Criminal Law Reform issue image

State v. Fenderson

Location: Michigan
Court Type: Michigan Supreme Court
Status: Ongoing
Last Update: June 12, 2025

What's at Stake

This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The 勛圖眻畦s State Supreme Court Initiative and the 勛圖眻畦 of Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendants rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.

The defendant, Daren Donell Fenderson, was allegedly involved in a fatal hit-and-run accident. When he was brought to the police station for questioning, he was read his Miranda rightsincluding that he had the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. But after Mr. Fenderson requested a lawyer, the police told him: You dont get one. Ignoring Mr. Fendersons repeated expressions of confusion and distress, the police then reinitiated the interrogation and suggested that he would not get another chance to give a statement unless he spoke to them without an attorney. The police had Mr. Fenderson sign a waiver of his Miranda rights and eventually pressured him into making inculpatory statements.

The Circuit Court initially granted Mr. Fendersons motion to suppress the statements he made following his request for counsel, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. The 勛圖眻畦s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 勛圖眻畦 of Michigan, filed an amicus brief with the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that Mr. Fendersons inculpatory statements should be suppressed because he did not knowingly or voluntarily waive his rights.

Our brief makes two main points: (1) the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires suppression of Mr. Fendersons statements because the police misled him about his right to an attorney and pressured him into speaking; and (2) Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution provides even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment and independently requires suppression of Mr. Fendersons statements. We further argue that the Court should rule for Mr. Fenderson under Article 1, Section 17 even if it also rules for Mr. Fenderson on Fifth Amendment grounds, to ensure that Michiganders rights are not eroded by any changes in federal doctrine. Put differently, a ruling for Mr. Fenderson grounded in Article 1, 禮17 would preserve the full force of the Michigan Constitutions protections against coercive interrogation methods and ensure that justice is administrated fairly and equitably.

Support our on-going litigation and work in the courts

Learn More 勛圖眻畦 the Issues in This Case