Legal Definitions - Larrison rule

The Larrison rule is a principle in criminal law that allows a defendant to request a new trial if they discover, after their initial trial, that a key witness for the prosecution gave false testimony. This rule is designed to ensure fairness when a conviction might have been based on unreliable or untruthful evidence that the defense could not challenge at the time.

For a new trial to be granted under the Larrison rule, three specific conditions must typically be met:

• False Testimony: The court must be reasonably convinced that a significant witness for the prosecution provided testimony that was false.
• Materiality: There must be a reasonable possibility that, without this false testimony, the jury might have reached a different verdict. In other words, the false testimony was crucial or impactful enough to potentially sway the outcome of the trial.
• Surprise and Inability to Counter: The defendant must have been genuinely surprised by the false testimony during the trial and was unable to challenge its truthfulness at that time because they only learned of its falsity after the trial concluded.

Here are some examples illustrating how the Larrison rule might apply:

• Example 1: Eyewitness Recantation

  A defendant is convicted of robbery, largely based on the testimony of an eyewitness who claimed to have seen the defendant commit the crime from across the street. After the trial, the eyewitness comes forward and signs an affidavit stating that they were pressured by the police to identify the defendant and that they were actually unsure of the identification at the time, making their trial testimony false. The defense team was unaware of this pressure or the witness's uncertainty during the trial.

  This scenario meets the Larrison rule because: (1) the eyewitness's testimony was false regarding their certainty and the lack of pressure; (2) without this seemingly strong eyewitness identification, the jury might have had reasonable doubt and reached a different verdict; and (3) the defense was surprised by the false testimony and could not have known about the police pressure or the witness's true uncertainty until after the trial.

• Example 2: Informant's Fabricated Presence

  A defendant is found guilty of drug trafficking, primarily due to the testimony of a confidential informant who claimed to have been present during a key transaction and directly observed the defendant's involvement. Months after the conviction, newly uncovered travel records and a sworn statement from a border agent reveal that the informant was actually out of the country on the date of the alleged transaction, making their testimony about being present impossible.

  This situation aligns with the Larrison rule because: (1) the informant's testimony about being present was definitively false; (2) the informant's direct observation was likely critical to the prosecution's case, and without it, the jury might have acquitted; and (3) the defense would have been unaware of the informant's true whereabouts during the trial and thus unable to challenge this specific falsehood.

• Example 3: Expert Testimony Based on Misleading Data

  A defendant is convicted of a financial crime, with a significant part of the prosecution's case resting on an expert witness's testimony about complex financial data. The expert testified that certain patterns in the data unequivocally pointed to fraudulent activity by the defendant. Years later, an independent audit of the same data, using updated analytical methods, reveals that the expert's original interpretation was based on a flawed statistical model that misrepresented the data, and the patterns were actually consistent with legitimate business practices. The defense, relying on the expert's credentials and the prevailing analytical methods at the time, could not have known about the flaw during the trial.

  This example fits the Larrison rule because: (1) the expert's testimony, though perhaps not intentionally malicious, was based on a flawed methodology that led to false or misleading conclusions about the defendant's actions; (2) the expert's testimony was a cornerstone of the prosecution's case, and without it, the jury might have reached a different conclusion; and (3) the defense was surprised by the misleading nature of the testimony and could not have identified or proven the flaw in the statistical model until after the trial, with the benefit of new analytical techniques.