Perjured testimony; Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy; Prosecution delay in disclosing evidence; Access to transcripts; MCR 7.210

The court affirmed defendant-Fluker’s assaulting, resisting, obstructing, or opposing a police officer convictions. Fluker, who represented herself on appeal, argued “the law enforcement officials involved in her case perjured themselves and authored false reports, which violated her due-process rights. While both issues were functionally abandoned due the lack of factual and record support in the briefing,” the court did its “best to address why each issue” also lacked merit. Even if she had established that Officer M “committed perjury on the stand and that the prosecution knowingly used the perjured testimony or failed to correct it (which she has not), she also has not shown that she would be entitled to relief on this basis.” The court found that “the allegedly perjured testimony had no bearing on the outcome of the case.” She also did not offer any evidence that Sergeant D “knowingly ‘authored false reports’ when he concluded, after reading the police reports describing the circumstances of her arrest, that she claimed to be a sovereign citizen.” The court also found, most crucially, that Fluker could not show “that this issue deprived her of a fair trial because it had no bearing on the jury’s consideration of whether she was guilty of the charged offenses.” In the end, she failed to show “that the alleged ‘false report’ authored by [D] deprived her of a fair trial.” As to her double jeopardy claim, because she “was not placed in jeopardy, the constitutional prohibitions on double jeopardy do not bar her subsequent prosecution arising out of the same incident.” Next, the court determined that she did not show “the prosecution’s delay in providing additional body-worn camera footage from officers at the scene who did not testify at trial or the video of her being transported to jail until several weeks before trial began inhibited her ability to prepare for trial. This footage would have necessarily shown the same events as [M’s] body-worn camera footage, albeit from different angles.” Because Fluker did not establish prejudice, she was not entitled to relief on this basis. She also alleged that she was denied access to critical transcripts which were necessary for trial preparation and her appeal. The court found that “the relevant court rules appear to have been followed, and thus Fluker’s due process rights were fairly protected.” And it was unable “to discern from [her] briefing what due-process violation she is alleging.”