Legal memorandum defending Sam Witwicky against concealed weapon charge

Legal Memo

MARSHAL MATHERS

IN RE: Mr. Sam Witwicky (Our Client) -- Criminal Concealed Weapon Charge

The firm's new client, Sam Witwicky, has retained this firm for legal representation in a criminal matter. Mr. Witwicky was arrested on his front lawn for carrying a concealed weapon. The police know Mr. Witwicky from a previous instance in which they were called to the residence of the client. Mr. Witwicky has retained this law firm in his defense against these charges which have not yet been filed although it is the understanding of the firm that the District Attorney does intend to proceed with filing charges against the client.

CLIENT CHARGED WITH FELONY CRIMINAL CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON IN DETRIOT, MICHIGAN

RULE

The Michigan Penal Code Act 238 of 1931 750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty Section 227 states as follows:

"(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person. (2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license. (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00." ( 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931; -- CL 1948, 750.227; -- Am. 1973, Act 206, Eff. Mar. 29, 1974; -- Am. 1986, Act 8, Eff. July 1, 1986)

EXPLANATION

Mr. Witwicky was in his own yard mowing the yard and indicated to the officers that he was clearing out brush in the back yard. The neighbor of Mr. Witwicky stated in her statement to the police that she had seen Mr. Witwicky mowing his lawn. She did not state that she has witnessed him at any other location that day with the hatchet.

ANALYSIS

If the research finds that Mr. Witwicky never left his property then this firm will file a motion that the case be dismissed for lack of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The client, if found to have never left his property on the day of his arrest is not guilty of this charge and it should be dismissed.

III. HATCHET NOT A DANGEROUS WEAPON

RULE

Michigan Penal Code Act 238 of 1931 750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty Section 227

EXPLANATION

This rule of law states that the person shall not carry "a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person."

ANALYSIS

The machete which Mr. Witwicky was carrying in a shoulder holster on his side was not a double edged instrument but had just the one single edge. Furthermore, the machete was not the type of instrument described in the rule of law stated above as it was not a stabbing instrument although it could be considered an adapted hunting knife.

CONCLUSION

Because the hatchet does not constitute a 'dangerous weapon' within the scope of applied meaning in this rule of law the charge against the client should be dismissed.

IV. CLIENT WAS NOT CONCEALING THE HATCHETT

RULE

Michigan Penal Code Act 238 of 1931 750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty Section 227

EXPLANATION

The rule of law stated above requires that the person be carrying the instrument in a 'concealed' manner.

ANALYSIS

Statements given by both the arresting officers and the client's neighbor show that the hatchet was not concealed but in fact that they had seen the hatchet on the side of the client.

CONCLUSION

Because the hatchet was not concealed this charge should be dismissed.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The client was charged with carrying a concealed weapon in Detroit, Michigan pursuant to Michigan Penal Code Act 238 of 1931 750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty Section 227. The initial facts in this case indicate that the client was not carrying a concealed weapon, was in fact, not carrying a dangerous weapon at all but instead was carrying a yard tool that was not concealed and that the client never left his property the day of the incident which led to his arrest. Research must ensue to support the initial factual findings so this firm can prepare for the defense of this client if charged.