STATE OF MICIHGAN

IN THE 27th CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF NEWAYGO

______________________________________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Hon. Robert Springstead
Plaintiff,
v. Circuit Court No. 14-010877-FC
14-010873-FC-M

MATTHEW JONES and,

PAUL JONES

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________

Newaygo County Prosecutor Robert E. Higbee (P82739)

1092 Newell St. Attorney for Defendant Paul Jones
PO Box 885 300 River Place, Ste. 3000
White Cloud, MI 49349 Detroit, MI 48207
(231) 689-7283 (313) 962-3500
robhigbee@gmail.com

Paul J. Stablein (P42544)

Co-Counsel for Defendant Paul Jones
380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 230
Birmingham, MI 48009
(248) 642-6655

PERKINS LAW GROUP PLLC

Todd R. Perkins (P55623)
Attorney for Defendant Matthew Jones
615 Griswold St., Ste. 400

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 964-1702
tperkins@perkinslawgroup.net

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PAUL JONES’

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
 NOW COMES the Defendant, Paul Jones, by and through his attorneys, Robert E.

Higbee and Paul J. Stablein, and for his Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Relief from

Judgment, states the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

The lynchpin of the People’s case has admitted committing perjury as to every essential

detail of his testimony at trial of this matter. Indeed, Dean Robinson, a witness absolutely

essential to the People’s theory, knowingly lied at every turn when he implicated Paul and Matt

Jones in the death of Shannon Siders. Against this backdrop, the Court cannot permit these

convictions to stand because to do so would countenance an injustice premised upon the perjury

of the People’s star witness. And letting these convictions stand, of course, would be an affront

to our system of justice that, while it seeks justice, does so with a keen eye towards preventing

injustice. The Court should grant the Motion for Relief from Judgment and order a new trial in

this matter, or in the alternative, grant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual matters set

forth herein, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case arises out of the July 1989 disappearance of 18-year-old Shannon Siders (the

victim). Her mutilated, decomposing body was discovered by a hunter in the Manistee National

Forest near Newaygo, Michigan, several months after she disappeared. Both defendants were

teenagers at the time of the victim’s disappearance.

The People’s theory of the case was that after driving around “partying” with the victim

and several other teenagers and young adults over the course of the night, defendants drove the

victim to a secluded location, sought sexual favors from her, became enraged when she declined

2
their advances and fled, hit the fleeing victim with defendant Paul Jones’s car, took turns raping

and beating her, and eventually beat her to death.

In support of that theory, the People’s star witness was Dean Robinson, who was

incarcerated at the time of trial, and was 19 years old at the time of the victim’s disappearance.

Mr. Robinson has now admitted that his testimony at trial, as detailed below, was false. This

testimony was central to the People’s case, and no reasonable jury could have convicted the

defendants without Mr. Robinson’s testimony.

Mr. Robinson testified that the night of the incident he was with a younger local girl he

knew, Jenni Corrigan, who was 14 years old at the time. Trial Transcript Vol. IX, at pp. 11-12.

Mr. Robinson testified that after obtaining drugs and alcohol, Mr. Robinson and Ms. Corrigan

began to drive around on the “two tracks” (i.e., the beaten paths created by automobile traffic) in

the area near where the victim’s body was ultimately found, looking for parties. Id., at pp. 13-14.

At some point “way late” in the evening, the bumper of Mr. Robinson’s vehicle got

“hung up on a stump” and “it pulled off one whole side of the bumper to where it hung down on

the ground.” Id., at p. 20. After reattaching the bumper, Mr. Robinson parked on a “two track,”

where he and Ms. Corrigan talked and waited for the sun to rise. Id., at pp. 21-22.

Around 4:00 a.m. or 5:00 a.m., a “darker-colored car,” which Robinson thought was

maroon, approached and parked so that its headlights shone at the driver’s door of Robinson’s

vehicle. Id., at pp. 22-23. Robinson could not recall whether the car had any white trim. Id., at p.

23. Two men were in the car. Id., at p. 24. The driver exited the vehicle, identified himself as

“Paul Jones,” and said he was looking for “[a] girl walking around out there.” Id., at pp. 25-27.

The driver (who Mr. Robinson had identified as Paul Jones) was visibly intoxicated and kept

3
trying to look into Mr. Robinson’s vehicle to see Mr. Robinson’s passenger (a 14-year old Ms.

Corrigan). Id., at pp. 29-30.

Eventually, the maroon car and its occupants departed. Thereafter, Mr. Robinson and Ms.

