Materials - The Network of Trial Law Firms

Larrison test. A Larrison hearing is necessary, therefore to evaluate the credibility of Todd’srecantation. See Minn. Stat. § 590.04; Martin, slip op. at 15.When viewed in the light most favorable to the petition, Todd’s affidavit also providessufficient evidence to satisfy the second prong of the Larrison test, that the jury might have foundOlson not guilty if Todd had not testified. See Martin, slip op. at 15. In Martin, thepostconviction claim involved “allegedly false trial testimony … that [constituted] the only directevidence identifying Martin as one of the shooters.” Id. at 17. Likewise, in this case, Todd’stestimony was the only evidence directly linking Olson to Hammill’s death. Without Todd’stestimony, it is clear that the jury might have come to a different conclusion. Indeed, the jurylikely would have reached a different conclusion.Olson’s Larrison claim is not barred by Knaffla because Todd’s 2012 recantation is newevidence that was not known to counsel at the time of direct appeal. See Schleicher v. State, 718N.W.2d 440, 446-447 (Minn. 2006). Olson respectfully asks this Court to reconsider its ruling,and grant a hearing to evaluate the credibility of Todd’s recantation, consistent with theMinnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Martin.2. Olson’s Claims Of Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Are Not Knaffla-BarredBecause Additional Evidence Is Needed To Evaluate The Claims.This Court clearly ruled in the October 8, 2012, Order that Olson was barred fromasserting trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce Todd’s prior testimony assubstantive evidence. The Order did not specifically address the additional claims of ineffectiveassistance of trial counsel, which included trial counsel’s failure to call Jill Nitke to impeachTodd, failure to call an expert to testify about false confessions, and failure to inform Dr.Amatuzio that Todd had recanted at Michaels’s trial. Because these claims could not be raised