Ken Andersen communicated with me over the weekend and here are some of the things he had to say: “John, at the hearing the judge wanted to know if my issues in my petition were actually new evidence and if they were, would it get me past the clear and convincing standard of actual innocence which is needed to even have my petition heard. The state said I should have known about the bullet casings at the crime scene as early as late 2014. As such, I only had until late 2016 to use due diligence to find them and file my petition. From time to time an issue can be reasonably raised in a two year period. File after that time, it will be time barred unless you meet some exceptions or the interest of justice requires it to be reviewed. Zach (his lawyer) knew my facts about issues and made a very compelling argument and backed it up with some case law that supported my petition. Essentially he told the judge if you outright deny my petition without holding a hearing he would be abusing the court’s discretion and based on a MN-S-Court’s ruling in State V Wilson, it will get reversed. The judge took a few minutes and asked Zach if he thought we would be able to get my hearing done in a day? Zach thought we could. Long story short, by the judge’s tone and words it very much appeared he was granting my evidentiary hearing. After that I said some things about the missing police reports, cig butts, etc. The judge said would take our arguments under advisement and issue an order. At best he has 90 days to make that ruling. While walking back to my unit, my caseworker (who was sitting in on the hearing) told me that it appeared I was getting a new hearing. All in all, I feel Zach did great and I feel good about the hearing.”
More when I get any updates.