Kershaw, Vititoe & Jedinak, PLC

04/30/2026

04/01/2026

Our latest blog post reviews that the recent opinion in Chiles v Salazar, in which SCOTUS held that talk-based "conversion therapy" is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Chiles presents an interesting discussion about the role of state government in regulating professional licensing when the professional conduct at issue consists primarily, or solely, of spoken words between a professional and a client. The majority concluded, at least under the circumstances of the...

03/24/2026

KVJ Law is expanding to serve clients in the Lansing area.

Announcing Our New Lansing, MI Office Kershaw, Vititoe & Jedinak, PLC Expands to Serve Mid-Michigan We are excited to announce the opening of our newest office in Lansing, MI! Kershaw, Vititoe & Jedinak, PLC provides exceptional legal services throughout Michigan, and our expansion into Lansing allo...

10/31/2025

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

10/30/2024

Duress and Drunk Driving

On October 30, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion on behalf of one our clients, granting him a new trial. In People v Espino, (COA Docket No. 363814), our client, Mr. Espino had been convicted of drunk driving causing death and other related offenses.

While evading four people who were trying to assault him, Mr. Espino got into his vehicle and drove away. One of his would-be assailants jumped onto his truck and Mr. Espino was driving away and was killed when the truck ran into a utility pole. During his trial, Mr. Espino’s trial lawyer conceded that Mr. Espino has an unlawful alcohol level, that he was illegally driving, and that someone was killed by a collision involving that vehicle. However, the trial lawyer argued that the deceased had caused his own death by jumping onto the vehicle and attempting to control it. The jury did not buy this argument and convicted Mr. Espino on all counts except one.

On appeal, we argued that the trial lawyer should have informed the jury about the duress defense. A person accused of a crime is entitled to raise a duress defense if they are faced with threatening conduct that causes them to fear death or great bodily harm, and they commit a criminal act to avoid the harm. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the trial lawyer was ineffective because he had failed to ask the judge to tell the jury about duress. As a result of this error, the Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Espino’s conviction and ordered that he be provided with a new trial.

In Michigan, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a BAC above 0.08 percent. However, as the Court of Appeals pointed out in Espino, in rare circumstances drunk driving may be justified if necessary to avoid an imminent threat of serious harm or death.

Of course, you should never plan to drive while under the influence or to commit any other criminal offense. And, even under duress, you should take all reasonable steps to avoid committing a crime. But, if you find yourself charged with a crime after trying to escape or evade a serious threat, it is important that you find a lawyer who understands the duress defense in Michigan.

If you are faced with any criminal charges, or even if you have been convicted of a crime, you need an attorney who will fight for you. Please contact Kershaw, Vititoe & Jedinak, PLC to schedule a consultation to discuss your rights and options.

08/13/2024

This video parodies real life. Sometimes people fail to realize how ineffective their actions are. They just keep doing what they’ve always done. If your actions aren’t working, try a different approach.

06/13/2024

Today, I attended sentencing with a client in two separate felony cases for which the client accepted full responsibility. The client had retained us after their previous attorney had negotiated a sentence of at least 36 months in prison for only one of the two cases, leaving the other unresolved. After extensive investigation and advocacy, we were able to negotiate a plea agreement in both cases that significantly reduced the client's sentencing guidelines.

Today, he was sentenced to 270 days (9 months) in jail in both cases (running concurrently). Because it is a jail sentence rather than a prison sentence, he will be eligible for good time and other credits that he would not have received in prison. So, instead of a MINIMUM of 36 months in prison (with the potential for an additional sentence on the unresolved case), the client will serve a MAXIMUM of 9 months in the county jail, which resolves both cases.

When you are faced with a felony charge, it really does matter who you have in your corner.

11/08/2023

Sometimes, the worst consequence of a conviction is not jail or prison, but long-term employment consequences. We recently had an appeals' client who was facing this situation after the State of Michigan revoked their eligibility to work in their chosen profession. We were able to withdraw the plea and renegotiate with the prosecutor to have the client's work eligibility reinstated. Today the client sent me this letter that they had recently received:

07/01/2023

https://www.monroecountylawyers.com/blog/2023/07/understanding-michigans-new-handsfree-law/

On June 30, 2023, a new law went into effect in Michigan, which makes it illegal to use a handheld phone or other mobile electronic device while driving. This article will explain what is prohibited under this new law and the potential consequences for a violation. What is prohibited by the new law?...

02/15/2023

A little Pledge of Allegiance remix for Chelsea and some stuff shes going through at school ❤️.