Materials - The Network of Trial Law Firms

More documents

Recommendations

Info

would have bolstered the issues raised on direct appeal. Appellate counsel also failed to assertthat trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the investigator, a false confession expert, andfailing to inform Amatuzio about Todd’s recantation.In the October 8, 2012, Order, this Court ruled that Olson’s recantation claim wasKnaffla-barred because Olson knew about Todd’s recantation from Michaels’s trial at the time ofdirect appeal. This Court also ruled Olson’s claim ineffective assistance of trial counsel forfailing to admit Todd’s prior testimony as substantive evidence was Knaffla-barred. The claimthat appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue, however, was properly beforethe Court. The remaining claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were not addressed inthe Order.Olson files this motion for reconsideration following the Minnesota’s Supreme Courtdecision in LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota, No. A12-0089 (Minn. January 30,2013), which clarified the Larrison standard. Olson also asks this Court to clarify whether theremaining issues of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims are Knaffla-barred. If this Courtintended the Order to be read as denying all claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel,Olson respectfully asks this Court to reconsider that ruling because Knaffla does not barsubsequent claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel when investigation outside the recordis necessary to raise those claims. See Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 255 (Minn. 2006). Tothe extent that any issues are Knaffla barred, Olson asserts appellate counsel was ineffective forfailing to raise those issues on direct appeal or in postconviction proceedings prior to the directappeal. Last, Olson asserts that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert Olson wasdeprived of his due process right to a fair trial by the court’s exclusion of two witnesses whowould have testified that Dale Todd was pressured into testifying falsely.
ARGUMENT1. The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision In Martin Makes Clear That Olson IsEntitled To A Larrison Hearing On Dale Todd’s Recantation.The significance of Todd’s testimony at Olson’s trial cannot be overstated. Aside fromjailhouse snitches who were discredited at trial, Todd was the only witness who tied Olson toHammill’s death. There was no physical evidence linking Olson to Hammill’s death. There wasno convincing evidence of motive. Todd was the only witness who testified at Olson’s trial whowas allegedly present at the time of Hammill’s death. But in his August 3, 2012, affidavit Toddadmitted that he testified falsely at Olson’s trial. Neither Todd nor Olson were present whenHammill was killed.This Court denied Olson a Larrison hearing, reasoning that Olson knew about Todd’srecantation at Michaels’s trial, and failed to raise the issue on direct appeal. October 8, 2012Order at 7. While both trial and appellate counsel knew that Todd recanted his Michaelstestimony at Michaels’s trial, counsel could not possibly know that five years after the trial, Toddwould recant his testimony in Olson’s case.Knaffla only bars claims that are known, but not raised on direct appeal. See e.g. Reed v.State, 793 N.W.2d 725, 732 (Minn. 2010). Without a recantation of his testimony in Olson’strial, appellate counsel had no factual basis to raise Todd’s recantation on direct appeal.Moreover, in Todd’s affidavit, he did not merely repeat his testimony from Michaels’s trial; heprovided an explanation for his false statement to police and the events leading to his falsetestimony during Olson’s trial. Under Martin, Olson is entitled to a hearing to address Todd’srecantation. See Martin v. State, No. A12-0089, slip op. at 14-15 (Jan. 30, 2013) (attached).
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 and 28: CONCLUSIONThe Affidavit of Dale Tod
Page 29: lood on a bat seized from Todd’s
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?