Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Andrews, 165 N.W.2d 528.

45 citing documents.

Minn. 2020
rests almost entirely with the prosecutor”); d 528, 532 n.4 (Minn. 1969) (noting that the prosecutor “has no duty to initiate .
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Andrews , 282 Minn. 386 , , 532 n.4 (1969) ; see Wheeler v. State , , 564 (Minn. 2018) (noting that "plea bargain[ing]" is "a discretionary function [of prosecutors], not an obligation").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The test of an impartial juror is not that he shall be completely ignorant of the facts and issues when sworn, but that he can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 394, (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
As to appellant’s grievance that he did not receive a more favorable plea offer, it is well settled that the prosecution’s participation in plea negotiations is discretionary; the prosecutor “has no duty to initiate plea barg aining” or “make a bargain.” State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 391 n. 4, & n. 4 (1969).
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
rests almost entirely with the prosecutor"); State v. Andrews , 282 Minn. 386 , , 532 n.4 (Minn. 1969) (noting that the prosecutor "has no duty to initiate ...
State of Minnesota v. Lloyd Matthew McKenzie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lloyd Matthew McKenzie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(discussing “division of power” between prosecutor and district court and stating that, with regard to “bringing charges and plea bargaining, the discretion rests almost entirely with the prosecutor”); State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 391 & n.4, & n.4 (1969) (noting that participation in plea negotiations “is the discretionary act of the prosecutor as an official of the executive branch of government” and that the prosecutor “has no duty to initiate plea bargaining” or “to make a bargain”).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The test of an impartial juror is whether he or she “can lay aside [his or her] impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 394, (quotation omitted).
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
501 ; State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 392
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The test of an impartial juror is that he “can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 394 , (quotation omitted); (“A juror must simply undertake to try the case fairly, and the trial judge, being in the best position to observe and assess the demeanor of the prospective juror, is to be given deference in determin
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 394
State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
The test for whether a juror can continue to be impartial is whether he or she “can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 394
State v. Krotzer 548 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1996
State v. Logan 535 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1995
Claude v. Collins 507 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Claude v. Collins 507 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386 , 394 n. 9, , 534 n. 9 (1969).
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
It has been stated that [t]he test of an impartial juror is * * * that he “can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 394 , (quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 , 81 S.Ct.
State v. Herme 298 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1980
State v. Herme 298 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1980
663, 668 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978); State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386 , ABA Standards on the Prosecution Function § 3.9 (1971).
State v. Engholm 290 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1980
State v. Engholm 290 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1980
263, 382 F.2d 479 (D.C.Cir.1967); State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386
State v. Carriere 290 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 1980
State v. Carriere 290 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 1980
Cir. 1967); State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386
State v. FCR 276 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1979
State v. Welfare of F. C. R. 276 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1979
State v. FCR 276 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1979
1067 (D.Minn.1975); Olsen v. State, 287 Minn. 536 , State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386
State v. Welfare of F. C. R. 276 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1979
1067 (D.Minn.1975); Olsen v. State, 287 Minn. 536 , State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386
Cummins v. Rachner 257 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1977
Cummins v. Rachner 257 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1977
State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 394
State v. McGlynn 195 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1972
State v. McGlynn 195 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1972
See, State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 390 , State v. Gamelgard, 287 Minn. 74, 78
State v. Reichenberger 182 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1970
State v. Reichenberger 182 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1970
State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386 , 165 N. W. (2d) 528 ; Newman v. United States, 127 App. D. C. 263, 382 F. (2d) 479.
Olsen v. State 177 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 1970
Olsen v. State 177 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 1970
1 State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386 , 165 N. W. (2d) 528 .
State v. Gamelgard 177 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1970
State v. Gamelgard 177 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1970
State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386 , 165 N. W. (2d) 528 .