Newly Discovered Evidence in Michigan Criminal Cases: Can New Evidence Overturn a Conviction?
A criminal conviction does not necessarily end the search for the truth.
Sometimes important evidence is discovered only after the trial has ended. A witness may come forward for the first time. A prosecution witness may admit that prior testimony was false. New scientific research may undermine expert testimony used to obtain the conviction. Previously unknown records, photographs, text messages, video, forensic evidence, or information concerning another suspect may emerge. In other cases, the defense may discover that favorable evidence was in the possession of the prosecution but was never disclosed.
When that happens, one of the most important questions is whether the evidence legally qualifies as newly discovered evidence in Michigan and whether it is strong enough to justify a new trial or other post-conviction relief.
Michigan law provides a potential remedy, but the standard is demanding.
It is not enough that the evidence was located after trial. The defendant must ordinarily establish why the evidence was not discovered earlier, whether it is genuinely new rather than cumulative, whether it would be admissible or usable at a new trial, and—most importantly—whether the new evidence is powerful enough to make a different result probable on retrial.
The procedural route also matters. A case that is still on direct appeal is handled differently from a conviction for which the ordinary appellate process has ended. A defendant who has already filed an MCR 6.500 motion faces another set of rules.
This guide explains how Michigan courts analyze newly discovered evidence and how that evidence can become the basis for seeking a new trial.
Key Takeaway: New Evidence Can Overturn a Michigan Criminal Conviction, But Finding New Evidence Is Only the Beginning
Michigan courts recognize that newly discovered evidence can justify a new trial.
The leading Michigan Supreme Court decision is People v Cress, 468 Mich 678; 664 NW2d 174 (2003).
Under Cress, a defendant seeking a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence generally must establish four things:
First, the evidence itself—not merely its significance—was newly discovered.
Second, the evidence is not cumulative of evidence already presented.
Third, the defendant could not, using reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced the evidence at trial.
Fourth, the new evidence makes a different result probable on retrial.
All four requirements matter.
A defendant may have evidence that appears extremely favorable but still face a problem if the evidence was known before trial or reasonably could have been obtained earlier.
Conversely, evidence may truly be new but still fail if it merely repeats what the jury already heard or is unlikely to change the result.
This is why newly discovered evidence cases require both factual investigation and careful appellate analysis.
What Counts as Newly Discovered Evidence in Michigan?
The phrase “new evidence” can be misleading.
Evidence does not automatically become “newly discovered” simply because the defendant obtained it after being convicted.
Michigan courts distinguish between evidence that was actually unknown at trial and evidence that was already known but simply unavailable, unused, overlooked, or later presented in a stronger form.
In People v Rao, 491 Mich 271; 815 NW2d 105 (2012), the Michigan Supreme Court emphasized that when a defendant knows about evidence at the time of trial, that evidence generally cannot later be transformed into newly discovered evidence merely because it becomes available after trial.
That distinction can be decisive.
Suppose a defendant knew before trial that a particular person witnessed the crime but the witness refused to cooperate. If the witness changes his mind after conviction and agrees to testify, the new willingness to testify does not necessarily mean that the underlying evidence itself was newly discovered.
Compare that situation with one in which the defendant and defense attorney had no knowledge before trial that a second eyewitness even existed. If that person later comes forward with material exculpatory evidence, the analysis can be very different.
The question is therefore not simply:
“When did we obtain the affidavit?”
The better questions are:
“When did the defendant or counsel first know the underlying information existed?”
“Could it have been discovered before trial?”
“What reasonable investigative steps were taken?”
“Why was the evidence unavailable to the defense?”
Those details may determine whether the first and third parts of Cress can be established.
The Four-Part People v Cress Test
The Evidence Itself Must Be Newly Discovered
The first Cress requirement focuses on the evidence itself.
It is not enough to discover after trial that an old piece of evidence is more important than originally believed.
There is a difference between newly discovering evidence and newly realizing the significance of evidence that was already known.
This makes the chronology extremely important.
An attorney evaluating a new-evidence claim should determine when the evidence came into existence, when anyone connected with the defense first became aware of it, whether trial counsel knew about it, and what information was reasonably available before trial.
The New Evidence Cannot Merely Be Cumulative
Evidence is cumulative when it essentially duplicates evidence already presented.
