What counts as newly discovered evidence in a Michigan appeal?

Newly discovered evidence in a Michigan appeal is evidence that was not known at the time of trial and could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence. Courts also require the evidence to be materially new and likely to affect the outcome of the case.

Why do Michigan courts deny appeals based on newly discovered evidence?

Michigan courts often deny these appeals when the new evidence is considered cumulative, meaning it merely reinforces testimony or arguments already presented at trial. Courts also examine credibility, corroboration, and whether the evidence makes a different result probable.

What is the difference between cumulative evidence and materially new evidence?

Cumulative evidence repeats or strengthens existing proof without changing the evidentiary picture. Materially new evidence alters the framework of the case by undermining a key witness, introducing a new fact tied to a central issue, or providing independent corroboration not previously available.

Can a new witness or recantation qualify as newly discovered evidence in Michigan?

In some cases, yes. Michigan courts treat new witnesses and recantations cautiously and focus on credibility and corroboration. Unsupported or unreliable testimony is often rejected as cumulative or insufficient to justify relief.

What makes newly discovered evidence strong enough to succeed on a Michigan appeal?

Strong claims demonstrate that the evidence is materially new, tied to a central issue such as identity or intent, supported by reliable corroboration, and likely to change the outcome if the case were retried. Courts also require a clear explanation of why the evidence could not have been discovered earlier.

Why Newly Discovered Evidence Often Fails in Michigan Appeals — Even When It Proves Innocence

Mark Linton
Feb 18
6 min read

Updated: 1 hour ago

Theodore Levin United States Courthouse in Detroit, where Michigan appeals involving newly discovered evidence are litigated

In Michigan, you'd think clear, powerful evidence of innocence would snap justice back into place. But newly discovered evidence in Michigan appeals is governed by strict procedural and evidentiary standards that often prevent even strong innocence claims from succeeding.

We're not talking about minor discrepancies. This can include a confession by the real perpetrator, new DNA results exonerating you, or proof of a coerced or fabricated confession.

With such evidence, it's naturally expected for you to be freed. After all, isn't justice about convicting the guilty and releasing the innocent? Yet, even compelling evidence of innocence will often not overturn a wrongful conviction in Michigan. This is especially the case when the evidence is raised after a trial. And this isn’t because Michigan judges doubt the seriousness of innocent claims.

Why Newly Discovered Evidence in Michigan Appeals Is So Hard to Win

Rather, it's because Michigan law imposes strict procedural thresholds, evidentiary rules, and case law standards. And these govern when new evidence may legally affect a conviction. Understanding why strong evidence sometimes falls requires deeply understanding Michigan system rules. It also requires you to understand how appellate courts apply binding precedent.

Mark Linton, a top-ranking Michigan appeals lawyer, gives a detailed explanation of why this happens. And he also explains why the evidence’s strength is only one piece of a far more complex legal analysis.

Michigan Appeals Aren't Designed to Re-Evaluate Guilt — Even With Newly Discovered Evidence

One of the most important principles in Michigan appellate practice is that appeals don't serve as second trials. Michigan Court Rules (MCR) 7.210(A)(1) states that appellate review is based only on the trial court's original record.

And this restriction prevents appellate judges from considering evidence that wasn't part of the record. This is despite its probative value.

Michigan courts have repeated this principle for decades, including in cases like the People v. Shively (1998) case. Here, the Court of Appeals rejected attempts to add new additional materials on appeal. These materials weren't in the lower court's record.

For many defendants, this is the first rule that creates a barrier. Strong evidence of innocence discovered after a conviction simply can't be raised on direct appeal.

The Motion to Remand: A Narrow Path for Newly Discovered Evidence

However, MCR 7.211(C)(1) allows a defendant to file a motion to remand to the trial court. You can file while the direct appeal is still happening. This is to add new evidence to the record.

If the motion is granted, the case will be sent back to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. You can only start pursuing a separate, post-conviction process after you finish the direct appeal.

The Post-Conviction Path for Newly Discovered Evidence in a Michigan Appeal

As mentioned earlier, direct appeals can't consider new evidence. The proper avenue for this is a Motion for Relief from Judgment, under MCR 6.500. However, there are two hurdles you face when pursuing this motion.

The One Motion Rule

The first hurdle is the “One Motion Rule" under MCR 6.503(G). Michigan generally allows only one motion for relief from judgment. And subsequent motions are prohibited unless when based on a retroactive change in the law or newly discovered evidence.

Courts apply this rule strictly. And this was reaffirmed in the People v. Swain (2010) case. Here, the court barred successive motions despite the defendant raising serious concerns about the integrity of their conviction.

