Cited by

Under the second prong of this standard, “might” means something more than “an outside chance” but much less than “ would probably.” d 98, 104 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

“When applying the Larrison factors to determine whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court must assume the truth of the allegations in the petition.” see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

However, “Minnesota courts continue to apply the Larrison test in cases involving witness- recantation and false-testimony claims.” Campbell, d at 506 n.2; n.6 (Minn. 2014).

Ortega v. State , (Minn .

Ortega v. State , (Minn .

Ortega v. State , , 104 (Minn. 2014).

Ortega v. State , , 103 (Minn. 2014).

7 When assessing the merits of a claim base d on false or recanted testimony, the reviewing court “follow[s] the three-prong test set forth in Larrison v. United States , 24 F.2d 82, 87–88 (7th Cir. 1928).” 103 (Minn. 2014).

review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997); (stating that a new trial based on false testimony may be granted only if the court is reasonably well satisfied the testimony was false).

But when assessing the merits of a claim based on false or recanted testimony, the reviewing court “follow[s] the three-prong test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87–88 (7th Cir. 1928).”