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 …
An Eclectic Approach To Impeachment By Prior Convictions, Lawrence A. Margolis
An Eclectic Approach To Impeachment By Prior Convictions, Lawrence A. Margolis
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Almost every state permits persons convicted of a crime to testify in either their own or another person's behalf. Nonetheless, these states allow evidence of a person's prior criminal conviction to be used to impeach his credibility. The use of this method of impeachment in criminal trials has been the subject of substantial adverse criticism; yet, the practice remains widespread. This article first will discuss the problems that arise from the use of prior conviction evidence for impeachment purposes in criminal trials and then will examine several proposals that would restrict the use of such evidence. Finally, the article will …