Suppose several defense witnesses testified at trial that the defendant was at another location when the crime occurred. After conviction, another person says exactly the same thing.
The additional witness may help the defense, but a court could determine that the testimony simply adds more evidence to a factual point already presented to the jury.
A stronger situation may exist when the newly discovered evidence establishes something materially different.
For example, a previously unknown surveillance recording showing the defendant somewhere else at the time of the crime is qualitatively different from simply adding another witness who repeats an existing alibi.
The analysis depends on the entire trial record.
Reasonable Diligence Matters
The third Cress requirement asks whether the evidence could have been discovered and produced at trial through reasonable diligence.
Michigan law expects parties to investigate their cases before trial.
A defendant generally cannot obtain a new trial by presenting evidence that a reasonable investigation would have uncovered earlier.
But reasonable diligence is not evaluated in a vacuum.
The court should consider the circumstances surrounding the evidence, what information was actually available, whether the defense had any reason to know the evidence existed, what investigative avenues were available, and what efforts were made.
This requirement can also intersect with ineffective assistance of counsel in Michigan.
If important evidence existed before trial and could have been discovered through reasonable investigation, the evidence may have difficulty satisfying the newly-discovered-evidence standard. But the same circumstances may raise a different constitutional question: whether trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to investigate and whether that failure prejudiced the defense.
The correct legal theory therefore matters.
The New Evidence Must Make a Different Result Probable on Retrial
The fourth Cress factor is often the most important.
The question is not merely whether the new evidence would have helped the defense.
The defendant must establish that the evidence makes a different result probable on retrial.
That requires examining the new evidence in the context of the case as a whole.
If the prosecution presented overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, one additional inconsistency may not be enough.
But if the prosecution’s case depended almost entirely upon one witness and powerful new evidence substantially undermines that witness or directly supports innocence, the impact may be dramatically different.
People v Johnson: The Court Cannot Simply Decide Whether It Personally Believes the New Witness
The Michigan Supreme Court provided important additional guidance in People v Johnson, 502 Mich 541; 918 NW2d 676 (2018).
A court evaluating newly discovered testimony may consider credibility. But the trial judge is not conducting the eventual retrial and is not supposed to simply substitute the judge’s personal view of the witness for that of a future jury.
The relevant inquiry considers whether a reasonable juror could find the new testimony credible.
If the testimony is not patently incredible, the court must consider what a reasonable juror could make of it and evaluate the effect of the new evidence together with the evidence that would be presented at a new trial.
That is important because a newly discovered evidence hearing is not supposed to become a substitute trial in which the judge conclusively decides guilt or innocence.
The issue is whether the defendant has established the legal basis for receiving another trial.
Can a Witness Recantation Result in a New Trial?
Possibly.
Recantation cases occur when a witness who testified at trial later claims that some or all of that testimony was false.
Courts understandably treat recantations with caution.
A witness may face pressure from family members. Relationships may change. A witness may feel guilty about the consequences of a conviction. Threats or inducements may exist. The new story may itself be false.
But Michigan law does not establish an absolute rule that recantation evidence can never justify a new trial.
People v Johnson makes clear that recantation testimony can be considered under the newly discovered evidence framework.
The critical questions include why the witness is changing the testimony, whether the new account is corroborated, whether it is internally consistent, what other evidence supports or contradicts it, and how important the original testimony was to the conviction.
A recantation by a peripheral witness in a case supported by overwhelming physical evidence may have limited significance.
A credible recantation by the prosecution’s central witness in a case with little corroborating evidence may be far more powerful.
What About Newly Discovered Impeachment Evidence?
New impeachment evidence presents another difficult category.
Michigan courts have traditionally been reluctant to order a new trial merely because new evidence could be used to attack a witness’s credibility.
But there is no absolute prohibition.
In People v Grissom, 492 Mich 296; 821 NW2d 50 (2012), the Michigan Supreme Court recognized that newly discovered impeachment evidence may warrant a new trial when it has the necessary material and exculpatory connection to significant evidence at trial and makes a different result probable.
That distinction matters.
Evidence establishing that a minor witness lied about an unrelated matter may not change anything.
