Blab News
Michigan Appeals Court Overturns Conviction of Joseph Morrison in Whitmer Kidnapping Plot
On June 9, 2026, a three‑judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals struck down the federal conviction of Joseph Morrison, a former Michigan resident who had been charged with conspiracy to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The court’s decision hinged on a finding that the trial judge had given the jury flawed instructions regarding the law on kidnapping and the use of force.
Morrison was one of 13 men arrested in October 2020 after the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it had foiled an alleged domestic‑terror plot to abduct Whitmer and topple the state government. The FBI’s investigation identified a paramilitary group called the Wolverine Watchmen, of which half of the suspects were members. Prosecutors described the plot as a domestic‑terrorism case, charging the defendants with kidnapping conspiracy, conspiracy to possess weapons of mass destruction, and related offenses.
During the original trial, Morrison was found guilty of kidnapping conspiracy and sentenced to prison. He appealed on the grounds that the judge’s jury instructions contained errors that could have misled jurors about the elements of the crime. The appellate court agreed, noting that the instructions failed to explain the statutory definition of kidnapping and the circumstances under which force could be used. In its opinion, the court emphasized that a clear and accurate jury instruction is essential to a fair trial.
The ruling did not address allegations that the FBI used informants or that the plot was fabricated. Those claims have been raised by some defendants and their attorneys, who argue that the FBI planted the plot and that the defendants were entrapped. However, the appellate decision focused solely on the procedural issue of jury instructions and did not comment on the underlying facts of the case.
Following the ruling, the case was remanded to the Jackson County Circuit Court for a new trial. Federal prosecutors have indicated that they intend to retry Morrison, but the new trial will require the district court to provide corrected jury instructions. The decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal prosecutions, particularly in high‑profile terrorism cases.
The Whitmer kidnapping plot remains a significant episode in Michigan’s recent history. The FBI’s announcement in October 2020 led to the arrest of 13 men and the indictment of a fourteenth. While some defendants pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors, others were acquitted or convicted on related charges. The case has drawn scrutiny over the FBI’s use of informants and the extent of federal involvement in domestic security matters.
The Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision is expected to have broader implications for other cases involving alleged domestic terrorism. It highlights the necessity for trial judges to provide precise legal guidance to juries, especially when the charges involve complex statutes and potential civil‑rights concerns.
As of now, Joseph Morrison remains in custody awaiting the new trial. The federal prosecutors have not announced any changes to the charges or sentencing recommendations. The case will continue to be monitored by legal scholars, civil‑rights advocates, and law‑enforcement observers who are interested in the balance between national security and individual rights.
The outcome of the upcoming retrial will likely influence how future domestic‑terrorism cases are prosecuted and how courts handle jury instructions in complex criminal matters. The Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling serves as a reminder that procedural errors can undermine even the most serious criminal convictions.
Morrison was one of 13 men arrested in October 2020 after the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it had foiled an alleged domestic‑terror plot to abduct Whitmer and topple the state government. The FBI’s investigation identified a paramilitary group called the Wolverine Watchmen, of which half of the suspects were members. Prosecutors described the plot as a domestic‑terrorism case, charging the defendants with kidnapping conspiracy, conspiracy to possess weapons of mass destruction, and related offenses.
During the original trial, Morrison was found guilty of kidnapping conspiracy and sentenced to prison. He appealed on the grounds that the judge’s jury instructions contained errors that could have misled jurors about the elements of the crime. The appellate court agreed, noting that the instructions failed to explain the statutory definition of kidnapping and the circumstances under which force could be used. In its opinion, the court emphasized that a clear and accurate jury instruction is essential to a fair trial.
The ruling did not address allegations that the FBI used informants or that the plot was fabricated. Those claims have been raised by some defendants and their attorneys, who argue that the FBI planted the plot and that the defendants were entrapped. However, the appellate decision focused solely on the procedural issue of jury instructions and did not comment on the underlying facts of the case.
Following the ruling, the case was remanded to the Jackson County Circuit Court for a new trial. Federal prosecutors have indicated that they intend to retry Morrison, but the new trial will require the district court to provide corrected jury instructions. The decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal prosecutions, particularly in high‑profile terrorism cases.
The Whitmer kidnapping plot remains a significant episode in Michigan’s recent history. The FBI’s announcement in October 2020 led to the arrest of 13 men and the indictment of a fourteenth. While some defendants pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors, others were acquitted or convicted on related charges. The case has drawn scrutiny over the FBI’s use of informants and the extent of federal involvement in domestic security matters.
The Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision is expected to have broader implications for other cases involving alleged domestic terrorism. It highlights the necessity for trial judges to provide precise legal guidance to juries, especially when the charges involve complex statutes and potential civil‑rights concerns.
As of now, Joseph Morrison remains in custody awaiting the new trial. The federal prosecutors have not announced any changes to the charges or sentencing recommendations. The case will continue to be monitored by legal scholars, civil‑rights advocates, and law‑enforcement observers who are interested in the balance between national security and individual rights.
The outcome of the upcoming retrial will likely influence how future domestic‑terrorism cases are prosecuted and how courts handle jury instructions in complex criminal matters. The Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling serves as a reminder that procedural errors can undermine even the most serious criminal convictions.
