DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Beier, 263 N.W.2d 622.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    d 622, 626 (Minn. 1978).
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
    (explaining that a defendant must show that the information not only made its way into the jury room, but infected the verdict); (explaining that “[t]he relevant factors to be considered by this court, in an independent evaluation of the verdict, are
  • State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    See, -27 (Minn.1978) (assessing prejudicial effect of jury’s exposure to pretrial publicity).
  • State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Kinsky 348 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Kinsky 348 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
    this court stated: We start with the proposition that while pretrial publicity may jeopardize a defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, no presumption of prejudice arises unless there is massive publicity surrounding the trial.
  • State v. Patch 329 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Patch 329 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Howard 324 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Howard 324 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1982
    this court said: In order to successfully challenge a juror for cause under Rule 26.02, subd.
  • State v. Rieck 286 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Rieck 286 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Koonsman 281 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Koonsman 281 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1979
    “a defendant in a criminal case seeking reversal on appeal on this ground [prejudicial publicity] must show that he actually was prejudiced by the publicity.” The record indicates that defendant received a fair trial by an impartial jury.
  • State v. Carignan 272 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Carignan 272 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Waukazo 269 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Waukazo 269 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1978
    Any discussion of a defendant’s claim of prejudice resulting from pretrial publicity must start with the proposition that “while pretrial publicity may jeopardize a defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, no presumption of prejudice arises unless there is massive publicity surrounding the trial.” State v. Beier, Minn., 626 (1978), citing Shepperd v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct.