What remedies are there if it was subsequently discovered that a
witness lied at trial?
In theory, the recourse for newly discovered evidence which is non-cumulative and material to the judgment at issue is summarized in the other answer: File a motion for relief from judgment or order (or equivalent motion, depending on which court has jurisdiction of the case at that time). But in the real world, corrupt judges don't care about the law. They just do whatever they want.
This answer is based on my experience and the Michigan procedural law. My briefs in Michigan upper courts and in the U.S. supreme court provide legal and factual details, in case you are interested.
Michigan's equivalent of FRCP 60 is MCR 2.612(C)(1)(b)-(c) (relief from judgment that was obtained by fraud or because of newly discovered evidence). This motion typically would be filed in trial court, but sometimes (as happened in my case) the newly discovered evidence emerges when the matter is in the appellate queue. During that period, the trial court does not have jurisdiction on the case, MCR 7.208. The following excerpt, quoted in a COA's unrelated opinion, elucidates on the jurisdictional confusion that to this date the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) neglects to solve.
Dean & Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (4th ed), Author’s
Commentary, § 2612.20, pp 487-488:
The effect of a pending appeal on the power of the trial court to
grant relief under MCR 2.612(C), however, creates problems. MCR
7.208(A) provides that, after a claim of appeal is filed or leave to appeal granted, the trial court may not set aside or amend the
judgment or order appealed from except by order of the court of
appeals, by stipulation of the parties, or otherwise provided by law.
Yet the time for filing a motion seeking relief from the judgment
continues to run while the case is pending on appeal. This leads to
undesirable complications, either requiring a party seeking relief
from judgment to present its grounds first to the appellate court,
which may then remand the case to the trial court if the grounds are
well taken, or requiring the motion to be filed in the trial court
while the appeal is pending although the court cannot act upon it
until the case is remanded. Under the latter approach, the trial court
could indicate its intention to grant the motion upon remand, and a
remand could then be obtained from the appellate court under MCR
Regardless of the MSC's negligence, MCR 7.216(A)(4) and (5) prescribe the possibility for the Michigan appellate court to "permit [...] additions to the transcript or record" and to "remand the case to allow additional evidence to be taken", respectively.
The newly discovered evidence emerged while my case was in the appellate queue. I had been pursuing that evidence during discovery in trial court, but judge Carol Kuhnke (the felon who later in November of 2016 got busted for illegal possession of narcotics, excerpts police report available here) systematically ruled to prevent me from obtaining this and other evidence.
Once the newly discovered evidence emerged, I proceeded as outlined by Dean & Longhofer. I even followed the sequence indicated there:
- I filed in the appellate court a motion under MCR 7.216(A). The MCOA denied this motion and the one for reconsideration (the MCOA never substantiates why it denies motions), even though I cited cases where the MCOA has granted motions pursuant to that court rule.
- Then I filed in trial court a motion under MCR 2.612. For obvious jurisdictional reasons, I clearly asked felon Carol Kuhnke to refrain from deciding my motion while the appeal was pending. I emphasized that Michigan Court Rules only set a deadline for filing the motion, although not for a ruling on one such motion. Thus, whereas I met the deadline, a judge has no legitimate reasons to enter a premature ruling.
- Felon Carol Kuhnke didn't care about my clear and conspicuous indications. She rushed to deny my motion about two weeks after the media publicized her drug-related crime. Her pretext for her premature denial of my motion was "lack of jurisdiction", precisely the reason why I asked this criminal to wait till jurisdiction returns to the trial court so that a hearing can be scheduled.
Subsequently, I asked the Michigan Supreme Court (in my Application for Leave to Appeal) to solve the unsolved discrepancy and redress its detrimental effect on my case. The MSC inexplicably and single-handedly denied my Application.
Pending what the U.S. Supreme Court will do about the case, the handful of Michigan judges involved in this matter have been blatantly ignoring what Michigan Court Rules dictate on matters of newly discovered evidence. This is one of many situations where a legal recourse exists but the corrupt judiciary lacks the integrity to enforce it.
The myth of ascertainment of the truth is a fraud committed by our charlatan judiciary. I cannot imagine the indignation that victims of worse crimes/offenses must experience when they see their inept judges granting impunity to offenders and their accomplices even where new evidence is discovered.