Good Cause MCR 6.508(D)(3) What Michigan Courts Really Mean

When seeking post-conviction relief in Michigan, you encounter many barriers. And one of the most critical barriers to success is the requirement to show good cause for not raising an issue earlier. This standard is found in Michigan Court Rules (MCR) 6.508(D)(3), often referred to as the good cause MCR 6.508(D)(3) requirement. It governs virtually every petition for relief from judgment in a criminal case. 

And if you plan to file an appeal, seek post-conviction relief or respond to an order, you should understand this standard. This article was written by a Michigan appellate attorney. He has spent decades dismantling bad convictions and navigating the tight corners of post-conviction procedure. 

And he knows the good cause standard better than most trial lawyers know their own case files. He understands exactly how judges read good cause, how they feel it, and where the real leverage points are. And in this article, he breaks down what good cause really means under Michigan law. 

He also explains how Michigan courts analyze it, and what the most important cases say about it. Above all, he also demonstrates how you can make a persuasive showing of good cause when it matters most.

Where the Good Cause MCR 6.508(D)(3) Standard Appears in Michigan Law

The starting point is the Michigan Court Rules governing post-conviction relief, specifically under MCR 6.508(D). It states that a defendant carries the burden of establishing entitlement to relief. And a court may not grant relief if the motion:

-Seeks to overturn a judgment that's still on direct appeal review 

-Presents arguments already decided against the defendant in a prior appellate ruling

-Brings claims that should have been raised previously, unless the defendant shows good cause and actual prejudice

Of these three, the last is the most frequent hurdle for defendants. This is because it applies to any new claims raised after the initial appeal is over. 

Here, the defendant must demonstrate two things. The first is good cause for not raising the issue on direct appeal or in earlier proceedings. And the second is actual prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional or procedural error.

What Good Cause Is and Isn't 

At first glance, good cause sounds straightforward. You simply explain why the issue wasn't raised earlier. But Michigan courts have made it clear that three reasons aren't enough justification. These include mere disagreement with the trial counsel, ignorance of the law, and strategic hindsight.

The seminal case defining good cause is People v. Reed (1995). Here, the Michigan Supreme Court established that good cause requires a showing of some external factor. This external factor should be what prevented the defendant's counsel from previously raising the issue. Alternatively, the defendant should show they had ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Practically speaking, the courts look for objective impediments that actually prevented earlier presentation. And this doesn't include a defendant wishing they'd raised the issue earlier.

Common Acceptable Examples of Good Cause

Michigan courts have found good cause when newly discovered evidence exists that couldn't have been discovered earlier with due diligence. The People v. Cress (2003) case held that recognizing newly discovered evidence may provide good cause in appropriate circumstances.

Another good cause is a significant change in the law that occurred after a direct appeal, and the new rule is retroactive. And the People v. Barnes (2018) case explains retroactivity standards well.

Additionally, a defendant can show good cause by demonstrating they did not have competent counsel earlier. And that failure prevented a timely raising of the issue.  But even here, the showing must be stronger than simple attorney error. The Reed case 

explained that attorney error does not automatically establish good cause.

MCR 6.508(D) also includes a safety valve. If you (the defendant) can show a significant possibility of actual innocence, the court may waive the good cause requirement entirely. 

Examples That Courts Reject as Good Cause 

Lack of awareness of the issue or the law does not qualify as good cause. Simply not knowing you could raise a claim isn't enough justification.

The same case applies to merely disagreeing with counsel's performance. While an advocate’s error can sometimes contribute to good cause, not all errors qualify. And this is especially the case if the errors amount only to a bad strategy or routine oversight.

How Michigan Courts Analyze Good Cause

Step 1. Identifying Why the Issue Wasn't Previously Raised

The first question Michigan appellate judges ask is, “Why wasn't this raised on direct appeal or before?” And defendants must present a reason that is legitimate and connected to circumstances beyond their control.

Here, you're essentially showing the court the objective barrier that stopped the issue from being brought up before. This could be hidden or unavailable evidence.

Step 2. Evaluating Whether the Reason Meets the Legal Standard

Once you give the reason, the court decides whether it counts as good cause under the existing case law. And some of the questions they ask in this step include:

-Is the reason legitimate under precedent?

-Is it unduly speculative?

-Does it rely solely on ignorance, hindsight, or strategy?

And this is where courts spend most of their time, applying judicially developed standards.

Step 3. Deciding Whether Actual Prejudice Exists

Even if judges find good cause, the petition still fails unless you show actual prejudice. This means the alleged error undermines confidence in the outcome. Actual prejudice is a separate inquiry under MCR 6.508(D)(3). And it typically requires showing two things.

The first is a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the Michigan Constitution. And the second is demonstrating that the error has a “reasonably likely chance of acquittal” as per the Reed case.

Hidden or Withheld Evidence: When State Action Creates Good Cause

Suppressed or unavailable evidence is one of the most common legitimate bases for good cause. And it's mentioned in Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 767.94a and MCR 6.201(B). These emphasize that prosecutors must disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence, police reports, witness statements, and lab results. 

Failure to comply may create an external barrier preventing timely filing. And missing reports or witness information despite diligent efforts may satisfy good cause. The People v. Johnson (2018) case held that suppressed Brady-type evidence can justify both good cause and actual prejudice if material and available.

However, this option comes with strict boundaries. Instances do not satisfy good cause:

-If the evidence could have been discovered earlier with reasonable investigation

-If the evidence was available, but the counsel failed to check

-If there were delays after discovering the evidence 

To succeed, withheld evidence must be both unavailable and undiscoverable at the time of direct review.

How to Prove Good Cause with Evidence and Win

Create a Clear Timeline

Write down exactly when you discovered the issue or evidence. Note the dates of the trial, direct appeal, and any prior motions. Also, include the dates of when you attempted to get evidence or information, and when you actually received it. Courts want to see that you acted quickly once you discovered the issue.

Collect Documentation of External Barriers 

Gather letters, emails, FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) responses, or official denials showing you couldn't access evidence earlier. And add records of prison transfers, restricted access to legal materials or unavailable files. Also, make copies of anything showing that the barrier was out of your control. Even small details matter because courts look for objective proof. 

Get Affidavits

Ask witnesses, prior attorneys, investigators, or record custodians to provide sworn statements. These statements should explain what prevented the issue from being raised. And ensure the affidavit clearly connects the barrier to the failure to raise the issue. 

Show Your Diligence 

Write a summary of everything you did to find the evidence or investigate the claim. Include calls, emails, letters, or formal requests. And highlight any steps that were prompt and reasonable. At its core, the good cause MCR 6.508(D)(3) standard is not about excuses, but about proving a real, external barrier that prevented earlier action.

Clearly Explain the Link Between the Barrier And the Issue

Always avoid vague statements because courts need to see a direct, logical connection. For example, you can say, “The police report was not disclosed until November 2025. And my prior counsel did not have access, so I could not raise the claim on direct appeal.”

Every day you wait, your case gets colder, and the courts get tougher. You get one shot to make good cause stick. Contact Mark Linton today. He's the most strategic Michigan appellate attorney who weaponizes your good-cause argument and makes it land.