State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster

Summary

The court held that a defendant who satisfies the requirements for an alternative-perpetrator defense may, subject to ordinary evidentiary rules, call the alleged alternative perpetrator as a witness even when the witness is expected to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. Foster forfeited his separate request to call the witness for a nontestimonial purpose because the district court never ruled on that request and Foster did not properly challenge the reservation of the issue. Although the district court applied an incorrect categorical view that the invocation lacked probative value, its independent determination that the evidence would be needlessly cumulative supported affirmance.