Cited by

(stating that photos in a murder case “are not rendered inadmissible just because they vividly depict a shocking crime or incidentally tend to arouse the passions and prejudices of the jurors”); (concluding that a video recording of a victim’s dying declaration was admissible because, while it was “emotionally gripping,” it contained information concerning the type of weapon, the motive, and the chronology of the offense).

18 In support of their motion for a Schwartz hearing, the Walterses’ attorney filed an affidavit stating that, two days after trial, he discovered a suspicious connection between Kyle and the jury foreperson.

d 680, 685–86 (Minn. 2024)

The district court explicitly stated that it would not address Kjellberg’s argument regarding other jurors because there was no evidence to support those allegations.4 (“The [district] court need not, however, blindly accept the assertions submitted by defense counsel.”).

See Peterson, d at 486 (“ ‘One accused of crime has the right to have the jury take it to the jury room with them as the voice of the law.’ ” (quoting Merrill, 338 F.2d at 768, quoting, in turn, Dodson, 23 F.2d at 403)); n.2 (Minn. 1979) (holding that jury instructions should contain “an instruction similar to” the statement that “[t]he defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charge made against him, and that presumption abides with him unless and until he has been proved guilty of the charg

The district court found appellant’s friend was less credible than T.B., T.B.’s wife, T.B.’s neighbor, and the teenage girl, in part due to the “long friendship” 1 n.3 (Minn. 1979), the Minnesota Supreme Court recommended the civil witness credibility instruction be used in a criminal case.

“To establish a prima facie case, a defendant must submit sufficient evidence, which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” d 481, 484 (Minn. 1979).

To obtain a Schwartz hearing, a defendant must establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct by submitting “sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.”

d 481, 484 (Minn. 1979) .

“To establish a prima facie case, a defendant must submit sufficient evidence, which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.”

S ee 10 Minnesota Practice CRIMJIG 3.12 ( 2019) (listing experience as one consideration in determining witness credibility); (directing that criminal juries be instructed on appropriate considerations for det ermining witness credibility).

State v. Larson , (noting that the rule “implicitly requires [a] defendant to establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct before a Schwartz hearing is mandated”).

(noting that the rule “implicitly requires [a] defendant to establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct before a Schwartz hearing is mandated”).

The purpose of a Schwartz hearing is “to avoid harassment of jurors and to provide a record on appeal in cases where, after the jury renders the verdict, the losing party becomes aware of facts which indicate the possibility of jury misconduct.” (quotation omitted).

19(6), and to obtain a Schwartz hearing, the defense has the “burden of adducing ‘sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’” ()

1988) (), review denied (Minn. Aug.

In order to be entitled to a Schwartz hearing, a “defendant must establish a prima facie case presenting ‘sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would *226 warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’ ” ().

Although Schwartz hearings are to be liberally granted, in order to justify a Schwartz hearing a defendant still must establish “a prima facie case presenting 'sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’ ” ().