Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as the dissent seems to imply, for a court simply to state the legal standard borfectly. It must also apply that standard correctly. Here, after accdrately stating the standard for an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court “conflated the requirements for a postbonviction evidentia-ry hearing with the requirements for a new trial” when it evaliiated the credibility of Caldwell’s witnesses without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. Id. (emphases in original omitted). To be sure, a postconviction court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing on grounds that are unrelated to a recanting witness’s credibility — for example, when an alleged recantatioh does not actually contradict a witness’s trial testimony. Cf. Opsahl v. State (Opsahl II), 710 N.W.2d 776, 782 (Minn.2006) (<HOLDING>). In such a situation, a petitioner would not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where movant alleged the names of uncalled witnesses and them anticipated testimony which would have been relevant mitigation evidence in the penalty phase but did not allege that trial counsel knew of the witnesses or that the witnesses were available to testify at trial the movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction relief motion because he did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to his claim (B) holding that relief was unavailable in part because some recanting witnesses reversed any recantation they may have made and others claimed merely that they did not give a full explanation of their testimony at trial (C) holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial (D) holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense (E) holding that bare conclusions of lay fact witnesses did not amount to any evidence at all and that the fact that they were admitted without objection added nothing to their probative force
Output (English): holding that where movant alleged the names of uncalled witnesses and them anticipated testimony which would have been relevant mitigation evidence in the penalty phase but did not allege that trial counsel knew of the witnesses or that the witnesses were available to testify at trial the movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction relief motion because he did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to his claim