Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Googins, 255 N.W.2d 805.

52 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Prosecutors have “a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses [are] worthy of credibility.” (discerning no prosecutorial misconduct when alleged vouching concerned statements about “the credibility of witnesses in the context of the evidence before the court and the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
As such, a prosecutor may “analyze the evidence” in their closing argument “and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility whereas defendant and his witnesses were not.” State v. Googins
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Moreover, a “prosecutor ha[s] a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses [are] worthy of credibility whereas [the] defendant and his witnesses [are] not.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Prosecuting attorneys may “analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility whereas defendant and his witnesses were not.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A statement that a witness is “very believable” does not constitute a direct endorsement when the prosecutor does not directly vouch for the witness and when the statements are “made within a discussion of factors affecting the credibility of the witnesses.” 2; see also State v. Googins , (stating that 2 The prosecutor made several statements during closing argument related to witness credibility.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A prosecutor has a right “to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility whereas defendant and his witnesses were not.” State v. Googins
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Prosecutors tread on dangerous grounds when they resort to epithets to drive home the falsity of defense evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But a prosecutor may 4 vigorously argue that a particular witness was not credible , d 805, 806 (Minn. 1977), and “point to circumstances which cast doubt on a witness’s veracity.” Ture, d at 516 .
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
That doesn’t mean she has an interest in the case.” The supreme court has stated that “prosecutor[s] [have] a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses [are] worthy of credibility.”
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
curred at trial” and that “[t]hroughout the 33 pages of his closing and rebuttal arguments, the prosecutor meticulously reviewed each witness’s testimony and evaluated what they said as well as their demeanor, body language, and credibility.” A prosecutor has “a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility.”
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But the prosecutor may “analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility whereas defendant and his witnesses were not” and “urge the jury to consider defendant’s interest in the outcome in assessing his credibility.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A prosecutor has “a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility whereas defendant and his witnesses were not.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But a prosecutor has “a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility whereas defendant and his witnesses were not.”
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
We have recognized that “the state is free to argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.” Fields, d at 785
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Id.; (“[A prosecutor has] a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility.”).
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
But the state is permitted to “analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility whereas defendant and his witnesses were not” and to “urge the jury to consider defendant’s interest in the outcome in assessing his credibility.”
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
(stating that prosecution has right to analyze evidence and “vigorously argue” state’s witnesses are worthy of credibility).
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Dupay 405 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dupay 405 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“The prosecutor may analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that defendant and his witnesses lack credibility.” ().
State v. Danielski 374 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Danielski 374 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stock 362 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stock 362 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(defendant convicted of terroristic threats, indecent exposure, and disorderly conduct).
State v. Southard 360 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Southard 360 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(defendant convicted of terroristic threats, indecent exposure, and disorderly conduct).
State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Booker 348 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1984
State v. Booker 348 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1984
we stated: We believe that the prosecutor had a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility whereas defendant and his witnesses were not.