The North Dakota Supreme Court convened on December 2, 2024, to discuss the case of Almklov v. State, focusing on the denial of an evidentiary hearing in a post-conviction application. The central argument presented was that the applicant, Mr. Almklov, was denied a fair opportunity to present evidence that could potentially alter the outcome of his case.

During the proceedings, it was highlighted that Almklov's application included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically regarding the failure to call key eyewitnesses during his trial. The defense argued that these witnesses could provide crucial testimony that was not presented, which could have impacted the jury's decision. However, the state contended that the defense had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the absence of these witnesses constituted prejudice under the Strickland standard, which requires showing both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice.

The justices engaged in a detailed examination of the evidence presented, questioning whether the defense had adequately established a factual dispute regarding the potential testimony of the eyewitnesses. It was noted that while the existence of these witnesses was undisputed, there was a lack of information about what they would have testified to and how that testimony could have changed the trial's outcome.

The court discussed the burden of proof in post-conviction cases, emphasizing that while applicants do not need to prove their entire case at this stage, they must raise sufficient questions of fact to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The justices expressed concerns about the implications of requiring applicants to prove their case at this early stage, suggesting that it could set a high bar for those seeking post-conviction relief.

In conclusion, the court's deliberations underscored the complexities involved in post-conviction applications, particularly regarding the balance between the rights of the applicant and the evidentiary standards required to proceed with a hearing. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future post-conviction claims in North Dakota, particularly those involving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.