State of Minnesota v. Michael David Kochevar, A15-580

While stopped on an I-35W exit ramp, Kochevar allegedly displayed a handgun, took a photo of a taxi driver, shouted obscenities, and threatened the driver; police arrested him and charged him with second-degree assault and terroristic threats.
At a recorded police interview in Room 108, Kochevar denied brandishing a gun and gave three explanations for how the victim might have seen a gun; he later prepared a demonstrative reenactment video (not admitted at trial).
During trial Sergeant Hatle testified and demonstrated the defense theory; the prosecutor and defense later noticed a still photo that came from a video of the interrogation that neither side had known existed and the prosecutor had not disclosed.
The jury heard the victim’s testimony, the audio of the interrogation, and Hatle’s live demonstration; Kochevar did not testify and his demonstrative video was not introduced. The jury convicted on both counts.
The prosecution later produced the interrogation video; Kochevar sought postconviction relief arguing (1) Brady and Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 violations for nondisclosure, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to review the video and advise about testifying, and (3) entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. The postconviction court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Kochevar's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether nondisclosure of the interrogation video violated Brady (due process)	The video was favorable/exculpatory or impeaching and material; nondisclosure prejudiced the defense and would likely have changed the verdict	Video was not material; suppression did not undermine confidence in the outcome given other evidence	No Brady violation; video not material
Whether nondisclosure violated Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01	Rule 9.01 required disclosure of material tending to negate guilt; failure to disclose was prejudicial	Rule 9.01 is broader than Brady but still requires materiality showing; no prejudice shown here	No Rule 9.01 violation; video immaterial
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not stopping trial to review the video	Counsel’s failure to review or insist on a continuance was unreasonable and fell below professional norms	Decision not to review was a tactical trial strategy; courts defer to strategic choices absent clear prejudice	No ineffective assistance; decision was trial strategy
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to properly advise Kochevar about his right to testify	Kochevar swore counsel did not properly inform him and he would have testified	Record shows Kochevar requested jury instruction about not testifying and told the court he had sufficient time to consult counsel; postconviction court discredited Kochevar’s affidavit	No ineffective assistance; waiver to remain silent was knowing and voluntary

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s suppression of favorable material violates due process when material)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (not every disclosed fact useful to defense requires new trial; focus on materiality)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (elements of Brady claim and materiality standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
Pederson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. standard on Brady/materiality and reasonable probability)
Walen v. State, 777 N.W.2d 213 (Brady analysis and requirements for postconviction relief)