Probable cause for bindover; Effect of a conviction at trial; People v. Green; The prosecutor’s charging discretion; In re Diehl; People v. Barksdale; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v. Unger; Opening statement & closing argument; People v. Moss; People v. Finley; Comment on the prosecution witnesses’ credibility; People v. Thomas; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Craig ex rel Craig v. Oakwood Hosp.; Cumulative error; People v. Bahoda

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held “that defendant was fairly convicted at trial,” and thus it declined to review whether there was probable cause to support the bindover decision. Further, it found no basis for concluding that the prosecutor abused his charging discretion, and it rejected defendant’s prosecutorial misconduct claims. Thus, it again affirmed his convictions of first-degree felony murder, second-degree arson, fourth-degree arson, FIP, and felony-firearm. In a prior appeal, the court rejected his claims as to the sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, “the issuance of the search and arrest warrants against him, his right to a speedy trial, and the cumulative effect of alleged trial errors” as well as other prosecutorial misconduct claims. The Supreme Court remanded the case for the court to consider two other issues from his Standard 4 brief – the district court’s bindover decision and the prosecution’s trial conduct. As to the former, the court noted that he “was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.” It did not find in its prior opinion, or in this appeal, any error warranting reversal. As to defendant’s related claim that the prosecution “acted with ‘egregious misconduct’ in ‘bringing charges without probable cause[,]’” the court noted that he did not contend “he was subject to the charges for an unconstitutional, illegal or illegitimate reason.” Instead, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the charging decision, which the court found was simply another attack on the sufficiency of the evidence at the preliminary exam. It also rejected his claims that the prosecution committed misconduct and denied him “a fair trial by (1) making statements in opening statement and closing argument that were not supported by the evidence, and (2) improperly vouching for a witness.” Finally, given that there were no actual errors, his cumulative effect claim also failed.