Corrigan stayed where they had been, waiting for sunrise and for Mr. Robinson to sober up. Id.

at p. 31. Because of the damage to his bumper, Mr. Robinson was particularly worried about

driving under the influence. Id. He believed that the damaged bumper might prompt the police to

pull him over and investigate. Id., at pp. 32-33. After about half an hour, Mr. Robinson and Ms.

Corrigan departed. Id., at p. 33.

As Robinson was “pulling out of there,” he encountered the same maroon car he had seen

before. Id. He stopped about 20 to 30 yards from the maroon car. Id., at p. 34-35. Mr. Robinson

saw two men, one of whom was the driver he had spoken with earlier that evening. Id., at p. 35.

A motionless girl was sprawled on the ground near the driver’s side of the maroon car. Id. She

appeared to be roughly the same age as Mr. Robinson. Id. Because he could see her bare legs,

Mr. Robinson thought the girl was wearing a dress. Id. From the way the men were acting, the

fact that the girl had blood on her face, and the position of her body, Mr. Robinson thought that

there had been a pedestrian accident. Id., at pp. 35-36. After instructing Ms. Corrigan to stay in

the vehicle, Mr. Robinson “jumped out of [his] car and [] went running” toward the accident, but

he “tripped and fell and went skidding,” falling to his hands and knees. Id., at pp. 38-39.

Mr. Robinson’s sudden arrival seemed to startle the driver, who turned and abruptly

kicked Mr. Robinson in the head, splitting his right eyebrow. Id., at p. 40. Robinson “rolled

backwards and then went back pedaling toward [his] car[.]” Id., at p. 41. As he did so, the

unidentified man who was with the driver walked around the maroon car, wielding something

that looked “like a hammer,” a “little hatchet like thing,” or some sort of hammer-like “roofing
4
tool[.]” Id., at p. 42. As Mr. Robinson fled back to his car, Ms. Corrigan sounded a continuous

blast of its horn. Id. Mr. Robinson got back into his car and saw one of the men grab the

motionless girl by her arms and drag her “towards the car,” but he did not see whether she was

placed in the maroon car. Id., at pp. 42-43.

Based upon Mr. Robinson’s affidavit, none of the above testimony was true. And it is

safe to say that any testimony from Ms. Corrigan that “corroborated” Mr. Robinson’s false

testimony was likewise false.

The People centered its entire case around the fabrication by Mr. Robinson, stating

during closing:

5/6/15 TT, p. 13—You can see Spot Number 2, that’s the spot
where Dean Robinson said that he saw Paul Jones with Shannon
Siders standing over her body

p. 14—Perhaps Shannon was struck in the nose or in the eye,

possibly knocking her out, and then her killers tried to sexually
assault her. Maybe this is what Dean Robinson and Jenni Corrigan
saw

p. 32—the defense seems to argue that it was not Paul and Matt
that Dean and Jenni saw on the two-track, even though Dean said
that the driver identified himself as Paul Jones in the first time and
he saw the same guy later, but they kind of focus on the description
of the car, that – that Dean described the car as being dark,
possibly maroon

p. 36—Now the Defense will argue that you shouldn’t believe

Dean Robinson because he got a deal for his testimony. Dean
Robinson got zero time for his testimony today.

p. 39—I’m going to ask you to apply some common sense. Okay?

If this was just a big scam, wouldn’t Dean and Jenni have told you
a lot more information other than what they did? I mean, they
could have described to a T, both people, could have given the
names of both people, they could have given the exact description
of the car as opposed to it was a dark car.

5
 They could have said the exact dates, not just that it was in the
summer. The exact dates that she was missing were known in the
community. Instead of saying that they saw her – Paul Jones
picking her up and moving her to the back of the car, this is all just
a farce, why not just say: Hey, we saw them hitting her, caving her
head in. We got scared and ran away? There is a lot more
information that they had even from the documentary and what
was available in the community that they could have inserted into
their statements to make their statements, you know, basically fit to
the case, but they didn’t do that. They told you what they saw with
its limitations.

p. 41-42—Consider what Dean and Jenni saw that fits into the
case. They were able to describe pretty well Shannon Siders, the
body, the lifeless body that they saw there as to the size, smaller
person; the hair, bushy and dark; the description of the sweater,
white with squiggly pattern on it; and the person not having any
pants on. They described the car, big, dark. And most importantly
in these encounters, the driver identifies himself as being Paul
Jones.
The first encounter makes Dean and Jenni aware of who these
people are. They identify themselves, they know that there’s – the
driver identifies himself as Paul and there was another person in
the car. They see the same car and the same people later and that
moves us to the second encounter. They pull up, it looks to be an
accident, lifeless body on the ground with blood, Paul Jones
standing over it. Dean comes rush out to help. The driver, Paul
Jones, doesn’t say: Hey, great, there was an accident, come help,
help us get help. What does he do? He kicks Dean in the head,
basically knocking him loopy. That shows there is no accident,
that they were trying to get away with what they were doing. They
drag the body to the back of the car, its lifeless, it’s not moving,
and they zoom away.
Dean tells you that the other guy comes at him with something that
looks like a roofing tool, a hammer or something like that. And
you heard the testimony of Dr. Graeser that the injuries that they –
that she received, the two to three blows to the head, the blows to
the scapula and the ribs were delivered by an object, that it was his
opinion that was a concentrated force and that would be consistent
with a roofing tool or a hammer.
The statement Dean made about his eye, those are confirmed by
Jenni. She said, yeah, his eye was injured.

