Opinion ID: 1931644
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Hearing Requirement

Text: Although we refer to the justice that presided over the post-conviction relief proceeding as the hearing justice, we do not intend to imply that he held an evidentiary hearing. At the post-conviction relief proceeding, both parties presented oral arguments and the hearing justice admitted the various components of the newly discovered evidence as exhibits. No witnesses testified. No other evidence was admitted. No findings of fact were made. There was no evidentiary hearing. The state argues that the hearing justice abused his discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before granting Bleau's application for post-conviction relief. We agree. For six days, a jury of Bleau's peers came to court, afforded Bleau his constitutional right to a trial by jury and accomplished their critically important task of fact-finding. During those six days, the jury heard from ten witnesses, examined numerous exhibits, and deliberated for more than one full day. Based on the totality of that evidence, the jury unanimously found Bleau guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court then affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. We will not now allow aconviction to be vacated without first conducting an evidentiary hearing to establish that such a result is warranted. We understand the hearing justice's repugnance with a national law enforcement agent's calumny; however, we must be certain that any questionable witness's conduct before or at trial does not result in the extreme consequence of vacating a conviction without a full evidentiary hearing.