Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Weekes, 250 N.W.2d 590.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. 2026
t may weigh in assessing whether the attenuation limitation applies: the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct, intervening circumstances, whether law enforcement could have obtained the evidence without the illegal conduct, and the temporal proximity between the illegal conduct and evidence to be suppressed).4 4 We adopted the Supreme Court’s
State of Minnesota v. Nathan David Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In support of this contention, -56 (Minn. 2003), for the proposition that a remand is appropriate to allow for further proceedings.
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
We adopted the Brown fact-specific inquiry in State v. Weekes (Weekes I), 312 Minn. 1, 7-8
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965, 975 (8th Cir.2006); accord State v. Weekes, 312 Minn. 1, 8-10 , -95 (1977) (recognizing this rule in *218 the context of an incriminating statement obtained during unlawful confinement); (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct.
State v. Maldonado-Arreaga 772 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Maldonado-Arreaga 772 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(quotation omitted); see also State v. Weekes, 312 Minn. 1, 9 , (analyzing the factors to consider in determining admissibility of confessions obtained following an illegal arrest).
State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Weekes, 312 Minn. 1
State v. Schweich 414 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schweich 414 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
2248, 2259 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); State v. Weekes, 312 Minn. 1, 2-3 , (Minn.Ct.App.
State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Weekes, 312 Minn. 1 , see also Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct.
Matter of Welfare of M.D.S. 345 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1984
Matter of Welfare of M.D.S. 345 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1984
We adopted these and several of the other Brown factors in State v. Weekes, 312 Minn. 1, 9
State v. Orscanin 283 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1979
Distinguished State v. Orscanin 283 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1979
The only authority defendant offers in support of his argument, State v. Weekes, 312 Minn. 1 , is distinguishable from the instant case.
State v. Bale 267 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1978
State v. Bale 267 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1978
See, also, State v. Weekes, Minn., analyzing and applying Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct.
State v. Weekes 268 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1978
State v. Weekes 268 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1978
This court, in State v. Weekes, Minn., disposed of defendant’s first claim of error by finding that the “direct, circumstantial, and medical opinion evidence compels our holding that the jury could justifiably have found defendant guilty as charged.” However, deficiencies in the record prevented this court from fully deciding whether his confe