Detroit Lions’ Jameson Williams won’t face charges related to gun found in car – here’s why

Detroit – Detroit Lions wide receiver Jameson Williams will not be charged gun found at traffic stopand prosecutors explained why.

What happened

Williams, 23, was in the car with his brother at 1:02 a.m. on Oct. 8, 2024, when the car was pulled over by two Detroit police officers.

Police said the black sedan was traveling over the speed limit, was being driven in an “unsafe manner” and also had an unclear license plate.

Authorities said Williams’ brother was driving the car at the time.

Police pulled the car over and spoke to the two men. The driver, who said there were two guns in the vehicle, handed over his valid Concealed Handgun License and driver’s license.

Officers learned one of the guns belonged to Williams, who was in the passenger seat. Police said the gun was found on the front passenger floorboard and Williams confirmed it was his.

His brother’s gun was found on the rear floorboard behind the driver’s seat.

Williams and his brother told police they were driving unsafely to make sure they weren’t being followed because Williams played for the Lions.

Williams was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, but was later released at the scene when a Detroit police chief arrived.

Police said his brother was given a traffic ticket.

Why won’t Williams be charged?

Wayne County prosecutors reviewed a request for an arrest warrant in this case on October 25, 2024.

They ultimately ruled that Williams would not be charged because he did not physically hold the gun, and his brother, who holds a valid CPL, said he had both guns in the car.

Prosecutors also noted that Williams was eligible for a CPL.

legal reasoning

One of the questions at hand was whether his brother, as the driver of the car, had Williams’ gun and whether it was legal to do so due to his valid CPL.

Prosecutors said they could not find specific case law on whether a person’s CPL could be extended to relieve another person of liability.

Another question was whether legislative intent should guide the impeachment decision.

The statue’s legislative intent is to “purchase, carry, possess, or carry a handgun or a license to purchase a firearm; exportation; qualifications; The purpose of the application, he says, is in part to “establish a standardized system for issuing concealed handgun permits to prevent criminals and other violent individuals from obtaining licenses to carry concealed handguns.”

Prosecutors determined that Williams “qualifies for a license to carry and carry a concealed handgun.” They also stated that there was no reason to believe Williams was “a criminal or dangerous person.”

Ultimately, prosecutors found that there was no other case in which all of these facts applied:

• The driver has a valid CPL.

• The driver gave police information about two guns found in the vehicle.

• The other gun owner admits that the gun belongs to him, but does not say that he put the gun in the car.

• The gun is not physically in the second person’s hand.

• The second person is eligible for CPL.

“Given that case law is silent on this specific issue and that the legislative intent of the CPL statute does not support charges under these facts, no charges will be filed in this matter and the warrant will be denied,” prosecutors concluded.

They also stated that they would not usually reveal someone’s name in such a decision, but did so because Williams had been featured in previous media reports.

Here’s the full statement from Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy:

We examined this case in detail and objectively. In our decision-making process, we did not take into account the fact that Mr. Williams is a professional athlete from Detroit. We have accused Detroit area athletes before, and we would not hesitate to do so again if the facts of this case could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When making charging decisions, we do not take into account who the potential defendant is, how much power and influence he has, or how well-liked he is. We are only interested in facts and laws.

Although no two cases have the same facts, we can look at similar facts if possible to help us make a decision. We really couldn’t recall any cases where there were facts that mirrored this case. Each case is fact-specific. As always, we apply the alleged facts to existing law. The applicable law and the accompanying legislative history are also far from clear.

We had a team of experienced lawyers handling this case – as we often do – especially where the law is unclear or unsettled. We all agreed that this decision was right and fair. And I am personally confident that with these specific and unique facts, the right decision was made.

The CPL holder here was the driver and had care, custody and control of the car. For the future ‘How many weapons can a valid CPL say it has control over?’ Guidance is needed on this subject. Despite all this, if Mr. Williams had had the gun, he would have been charged.

I urge the legislature to immediately take a close look at this law so that prosecutors in Michigan have consistent and meaningful guidance in the future.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy