Claim the prosecution presented perjured testimony; People v. Schrauben; Willful false testimony requirement; In re Contempt of Henry; Mere contradictions in a witness’s testimony; People v. Parker; Credibility determinations; People v. Cameron; People v. Perry; Admission of a witness’s recorded conversations with defendant; MCL 750.539c; Eavesdrop or eavesdropping defined; MCL 750.539a(2); Sullivan v. Gray; Lewis v. LeGrow; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Grant; Failure to investigate; People v. Trakhtenberg; People v. Russell; Failure to be present for defendant’s meeting with law enforcement officials; Failure to raise a futile objection; People v. Thomas

The court concluded that defendant failed to show that the prosecution knowingly presented perjured testimony, and held that a witness (G) did not violate MCL 750.539c when he recorded his conversations with defendant. It also rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Thus, the court affirmed his second-degree arson conviction. He argued that G’s testimony was contradictory because if he had been working for the company that owned the burned property for just two years as of 10/18, then he could not have been employed by that company in 10/15, when he purportedly worked on the burned home after the fire. But G’s testimony was not necessarily contradictory. It was ambiguous whether he was still working for the company “at the time of trial or whether he was referring to a prior two-year period with the company.” Further, his testimony indicated “that two years was an estimation because his initial answer was ‘[a]bout two years.’ Perjury requires willful false testimony.” In addition, the court noted that “mere contradictions in a witness’s testimony are insufficient to establish that a prosecutor knowingly presented perjured testimony.” There was no evidence the prosecution tried to conceal any discrepancies in G’s testimony, and he could have been impeached by defense counsel. As to the admissibility of G’s recorded conversations with defendant, G did not violate MCL 750.539c when he recorded them because G was a participant in the conversations. Finally, defendant did not establish prejudice due to defense counsel’s alleged error in failing to investigate G’s employment records or show that the alleged failure to investigate the company’s owner constituted ineffective assistance. As to counsel’s failure to attend a meeting defendant had with law enforcement, an officer “testified that defendant came into the police station and asked to speak to him. The police officer informed defendant that his attorney should be present when they speak, and defendant responded that his attorney did not need to be there. Defendant also acknowledged that he initialed an advice of rights form[.]” Finally, as to the failure to object to the recordings on the basis they had missing data, he offered no proof that there were other recordings that were favorable to the defense, and in light of the prosecution’s other evidence, he failed to show that the outcome would have changed.