Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
September 30, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
150994 Stephen J. Markman
Mary Beth Kelly
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Richard H. Bernstein,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices
v SC: 150994
COA: 314564
Calhoun CC: 2001-004547-FC
LORINDA IRENE SWAIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2015
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall
include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the test set forth in People v Cress,
468 Mich 678, 692 (2003), for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial
based on newly discovered evidence applies in determining whether a second or
subsequent motion for relief from judgment is based on “a claim of new evidence that
was not discovered before the first such motion” under MCR 6.502(G)(2); (2) whether
the defendant is entitled to a new trial premised on the prosecution’s violation of the rule
set forth in Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83; 83 S Ct 1194; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963); (3) by
what standard(s) Michigan courts consider a defendant’s assertion that the evidence
demonstrates a significant possibility of actual innocence in the context of a motion
brought pursuant to MCR 6.502(G), and whether the defendant in this case qualifies
under that standard; (4) whether the Michigan Court Rules, MCR 6.500, et seq. or
another provision, provide a basis for relief where a defendant demonstrates a significant
possibility of actual innocence; (5) whether, if MCR 6.502(G) does bar relief, there is an
independent basis on which a defendant who demonstrates a significant possibility of
actual innocence may nonetheless seek relief under the United States or Michigan
Constitutions; and (6) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial pursuant to MCL
770.1.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys
Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups
interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court
for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
2
MCCORMACK, J., not participating because of her prior involvement in this case as
counsel for a party.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
September 30, 2015
a0930
Clerk