Evidence demonstrating that the prosecution’s central identifying witness fabricated accusations, participated in similar false accusations, or gave materially contradictory information could have a much stronger connection to the reliability of the conviction.
The court must evaluate substance, not labels.
Calling evidence “impeachment evidence” does not automatically make it insignificant.
What If Another Person Confesses After the Defendant Is Convicted?
A confession by another person can be extremely important, but an affidavit saying “I committed the crime” does not automatically produce a new trial.
The confession must be investigated.
Questions may include when the confession was made, why the person waited, whether details in the confession are consistent with independently known facts, whether the person has a relationship with the defendant, whether the statement is corroborated, whether the person is available to testify, and whether the substance of the evidence would be admissible at retrial.
A court evaluating the fourth Cress factor must consider evidence that could actually be presented at the new trial.
A dramatic affidavit has far less value if its substance cannot legally reach the jury.
The strongest newly discovered evidence claims therefore do more than collect affidavits. They demonstrate how the evidence fits together with the trial record and how it can actually be used at retrial.
New Scientific Evidence Can Be Especially Important
Michigan law now expressly recognizes the importance of changing science.
MCR 6.502(G)(3) provides that “new evidence” for purposes of Michigan’s successive-motion rule includes new scientific evidence.
The rule recognizes that new scientific evidence can include shifts in scientific consensus, changes in a testifying expert’s own scientific knowledge or opinions, and changes in a scientific method upon which trial evidence was based.
This is an important development for older convictions.
Science changes.
Medical conclusions change.
Forensic disciplines evolve.
New testing methods become available.
Experts sometimes reconsider opinions they previously gave after advances in research or scientific understanding.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v Lemons, 514 Mich 485; 22 NW3d 42 (2024), demonstrates the significance of this principle.
The case involved a conviction based in substantial part upon a theory concerning the cause of an infant’s death. Years later, new expert evidence and developments in the relevant science challenged the prosecution’s original theory.
The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that most of the proffered expert testimony should have been admitted and that the new evidence made a different result probable. The Court reversed and ordered a new trial.
The lesson extends beyond the particular science involved in Lemons.
Where expert testimony played a substantial role in obtaining a conviction, appellate or post-conviction counsel should consider whether the underlying scientific assumptions remain valid.
DNA Evidence After a Michigan Conviction
DNA presents a specialized form of post-conviction evidence.
Michigan has a separate statutory procedure, MCL 770.16, addressing post-conviction DNA testing in qualifying cases. The statute contains detailed requirements concerning eligibility, biological material, identity, testing, and requests for a new trial.
A DNA issue should therefore be evaluated not merely as a generic Cress claim but also under the specific statutory framework that may apply.
Modern testing can sometimes provide information that was impossible to obtain when an older case was tried.
But the existence of modern DNA technology does not mean every convicted defendant automatically has a right to testing. The statutory requirements and circumstances of the individual case matter.
What If the Prosecutor Had the Evidence But Never Gave It to the Defense?
That may raise a different and potentially independent constitutional issue.
Under Brady v Maryland, due process can be violated when the prosecution suppresses favorable, material evidence.
The Michigan Supreme Court explained the governing test in People v Chenault, 495 Mich 142; 845 NW2d 731 (2014).
A true Brady claim generally requires evidence that the prosecution suppressed evidence, that the evidence was favorable to the accused, and that the suppressed evidence was material.
Importantly, Chenault rejected adding an independent defense “due diligence” element to the Brady standard.
That means evidence discovered after conviction should not automatically be analyzed only as ordinary newly discovered evidence.
If the reason the defense did not possess the information is that favorable evidence was suppressed by the prosecution or law enforcement, the case may involve prosecutorial misconduct in Michigan criminal appeals or, more precisely in this setting, a constitutional disclosure violation.
The difference can be extremely important.
An experienced appellate attorney should identify the correct constitutional and procedural theory rather than simply placing every post-trial discovery under the same label.
New Evidence Versus Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Another important distinction arises when trial counsel should have discovered the evidence before trial.
Suppose a defendant tells counsel about an eyewitness who can establish an alibi.
Counsel never contacts the witness.
After conviction, appellate counsel interviews the witness and obtains an affidavit establishing the alibi.
Calling the affidavit “new evidence” does not answer the problem.
The witness may have been known before trial, making a traditional newly discovered evidence claim difficult.
