Court Applies Harmless Error Analysis To Witness Intimidation Claim

Colbert v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 10/21/2015.  Mr. Colbert is serving a life sentence without possibility of release for the murder of Robert Mitchell back in 2003.  This is his sixth post conviction petition.  He said that a "state actor" had threatened a defense witness before testifying, that there was newly discovered evidence that the state had altered an exhibit, that there was juror misconduct, and that all these errors combined entitled him to a new trial.  The post conviction court summarily denied the petition.

Justice Dietzen apparently wanted to write about the standard of proof by which to assess whether a witness intimidation claim by a government actor violated a defendant's right to present a complete defense.  The Justice assumed without deciding that the claim was neither time barred under the post conviction petition nor procedurally barred under Knaffla.  The question to be answered is whether the interference was "substantial," which is fact specific. The court applied this "substantial interference" test in State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 2012).  

So, for Mr. Colbert, assuming that there was error was it harmless or structural?  If structural then Mr. Colbert gets a new trial without having to show anything other than the error.  The court decides that harmless error is the correct standard so Mr. Colbert had to prove that a government actor interfered with a defense witness's decision to testify, this interference was "substantial" and that Mr. Colbert was prejudiced by the conduct.  Unfortunately for Mr. Colbert, he could not prove prejudice; it seems that the witness whom he claimed had been "substantially interfered" with readily testified for him, even hamming it up just a bit.  

The court concludes that the juror misconduct claim is procedurally barred under Knaffla because he knew about it at the time of his direct appeal and at the time of his previous post conviction petitions but failed without excuse to raise it. The court continues to dodge the question whether the "interests of justice" exception created by Knaffla survives the codification of Knaffla by the legislature.  

Finally, on the exhibit tampering claim, the court concludes that it has no merit, that the exhibit actually shows what Mr. Colbert said that it did not: