DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schmit, 139 N.W.2d 800.

21 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    And Minnesota has long recognized that courts have the inherent authority “to restrict attendance as the conditions and circumstances reasonably require for the preservation of order and decorum in the courtroom and to protect the rights of parties and witnesses.” d 454, 458 (Minn. 1993) (“Without a doubt a trial court may, in the appropriate exercise of its discretion, exclude spectators when necessary to preserve order in the courtroom.”).
  • Minn. 2023
    (stating that relatives and friends of the defendant are permitted in the courtroom in “most cases of general exclusion”); see also State ex rel.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    See Waller, 467 U.S. at 46 (stating “the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions” (quotation omitted)); - 9 07 (Minn. 1966) (suggesting that “[t]he presence of an audience does have a wholesome effect on trustworthiness since witnesses are less likely to testify falsely before a public gathering.”).
  • State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
    VI; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6; State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78
  • State v. Fageroos 531 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Fageroos 531 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1995
    at 2215, 2216 ].” McRae, d at 259 ; see also State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78 , (decided nearly 20 years before Waller, where we held that the trial court erred in excluding everyone from the trial of a criminal case except attorneys and members of the press because of the nature of the crime).
  • Austin Daily Herald v. Mork 507 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Austin Daily Herald v. Mork 507 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    In this case, the trial court made specific findings that the juvenile victims would suffer embarrassment and fright and would be traumatized further if required to testify “before a public forum.” See State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 82 , (temporary exclusion of the public from criminal trials permissible if juveniles would be unable to testify competently and coherently because of fright or embarrassment).
  • State v. Ware 498 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Ware 498 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1993
    State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 81-82
  • State v. McRae 494 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1992
  • State v. McRae 494 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1992
    In State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 82 , we stated that “[wjhere it appears that minors are unable to testify competently and coherently before an audience because of embarrassment or fright, temporary exclusion of the public is permissible.” We went on to hold in that case the exclusion of the public, with the exception of
  • State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
    See e. g., State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78
  • State Ex Rel. Radke v. Tahash 166 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1969
  • State Ex Rel. Radke v. Tahash 166 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1969
    2 We are confronted, nevertheless, with the decisions of this court in State v. Nelson, 199 Minn. 86 , , and State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78 , 139 N. W. (2d) 800 , which do give substantial support to appellant’s position.
  • Schavey v. Roylston 448 P.2d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Weigold 160 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Weigold 160 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1968
    Defendant now complains that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a public trial, citing State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78 , 139 N. W. (2d) 800 .