Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Walker, 358 N.W.2d 660.
-
Cameron Oneal Clark, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A petitioner meets their burden on the first Larrison prong when the district court is “reasonably certain that the recantation is genuine.” State v. Walker
- Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
-
Martin v. State
825 N.W.2d 734
Minn. 2013
The first prong of Lamson is met when the court is “ ‘reasonably certain that the recantation is genuine.’ ” Ferguson II, d at 559 -60 ().
- Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
- Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
- Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
-
Vance v. State
752 N.W.2d 509
Minn. 2008
Opsahl v. State (Opsahl II), ().
- Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
- Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
- Opsahl v. State 710 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
-
Opsahl v. State
710 N.W.2d 776
Minn. 2006
In order to satisfy the first prong, a simple statement contradicting earlier testimony is not sufficient, nor is a determination that a witness is generally unreliable — the court must be “reasonably certain that the recantation is genuine.” (emphasis added).
- State v. Davis 422 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Davis 422 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Potter v. State 410 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Potter v. State 410 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Harris 407 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Harris 407 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Whiteside
400 N.W.2d 140
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
As a general rule, “a court should not grant a new trial on the basis of recanted trial testimony unless the court is reasonably certain that the recantation is genuine.”