Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Disentangling Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2): The "New Evidence" Exception To The Ban On Successive Motions For Relief From Judgment Does Not Contain A Discoverability Requirement, Claire V. Madill
Michigan Law Review
Michigan courts are engaging in a costly interpretative mistake. Confused by the relationship between two distinct legal doctrines, Michigan courts are conflating laws in a manner that precludes convicted defendants from raising their constitutional claims in postconviction proceedings. In Michigan, a convicted defendant who wishes to collaterally attack her conviction must file a 6.500 motion. The Michigan Court Rules generally prohibit “second or subsequent” motions. Nonetheless, section 6.502(G)(2) permits a petitioner to avoid this successive motion ban if her claim relies on “new evidence that was not discovered” before her original postconviction motion. Misguided by the similarity between the language …
Appeal And Error - Harmless And Prejudicial Error, Michigan Law Review
Appeal And Error - Harmless And Prejudicial Error, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In the trial of defendant for embezzlement, the prosecutor's opening address to the jury included a hearsay statement, regarding a tacit admission by defendant, tending to establish his guilt. Subsequently in the trial such hearsay statement was not allowed in evidence and the defendant now claims on appeal from conviction that the opening statement was prejudicial and thus he is entitled to a new trial. Held, that the statute governing reversals by an appellate court for prejudicial errors did not apply; and that a new trial follows as a matter of course because of a deprivation of the constitutional …