People v. Jennings

After a mistrial, Defendant-Appellant Devante Jennings was retried and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. Mr. Jennings appealed on double-jeopardy grounds. After the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence, Mr. Jennings successfully petitioned the Michigan Supreme Court for review. The Court granted review on the following questions: (1) whether there is a “compelling reason” under the Michigan Constitution to adopt a different double-jeopardy test from the one set forth in federal precedent; (2) if so, whether the Court should adopt a test from another state or develop factors that expound on the “bad faith” test previously adopted in Michigan; and (3) whether retrial was permissible in this case.

The SSCI and ACLU of Michigan filed an amicus brief in support of neither party, focusing on the Court’s approach to interpreting the Michigan Constitution. In our brief, we argue that Michigan courts should not need to identify a compelling reason to deviate from federal law when interpreting a state constitutional provision that has a federal analogue. We urge the Court to reaffirm its commitment to independent state constitutional interpretation and expressly endorse an approach that focuses on Michigan sources, including (1) the Michigan Constitution’s text and structure, (2) the history, contemporary understanding, and purpose of state constitutional provisions, (3) preexisting and developing Michigan law, and (4) Michigan values, culture, and experience.

Our amicus brief makes four key arguments. First, we describe the confusion in the lower courts about whether they must provide a “compelling reason” in order to depart from federal law despite Michigan’s historic commitment to independent interpretation. Second, we argue that independent interpretation is required by the text, structure, and history of Michigan’s Constitution, is rooted in the Michigan Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, and best promotes principles of American federalism. Third, we ask the Court to set out factors to guide independent interpretation of the Michigan Constitution, focusing first and foremost on the Michigan sources listed above. And fourth, we explain that under this independent approach, Michigan courts interpreting the Michigan Constitution may, but need not, consider precedents from other jurisdictions—federal or state—to the extent they are persuasive.