Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Berkovitz, 705 N.W.2d 399.

23 citing documents.

Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
15 and understands his right to testify, “a claim that his attorneys’ actions denied him the right to testify must fail ‘absent some indication in the record that [his] lawyers coerced [him] into not testifying by applying undue pressure, using illegitimate means, or otherwise depriving [him] of [his] free will.’ ” ().
Alexander John Cookson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
VI; Minn. Const. understands his right to testify, a claim that his attorneys’ actions denied him the right to testify must fail ‘absent some indication in the record that [his] lawyers coerced [him] into not testifying by applying undue pressure, using illegitimate means, or otherwise depriving [him] of [his] free will.’” Andersen, d at 11 (quoting State v. Berkovitz , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[A] claim that [a defendant’s] attorneys’ actions denied him the right to testify must fail ‘absent some indication in the record that his lawyers coerced him into not testifying by applying undue pressure, using illegitimate mean s, or otherwise depriving him of his free will.’” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Berkovitz , (“[F] actual findings will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.”); (“We review constitutional issues de novo.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Michael David Henderson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-05 (Minn. 2005) (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When a defendant knows and understands his right to testify, a claim that his attorney denied him the right to testify fails “absent some indication in the record that [his] lawyer[] coerced 12 [him] into not testifying by applying undue pressure, using illegitimate means, or otherwise depriving [him] of [his] free will.”
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although the better practice is to place the defendant’s waiver of the right to testify on the record, -08 & 408 n.1 (Minn. 2005), Minnesota does not require that a defendant’s waiver of the right to testify be made on the record
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
When a defendant knows and understands his right to testify, a claim that his attorneys’ actions denied him the right to testify must fail “absent some indication in the record that [his] lawyers coerced [him] into not testifying by applying undue pressure, using illegitimate means, or otherwise depriving [him] of [his] free will.”
Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“A defendant has the burden of proving on appeal that [he] did not voluntarily and knowingly waive [his] right to testify.”).
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
To prevail on this argument, Evans must show that he suffered actual prejudice and that “the [pretrial] publicity ‘affeet[ed] the minds of the specific jurors involved in the case.’ ” ().
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Ill The district court’s denial of a motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity will result in a new trial only if the defendant shows that the publicity had an effect on “the minds of the specific jurors involved in the case.” (quotation omitted).