Motion for Relief from Judgment in Michigan vs. Motion for a New Trial — Key Differences Explained

In Michigan post-conviction work, timing is everything. Bring the right motion at the right time, and a judge can reopen a case, reconsider the evidence, or even order a new trial. Bring the wrong one (or the right one too late), and the door can slum shut on opportunities that might never come again. 

Two motions sit at the center of this process. These are the motion for a new trial under Michigan Court Rules (MCR) chapter 6.431 and the motion for relief from judgment under Michigan's 6.500 rules. Though they both aim to correct injustices, they operate under different standards, deadlines, and legal theories. 

And guiding you through this post-conviction terrain is Mark Linton. He's a seasoned Michigan appellate attorney who's built his career on navigating the twists and turns of post-conviction law. Here, he walks you through how each motion works, when each one applies, and what it truly takes to convince a Michigan court to act. 

MCL 770.1 vs. MCR 6.500: The Foundation 

Michigan defendants challenging a conviction after a trial have distinct legal avenues for a second chance. And there are two primary mechanisms. The first is the motion for a new trial, which is generally governed by MCR 6.431 and authorized by Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 770.1. The second is the motion for relief from judgment, which is defined under MCR 6.500 and the sections that follow.

A motion for a new trial is typically filed promptly after conviction, often before or during the direct appeals process. It's used to address errors that occurred during the trial, such as juror misconduct or the discovery of new evidence. 

MCL 770.1 grants the trial judge the authority to order a new trial “when it appears to the court that justice has not been done.” And MCR 6.431 outlines the specific procedures and standards for this request.

In contrast, a motion for relief from judgment (commonly called a 6.500 motion) is part of Michigan's collateral review system. It's generally used much later, after all direct appeals have been exhausted or deadlines for those appeals have passed. 

The rules for relief from judgment found in MCR 6.500 and subsequent sections are stringent. Defendants must typically demonstrate good cause for not having raised the issue earlier, and actual prejudice from the alleged errors to be granted relief. 

Both of these tools can reopen a closed criminal case. However, they operate at different stages of the legal process, serve different purposes, and have unique requirements for success.

The Key Difference: Timing

Timing is everything in post-conviction law. A motion for a new trial under MCL 770.1 is usually filed after conviction or sentencing, and often before the case goes up on appeal. It's ideally your first legal opportunity to ask the same court that handled your trial to reconsider the outcome. 

A motion under MCR 6.500, however, is filed after the appeal process is over. And by that point, the judgment is considered final. The case has likely gone through the Michigan Court of Appeals and maybe even the Michigan Supreme Court. So, the rules for reopening it are stricter, and the court's discretion is more limited.

Essentially, MCL 770.1 gives you a door that's slightly open right after conviction. And MCR 6.500 asks you to knock on a door that's been locked for a while. And you'll need a key that fits precisely.

Grounds for Granting the Motion

When Justice Has Not Been Done (For a New Trial)

Through MCL 770.1, a judge may grant a new trial whenever it appears that “justice has not been done.” That may sound broad, and it is. However, Michigan has refined it through decades of case law. Common grounds include newly discovered evidence that could likely change the outcome, as per MCR 6.431(B).

Juror misconduct that may have affected the verdict, prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel are other common grounds. Errors in jury instructions or violations of constitutional rights during trial are viable grounds, too.

For instance, in the People v. Grissom (2012) case, the Michigan Supreme Court reaffirmed that newly discovered evidence must meet specific criteria. It must be truly new, not cumulative, and likely to produce a different result on retrial. 

Similarly, in the People v. Cress (2003) case, the Court emphasized that new evidence must not simply impeach a witness’s credibility. It has to fundamentally alter the picture of guilt or innocence.

In essence, MCL 770.1 gives trial judges the discretion to fix injustice early, before a case travels up the appellate ladder. 

6.500 Motion as Michigan's Last Resort 

By the time a defendant files a motion under MCR 6.500, they've already gone through trial and appeals. And maybe they've gone through federal habeas review, too. So, the rules are tighter.

MCR 6.508(D) says the court won't grant relief unless the defendant shows two things. The first is “good cause” for not raising the issue earlier. And the second is “actual prejudice” from the alleged errors.

You must explain why the claim wasn't brought up on appeal. Maybe your lawyer failed to raise it, or the evidence wasn't available then. Then, you must demonstrate how it likely affected the outcome.

The Michigan Supreme Court illustrated this in the People v. Reed (1995) case. It held that mere disagreement with the original outcome isn't enough. The defendant must meet both the “good cause” and “actual prejudice” standards. 

In practice, this makes a 6.500 motion a demanding process. However, it's also a lifeline for those who've run out of other options. 

Discretion and the Trial Judge's Role

Under MCL 770.1, the trial judge retains wide discretion to decide whether "justice has not been done.” And the Michigan Court of Appeals generally defers to that judgment unless there's a clear abuse of discretion, as per the People v. Lemmon (1998) case. 

However, the court's discretion under MCR 6.500 is narrower. It goes beyond just what “feels unjust” to whether strict legal standards are met. The motion must be supported by affidavits, court records, or new evidence showing a constitutional error or a miscarriage of justice. 

That's why many Michigan appellate advocates carefully decide which motion to file and when. Filing too late under MCL 770.1 or too early under MCR 6.500 can close doors that might have stayed open with the right strategy.

Can You Use Both Motions?

Sometimes. Let's assume you filed a motion under MCL 770.1 and it was denied, and all appeals have been exhausted. You may later file a motion under MCR 6.500, but not to simply reargue the same issues.

Michigan law, specifically MCR 6.502(G), limits successive motions. So, new grounds or evidence must be presented. This prevents defendants from repeatedly filing motions on the same basis. 

New evidence like DNA results, witness recantation, or proof of police misconduct may emerge years later. And MCR 6.500 can provide a new path for relief even after prior motions failed. 

Why the Motion for Relief from Judgment Michigan Process Is Unique

Michigan’s system stands out because MCL 770.1 combines fairness with flexibility.  It doesn't confine defendants to a rigid list of reasons. Instead, it empowers trial courts to correct injustices in real time, before years of appeals.

Other states often tie new-trial motions to strict procedural grounds. However, Michigan recognizes that justice isn't always neat or predictable. That's why the legislature used open language when they said, “Whenever it appears to the court that justice has not been done.”

This makes MCL 770.1 a human-centered safeguard in Michigan criminal law. A safeguard that complements, and doesn't compete with, the structured 6.500 system.

Why You Need Mark Linton for Both Motions 

Sometimes, all efforts to present your evidence in both motions echo unheard. In such cases, you need an expert at winning case reconsiderations like Mark Linton. 

Mark listens to the silences in transcripts, and fingers the seam between what happened and what was recorded. He then pulls hope for a case reversal, and ultimately success, from that seam. 

He treats missed witnesses, buried records, and procedural blind spots as combustible material for a new, clearer story. Contact Mark Linton today and let him pry the room open and let the truth back in.