Motion for relief from judgment; MCR 6.508(D); Good cause & actual prejudice; Alleged Brady v Maryland violation; People v Christian; Newly discovered evidence; People v Cress; Information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

The court held that defendant’s FOIA evidence did “not qualify as newly discovered evidence under MCR 6.508(D) or Cress,” and he was unable to establish that it constituted a Brady violation. Thus, it concluded that the trial court erred in granting his motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.508(D). He was convicted of first-degree murder in 2015. His motion rested “on two related, but separate, grounds for relief: that the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, and that defendant discovered new material evidence as established in Cress[.]” But the court noted that while he “consistently maintained that the information he obtained through the FOIA request regarding the police’s knowledge of alternative suspects qualified as newly discovered evidence sufficient to avoid the restrictions against bringing a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.508(D)[,]” there was ample evidence in the record suggesting that he “knew about the alternative suspects before he received the FOIA evidence. For instance, in” a prior appeal, he raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims “related to trial counsel’s failure to present evidence about the same alternative suspects at issue here. He did not, at that point, claim that the prosecution had withheld information about [them] or that he had not discovered them until after trial had concluded.” He also asserted that a police officer’s (E) “affidavit proved that he lied about the reasons for not testing” a glove found in the victim’s (K) vehicle for DNA until 2011. But the court noted that his prior ineffective assistance claims again belied “his current argument that the evidence was newly discovered. On direct appeal, defendant argued that trial counsel ‘was ineffective for failing to cross-examine witnesses regarding irregularities in the documentation for the Kevlar glove obtained from [K’s] vehicle.” The court found that E’s affidavit did “not establish any doubts or inaccuracies that were undetectable at the time of trial; indeed, defendant appears to have been aware of them all. The trial court thus erred in finding that defendant discovered new evidence that he could not have discovered at the time of trial.” It additionally erred in finding that he “established actual prejudice under MCR 6.508(D)(3). The record” did not support his assertion “that the alternative suspects were strong suspects.” Reversed.