Materials - The Network of Trial Law Firms

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF WRIGHTIN DISTRICT COURTTENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTTerry Lynn Olson,vs.State of Minnesota,Petitioner,Respondent.MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATONAND CLARIFICATION OF OCTOBER 8,2012 ORDER AND AMENDED PETITIOND.C. File No. 86-K4-05-003795If Dale Todd had told the truth at Olson’s trial, the jury would not have convicted Olsonof second-degree murder. There was no physical evidence connecting Olson to the death ofJeffery Hammill.Indeed, there was no reliable evidence whatsoever connecting Olson toHammill’s death. Olson was convicted of second-degree murder because Todd told the juryOlson and Ron Michaels killed Hammill. But, as Todd admitted in an August 2012 affidavit, hedid not testify truthfully at Olson’s trial. Apart from the recantation, which counsel could nothave anticipated at the time of trial and direct appeal, Olson’s trial and appellate counsel missedcritical opportunities to address Todd’s false testimony.If his attorneys had adequatelychallenged Todd’s testimony at trial and on appeal, Olson would not be in prison for a crime hedid not commit.Todd did tell the truth on several occasions before Olson’s trial. He was questioned in1979, and passed a polygraph test administered by law enforcement. Officers again questionedTodd in 2003. Initially, Todd maintained that he, Michaels, and Olson were not involved inHammill’s death. Todd falsely confessed and implicated Michaels and Olson only after officersthreatened him with murder charges and lied to him, telling Todd that they found Hammill’s
lood on a bat seized from Todd’s car. At Michaels’s trial, Todd admitted that his 2003confession was false.Todd admitted that he, Michaels, and Olson were not involved inHammill’s death. The jury acquitted Michaels. After Michaels’s trial, however, theinvestigating officer, Haggerty, again pressured Todd into testifying that he, Michaels, and Olsonwere involved with Hammill’s death.Olson’s trial attorneys attempted to impeach Todd with his prior testimony, but failed tointroduce his prior testimony as substantive evidence. They also failed to object to the juryinstruction that explicitly told the jury it could only use Todd’s prior testimony for impeachmentpurposes.Olson’s trial attorneys attempted to call two witnesses, including ChristopherPolitano, 1 to testify that an officer and Todd’s parents pressured him into testifying falsely atOlson’s trial, but the trial court excluded their testimony. Olson’s trial attorneys failed to calltheir investigator, who would have testified that Todd told her that he, Michaels, and Olson hadnothing to do with Hammill’s death. Olson’s trial attorneys also failed to call an expert to testifyabout the phenomenon of false confessions, which would have helped the jury evaluate Todd’sshifting statements.Last, despite the fact that the medical examiner, Dr. Janis Amatuzio,changed the cause of death from “undetermined” to “homicide” based upon Todd’s confession,Olson’s trial attorneys failed to inform her that Todd had recanted at Michaels’s trial.Olson’s appellate counsel also failed to adequately address Todd’s false testimony. Liketrial counsel, appellate counsel failed to assert Todd’s prior testimony should have been admittedas substantive evidence. Counsel also failed to argue on appeal that the trial court erred byprohibiting the defense from calling witnesses who would have testified about the pressure Toddreceived prior to testifying, despite the fact that this was a strong issue in its own right, and1 The Affidavit of Christopher Politano is appended to this Memorandum.
Page 1: The Work Of The Innocence ProjectDa
Page 5 and 6: often compelled to testify on behal
Page 16 and 17: STATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF WRIGHTD
Page 19 and 20: In petitioner’s case, Dale Todd
Page 21 and 22: “bore the characteristics of a gu
Page 23 and 24: In most cases, a court will have to
Page 25 and 26: defendants who provide substantial
Page 27: CONCLUSIONThe Affidavit of Dale Tod
Page 31 and 32: ARGUMENT1. The Supreme Court’s Re
Page 33 and 34: A: And I just - nobody would believ
Page 35 and 36: walking down the road, and that Ols
Page 37 and 38: and that he was pressured into test
Page 39 and 40: on direct appeal, and required a he
Page 41 and 42: additional fact-finding. See Dukes,
Page 43 and 44: Wakefield concluded that Todd was
Page 45 and 46: 3. If Any Claim Of Ineffective Assi
Page 47 and 48: present evidence to expose an adver
Page 49 and 50: appeal. Finally, appellate counsel
Page 51 and 52: andInnocence Project of Minnesota15
Page 53 and 54: III.August 11, 1979:November 4, 200
Page 55 and 56: IV.Olson requests relief as follows
Page 57 and 58: Olson’s appellate attorney did no
Page 59: About David SchultzPartner | Maslon

Materials - The Network of Trial Law Firms

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?