People v. Molstad

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[t]he testimony of Molstad’s codefendants clearly qualifies as newly discovered evidence” because no amount of diligence could have compelled them to incriminate themselves at trial
• holding that “[t]he testimony of Molstad’s codefendants clearly qualifies as newly discovered evidence” because no amount of diligence could have compelled them to incriminate themselves at trial
• holding that evidence corroborating - 11 - No. 1-23-0724 defendant's alibi was not cumulative
• holding that newly discovered evidence was “likely to produce a different result in the trial” where five - 15 - No. 1-20-0805 codefendants submitted affidavits establishing that the defendant was not present when the crime was committed
• finding that self-incriminating post-trial affidavits from codefendants qualified as newly discovered
• granting relief after petitioner presented affidavits from four convicted codefendants and one acquitted codefendant stating that petitioner had not been present at crime

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).