Brady2 violation in Michigan

2024We agree in part, vacate the order denying defendant’s motion, and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether the newly discovered evidence satisfies the fourth prong under People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003), and/or constitutes material evidence under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).

2024We agree in part, vacate the order denying defendant’s motion, and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether the newly discovered evidence satisfies the fourth prong under People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003), and/or constitutes material evidence under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).

2020To establish a Brady2 violation, a defendant must show that “(1) the prosecution has suppressed evidence; (2) that is favorable to the accused; and (3) that is material.” People v Chenault, 495 Mich 142, 150 ; 845 NW2d 731 (2014).

2020To establish a Brady2 violation, a defendant must show that “(1) the prosecution has suppressed evidence; (2) that is favorable to the accused; and (3) that is material.” People v Chenault, 495 Mich 142, 150 ; 845 NW2d 731 (2014).

2024We agree in part, vacate the order denying defendant’s motion, and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether the newly discovered evidence satisfies the fourth prong under People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003), and/or constitutes material evidence under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).

2024We agree in part, vacate the order denying defendant’s motion, and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether the newly discovered evidence satisfies the fourth prong under People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003), and/or constitutes material evidence under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).

2020We affirm. 1 This Court stated in People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409 , 425 n 4; 884 NW2d 297 (2015): As this Court recently noted in People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015), although the term “prosecutorial misconduct” has become a term of art often used to describe any error committed by the prosecution, claims of inadvertent error by the prosecution are “better and more fairly presented as claims of ‘prosecutorial error,’ with only the most extreme cases rising to the level of ‘prosecutorial misconduct.’ ” For clarity and consistency’s sake, and because it has become a

2020We affirm. 1 This Court stated in People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409 , 425 n 4; 884 NW2d 297 (2015): As this Court recently noted in People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015), although the term “prosecutorial misconduct” has become a term of art often used to describe any error committed by the prosecution, claims of inadvertent error by the prosecution are “better and more fairly presented as claims of ‘prosecutorial error,’ with only the most extreme cases rising to the level of ‘prosecutorial misconduct.’ ” For clarity and consistency’s sake, and because it has become a

2020We affirm. 1 This Court stated in People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409 , 425 n 4; 884 NW2d 297 (2015): As this Court recently noted in People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015), although the term “prosecutorial misconduct” has become a term of art often used to describe any error committed by the prosecution, claims of inadvertent error by the prosecution are “better and more fairly presented as claims of ‘prosecutorial error,’ with only the most extreme cases rising to the level of ‘prosecutorial misconduct.’ ” For clarity and consistency’s sake, and because it has become a

2020We affirm. 1 This Court stated in People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409 , 425 n 4; 884 NW2d 297 (2015): As this Court recently noted in People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015), although the term “prosecutorial misconduct” has become a term of art often used to describe any error committed by the prosecution, claims of inadvertent error by the prosecution are “better and more fairly presented as claims of ‘prosecutorial error,’ with only the most extreme cases rising to the level of ‘prosecutorial misconduct.’ ” For clarity and consistency’s sake, and because it has become a

2016“The prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory or material evidence in its possession constitutes a due process violation regardless of whether a defendant requested the evidence.” 2 Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963). -6- Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App at 157 . “[U]ndisclosed evidence will be deemed material only if it could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2016“The prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory or material evidence in its possession constitutes a due process violation regardless of whether a defendant requested the evidence.” 2 Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963). -6- Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App at 157 . “[U]ndisclosed evidence will be deemed material only if it could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).