Cited by

And as we discuss next, this question falls within our inherent “authority to regulate and supervise the rules that govern the admission of evidence in the lower courts.” n.4, 909 (Minn. 2015) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (deciding issue implicating this inherent authority even though the appellant “did not raise this argument in the district court”).

In that petition, Seeman asserted that there was new evidence that a key witness, D.O., falsely testified at trial, that the state elicited this false testimony (i.e., a “Napue claim”), 1 and that the state failed to disclose favorable evidence (i.e., a “Brady claim”).2 1 (“‘[I]mplicit in any concept of ordered liberty’ is the principle that ‘a State may not knowingly use false evidence’ to obtain a conviction.” (quoting Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959))).

“[T]he substantive component of the right to due process [protects] an individual from certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” (quotation omitted).

(quotation omitted); d 900, 906 (Minn. 2015) (“In the context of executive action, .

s, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998) (“[C]riteria to identify what is fatally arbitrary differ depending on whether it is legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer that is at issue.”); Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394, 407-08 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting different standards applied to substantive-due-process challenges to Minnesota’s Civil Commitment and Treatment Act); d 900, 906 (Minn. 2015) (recognizing differing standards under Lewis).

See, 909 & n.9 (Minn. 2015) (noting that the Saint Paul Police Crime Lab had been investigated for deficiencies in its quality control measures and that the Legislature had taken action to address the concerns).3 Because this information was known or knowable by Evans in 2013, the time to bring a claim based on th

(providing that the state constitution makes the supreme court the final authority in protection of the rights guaranteed by the constitution); -06 (Minn. 2015) (noting that the supreme court is “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision-making in this unchartered area are scarce and open- ended”).

Substantive due process protects against “certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.”

–2 2 n.2 (Minn. 2020) (stating that “[w]e may consider arguments not addressed by the district court when addressing them would not work an unfair surprise on a party,” when “all the parties have briefed the issues,” and when the only dispute is over “an issue of law” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); n.4 (Minn. 2015) (stating that our consideration of a question not raised in the district court “does not prejudice the State” when the question involves an issue of law and t

See State v. Hill , & n.5 (Minn. 2015).

The supreme court has noted that it is “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision-making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” -06 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

n.4 (Minn. 2015) (reaching an argument not raised below when the question involved a purely legal issue, the State had briefed the issue, and consideration of the issue did not prejudice the State).

“This is especially true when the record is not fully developed.” n.1 (Minn. 2015).

Bu t “substantive due process proh ibits the admission of eyewitness identifications the police obtained through unnecessarily suggestive procedures that create a substantial like lihood of misidentification.” State v. Hill

State v. Hill , , 903 n.1 (Minn. 2015) ("We generally do not consider issues that were not raised in the district court.").

“The United States and Minnesota Constitutions each guarantee a criminal defendant the right to due process.” (citing U.S. Const. amend.

Substantive due process protects “an 5 individual from certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” State v. Hill , (quotation omitted).

The supreme court recently stated that it is “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for 8 responsible decision-making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” -06 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted)

Substantive due process protects a fundamental right against “arbitrary, wrongful government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” -06 (Minn. 2015) (quotation and citation omitted).

The supreme court recently noted that it is “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision-making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” -06 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).