Background
A confidential informant working with the Michigan Intelligence Network Team conducted controlled purchases of methamphetamine and fentanyl in June and July 2022. The informant carried a law-enforcement phone that covertly recorded video and audio. Prosecutors alleged that William August Ketner was the seller in both transactions.
During Ketner’s July 2024 jury trial, defense counsel asked on the day a defense witness was scheduled to appear to let her testify by Zoom because she lacked transportation. The trial court denied the request, citing the late notice and anticipated difficulty presenting exhibits during cross-examination. The jury acquitted Ketner of charges arising from the June transaction but convicted him of delivering methamphetamine, delivering less than 50 grams of fentanyl, and maintaining a drug house based on the July transaction. He received concurrent sentences, including 72 months to 40 years for delivering methamphetamine.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Reviewing Ketner’s unpreserved constitutional claim for plain error, the court held that denying the last-minute request for remote testimony did not violate his right to present a defense. The trial court properly considered the videoconferencing factors in Michigan Court Rule 2.407(C), including lack of notice, the prosecutor’s objection, the need to use exhibits, and the importance of assessing the witness’s credibility. The court emphasized that the witness was not barred from testifying; only the proposed remote method was rejected.
The court also rejected Ketner’s claims that the prosecutor improperly used leading questions. Some challenged questions went unanswered after the trial court sustained objections, while the others either did not suggest a desired answer or permissibly developed and clarified testimony. Because Ketner showed neither prejudicial questioning nor inadmissible evidence, the court also held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to make additional objections.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal defendant’s right to present a defense remains subject to established procedural rules governing remote testimony.
- A same-day videoconferencing request may be denied when the opposing party lacked notice and remote examination would complicate the use of exhibits or credibility assessment.
- Leading or arguably leading questions do not warrant reversal without prejudice or a pattern of eliciting inadmissible testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a witness’s transportation problem does not automatically require a Michigan trial court to permit remote testimony during a jury trial. Counsel seeking videoconference testimony should provide advance notice and address exhibit handling, cross-examination, credibility concerns, and the other factors specified in MCR 2.407(C).
It also reinforces the substantial prejudice showing required to obtain appellate relief based on leading questions or counsel’s failure to object to them.