But counsel’s failure to investigate may support an ineffective-assistance claim.
Now change the facts.
Suppose neither the defendant nor trial counsel had any reason to know the witness existed, and the witness independently comes forward for the first time after trial.
That is a much stronger candidate for a true newly discovered evidence claim.
This distinction is why appellate counsel must reconstruct the history of the evidence rather than simply ask when the affidavit was signed.
Newly Discovered Evidence Is Different From Insufficient Evidence
These two appellate concepts should not be confused.
An insufficient evidence in a Michigan criminal appeal claim asks whether the evidence actually introduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Newly discovered evidence asks a different question.
It assumes that additional information now exists that the original factfinder did not consider.
The distinction also affects the remedy.
A successful insufficiency challenge can result in reversal with retrial ordinarily barred by double jeopardy because the prosecution failed to prove its case the first time.
A successful newly discovered evidence claim ordinarily results in a new trial, giving the prosecution and defense an opportunity to litigate the case again with the new evidence.
That is a significant distinction for defendants and families to understand.
How Do You Raise Newly Discovered Evidence While a Direct Appeal Is Pending?
Procedure can be as important as the underlying evidence.
A Michigan appellate court ordinarily reviews the record created in the trial court. A defendant generally cannot simply attach new evidence to an appellate brief and ask the Court of Appeals to determine what happened.
When additional factual development is necessary during a pending appeal, a motion to remand may be required.
MCR 7.211(C)(1) permits an appellant to seek remand when an issue must initially be decided by the trial court or development of a factual record is required for appellate consideration. The motion must be supported by an affidavit or other offer of proof concerning the facts to be established.
MCR 6.431 also governs motions for a new trial and expressly addresses the procedure applicable depending upon whether a claim of appeal has already been filed and whether the defendant remains entitled to appellate review.
This is one reason the timing of newly discovered evidence matters so much.
For a broader explanation of how remands, briefs, appellate jurisdiction, and trial-court proceedings fit together, read our Michigan criminal appeal process guide.
What If the Direct Appeal Is Already Over?
When the conviction is no longer subject to ordinary appellate review, Michigan’s post-conviction rules become especially important.
Subchapter 6.500 provides Michigan’s procedure for seeking post-appeal relief from a criminal judgment.
A defendant may therefore need to pursue a Michigan Motion for Relief from Judgment rather than attempting to file an ordinary motion associated with a pending direct appeal.
MCR 6.508 places the burden on the defendant to establish entitlement to relief and contains important restrictions concerning claims that were previously decided or could have been raised earlier.
The procedural history of the case must therefore be reviewed carefully.
When was the conviction entered?
Was there an appeal?
What issues were raised?
Was a previous MCR 6.500 motion filed?
When was the new evidence discovered?
Could it have been raised earlier?
Those questions may determine which procedural rules apply before a court ever reaches the ultimate strength of the new evidence.
Can You File a Second MCR 6.500 Motion Based on New Evidence?
This is where Michigan’s current law becomes particularly important.
MCR 6.502(G)(1) generally limits a defendant to one motion for relief from judgment concerning a conviction, subject to specified exceptions.
One exception appears in MCR 6.502(G)(2)(b), which permits a second or subsequent motion based upon a claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first motion was filed.
The distinction between that procedural threshold and the ultimate test for obtaining a new trial became the subject of significant clarification in People v Allen, a published Michigan Court of Appeals decision issued January 7, 2026.
The trial court in Allen had effectively mixed together the threshold question under MCR 6.502(G)(2) and the substantive Cress analysis.
The Court of Appeals explained that these are separate inquiries.
For purposes of getting through the successive-motion gatekeeping requirement based upon new evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that the evidence was not discovered before the first motion for relief from judgment.
Whether the evidence could have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence is part of the later substantive analysis—not the initial MCR 6.502(G)(2)(b) threshold.
This distinction is extremely important.
Overcoming the successive-motion bar does not mean the defendant wins.
It means the court may proceed to the analysis governing entitlement to relief.
The defendant must still confront the Cress requirements and MCR 6.508.
Why People v Allen Matters to Michigan Post-Conviction Cases
Allen is important because post-conviction litigation often fails on procedure before a court ever reaches the ultimate claim of innocence.
