No. 25-6228

James Anthony Hale v. Michigan

Lower Court: Michigan
Docketed: 2025-11-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: arraignment criminal-procedure due-process jurisdictional-defect right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2026-01-09
Question Presented (from Petition)

WHERE PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL
DURING HIS INITIAL ARRAIGNMENT PROCEEDING,
JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT DEPRIVE THE STATE COURT FROM PRSHOULD THIS
ttaaiTNG FORTH
WITH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING?

II.
WHETHER THE STATE OF MICHIGAN HAS FAILED TO UPHOLD BINDING PRECEDENT
CONSISTENT WITH SIXTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Where a criminal defendant is denied counsel during initial arraignment, does a jurisdictional defect invalidate subsequent criminal proceedings?

Docket Entries

2026-01-12
Petition DENIED.
2025-12-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-15
Waiver of right of respondent Michigan to respond filed.
2025-12-15
Waiver of Michigan of right to respond submitted.
2025-11-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 24, 2025)

Attorneys

James Anthony Hale
James Anthony Hale — Petitioner
Michigan
Jon Phillip WojtalaOffice of the Wayne County (Michigan) Prosecutor, Respondent