Again, if you will.
Do you know of any pretrial procedure available under Michigan's Criminal Rules whereby the accused is afforded the right to contest the presence of probable cause authorizing a court to issue an arrest warrant other than in a preliminary hearing examination (M.C.R. 6.110)?
You inquired of the OP as to the status of his "motion of dismissal for lack of evidence" (probable cause) and I assumed you would know what Michigan Rule or Rules the arrestee would have invoked.
Not sure if you are intentionally waltzing me to the rule, testing me, or just playing with me.
but why would I have to provide the rule the OP would apply to present a motion to dismiss? The statement was made tongue in cheek since, more than likely, if the prosecutor filed charges, they do have what they feel is enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution.
beyond that, I was not referring to PC that would support a warrant for arrest as that can be a lesser requirement than that necessary to proceed with a prosecution.
but mcr 6.110 is not merely for PC to issue a warrant (although if such an argument is successful by the defense, it could result in the exclusion of any evidence obtained through the enforcement of the warrant and as such, possibly result of a finding of no evidence to support PC to continue the prosecution). It is also to contest any evidence claimed by the prosecution supporting PC to bring the charges and a time of the defense to contest that evidence in a limited manner. If the state fails to provide adequate evidence to support the prosecution of the charge presented, the court is directed to dismiss the charges.
(E) Probable Cause Finding. If, after considering the evidence, the court determines
that probable cause exists to believe both that an offense not cognizable by the
district court has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the court
must bind the defendant over for trial. If the court finds probable cause to believe
that the defendant has committed an offense cognizable by the district court, it
must proceed thereafter as if the defendant initially had been charged with that
offense.
So I ask of you; why would it be necessary to know the specific title of the rule that would allow such a motion when taunting the OP with:
How is the motion for dismissal based on a lack of evidence working for you?
I knew there was such a process available and spoke with that knowledge, regardless of knowing or not knowing the specific rule/