Late last month, a motion was made by Eric Smith’s attorney to adjourn the federal sentencing. Smith is pictured in the far right at a December court appearance in Macomb County’s 41-B District Court in Clinton Township.

Late last month, a motion was made by Eric Smith’s attorney to adjourn the federal sentencing. Smith is pictured in the far right at a December court appearance in Macomb County’s 41-B District Court in Clinton Township.

File photo by Alex Szwarc


Attorneys for former prosecutor again seek sentencing adjournment

By: Alex Szwarc | C&G Newspapers | Published January 10, 2022

Advertisement

MACOMB COUNTY —Lawyers for Eric Smith argue that his federal sentencing should be moved to next month.

On Dec. 28, a motion was made by Smith’s attorney, John Dakmak, to adjourn the sentencing. In this federal case, the ex-Macomb County prosecutor pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice.

In November, Smith’s sentencing was reset for Jan. 13 before U.S. District Judge Linda Parker.

Dakmak cited in his motion that Smith has an ongoing case in Macomb County’s 41-B District Court. The next hearing there is scheduled for Jan. 21. Final arguments and the conclusion of the preliminary examination are set for Feb. 4 in the 41-B case.

“The dilemma precipitating the filing of the first motion to adjourn the sentencing unfortunately continues,” according to Dakmak.

In November, a similar motion was made to adjourn Smith’s federal sentencing, a move that was granted by the court.

“Without an adjournment of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Smith and his counsel will again be forced to choose between dedicating their attention to either the sentencing hearing or the continuation of the preliminary examination,” Dakmak argued.

He requested the sentencing be moved no sooner than Feb. 18.

On Jan. 3, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Moran responded to the motion, citing that in the motion, Smith fails to establish why the additional time the court has previously granted him is insufficient, particularly because his preliminary examination has been adjourned.

The government asked the court to deny the motion to adjourn.

Dakmak’s Jan. 4 reply to the government included that there remains a reasonable option to this “dilemma.”

He noted that the adjournment would ensure that Smith can not only properly defend himself in the state case, but it would also allow him to meaningfully participate in his sentencing hearing before the federal court.

On Jan. 5, the federal court ruled that the sentencing would be rescheduled for Jan. 31. The ruling states that Smith’s motion to adjourn is denied.

Advertisement