p. 99—They want you, on one hand, to believe that Jenni Corrigan

and Dean Robinson were basically fed information and this is all
6
 just a big conspiracy to get him out of prison. Well, they didn’t. I
argue to you if that’s what it was, boy, I wish they would have
given us more. We’re working with what they have. It’s one
small piece in the puzzle. This case does not turn on them. Paul
Jones said, “I’m Paul Jones”, and he saw him on that two-track. If
it was just a big made up – I argue to you, a big made-up story,
there would be more details, there would be more to it, not just
they said they were Jones and they saw them with a lifeless body.

p. 100-101—To make a big deal about this – this hair – And let’s
break that down now. We didn’t – we didn’t submit Dean’s hair
for analysis. Okay. That’s true. But think about it. Dean
Robinson, according to them, wants a deal to get out of prison. So
how does he do that? He goes to the police and says, “I have
information about a murder I committed. Look into this. Delve
into this. Check this out”. That doesn’t make any sense. If Dean
Robinson is the murderer of Shannon Siders, he wouldn’t go to the
police in 2004 saying: I have information. He wouldn’t go to the
police in 2009 and say: I have information. And he wouldn’t
cooperate today saying: I have information about this case. He
would be running from that case, assuming that he was the actual
killer.

Following a jury trial, Matthew Jones was convicted of Homicide – Murder First Degree

– Premeditated, contrary to MCL 750.316(A); and Paul Jones was convicted of Homicide –

Murder, Second Degree, contrary to MCL 750.317.

All throughout these proceedings, Paul and Matt Jones have maintained their innocence.

Indeed, it has now come to light that Mr. Robinson, who has maintained contact with Ms.

Corrigan since his incarceration, had hatched a plot prior to trial to fabricate testimony in order

to secure Mr. Robinson’s early release from incarceration. This development coincides with Ms.

Corrigan’s testimony where she stated that Mr. Robinson “wanted a lot” in exchange for his

testimony in this case, and that she tried to influence the authorities to reward Robinson for his

testimony.

7
 Without Mr. Robinson’s fabrication and Ms. Corrigan’s assistance, the People have no

witness to tie either defendant to the scene where the Ms. Siders was ultimately found, and to the

crime in question. Moreover, both defendants’ convictions are based on a fabricated story by an

incarcerated man who was seeking relief. Thus, both convictions must be overturned.

III. ARGUMENT

Mr. Jones brings this Motion pursuant to MCR 6.500, et. seq., for the purposes of post-

appeal relief, which derives from the discovery of new evidence. Indeed, this new evidence

comes from Mr. Robinson, who has revealed that he committed wholesale perjury during his trial

testimony. Exhibit __, Affidavit of Dean Robinson. Mr. Robinson was interviewed by an

investigator on May 14, 2021. At that time, Mr. Robinson indicated that his testimony and trial

in this matter was materially false. Id., at ¶ 5. Moreover, Mr. Robinson also indicated that his

testimony was provided to him by law enforcement. Id., at ¶ 6. In sum, Mr. Robinson indicated

that “[a]ny of [his] testimony during the trial of the above-captioned matter implicating Matt or

Paul Jones in a homicide was false.” Id., at ¶ 8.

“Discovery that trial testimony was perjured may be grounds for a new trial based on

newly discovered evidence, provided it is otherwise newly discovered evidence.” People v.

Mechura, 205 Mich.App 481, 483; 517 NW2d 797 (1994).

“Newly discovered evidence is (1) newly discovered; (2) not merely cumulative; (3)

probably would have caused a different result; and (4) was not discoverable and producible at

trial with reasonable diligence.” People v. Lester, 232 Mich.App 262, 271; 591 NW2d 267

(1998); People v. Miller (After Remand), 211 Mich.App 30, 46-47; 535 NW2d 518 (1995).