The published decision clarifies the sequence of the analysis.
First comes the gatekeeping question: does the successive motion qualify under an exception recognized by MCR 6.502(G)?
If it does, the court then addresses whether the defendant has actually established entitlement to relief under the applicable substantive requirements.
The difference may appear technical.
It is not.
Conflating the two stages can cause a potentially significant claim to be rejected under the wrong standard before the evidence receives the analysis Michigan law requires.
For defendants who previously filed an MCR 6.500 motion and later discover important evidence, Allen should be part of any current analysis.
Actual Innocence and Michigan’s Successive-Motion Rules
Michigan’s court rules also contain provisions addressing innocence.
MCR 6.502(G) permits a court to waive the successive-motion restriction when it concludes that there is a significant possibility that the defendant is innocent of the crime.
MCR 6.508(D) likewise permits waiver of its good-cause requirement when the court concludes there is a significant possibility of innocence.
These provisions are significant, but they should not be misunderstood as automatic relief.
A defendant does not receive a new trial simply by using the phrase “actual innocence.”
The claim must be supported by evidence.
A serious innocence claim should explain precisely how the new evidence affects the prosecution’s theory, how it interacts with the evidence presented at trial, why it is reliable, and why the resulting conviction can no longer be trusted.
Will the Court Hold an Evidentiary Hearing?
Not automatically.
Under MCR 6.508, a trial court considering a motion for relief from judgment reviews the motion, response, record, and any expanded record and determines whether an evidentiary hearing is required.
MCR 6.507 permits the record to be expanded with materials including affidavits, documents, exhibits, letters, and other appropriate materials.
If an evidentiary hearing is necessary, witnesses may testify and the court can develop the factual record needed to resolve the claim.
A hearing can be particularly important when credibility is disputed.
For example, a court evaluating a witness recantation may need to hear from the witness directly. A new-science claim may require expert testimony. An ineffective-assistance claim may require testimony concerning what trial counsel knew and investigated.
The motion should therefore do more than demand a hearing.
It should demonstrate what evidence would be produced and why the factual development matters.
What Should an Attorney Investigate When New Evidence Is Discovered?
A serious investigation begins with the evidence itself but cannot end there.
The attorney should determine exactly when the information was discovered, who knew about it previously, whether trial counsel had access to it, whether the prosecution or police possessed related information, whether the evidence is authentic, whether corroborating evidence exists, whether it would be admissible, and whether it materially changes the evidentiary picture presented at trial.
The original case must then be reconstructed.
What evidence actually produced the conviction?
Was there physical evidence?
Was identity disputed?
Did the prosecution depend heavily upon one witness?
Was the new evidence already partly presented through another witness?
Does the new evidence contradict a central prosecution theory?
Could the prosecution answer the new evidence with additional admissible proof at retrial?
This is why newly discovered evidence litigation is an appellate and investigative problem at the same time.
The question is not merely whether something new has been found.
The question is what that evidence legally does to the conviction.
What Happens If the Court Grants a New Trial?
A successful newly discovered evidence claim ordinarily does not result in an immediate declaration that the defendant is innocent.
The usual remedy is a new trial.
The previous conviction may be vacated, and the prosecution must then decide how to proceed.
Depending upon the case, the prosecution may retry the defendant, reconsider the charges, engage in negotiations, or take another legally available course.
At the new trial, the defense can present the newly discovered evidence together with other admissible evidence, while the prosecution has an opportunity to present its case.
That is why Cress asks whether the new evidence makes a different result probable on retrial.
The ultimate question is whether the new evidence changes the case enough that confidence in the original verdict can no longer justify allowing that verdict to stand without another trial.
What If the Trial Court Denies the Newly Discovered Evidence Claim?
Further appellate review may be available depending upon the procedural posture.
For example, appeals from decisions under Michigan’s MCR 6.500 post-conviction rules proceed by application for leave to appeal.
That means the defendant may need to file a Michigan application for leave to appeal and persuade the Michigan Court of Appeals that review is warranted.
Deadlines matter.
A defendant or family should not assume that a post-conviction ruling can be challenged whenever they choose.
The order, procedural history, applicable court rule, and filing deadline should be reviewed promptly.
