MINNEAPOLIS — Marvin Haynes’ conviction in a high-profile May 2004 murder case returned to the public spotlight this week, after a judge granted an evidentiary hearing in Hennepin County District Court.

Judge William H. Koch heard testimony Monday and Tuesday from numerous witnesses, including Haynes’ relatives and one of the former investigators on the case. The evidentiary hearing will continue with one more witness appearing on Dec. 20, after which the judge could decide to vacate Haynes’ conviction or let it stand.

Haynes was convicted in Sept. 2005 for the murder of 55-year-old Harry “Randy” Sherer, the owner of a flower shop in north Minneapolis. After the jury found Haynes guilty, he reportedly said out loud in the courtroom, “I didn’t kill that man!”

“Marvin has proclaimed his innocence since Day One,” his sister, Marvina Haynes, said. “There’s nothing linking Marvin to the crime scene. The evidence — they don’t have any.”

The Minneapolis-based Great North Innocence Project is leading Haynes’ legal challenge for post-conviction relief, arguing in court filings that the original trial relied on “false evidence” from witnesses and “constitutionally defective eyewitness identification evidence.” Haynes’ attorneys claim that important eyewitness testimony in the case “should have been suppressed because it was the result of highly suggestive identification techniques and was wholly unreliable.” There was no physical evidence linking Haynes to the murder.

During Monday’s portion of the evidentiary hearing, a former detective on the case also questioned the identification and lineup process used during the original investigation. On Tuesday, family members — including Marvina Haynes — then provided an alibi for Haynes. His cousin, a key witness in the case, also said Tuesday in court that he was pressured to relay word of Haynes’ supposed confession to police.

Haynes himself also testified, just as he did two decades ago for a jury. 

“This is one of the most amazing days of our life, to be able to tell our side of the story,” Marvina Haynes said. “Why did it take 20 years for someone to listen to my family?”

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, which is defending its conviction during the evidentiary hearing, did not respond to a request for comment. Ultimately, if the judge were to vacate Haynes’ conviction, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty would have the authority to decide whether to pursue a new trial.

Former Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Mike Furnstahl, who served as the lead prosecutor during the 2005 trial, said suggestions of Haynes’ innocence are “really a joke.” 

“The reason this case is coming back now is not because there’s substantial and compelling evidence that Marvin Haynes is innocent, but rather because political winds are blowing in his favor,” said Furnstahl, who was also the prosecutor in the Myon Burrell case. “If the judge grants the petition for post-conviction relief, I would make sure the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office files an appeal on it. I wouldn’t let them just stand by and let this guy walk out of prison. Because [Haynes] murdered that man. There was no question in my mind. There was no question in the jurors’ minds.”

Furnstahl stands by the merits of the original law enforcement investigation and lineup process. He also said he’s not convinced by testimony this week from relatives about Haynes’ alibi, nor is he convinced by fresh testimony from Haynes’ cousin, who said both in 2005 and now that he felt “threatened” to tell police his cousin had confessed to the murder.

“His cousin told us that Haynes confessed to him. He testified at the grand jury that Haynes confessed to him. Then, at the trial, he said ‘no, I’m lying, I was forced to say that,'” Furnstahl said. “Then, on cross-examination I got him to admit that what he said initially and what he testified to with the grand jury, was the truth. This was in front of the judge and in front of the jury. If they thought there was coercion on my part, they would have voted to acquit Marvin Haynes… that, and the cross-examination of Haynes, you couldn’t believe a word he said.”

Haynes’ sister Marvina, however, argues that the case revealed a failure in eyewitness identification procedures and points to the lack of any physical evidence connecting her brother to the murder.

She said she’s hopeful the judge will rule in favor of her family this time.

“I hope that, no matter what pressure he may be under, that he follows the law and the constitution,” Marvina Haynes said, “and the evidence that was presented to him.”

Watch the latest local news from the Twin Cities and across Minnesota in our YouTube playlist: