DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ferguson v. State, 779 N.W.2d 555.

31 citing documents.

  • Paul Scott Seeman, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    See Opsahl, d at 423–24; (stating that any “doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of granting the hearing” (quotation omitted)).
  • Jennifer Lynn Baldwin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Baldwin’s “burden of proof for a postconviction evidentiary hearing is lower than [her] burden for a new trial.” (quotation omitted).
  • Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
  • Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
    See, –23 (Minn. 2004) (several witnesses recanted their trial testimony); (witness recanted his trial testimony); Kaiser v. State, ___ N.W.3d ___, WL 1080968, at *5 (Minn. Mar.
  • Thomas Robert Tichich, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    “The third prong is relevant, but not an ‘absolute condition precedent’ to a new trial.” Martin, d at 740 () .
  • Larry Jonnell Gilbert, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    of the third party in this case—an investigator 12 who interviewed all three witnesses —affirms, under the penalty of perjury, that the investigator heard each of the witnesses recant their trial testimony.”); Martin, d at 743 (“The affidavits of Mack- Lynch and Pettis formally recant their sworn testimony that Martin was one of the individuals who shot Lynch.”); d 555, 557- 59 (Minn. 2010) (concluding that postconviction petitioner was entitled to evidentiary hearing where trial witness gave a
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “While the first two prongs must be met for the petitioner to be entitled to a new trial, the third prong is a relevant factor to be considered, 13 but not an absolute condition precedent for granting a new trial.” Ferguson v. State , (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “While the first two prongs must be met for the petitioner to be entitled to a new trial, the third prong is a relevant factor to be considered, but not an absolute condition p recedent for granting a new trial.” Ferguson v. State , (quotation omitted).
  • Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
  • Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
    Ferguson v. State , , 560 (Minn. 2010).
  • Dominique Salatheia Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    3 -73 (Minn. 2014); Bobo v. State , n.4 (Minn. 2012); Ferguson v. State , ; State v. Turnage , -98 (Minn. 2007)
  • Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
  • Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
    See, e.g. , Henderson v. State , , 507 (Minn. 2018) ; Caldwell v. State , , 772-73 (Minn. 2014) ; Bobo v. State , , 517 n.4 (Minn. 2012) ; Ferguson v. State , , 560 (Minn. 2010) ; State v. Turnage , , 597-98 (Minn. 2007).
  • State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Finally, Lee argues that the district court erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing on the credibility of A.D.’s recantation, and other postconviction cases addressing posttrial recantations.
  • LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
  • LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
  • Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
  • Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
    See Martin, d at 744 (holding that the second prong was satisfied when the allegedly false testimony constituted the “only direct evidence” identifying the defendant as one of the shooters); (noting that the State had “little other direct evidence”); (noting that the recanting witness was the only eyewitness to the shooting who testified); Opsahl, d at 424 (concluding the second Larrison prong was met when the recanted testimony challenged the truth of five out of seven witnesses who testified t
  • Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
  • Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
    Stated differently, the allegations in the petition must have factual support that carries “sufficient indi-cia of trustworthiness,” Ferguson v. State (Ferguson II), to “justify the expense and risk” of an evidentiary hearing.
  • Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
  • Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
    Ferguson v. State (Ferguson II)
  • Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
  • Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
    Ferguson v. State (Ferguson II)
  • Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
  • Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
  • Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
  • Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
    Ferguson v. State (Jermaine II), (citing Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir.1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir.2004), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct.