Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Agianst D. Swenson, 714 N.W.2d 681.

75 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If an appellant establishes that a district court committed two or more procedural errors, none of which individually requires a new trial, the appellant nonetheless may be entitled to a new trial “if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A prosecutor may not personally endorse the credibility of a witness or impliedly guarantee a witness’s truthfulness.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that if an appellant establishes that a district court committed two or more procedural errors, none of which individually require a new trial, the appellant nonetheless may be entitled to a new trial “if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying appellant a fair tri
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
B. Vouching for witnesses “A prosecutor may not personally endorse the credibility of a witness or impliedly guarantee a witness’s truthfulness.”
State v. Kelley 832 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-49 (Minn.2010) (stating that expert testimony about “the role of retaliation and respect in gang culture” assisted in proving motive to benefit a gang); (stating that the expert’s testimony about the role of respect in the Bloods’ culture and that the victim was murdered for the Bloods because he showed disrespect was “helpful to establish the ‘for the benefit of a gang’ element”).
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(“[T]his court has discretion to consider an error not objected to at trial if it is plain error affecting substantial rights.”).
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
See, (declining to address the plain error prong of the standard because the substantial rights question was disposi-tive).
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
by contrast, we were more accepting of the State’s gang expert testimony.
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
This court prefers that “first-hand knowledge testimony be used to prove the ‘for the benefit of a gang’ element when feasible.”
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
(Hanson, J., concurring), suggests this procedure, but we have never required it.
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
In these cases, we have emphasized that expert testimony on gang activity is often “neither helpful nor necessary and can be highly prejudicial, due to the potential for *505 experts to unduly influence the jury.”
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
we upheld the admission of certain aspects of the State’s gang expert’s testimony.
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
Ramey, d at 299 ; (explaining that to satisfy the second prong of the plain error test “the error must be plain at the time of the appeal”).
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
(Hanson, J., concurring).
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
We have addressed the use of gang expert testimony in five recent cases:
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-39 (Minn.2007); -73 (Minn.2005); , 611—13 (Minn.2003).
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
We have considered the admissibility of gang expert testimony in four recent cases:
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)