Advertisement

The April 27 ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court sends the Thomas Earls case back to Sanilac County Circuit Court for prosecution.

Earls and Anthony Gadomski are accused of stealing more than $130,000 from a safe on the Randy Parrent farm in Custer Township on Oct. 31, 2004.

On a 5-2 vote, the high court reversed the appeals court ruling that suppressed evidence obtained through improper investigative subpoenas.

"Basically, the court held that the evidence obtained from the banks, businesses and telephone companies may be used at trial," explained Brenda Sanford, chief assistant prosecutor for Sanilac County who argued the county's appeal before the high court in March.

"The principle ruling here is the exclusion of the evidence was not a remedy provided under the statute and was not available to be imposed," added Prosecutor James Young.

"We're looking forward to getting a trial date and proceeding on," Young stated.

"I find it absolutely incredible that a prosecutor can violate every provision of a very specific law and not be held accountable for that," said Earls' defense attorney, David Herrington of Bad Axe. "It's also some type of commentary that the prosecutor appealed the case solely on their prediction of the outcome, which of course they predicted correctly. I completely agree with Justice Kelly's dissent."

On Oct. 3, 2006, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Circuit Judge Donald Teeple's decision to suppress the evidence, which prompted the county's appeal to the Supreme Court. Teeple ruled the prosecutor's office issued approximately 34 investigative subpoenas in violation of the law.

Gadomski's lawyers had also asked the court of appeals to uphold Teeple's ruling, but the request was denied. The same records are part of the prosecution's separate case against Gadmomski. Gadomski is set for circuit court trial June 19.

Both defendants are charged with safe breaking and home invasion. Earls faces additional charges of receiving and concealing stolen money, receiving and concealing firearms, and felony firearms. Gadomski is also charged as a habitual criminal.

Although the prosecutor's office has admitted it routinely circumvents the legal process for acquiring investigative subpoenas, the majority of the Supreme Court justices found, "the Legislature has given no indication in the text of (the state law) that Ôthe drastic remedy of exclusion of evidence was intended for a statutory violation.'"

"I am concerned that, in reversing the Court of Appeals judgement, this Court will appear to condone the practice, inviting prosecutors to disregard a statutory protection essential to the rights of individuals," stated Justice Marilyn Kelly in her dissenting opinion. "I believe it is a serious error to allow the prosecutor to willfully violate the law without penalty."