Michigan v. Chenault (Opinion - Leave Granted)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Schuyler Chenault was convicted by jury of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The only question at trial was the identity of the shooter. The girlfriend of the victim identified defendant as the shooter. She gave police videotaped interviews, but defendant's counsel did not receive copies of those recordings. The girlfriend's statements did not mention that another person was also present at the shooting: only defendant, the girlfriend and this third party witnessed the shooting, and there was no physical evidence to tie anyone to the shooting. Defendant moved for a new trial and requested a copy of the recordings of the taped interview. Defense counsel also added claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct regarding the failure to provide the recordings. The trial court granted defendant's motion for a new trial, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that defense counsel did not exercise due diligence, and that defendant had not been denied effective assistance of counsel because there was no prejudice. Agreeing with the appellate court's analysis, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's reversal of the trial court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.