Materials - The Network of Trial Law Firms

of the falsity until after trial. Ferguson v. State, 645 N.W.2d 437, 442 (Minn. 2002). Thethird prong – surprise – is not a condition precedent for granting a new trial, but rather afactor a court should consider when deciding whether to grant the petitioner’s request.Ferguson, 645 N.W.2d at 442.In ruling on a petition based, in part, on recanted testimony, a post-convictioncourt should be mindful that the showing required for a petitioner to receive anevidentiary hearing is lower than that required to receive a new trial. Opsahl v. State, 677N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn. 2004). A hearing is required unless “the petition and the filesand records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to norelief.” Minn. Stat. 590.04, subd. 1. Any doubts by the court about whether to hold anevidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the party requesting the hearing.Ferguson, 645 N.W.2d at 446.Based on these criteria, petitioner, Terry Olson, more than meets the standard forbeing granted a hearing at which he can present evidence to support his petition for postconvictionrelief.A. Dale Todd’s Testimony at Olson’s Trial Was False.The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of anevidentiary hearing to evaluate the credibility of the recantation. In Wilson v. State, 726N.W.2d 103 (Minn. 2007), the supreme court reversed the district’s order denying thepetitioner such an evidentiary hearing. The court said that without such a hearing, itwould be “difficult if not impossible to test [the recanting witness’s] conflicting