Motion for a New Trial in Michigan (MCL 770.1) — Your Guide to When It Can Be Used

Trials are supposed to be where truth prevails. But anyone who's sat through one knows that truth can get really tangled. This can happen in rushed testimonies, missed objections, or evidence left in the shadows. Sometimes, the verdict says “Final” but justice feels unfinished. 

And Michigan law leaves room for that uneasy truth. Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 770.1 allows a defendant to ask the court to look at their case again and grant a new trial when fairness demands it. This Michigan law offers a legal remedy born from humility. It's where the justice system acknowledges that it doesn't always get it right the first time. 

And in the sections that follow, Mark Linton, a well-recognized Michigan appeals lawyer, explores the motion for a new trial in detail. He explains how it works, when to use it, and why this motion can change everything when used at the right time. 

What is a Motion for a New Trial in Michigan?

Simply put, a motion for a new trial is a formal request asking the court to set aside your conviction or case's verdict, and hold a new trial. And the authority granting a new trial comes from MCL 770.1. This law states:

“The judge of a court in which the trial of an offense is held may grant a new trial to the defendant, for any cause for which by law a new trial may be granted, or when it appears to the court that justice has not been done…”

That simple but powerful phrase, “when justice has not been done,” is the heart of Michigan's post-trial remedy. However, it's worth noting that a trial judge acts more as a gatekeeper than a thirteenth juror. They review the evidence again. And they also see if any mistakes or new information affect confidence in the verdict.

The procedure for filing and arguing a motion for a new trial in a Michigan criminal case is governed by Michigan Court Rules (MCR) 6.431. This rule outlines the process and standards for seeking post-conviction relief at the trial court level. 

Filing an MCL 770.1 motion helps preserve your appellate rights. Michigan follows a strict “raise or waive rule, especially in civil cases, but generally applies in criminal cases too. And you preserve an issue for appellate review by raising it in the trial court. 

Failure to timely raise an issue generally waives review of that issue on appeal. This motion also gives the trial court a chance to fix the error, or at least acknowledge it, before your appeal proceeds.

MCL 770.1 motions aren't granted that often, only a small percentage of cases. This is because the legal standard is intentionally high and the system values finality of judgments. So, a trial judge must be convinced that something went seriously wrong before ordering a do-over. 

Difference Between MCL 770.1 Motions and MCR 6.500 Motions

MCR 6.500 motions, also called motions for relief from judgment, are motions that allow you to challenge the given verdict. And at first glance, MCR 6.500 and MCL 770.1 both seem to offer the same thing. They both give a second chance to challenge a conviction. 

But in Michigan law, these two motions serve very different purposes. They apply at different times and carry very different standards. 6.500 motions come after all direct appeal options have been exhausted. This includes appeals from the Michigan Court of Appeals and possibly the Supreme Court. 

Additionally, 6.500 motions come with a higher bar for post-conviction motions. The defendant must show good cause for failing to raise the issue earlier and actual prejudice resulting from the error. This was emphasized by the People v. Swain (2010) case ruling. 

And while MCL 770.1 is a statutory provision made by the legislature, MCR 6.500 - 6.508 is purely a court rule created by the Michigan Supreme Court. The choice between MCL 770 and MCR 6.500 can determine whether the court will even hear your argument at all. 

Filing the wrong motion at the wrong time can lead to dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. That's why it's important to work with a Michigan appellate attorney. They understand the timing, substance, and the strategic interplay between these rules.

How MCR 6.431 Dictates the Rules for a Michigan Motion for a New Trial 

MCR 6.431 addresses the filing deadlines of the motion (within 60 days after the entry of the judgment) and the exceptions. It also defines the substantive grounds for the motion. Moreover, it outlines the court's process for deciding the motion. 

Motions based on newly discovered evidence aren't subject to a specific time limit within MCR 6.431 itself. However, you must file and pursue “promptly” upon discovering new evidence. And they typically require a showing of good cause for the delay if raised a long time after the original conviction.

Together with MCL 770.1, these provisions form the backbone of Michigan's post-conviction fairness doctrine. And they provide a mechanism for the trial court to remedy errors and prevent unjust outcomes.

Grounds for a Motion for a New Trial 

One of the most common grounds is newly discovered evidence. The ruling on the People v. Cress (2003) said that to get a new trial using new evidence, you (the defendant) must show four things. 

The first is that the evidence itself was newly discovered. Secondly, the evidence isn't merely cumulative. Thirdly, the evidence would likely produce a different result on retrial. And finally, you couldn't have discovered the evidence and produced it at trial with reasonable diligence. 

Ineffective assistance of counsel is another good ground. And the People v. Ginther (1973) case recognized it. This case's ruling held that a defendant may request a Ginther hearing through a motion for a new trial. This is to establish that the trial counsel's performance deprived them of a fair trial. 

The third ground is prosecutorial misconduct. A new trial may be warranted if the prosecution engaged in improper argument or suppressed evidence favorable to the defense. This is supported by the Brady v. Maryland (1963) case, which was applied in Michigan through the People v. Chenault (2014) case.

Jury misconduct or improper influence is yet another favorable ground. The court may grant a new trial if juror bias, improper communications, or misconduct affected the trial. This is in accordance with the People v. Budzyn (1997) case. 

You can also succeed with a motion for a new trial in Michigan if there are erroneous evidentiary or procedural rulings. This works when the trial judge made rulings that substantially prejudiced the defense and affected the outcome, as per the People v. Lukity (1999) case.

When Can You File a Motion for a New Trial in Michigan?

Under Michigan law, you may file a motion for a new trial after your conviction but before you file an appeal. This is because the trial court generally loses jurisdiction once an appeal is underway. Unless the court remands the case for further proceedings. 

According to MCR 6.431(A), a motion for a new trial may be filed before or after filing a claim of appeal. However, the timing significantly impacts which court has authority over the case. 

If you file a motion before the claim of appeal, the trial court generally has full authority to hear and decide the motion. But if a claim of appeal is already pending in the Michigan Court of Appeals, the trial court has limited power. 

You must typically request a remand from the Court of Appeals to have the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing or rule on the motion for a new trial. And this should follow the procedures outlined in MCR 7.208(B).

Courts may consider motions with newly discovered evidence even after the standard filing periods. This holds if the evidence genuinely couldn't have been found earlier with due diligence. However, such motions must be filed promptly upon the discovery of the evidence.

When justice leaves your story hanging mid-sentence, Mark Linton, a well-refined Michigan appellate advocate, finds words the court missed. And through a motion for a new trial, he helps your case speak clearly, completely, and finally. Contact Mark Linton today to make the court confront what it chose to overlook.