Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Grissom

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 2012No. Docket 140147Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partZahra, J.

I concur with the majority that the four-part test set forth in People v Cress1 is used to determine whether a defendant has established entitlement to a new trial, and I further concur that newly discovered evidence that impeaches a witness may, in rare cases, be grounds for a new trial if it satisfies the Cress test. Specifically, I agree that a material, exculpatory connection must exist between the newly discovered evidence and significantly important evidence presented at trial, but I strongly disagree that “it may be of a general character and need not contradict specific testimony at…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Smith v. CainSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  4. People v. ArmstrongMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  5. United States v. FrostCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API