Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota, 872 N.W.2d 865

Background

Rene Julian McKenzie was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life; conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2012 McKenzie sought postconviction relief based on affidavits from LaMonte Martin (Martin Jr.) and Heidi Mastin alleging that Wendell Martin Sr. recanted his trial testimony that McKenzie confessed in a holding cell.
The postconviction court granted an evidentiary hearing; before it, Mastin and Martin Jr. pleaded guilty in a related bribery/witness-tampering matter and withdrew or were limited in testifying; the court declared the plea restriction unenforceable.
Martin Sr. initially failed to appear, then turned himself in; he met briefly with an assistant county attorney and reiterated that his trial testimony was truthful; prosecutor warned that perjury charges could follow if he testified falsely.
At the hearing Mastin, Martin Jr., and Martin Sr. invoked the Fifth Amendment on advice of counsel; McKenzie requested statutory use immunity and argued the State had interfered with witnesses, violated due process, and that the new affidavits warranted a new trial based on recantation.
The postconviction court denied immunity and relief, finding it was not well satisfied that the trial testimony was false; the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State violated McKenzie's Fourteenth Amendment right by substantially interfering with witnesses' decisions to testify at postconviction hearing	State actions (meeting with witness without counsel; warning of prosecution) coerced witnesses and chilled testimony	Prosecutor’s conduct did not substantially interfere; warnings were limited and based on a reasonable belief witness might lie; witnesses acted on counsel advice	Court held McKenzie failed to prove substantial interference; Fourteenth Amendment claim fails
Whether court should have granted statutory use immunity to defense witnesses under Minn. Stat. § 609.09	McKenzie sought immunity because prosecutorial interference chilled testimony	Immunity statute requires a prosecutor’s written request and is narrowly construed; no egregious misconduct warranting court-ordered immunity	Court affirmed denial of immunity; no egregious prosecutorial misconduct shown
Whether brief interview of Martin Sr. without counsel violated due process or ethics	Interview without counsel (if after appointment) was improper and coercive	Court found interview occurred before counsel appointment; no ethical violation; in any event warning alone not coercive	Finding that interview occurred pre-appointment not clearly erroneous; no due process violation from interview/warning
Whether newly presented recantation affidavits warranted a new trial under Larrison test	Affidavits (third-party hearsay) show trial witness lied; without that testimony jury might have reached different result	Affidavits are third‑party hearsay of doubtful trustworthiness; one affiant had history of bribery/intimidation; Larrison first prong not satisfied	Court held postconviction court did not abuse discretion; McKenzie failed to meet Larrison’s first prong and was not entitled to a new trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1985) (limits on court-ordered immunity and need to show egregious prosecutorial misconduct)
Colbert v. State, 870 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 2015) (test for government interference with defense witnesses)
State v. Graham, 764 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. 2009) (substantial-interference standard in witness-tampering/due-process context)
Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972) (warnings amounting to duress can violate due process)
United States v. Williams, 205 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 2000) (government warnings about perjury do not automatically violate due process)
United States v. True, 179 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999) (factors for assessing whether prosecutor’s conduct substantially interfered with witness)
Opsahl v. State, 710 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. 2006) (standard of review and recantation/new-trial principles)
Ferguson v. State, 645 N.W.2d 437 (Minn. 2002) (third-party hearsay may warrant hearing but not necessarily new trial)
Dobbins v. State, 788 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 2010) (recantation affidavits alone insufficient for new trial)
Martin v. State, 865 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 2015) (requirements for showing recantation’s trustworthiness under Larrison)