Opinion ID: 2220559
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: New Evidence of Perjured Testimony

Text: During Hathaway's trial, William Dwyer, an admitted accomplice of Hathaway, was a key witness for the state. Hathaway now claims that newly discovered evidencea plea agreement between Dwyer and Missouri authorities in a separate matter and a bartender's 1994 statement to an investigator that contradicts a portion of Dwyer's trial testimonyshows that Dwyer perjured himself when Dwyer testified against him at his trial. Our review of the trial record indicates that Hathaway either knew or should have known of the details of Dwyer's plea agreement at the time of trial, and certainly no later than the time of his first petition for postconviction relief. He should have also known about the bartender's alleged statements before his first petition for postconviction relief was filed. [4] At Hathaway's trial, Dwyer was cross-examined extensively about his pending Missouri plea agreement. That plea agreement was accepted and Dwyer was sentenced pursuant to the agreement in December 1984. With respect to the bartender, the record indicates that by letter dated April 14, 1987, Hathaway was informed by his lawyer that he would not be raising any claims with respect to the bartender. The bartender's 1994 statement was not materially different from the information considered by Hathaway's lawyer in 1987 when he decided not to raise any claims involving the bartender. Because Hathaway knew or should have known of the bases for his perjury claim related to Dwyer by the time of his direct appeal and first postconviction petition, that claim is barred under Knaffla.