Cited by

Counsel accepted this ruling without requesting a known as a “Schwartz hearing.” & n.1 (Minn. 2022).

He based his petition on a statement from an individual, H.C., who allegedly worked with the husband of one of the jurors on 1 The term “Schwartz hearing”

2 “A Schwartz hearing is a procedure which allows a district court to investigate alleged juror misconduct.” d 576, 577 n.2 (Minn. 2025) (quotation omitted) (); see also Minn. R. Crim.

The jury found 1 “A Schwartz hearing provides a party an opportunity to impeach a verdict due to juror misconduct or bias.”

3 The district court granted Delvecchio’s request for a Schwartz hearing.

v. Pederson, (outlining a framework for analyzing claims of juror misconduct, including requiring an evidentiary hearing when a claimant shows a prima facie case of juror misconduct and imposing a burden on the claimant to demonstrate that actual misconduct occurred and that the misconduct caused prejudice); (observing that the “better practice” in cases involving alleged juror misconduct is for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing).

Gerald 2 A Schwartz hearing is a procedure which allows a district court to “investigate alleged juror misconduct by summoning a juror for questioning about the alleged misconduct in the presence of counsel for both parties.” n.1 (Minn. 2022)

He informed them that, on the day of the incident, he gave a friend a ride to the apartment building and, upon arriving at the building , he saw a person in the foyer who he believed was his friend and 1 The term “Schwartz hearing”

When son 1 returned, Willis told son 1 to “give [his] dad a call back.” 1 “A Schwartz hearing is a procedure in which a [district] court may investigate alleged juror misconduct by summoning a juror for questioning about the alleged misconduct in the presence of counsel for both parties.” n.1 (Minn. 2022)

During the first part of the hearing, 1 (permitting a district court to examine a juror regarding alleged juror misconduct in the presence of the parties).

See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co.

(citation omitted) 3 A Schwartz hearing is the name given to the procedure by which “a trial court may investigate alleged juror misconduct by summoning a juror for questioning about the alleged misconduct in the presence of counsel for both parties.” n.1 (Minn. 2022) ().

That investigator did little to no work for White, but White’s attorney refused to return the 1

The lead officer obtained a search warrant which authorized a search of the house and seizure of “[d]ocumentation 1

Concluding that the district court erred when it closed the first part of the Schwartz hearing to the public, the court of appeals remanded to the district court to 1 Named after Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co ., “a Schwartz hearing is a procedure in which a district court may investigate alleged juror misconduct by summoning a juror for questioning about the alleged misconduct in the presence of counsel for both parties.” n.1 (Minn. 2022).

(establishing procedure for investigating claims of juror misconduct).

Denial of the Schwartz Hearing A Schwartz hearing is “a procedure for inquiring into jury conduct that may have prevented a fair trial.” State v. Everson , (citing Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. , 258 Minn. 325, ).

Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co .

After the trial and upon notification of potential juror misconduct, the district court conducted a hearing, pursuant to Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328

Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328

Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328

20(6) (providing for verdict impeachment) ; Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. , 258 Minn. 325, 328, (establishing Schwartz hearing procedure) .

Appellant moved for a Schwartz hearing to impeach the jury’s verdict under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.03, subdivision 20(6), and Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, which the district court denied on the ground that appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief.

See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328