“The most usual rule in cases in which it is claimed that there was false testimony at the trial or that the witness has since recanted is the ‘Larrison rule,’ taking its name from the Seventh Circuit case in which it was announced. This is that three requirements must be met before a new trial will be granted on this ground: ‘(a) [That the] court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness [was] false. (b) That without it the jury might have reached a different conclusion. (c) That the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it for it did not know of its falsity until after the trial.’ ” 3 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 557.1, at 343 (2d ed. 1982) (quoting Larrison, 24 F.2d at 87–88).
larrison rule
Larrison rule (lar-[schwa]-s[schwa]n).Criminal law. The doctrine that a defendant may be entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence of false testimony by a government witness if the jury might have reached a different conclusion without the evidence and it unfairly surprised the defendant at trial. Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928). [Cases: Criminal Law 942. C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1451.]