This means that filing a weak or incomplete first motion may take away the chance to submit stronger evidence of innocence later.

The Good Cause and Actual Prejudice Standard

The second hurdle is the good cause and actual prejudice standard under MCR 6.508(D). To succeed, you must show two things. The first is good cause for failing to raise the issue earlier, and the second is actual prejudice that shows the error affected the outcome.

Actual prejudice requires you to meet the high threshold of MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b) that states, “but for the alleged error, the defendant would have had a reasonably likely different chance of acquittal.”

This is a demanding standard. And courts frequently hold that even persuasive evidence doesn't meet this requirement unless it fundamentally undermines the fairness of the original trial.

The People v. Cress Test for Newly Discovered Evidence in Michigan Appeals

Strong evidence of innocence isn't enough by itself. Michigan courts also use a four-part test from the People v. Cress (2003) case to determine whether new evidence warrants a new trial.

And for this to work, you must prove four things. These include evidence that is completely newly discovered. it couldn't have been found with reasonable effort. It's not just cumulative or impeaching. And it would likely lead to a different result if retried.

How Michigan Courts Strictly Apply the Cress Test

Each prong carries weight, and failure on any of the prongs usually means denial. And this is evident in the People v. Rao (2012) case. Here, the Michigan Supreme Court reiterated that the evidence must be newly discovered. It cannot be newly available evidence, even if it is strong.

Newly discovered evidence demands a showing that no reasonable investigation before trial could have found it. Similarly, in the People v. Grissom (2012) case, the court discussed merely impeaching evidence. It said that this type of evidence, even though powerful, doesn't satisfy the Cress test.

That's why witness recantations, jailhouse confessions, and after-the-fact statements frequently fail. Even strong evidence must fit in the narrow Cress framework.

Why Recantations and Witness Statements Often Fail

Recantations are among the most common forms of post-conviction evidence. However, they're also among the most disfavored. Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE) 806 and long-standing Michigan precedent show that courts view recantations as inherently unreliable.

And the court made it clear in the People v. Canter (1992) case. Recanting witnesses often present contradictory motives over time, and such evidence must be treated with skepticism. The Court has always emphasized that recantations rarely satisfy the Cress test.

The only exception is when they're corroborated by independent evidence. And even when the recantation appears credible, courts often treat it as cumulative and impeaching.

Courts also believe it lacks sufficient reliability to meet the "different result on retrial” requirement. And for many defendants, this is the most surprising barrier.

Evidence Must Also Satisfy the Michigan Rules of Evidence

Even strong exculpatory evidence must comply with the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE). And evidence that wouldn't be admissible on retrial can't be used to grant post-conviction relief. Some examples include:

Hearsay under MRE 802 - If the new evidence is hearsay under MRE 803 or 804, courts may refuse to consider it.

Expert evidence under MRE 702 - Scientific or forensic evidence must meet Michigan's standards for reliability. And courts rely on cases like the People v. Kowalski (2012) for this. The case helps assess whether new expert testimony is admissible under Daubert-style criteria.

Relevance under MRE 401 - Evidence must be more than interesting or helpful. It must also be legally significant to the verdict. And if any part of the evidence is inadmissible, the entire innocence claim may fail.

The High Bar Created by MCL 770.1 and MCL 769.26

Michigan statutes that govern appellate and post-conviction relief emphasize finality. Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 770.1 states that trial courts may grant new trials as justice requires. However, courts tend to interpret this power narrowly.

MCL 769.26 also says that no conviction may be reversed unless an error caused a “miscarriage of justice." In the People v. Lukity (1999) case, the Supreme Court held that harmless-error analysis governs post-trial challenges.

And even when the new evidence points to innocence, the court must decide if the original verdict was truly reliable. The statutory framework means courts frequently affirm convictions despite significant post-trial evidence being presented.

Scientific and DNA-Based Evidence Still Faces Scrutiny

Michigan provides a statutory path for post-conviction DNA testing under MCL 770.16. But the statute requires demonstration that:

-Biological evidence exists

-Identity was at issue in the case

-The evidence wasn't previously tested for reasons beyond the defendant's control

-Favorable test results would likely produce a different outcome

And cases such as the People v. Barrerra (2008) are good examples. They show that even compelling new DNA evidence may not automatically trigger relief. This is especially the case if the court believes the original conviction rested on multiple forms of evidence.

Powerful evidence doesn't move Michigan courts. Strategic evidence does. And Mark Linton, a highly reputable Michigan appellate attorney, understands the hidden pathways, the narrow exceptions, and the exact arguments judges take seriously.

Contact Mark Linton today if you're holding the truth but losing the fight. He'll help you turn raw evidence into real leverage.