSC Case?

by Grabel & Associates

Karl Butler was charged in Kalamazoo County with five counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of home invasion over a 2009 incident. He admitted the sexual contact and said it was consensual. His defense turned on evidence that the complainant had accused two other men of sexual assault in 2008, and that the accusation was false: the defense had statements from the two men and police reports on the earlier investigation.

The pretrial fight over that evidence consumed years. The trial court first denied the motion to admit it. On a renewed motion, the court changed course and ruled that the testimony could come in, but it never first held the closed evidentiary hearing Michigan law requires. The Court of Appeals reversed and held the evidence should be excluded. In March 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, vacated that decision too. Both lower courts had skipped the required step: once the defense produced some apparently credible and potentially admissible evidence that the earlier allegation was false, the trial court had to hold an in camera evidentiary hearing before deciding anything about admissibility.

People v. Butler is one recent answer to a question that runs through nearly every Michigan criminal sexual conduct prosecution: when does the exclusion of defense evidence cross the line from ordinary evidence law into a violation of the constitutional right to present a defense? The Michigan Supreme Court has confronted that question twice in two years, in Butler and in the 2025 rape-shield decision People v. Masi, and the Court of Appeals added a published decision on records discovery, People v. Leonard, in June 2026.

June 17, 2026

A Wave of CSAM Arrests in Michigan: What These Charges Really Mean in State and Federal Court

by Grabel & Associates

In May 2026, a 19-year-old from Saint Ignace was arraigned in Mackinac County’s 92nd District Court on five felony counts. The Michigan State Police Computer Crimes Unit said the case began when investigators believed he was receiving child sexually abusive material online. After a search of his home turned up digital evidence, prosecutors charged him with three counts of aggravated possession of child sexually abusive material and two counts of using a computer to commit a crime.

He has not been convicted of anything. Like everyone arrested in these investigations, he is presumed innocent, and the government must prove every element of every count. But his case shows how aggressively Michigan is now pursuing these charges and how quickly a single allegation can lead to decades of potential prison exposure.

Through the first half of 2026, the Michigan State Police Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force announced arrest after arrest, from Rapid City to Port Huron to Flushing to Snover. Many of these cases start the same way: an automated report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), then a search warrant, then seized devices, then charges. That pipeline is fast; it is largely automated, and it does not always get the right person or the right charge. If you or a family member is caught up in one of these investigations, here is what these charges actually mean, and where a real defense begins.

June 15, 2026

When Does an Online Sting Cross Into Entrapment? A Michigan Supreme Court Case Could Redraw the Line

by Grabel & Associates

A man answers an ad on an adult escort site. The profile lists the woman’s age as 20. He starts texting to set up a meeting. Several messages in, the person on the other end says she is actually 15. He questions it, even checks the phone number, then keeps talking and agrees to meet. Police arrest him at the door.

Was that the detection of a crime, or the creation of one?

That question is now before the Michigan Supreme Court, and how the justices answer it could affect every undercover online sting run in this state. The Court heard argument in January 2026, and a ruling is expected sometime before the term ends. For anyone charged out of an online operation like this, it is the Michigan case to watch.

July 9, 2021

Michigan Supreme Court Grants New Trial in CSC Case Due to False Testimony

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Details

An individual was charged with criminal sexual conduct in the first degree upon the accusation that he threatened an 11-year-old girl with a belt, forcing sexual penetration on the girl. The girl told her brother about this accusation, and they both went to the police. The defendant voluntarily went to the police department and answered questions from the police for approximately three hours. The entire interrogation was recorded on videotape, but the videotape was never admitted into evidence at trial. During the trial, a detective testified that the defendant said that the truth was “probably somewhere in the middle” of the defendant and alleged victim’s story.

Defense counsel cross-examined the detective on this statement, asserting that this statement was actually made by a detective, and not the defendant himself. Defense counsel requested the court show the video to the jury, but the prosecutor objected, and the judge refused to allow the video into evidence. The defendant was convicted at the conclusion of the trial and sentenced to 25-60 years in prison. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals viewed the video and found that the detective, in fact, made the statement in question, not the defendant.

March 22, 2021

Michigan’s “Rape Shield” Laws Explained

by Grabel & Associates

History of the Rape Shield Statute

A group known as the Michigan Women’s Task Force on Rape was mostly responsible for the creation and adoption of Michigan’s Rape Shield Statute in 1974. The group paid close attention to how the previous rape laws discouraged women from reporting crimes. Particularly important was the law referencing how judges had the discretion to determine when evidence of the alleged victim’s prior consensual sexual activity could be used to impeach his or her credibility. Because of this, women shied away from testifying since it meant that their sex lives would likely be questioned. Michigan’s Rape Shield Statute sought to prevent this from happening and created a first-of-its-kind protection for alleged victims. Under rape shield, alleged victims would be generally protected from facing questions about their sexual activity with anyone else. This approach has become the most common approach to rape shield laws in each state across the country, so much so that other states refer to this approach as the “Michigan approach.” There are exceptions to rape shield which do allow defense attorneys to cross-examine the alleged victim’s about prior specific accusations and other conduct. A judge has to agree that the defense has met their burden to be allowed an exception under rape shield before an alleged victim can be questioned. If you have specific questions about a sex offense case, then it is important that you speak directly to an experienced sex crimes attorney.

