Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Linder, 268 N.W.2d 734.
- State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
- State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
- State v. Conklin 444 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1989
- State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
-
State v. Thieman
439 N.W.2d 1
Minn. 1989
The standard for determining the adequacy of a : In an ordinary case if the prosecutor shows that the warning was given and that defendant stated he understood his rights and then gave a statement, the state will be deemed to have met its burden of proof, unless there is other evidence indicating that there was no knowing, intelligent, and voluntary wai
- State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
- State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
- Wold v. State 430 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1988
- Wold v. State 430 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1988
- State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
-
State v. Robinson
427 N.W.2d 217
Minn. 1988
1336, 1342-43 , 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963)
- State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
State v. Shamp
422 N.W.2d 520
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-36 (Minn.1978) (per curiam).
- State v. Martinson 422 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Martinson 422 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Harris 407 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Harris 407 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Anderson 404 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Anderson
404 N.W.2d 856
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1336, 1342 , 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963); -36 (Minn.1978) (per curiam).
- State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Erickson 403 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Erickson
403 N.W.2d 281
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(determination of the voluntariness of a waiver involves “the same kind of inquiry basically that is made to determine whether a statement is ‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the traditional voluntariness requirement”).
- State v. Williams 396 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Williams 396 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Anderson 396 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1986
-
State v. Anderson
396 N.W.2d 564
Minn. 1986
445 , 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985); Doan v. State, 306 Minn. 89
- State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
- State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
- State v. Beard 380 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Beard 380 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Smith 374 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Smith 374 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Walker 372 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Walker 372 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
- State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
- State v. L'ITALIEN 363 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. L'ITALIEN 363 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Gravley 359 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Gravley 359 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Gard 358 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Gard 358 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Patricelli
357 N.W.2d 89
Minn. 1984
t. In independently determining whether a confession or statement was involuntary or coerced, we consider all relevant factors, including “age, maturity, intelligence, education, experience, ability to comprehend, lack of or adequacy of warnings, length and legality of detention, nature of interrogation, physical deprivations, [and] limits on access to counsel and friends * * *.”
- State v. Nace 354 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Nace 354 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. Heidelberger
353 N.W.2d 582
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the Minnesota Supreme Court outlined the analysis to be followed in determining the waiver issue in the context of the Fifth Amendment.
- State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984