“[W]hen asked to grant a new trial solely on the basis of new impeachment evidence, a

court carefully should examine whether the defendant has demonstrated the necessary
8
exculpatory connection between the evidence and the offense or has demonstrated that the newly

discovered evidence totally undermined critical inculpatory evidence.” People v Grissom, 492

Mich 296, 315 (2012). “In evaluating this evidence, the Third Circuit noted that ‘[t]here must be

something more, i.e., a factual link between the heart of the witness's testimony at trial and the

new evidence. This link must suggest directly that the defendant was convicted wrongly.’” Id, at

315–16 (quoting United States v. Quiles, 618 F.3d 383, 391 (C.A.3, 2010)).

It must be shown that “newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered with

reasonable diligence and produced at trial” People v Hill, 21 Mich App 178, 180 (1970). “As a

rule, the court is not impressed by the recanting affidavits of witnesses who attempt to show that

they perjured themselves at the trial.” People v. Norfleet, 317 Mich. App. 649, 661, 897 N.W.2d

195 (2016) (cleaned up).

Nevertheless, the “discovery that testimony introduced at trial was perjured may be

grounds for ordering a new trial.” People v. Barbara, 400 Mich. 352, 363, 255 N.W.2d 171

(1977); see also People v. Smallwood, 306 Mich. 49, 54-55, 10 N.W.2d 303 (1943); People v.

Mechura, 205 Mich. App. 481, 483, 517 N.W.2d 797 (1994). As the Supreme Court put it in

Barbara, “Generally, too, where the new evidence is useful only to impeach a witness, it is

deemed merely cumulative.” Barbara, 400 Mich. at 363, 255 N.W.2d 171.

This changed with Grissom, however, where our Supreme Court made clear that

impeachment evidence alone can be a sufficient basis for a new trial as long as the four-part test

from Cress is satisfied. Id. at 321. In determining a defendant’s request for new trial based on

newly discovered evidence, the Michigan Supreme Court outlined in People v Cress, 468 Mich

678 (2003) a four-part test to determine a defendant’s claims.

9
 Under Cress, a defendant who seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence

must satisfy each of the following four conditions: “(1) the evidence itself, not merely its

materiality, was newly discovered; (2) the newly discovered evidence was not cumulative; (3)

the party could not, using reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced the evidence at

trial; and (4) the new evidence makes a different result probable on retrial.” Cress, 468 Mich. at

692, 664 N.W.2d 174 (cleaned up).

The legal matrix put forth by Cress is what the new evidence must be examined under.

Moreover, People v Johnson, 502 Mich 541, 568 (Mich 2018), commands that “[a] trial court’s

function is limited when reviewing newly discovered evidence , as it is not the ultimate fact-

finder.” Id., at 567. Indeed, this Court must consider what a reasonable juror might make of this

new evidence, and “not what the trial court itself might decide . . . .” Id., at 568.

Mr. Robinson states unabashedly that the story he told the People and the testimony he

gave was pure fabrication. This statement was given post-trial, thus, it satisfies the first and third

prong of Cress. When looking to if impeachment evidence is cumulative, one must look to see if

the evidence is offered solely to impeach the testimony of a witness. Kube v. Neuenfeldt, 353

Mich 74 (1958). The newly discovered evidence is not strictly impeachment evidence. It is not

a question of the credibility of one’s statement to be weighed by a trier of fact. The newly

discovered evidence is material as without it, there is nothing to implicate the Defendants and a

different result would have likely resulted from the ensuing trial. Thus, the new evidence

satisfies the second and fourth prong of Cress.

“The judge of a court in which the trial of an offense is held may grant a new trial to the

defendant, for any cause for which by law a new trial may be granted, or when it appears to the

10
court that justice has not been done, and on the terms or conditions as the court directs.” MCL

770.1

It is clear that the fabricated story put forth by Mr. Robinson and supported by Ms.

Corrigan, in order to secure Mr. Robinson’s release, prevented true justice from being done. Mr.

Robinson’s testimony was critical and essential to the People’s case. No reasonable juror could

find Mr. Jones guilty if a retrial did not include Mr. Robinson’s testimony, or at a minimum, had

his prior testimony impeached with his sworn affidavit.

Accordingly, Mr. Jones respectfully requests that a new trial be granted based on the

newly discovered evidence pursuant to MCL 770.1 and MCR 6.502.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Paul Jones respectfully requests that this Court grant his

Motion for Relief from Judgment and order a new trial, or in the alternative, set this matter for an

evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual matters set forth herein, and grant him any other relief

the Court deems proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Robert E. Higbee
Robert E. Higbee
Attorneys for Plaintiff
300 River Place Dr., Ste. 3000
Detroit, MI 48207
(313) 962-3500
robhigbee@gmail.com

11