Why an Experienced Michigan Appellate Attorney Matters in Newly Discovered Evidence Cases
Newly discovered evidence cases require more than good facts.
They require choosing the correct legal theory and procedural vehicle.
An attorney may need to distinguish among a true Cress claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, a Brady disclosure violation, new scientific evidence, a post-conviction DNA procedure, a motion for new trial, a motion to remand, and an MCR 6.500 motion.
Sometimes several theories overlap.
The attorney also must determine whether the new evidence will actually be admissible and whether it is powerful enough when considered with the complete evidentiary record to make a different result probable.
That requires careful review of transcripts, exhibits, prior appellate filings, police reports, discovery, expert materials, and previous post-conviction proceedings.
The strongest motion does not simply say:
“We have new evidence.”
It explains:
why the evidence is genuinely new;
why it could not reasonably have been presented earlier;
why it is not merely cumulative;
why a reasonable juror could credit it;
how it changes the evidentiary picture;
why the applicable procedural rules permit the claim; and
why Michigan law requires a new trial or other appropriate relief.
Frequently Asked Questions About Newly Discovered Evidence in Michigan
Can new evidence overturn a Michigan criminal conviction?
Yes. Newly discovered evidence may justify a new trial when the defendant satisfies the requirements established by Michigan law, including the four-part test identified in People v Cress. The result depends upon the nature of the evidence, when and how it was discovered, whether it could have been obtained earlier, and its likely effect at a new trial.
Does a witness changing his or her story automatically result in a new trial?
No. Courts generally treat witness recantations cautiously. But Michigan law does not categorically prohibit relief based upon recantation testimony. The court must evaluate the credibility and significance of the new testimony under the applicable legal standards.
What if my lawyer should have found the evidence before trial?
That may raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim rather than—or in addition to—a newly discovered evidence claim. Determining the correct theory requires examining what counsel knew, what reasonable investigation would have revealed, and why the evidence was not presented.
Can new scientific research support a second MCR 6.500 motion?
Potentially. MCR 6.502(G) expressly recognizes new scientific evidence, including certain changes in scientific knowledge, expert opinions, scientific consensus, and scientific methodology. People v Lemons provides an important Michigan Supreme Court example of new scientific evidence resulting in a new trial.
Can I file a second MCR 6.500 motion if I discover new evidence?
MCR 6.502(G)(2)(b) permits a successive motion based upon a claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first motion was filed. The published 2026 decision in People v Allen clarifies that this threshold inquiry is distinct from the later substantive determination of whether the defendant is actually entitled to relief.
What if the prosecutor failed to disclose the evidence?
The issue may involve Brady v Maryland and People v Chenault. Evidence suppressed by the prosecution that is favorable and material to the defense can raise a constitutional due-process claim and should not automatically be treated merely as an ordinary newly discovered evidence issue.
Can the Michigan Court of Appeals consider new evidence that was never presented to the trial judge?
Ordinarily, appellate review is based upon the established lower-court record. When new factual development is required during a pending appeal, counsel may need to seek remand under MCR 7.211(C)(1) so the trial court can consider the issue and create an appropriate record.
Talk to Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC About New Evidence Discovered After a Michigan Conviction
Discovering significant evidence after a criminal conviction can change the direction of a case—but only if the evidence is investigated, preserved, and presented through the correct legal procedure.
Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC represents defendants in Michigan criminal appeals and post-conviction proceedings, including cases involving motions for new trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary hearings, applications for leave to appeal, MCR 6.500 motions, and constitutional claims.
Attorney James Czarnecki has substantial experience reviewing criminal trial records, identifying appellate issues, developing claims outside the existing record, litigating evidentiary hearings, and handling criminal matters before Michigan appellate courts.
If you or a family member has discovered important evidence after a Michigan criminal conviction, the evidence should be evaluated together with the trial record and complete appellate history.
The critical questions are not merely whether the evidence is new, but whether Michigan law permits it to be raised, whether it can be presented at a new trial, and whether it is significant enough to provide a legal basis for relief.
Contact Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC to discuss whether newly discovered evidence may provide a basis for challenging a Michigan criminal conviction.
Call Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC at (586) 718-2345 for a free consultation.
This article provides general educational information concerning Michigan criminal appellate and post-conviction law. It is not legal advice for any particular case.