People v. Swain

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Swain

869 N.W.2d 618, 498 Mich. 890, 2015 Mich. LEXIS 2198, 2015 WL 5772061

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 30, 2015

Docket150994; Court of Appeals 314564

StatusPublished

This text of 869 N.W.2d 618 (People v. Swain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Swain, 869 N.W.2d 618, 498 Mich. 890, 2015 Mich. LEXIS 2198, 2015 WL 5772061 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the test set forth in People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 (2003), for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered *891 evidence applies in determining whether a second or subsequent motion for relief from judgment is based on “a claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first such motion” -under MCR 6.502(G)(2); (2) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial premised on the prosecution’s violation of the rule set forth in Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83; 83 S Ct 1194; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963); (3) by what standard(s) Michigan courts consider a defendant’s assertion that the evidence demonstrates a significant possibility of actual innocence in the context of a motion brought pursuant to MCR 6.502(G), and whether the defendant in this case qualifies under that standard; (4) whether the Michigan Court Rules, MCR 6.500, et seq. or another provision, provide a basis for relief where a defendant demonstrates a significant possibility of actual innocence; (5) whether, if MCR 6.502(G) does bar relief, there is an independent basis on which a defendant who demonstrates a significant possibility of actual innocence may nonetheless seek relief under the United States or Michigan Constitutions; and (6) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial pursuant to MCL 770.1.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

MCCORMACK, J., did not participate because of her prior involvement in this case as counsel for a party.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the test set forth in People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 (2003), for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered *891 evidence applies in determining whether a second or subsequent motion for relief from judgment is based on “a claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first such motion” -under MCR 6.502(G)(2); (2) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial premised on the prosecution’s violation of the rule set forth in Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83; 83 S Ct 1194; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963); (3) by what standard(s) Michigan courts consider a defendant’s assertion that the evidence demonstrates a significant possibility of actual innocence in the context of a motion brought pursuant to MCR 6.502(G), and whether the defendant in this case qualifies under that standard; (4) whether the Michigan Court Rules, MCR 6.500, et seq. or another provision, provide a basis for relief where a defendant demonstrates a significant possibility of actual innocence; (5) whether, if MCR 6.502(G) does bar relief, there is an independent basis on which a defendant who demonstrates a significant possibility of actual innocence may nonetheless seek relief under the United States or Michigan Constitutions; and (6) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial pursuant to MCL 770.1.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

MCCORMACK, J., did not participate because of her prior involvement in this case as counsel for a party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 N.W.2d 618, 498 Mich. 890, 2015 Mich. LEXIS 2198, 2015 WL 5772061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swain-mich-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack