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. Cox, 322 N.W.2d 555.

78 citing documents.

  • State v. Watkins 526 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Watkins 526 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    (citing Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 , 74 S.Ct.
  • State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Landro 504 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Landro 504 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Crandall 452 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Crandall 452 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159
  • State v. Johnson 441 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Johnson 441 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Wilford 408 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Wilford 408 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1987
    The proper procedure when there have been improper outside influences is “to determine from juror testimony what outside influences were improperly brought to bear upon the jury and then estimate their probable effect on a hypothetical average jury.”
  • State v. Winningham 406 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Winningham 406 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    ISSUE Was Winningham denied his constitutional right to a fair trial because the jury was inadvertently allowed to view evidence that previously had been ruled inadmissible as “highly prejudicial?” DISCUSSION “The exposure of a jury to potentially prejudicial material creates a problem of constitutional magnitude, because it deprives a defendant of the right to an impartial jury * * (citing Parker v. *72 Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 364 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Rodriguez-Torres 400 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Rodriguez-Torres 400 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    -21 (Minn.1979) (improper contact between bailiff and jury uninfluential and insufficient as basis for new trial); -60 (Minn.1982) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for mistrial based on improper remark by sheriff, heard by at least six jurors); -73 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (contact by arresting officer and juror not prejudicial when officer was hunting acquaintance who had not seen juror
  • State v. Jurek 376 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Jurek 376 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Sanders 376 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Sanders 376 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1985
    a case in which the sheriff told some of the jurors before the state had rested that he felt the state had proven its case.
  • State v. Beer 367 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Beer 367 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1985
    "[T]he rule is clear that even though the jurors may testify concerning the improper [information], they may not testify concerning the effect[s] [it] had on their minds.” The proper procedure is for the trial court to estimate the "probable effect" of the prejudicial information on a "hypothetical average jury.”
  • State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • McDonald v. State 351 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • McDonald v. State 351 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    (remark of sheriff-bailiff implying guilt of the defendant); see also, at 389 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (non-sequestration of jury).
  • State v. Holly 350 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Holly 350 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1984