A Michigan appellate court panel has shattered the state's highest-profile domestic terrorism conviction by ruling that kidnapping is no longer a violent crime under state law.
Joseph Morrison, a key figure in the 2020 plot to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, saw all three of his convictions vacated after judges identified a fatal flaw in the legal framework used to prosecute him. The decision upends years of aggressive anti-terrorism law enforcement, revealing how a subtle legislative change made two decades ago can paralyze a modern prosecution. Learn more on a similar subject: this related article.
The reversal centers on an obscure 2006 rewrite of Michigan's penal code. When lawmakers stripped force-related phrasing from the kidnapping statute to broaden the law, they inadvertently uncoupled the crime from the legal definition of a violent felony. This structural mismatch means that any conviction built upon kidnapping as an underlying act of violence rests on a foundation of sand.
The 2006 Legislative Trap
The state’s case against Morrison, the co-founder of the Wolverine Watchmen militia, hinged on proving he provided material support for an act of terrorism. To secure a conviction under that specific statute, prosecutors had to demonstrate that the underlying crime intended by the group was a violent felony. The trial court instructed the jury that kidnapping met this threshold. Further analysis by The Washington Post delves into similar views on the subject.
The appellate court disagreed. In a unanimous ruling issued just forty-eight hours after oral arguments, the panel pointed out that the current statute allows a person to be convicted of kidnapping for confinement or asportation without the use of physical force. Because the crime can technically be committed through deception or non-violent means, it can no longer be used as an automatic proxy for violence in a terrorism prosecution.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel reacted with fury, calling the decision an irresponsible display of linguistic gymnastics that whitewashes a dangerous plot. Her anger highlights a hard truth. The justice system measures guilt by the precise boundaries of statutory language, not the self-evident danger of an extremist conspiracy.
How a Tainted Verdict Form Ruined the Case
The collapse of the state’s victory reveals an equally critical failure in trial strategy. During the original trial, prosecutors presented the jury with multiple options to satisfy the violent felony requirement, listing kidnapping alongside other potential offenses.
The error occurred on the final verdict sheet. Instead of requiring the jury to specify exactly which underlying felony they relied upon to find Morrison guilty of supporting terrorism, the form simply asked for a general guilty or not guilty verdict.
[ Trial Jury Instructions ]
│
├─► Option A: Kidnapping (Legally invalid as a "violent felony")
├─► Option B: Alternative Violent Felonies
│
[ General Verdict Form ] ──► Total Verdict: GUILTY (Tainted by ambiguity)
This ambiguity left the appellate court with no choice. Because it is impossible to determine whether the jury based its conviction on the legally flawed kidnapping theory or a valid alternative, the entire verdict is tainted. The error nullified Morrison's original sentence of four to twenty years in prison, along with his convictions for gang membership and felony firearm possession.
The Limits of Entrapment and the Reality of a Retrial
Morrison's defense previously attempted to tank the prosecution by alleging extreme FBI entrapment, pointing to the twelve confidential informants and undercover agents woven into the militia's ranks. While that narrative won acquittals for several co-defendants in separate trials, the appellate court did not rescue Morrison based on government overreach. It rescued him on basic legal mechanics.
The state is not completely locked out from seeking justice. Prosecutors retain the right to put Morrison on trial again, but the ground rules have shifted dramatically. In any future proceeding, the state is barred from uttering the word kidnapping to establish the necessary element of a violent felony. They must construct a narrative completely insulated from the statutory flaw that tanked their first victory.
This ruling exposes the fragility of using broad anti-terrorism statutes against domestic groups. When the state relies on complex, multi-layered criminal frameworks to secure a conviction, a single loose thread in a decades-old statute can cause the entire case to unravel.
The state's top law enforcement officers now face a difficult choice. They can appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court to challenge the definition of violence, or they can return to a local courtroom to rebuild a high-stakes prosecution from scratch.
