Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rosillo, 281 N.W.2d 877.

57 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Darrnell Maurice Samir Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2026
James Michael Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
e defendant’s presence); (denial of the defendant’s peremptory challenge); (improper closure of the courtroom violating right to public trial); (denial of defendant’s request for self-representation during a criminal trial); (denial of right to testify).
Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[T]he right to testify in one’s own defense is a personal right which counsel does not have the ultimate authority to waive.”
John Thomas Owen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[T]he right to testify in one’s own defense is a personal right which counsel does not have the ultimate authority to waive.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Second, “the right to testify in one’s own defense is a personal right which counsel does not have the ultimate authority to waive.” State v. Rosillo , see also Rock v. Arkansas , 483 U.S. 44, 52, 107 S. Ct. 2704, 2709 (1987) (“Logically included in the accused’s right to call witnesses whose testimony is material and favorable to his defense, is a right to testify himself, should he decide it is in his favor to do so.”) (quotation and citation
Jose Angel Trevino, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
to present and which witnesses to call, lie within the discretion of trial counsel and will not be second-guessed by appellate courts); d 493, 506 (Minn. 2013) (stating that the extent of any investigation is a part of trial strategy, and includes whether to interview and call prospective witnesses, and should not be readily second-guessed); (stating that an attorney’s strategic decisions include what witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross-examination, and what trial motions should
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
what trial motions should be made, and all other strategic and tactical decisions are the exclusive province of the lawyer after consultation with his client.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But the case appellant relies on for this proposition, is inapposite because in that case the defendant’s attorney denied him his right to testify.
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
d, 742, 751 (Minn.1997); -79 (Minn.1979).
State v. Ihnot 575 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1998
State v. Ihnot 575 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1998
2525, 2533 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)
State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
2525, 2544, n. 15 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Minn.Stat.
State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
Moreover, Mar-houn’s counsel states in his affidavit that he did not know about this court’s
Irwin v. State 400 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Irwin v. State 400 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Scott v. State 390 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Scott v. State 390 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Wiplinger 343 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1984
State v. Wiplinger 343 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1984
-79 (Minn.1979) (if defendant can establish that his trial counsel refused to let him testify, defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial).
Pilger v. State 337 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1983
Pilger v. State 337 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1983
Crouse v. State 335 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1983
Crouse v. State 335 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1983