## Facts

- Leizer Meister and William Meister were charged with burning insured premises with intent to defraud insurance companies.
- The prosecution theory was that Rosa Meister (wife) and Bertha Meister (William’s sister), who occupied the premises, physically set the fire while Leizer and William were absent.
- The state alleged Leizer and William procured the burning, rather than personally committing it at the scene.
- Insurance companies with potential financial exposure retained private attorneys to assist the public prosecutor in trying the case.
- Defendants objected to the participation of privately retained counsel and argued the charging document did not support conviction on a theory that they were absent procurers.
- The trial court permitted private counsel to participate, the jury convicted, and defendants sought review by writ of error.

## Issues

1. Whether privately retained counsel employed by interested insurers may participate in a criminal prosecution, and what limits apply to ensure the prosecution remains a public proceeding.
2. Whether defendants may be convicted under an information that, as framed, implies their presence at the burning when the proofs showed the fire was set by others in defendants’ absence at their procurement.

## Decision

- The convictions were reversed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial ordered.
- The court held that private counsel may assist in the prosecution if the prosecuting attorney retains direction, control, and responsibility.
- The court held defendants could not be convicted under the information as drawn unless they were present at the burning; trying the case on an absent-procurement theory created a fatal variance between charge and proof.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal prosecutions must remain under the authority and responsibility of the public prosecuting officer; private counsel may assist only in subordination to the public prosecutor’s control.
- Participation by privately retained counsel is not improper per se, even if paid by an interested party, so long as the public prosecutor remains the real actor in charge of the case.
- A defendant cannot be convicted on a theory materially different from what the information necessarily charges; a material variance between the mode of participation charged (present principal) and the proof (absent procurer) requires reversal.
- When the information’s framing necessarily implies the defendant’s presence at the criminal act, proof that the defendant merely procured others to act in the defendant’s absence will not sustain a conviction under that information.

## Conclusion

The court permitted insurer-paid private counsel to assist only under the prosecuting attorney’s control, but reversed because the information, construed to require defendants’ presence at the burning, could not support conviction on proofs that others set the fire while defendants were absent and only alleged to have procured it.


Meister v. People, 31 Mich. 99 (Mich. 1875)