Rape Shield Law Explained

December 10, 2020

Former Grand Traverse County Jail Administrator to Consider Plea in Criminal Sexual Conduct Case

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Details

As detailed in a previous blog, former Grand Traverse County Jail Administrator Todd Ritter is facing multiple allegations relating to inappropriate relationships with current and former female jail inmates. Investigations into Ritter uncovered explicit text messages and photographs involving female inmates of the Grand Traverse County Jail. He is also accused of misappropriating funds by allegedly taking a female inmate to a Lansing hotel and expensing the hotel room to Grand Traverse County. Other accusations include stealing drug test kits and keeping certain female prisoners past their sentences for personal satisfaction. As an overall maximum, Ritter is facing up to 15 years in prison based on his current criminal charges. A listing of Ritter’s criminal charges and potential penalties are listed below.

Criminal Charges and Penalties

December 3, 2020

Flint Police Officer Faces Multiple Child Sex Offense Charges

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Details

A now-former Flint police officer is facing multiple charges for multiple child sex offenses now with two alleged victims. Justin McLeod is alleged to have molested a girl under the age of 13 and another young female whose age has not been publicly disclosed. McLeod faces nine criminal charges related to each alleged victim. The second alleged victim is reportedly now an adult. She alleges that McLeod sexually abused her for a period of two and a half years while she was a child. McLeod faced initial investigation when the first alleged victim contacted a forensic nurse examiner and discussed her allegations of sexual abuse against McLeod. In response, the Genesee County Sheriff’s Office, the Flushing Township Police Department, and the Genesee Human Oppression Strike Team (GHOST) worked together to raid McLeod’s residence to take him into custody. He was initially arraigned on nine felony charges related to the first alleged victim and about a week later was arraigned on nine more on a second alleged victim who just came forward. McLeod worked with the Flint Police Department for five years and was part of the K9 and motorcycle units. He remains in custody at the Genesee County Jail without bond.

Criminal Charges and Potential Penalties

November 16, 2020

Northern Michigan Man Found Guilty of Multiple Sex Crimes

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Details

A man from the Northern Michigan County of Roscommon was recently found guilty of multiple sex crimes that allege he held a woman against her will and forced her to clean his house and perform sex acts. The woman was actually herself arrested for stealing a vehicle, but she told Roscommon County police officers that she escaped from a home where she was being held against her will and was being forced into prostitution. She said that two men, James Jarrell and Jeffrey Kobel were her captors and that they also dealt drugs from the home. She told police that she was taken from her home in Ypsilanti and was forced to be in Northern Michigan by the men. Multiple police and investigative agencies cooperated to respond to the home where these men were alleged to live. The Michigan State Police sent the Emergency Support Team (EST), the Strike Team Investigative Narcotics Group (STING), the Houghton Lake Post, and a police canine to join the Crawford County Sheriff’s Office in executing a search warrant on Jarrell and Kobel’s home. The men were arrested and criminally charged. Jarrell was recently found guilty on his charges while Kobel awaits his trial.

Criminal Charges and Penalties

November 9, 2020

Retrial Ordered in Sex Assault Case Where Judge Emailed Prosecutor During Trial

by Grabel & Associates

Original Case Details

An Allegan County Judge is under fire for emails uncovered that show the judge communicating privately with a prosecutor about a case she presided over during a jury trial. Allegan Circuit Court Judge Margaret Zuzich-Bakker emailed Allegan County Prosecutor Myrene Koch as witnesses testified in front of her and inquired about the answers she was hearing and about the general investigation of the case. The Allegan County Prosecutor responded to the initial email and continued to have substantive conversations about the case. The case in question was a multi-count criminal sexual conduct case. The defendant in the case was charged and convicted with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was later sentenced by Judge Zuzich-Bakker to a minimum of 20 years in prison for each conviction which run concurrently. When it was discovered Judge Zuzich-Bakker had privately communicated with the prosecutor’s office during the trial in question, an appeal was made to the court. Judge William Baillargeon decided in favor of the appellant and granted him a new trial. If you are facing an investigation or criminal charges related to accusations of sexual assault, then it is important that you speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Trial Judge’s Objectionable Emails