Caldwell v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 9/24/2014. in this his third post conviction petition, Mr. Caldwell alleged that three witnesses at his trial presented false testimony. The post conviction court summarily denied the petition without a hearing. Justice Stras, with Chief Justice Gildea and Justice Dietzen dissenting, sends the petition back for that evidentiary hearing.
In support of his claim of false trial testimony Mr. Caldwell presented a transcript of a statement by each witness, and an affidavit from the investigator who conducted the interviews which affirmed that each statement was a true and correct transcription of the recorded interview. Now, to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing Mr. Caldwell’s petition had to contain more than “argumentative assertions without factual support;” and the petition must recite sufficiently trustworthy allegations that would, if proven, entitled a petitioner to a new trial. Justice Stras says that Mr. Caldwell met the first requirement because of the sworn affidavit from the investigator that the transcript of the actual interview of the witnesses was true and correct. At what is essentially a proffer state of the proceedings, the justice seems to ask, what else can a petitioner do?
On the second requirement, the majority and the dissent of Justice Dietzen just disagree about, well damn near everything:
In reversing the post conviction court, the majority dismisses crucial portions of the record, misconstrues the relevant case law, and misapplies the standard of review. Carnell Harrison and William Brooks did not recant their trial testimony or state that they did not testify truthfully at trial. Instead, when asked whether they testified truthfully at trial, Carnell stated he could not remember and Brooks did not answer the question.
Justice Stras gets more votes and so the petition gets sent back for an evidentiary hearing. Lots of footnote sniping.
No comments:
Post a Comment