Post Conviction Petition Alleging “Newly Discovered Evidence” Fails to Meet Statutory Requirement to Avoid Limitations.

Clifton v. State of Minnesota, Minn.S.Ct., 5/15/2013.  The Minnesota Post Conviction Review Court, formerly known as “The Minnesota Supreme Court,” issued the ninth opinion of the year from a post conviction proceeding.  Chief Justice Gildea, writing for a unanimous court, breaks no new ground in this pro se petition.  Mr. Clifton claimed “newly discovered evidence,” which really wasn’t.  He filed his petition long after the two year limitations expired so he had to meet the requirements of the “newly discovered evidence” exception to the limitations period.  The court concluded that he had not met those requirements.  Mr. Clifton alleged, supported by affidavits, that one of three witnesses who identified him as the shooter in this premeditated murder conviction had recanted his identification.  The problem was, it was really a recantation of the recantation of the earlier recantation.  The jury knew all about this witness’s shaky memory and his vacillating testimony: It’s him!  It’s not him!  Etc.