Post Conviction: Court says defendant knew what he says was "unknown."

Whittaker v. Minnesota, 753 N.W.2d 668, Minn., July 31, 2008

Two armed intruders - a man in a red jacket with a semi-automatic pistol, and another man with a sawed-off rifle – forcibly entered a residence; the two men demanded money. In an ensuing struggle, the man in the red jacket shot and killed one of the residents. The two men fled but were apprehended a short distance away very soon after the shooting. Mr. Whittaker was wearing a red jacket. The man he was with, Karon Baldwin, refused to testify at Whittaker’s trial, despite a grant of immunity. A jury convicted Mr. Whittaker and the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440, 447 (Minn. 1997).

Ten years later, Mr. Whittaker produced an affidavit from Mr. Baldwin which Mr. Whittaker claims exonerates him. In the affidavit, Mr. Baldwin claims that it was he and two other individuals – Christopher Johnson and “Tron” committed the robbery during which the homicide occurred, and that it was Mr. Johnson who was wearing the red jacket. Mr. Baldwin goes on to assert that the three men happened to run into Mr. Whittaker after the homicide, and that Mr. Whittaker exchanged jackets with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Baldwin stated that he refused to testify at Mr. Whittaker’s trial because he wanted to protect Mr. Johnson.

The trial court, after considering the Baldwin affidavit, denied Mr. Whittaker’s post conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirms that denial. It seems that Mr. Whittaker cannot satisfy the first requirement of the newly discovered evidence rule, that Mr. Baldwin’s information (as contained in his affidavit) was unknown to Mr. Whittaker and his counsel at the time of trial. Information can’t be “unknown” if Mr. Whittaker was present at the time of the events that that Mr. Baldwin purports to describe. Pierson v. State, 637 N.W.2d. 571 (Minn. 2002).