SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

States, 17 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir. 1927). Many
jurisdictions have crafted standards specifically for
evaluating new trial motiona based on them. The best
known of these, the so-called Larrison test, puts its
primary focus on determining whether the testimony given
at trial was false. a Larrison v. United States, 24
F.2d 8 2, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1 928). Most recantations cannot
clear this hurdle, but in the rare case where the
recantation i s deemed credible (and the testimony at
trial thereby deemed false) , the prejudice requirement
for granting relief is relaxed so that a movant need only
show that "the jury might have reached a different
conclusion" in order to obtain relief. United States v.
Willis, 257 F.3d 636, 647 (6th Cir. 2001) (emohasis
W) .33
3. Conatitutional right to disclosure of
exculpatory information.
Under Bradv v. Marvland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its
progeny, a defendant is denied due process when the
prosecution fails to disclose material, exculpatory
information prior to trial. Commonwealth v. Healv,
l3
For other jurisdictions adopting some variant of the
Larriaon teat. s, u.. United States v. Lofton, 233 F.3d 313, 318
(qth Cir. 2000) : United States v. MeYexs, 484 F.2d 113, 116 (ja Cir.
1973); HooPer v. state. 680 N.W.28 89, 94 (Minn. 2004); State v.
w, 700 A.2d 161, 165 (Del. super. 1996); State v. Britt, 360
S.E.2d 660. 664-665 (N.C. 1987); State v. Scrosains, 110 ID 380,
384-385 (1985) ; Marshall v. State, 305 N.W.2d 838 (S.D. 1981) ;
Y. Maeole, 617 P.Zd 820, 824 (Hawaii 1980).
27