Cited by

“[A]n ineffective assistance of counsel claim fits within the [interest-of-justice] exception to Knaffla if it cannot be determined from the district court record and requires additional evidence, such as that involving attorney-client communications.” (quotation omitted).

Lang had the “burden of establishing by a fair preponderance of the evidence facts that warrant reopening the case.” d 366, 368-69 (Minn. 2008).

law and the facts,” that power “is not a right of juries but something which results from a number of things including the right of a criminal defendant to have a jury trial, the rule prohibiting postverdict inquiry into the thought processes of jurors, and the rules against appellate review of verdicts of acquittal.” d 557, 561 (Minn. 1984); (quoting Perkins to conclude that there is no requirement to instruct a jury on its right of nullification).

See McKenzie v. State , , 369 (Minn. 2008).

See Sanchez-Diaz v. State , , 847 (Minn. 2008) (concluding that, because the petitioner was fully aware of what his trial counsel had done and said during trial, the ineffective-assistance claim should have been brought on direct appeal); McKenzie v. State , , 369-70 (Minn. 2008) (same).

There are two exceptions to the Knaffla bar: (1) the claim “is so novel that the legal basis for it was unavailable on direct appeal”; or (2) “fairness requires review and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the claim on direct appeal.” (quotation omitted).

See 12 McKenzie v. State , (“[A]n ineffective assistance of counsel claim fits within the second exception to Knaffla if it cannot be determined from the district court record and requires additional evidence.” (quotation omitted)); -76 (Minn. 2008) (noting that Knaffla exceptions apply o

See, 3 But Brocks did not raise either exception in the postconviction court.

(noting that because appellant was present when the judge instructed the jury, he was aware of the facts and should have brought his claim on direct appeal).

d 366, 370 (Minn. 2008).

(concluding that allegation that trial counsel met with him only twice before trial was simply an argumentative assertion with no factual support and no showing as to how it constituted ineffective assistance of counsel).

“Allegations in a postconviction petition must be more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotations omitted).

is to file a petition for postconviction relief before appeal.” n.3 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted).

An “evidentiary hearing is not necessary if the petitioner does not allege sufficient facts to entitle *605 him to the requested relief.”

“The petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a fair preponderance of the evidence facts that warrant reopening the case.” -69 (Minn.2008).