Cited by

19 “cannot make a judgment about which story is true and which is false.”

(holding that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on newly discovered evidence including witness testimony and noting that a postconviction hearing would give the district court an opportunity to determine “whether the evidence provided by the wi

2007) ; (stating that the petitioner has the burden “to allege facts that, if proven, would entitle him to the requested relief.” (quotation omitted) ).

The burden rests with “the petitioner to allege facts that, if proven, would entitle him to the requested relief.” (quotation omitted).

The burden rests with “the petitioner to allege facts that, if proven, 10 would entitle him to the requested relief.” (quotation omitted).

See, –05, 107–08 (Minn. 2007) (granting postconviction hearing where jailhouse informant recanted in writing); –24 (Minn. 2004) (granting postconviction hearing based on affidavits that show a witness had recanted).

See, e.g., Wilson v. State , (stating that evidentiary hearings provide the means for evaluating credibility).

“An evidentiary hearing provides the postconviction court the means for evaluating the credibility of a witness.” (citing Wilson v. State , ).

Wilson v. State , , 107 (Minn. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).

It is true that a “postconviction hearing is exactly the forum in which the court can examine and compare each witnesses’ account for truthfulness and elicit details about each witnesses’ knowledge .” Wilson v. State

3 -73 (Minn. 2014); Bobo v. State , n.4 (Minn. 2012); Ferguson v. State , ; State v. Turnage , -98 (Minn. 2007)

See, e.g. , Wilson v. State , , 107 (Minn. 2007) (explaining that we have "cautioned postconviction courts not to determine that a recantation is unreliable without first taking the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the witness at an evidentiary hearing").

The petitioner bears “the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts that would warrant relief.”

While our supreme court has held that “a postconviction court should not make witness- credibility determinations without first holding an evidentiary hearing,” n.4 (Minn. 2012) (), this court has repeatedly affirmed denials of postconviction relief by relying on the record, including the plea-hearing transcript, in cases where an appellant asserts that his or her plea was unintelligent due to being under the influence of drugs or 9 alcohol.

The petitioner bears the burden of “establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts that would warrant relief.”

“[T]he postconviction court must grant the evidentiary hearing whenever material facts are in dispute.”

allegations that “if true, would suggest that [a witness’s] trial testimony was false.” Ferguson II, d at 559 (emphasis added); see also Dobbins, d at 735 (remanding for an evidentiary hearing after observing that, “[b]ecause [the witness’s] trial testimony and his subsequent statements to [an informant] are inconsistent, one or the other is necessarily false”); (“In this case, an evidentiary hearing is appropriate because it is difficult if not impossible to test [the witness’s] conflicting sta

at 560; Opsahl v. State (Opsahl I), -24 (Minn.2004).

-24 (Minn.2004) (explaining that the postconviction court erred “[b]y concluding that the recantations were unreliable without first evaluating the credibility of the witnesses at an evidentiary hearing”).

(“In this case, an evidentiary hearing is appropriate because it is difficult if not impossible to test Wallace’s conflicting statements without examining Wallace under oath.”).

overed evidence of falsified testimony, we apply the Larrison test, under which a new trial is granted only if “(1) the court [is] reasonably well-satisfied that the trial testimony was false; (2) without the false testimony, the jury might have reached a different conclusion; and (3) the petitioner was taken by surprise at trial or did not know of the falsity until after trial.”

See, -05, 107-08 (Minn.2007) (granting hearing where jailhouse informant recanted in writing); Opsahl, d at 423-24 (granting hearing based on recanting affidavits).

we reversed the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing based, in part, on a witness’s recantation of trial testimony.