Cited by

A. A prosecutor commits misconduct by making arguments that “have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial” or by violating “clear or established standards of conduct.”

“When evaluating alleged vouching, a court will look at the closing argument as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that, while prosecutor may not vouch for a 18 witness’s credibility, they are “free to argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible”).

In response, d 777 (Minn. 2007), in which the supreme court determined that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by suggesting that the appellant could not explain why the victim would lie about being raped.

Prosecutorial 16 misconduct may result from violations of “rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands [from caselaw].”

“[A]ttempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence may constitute [prosecutorial] misconduct.”

Prosecutorial misconduct “results from violations of clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.”

While “[a] prosecutor may not personally endorse the credibility of witnesses,” they can “argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.”

A prosecutor’s actions may amount to error or misconduct if the actions are “violations of clear or established standards,” or “have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”

In his supplemental brief, Glover only cites State v. Fields for 25 the proposition that a prosecuting attorney’s acts may constitute misconduct “if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial” or violate “clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.”

A prosecutor ’s actions may amount to error or misconduct if the actions are “violations of clear or established standards,” and “have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.” .

“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when he violates ‘clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.’” ().

“[A] prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”

A prosecutor’s actions may amount to error or misconduct if the actions are “violations of clear or established standards,” and “have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”

A prosecutor engages in misconduct by violating “clear or established standards of conduct” such as “rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” ().

“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when he violates ‘clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.’” ().

A prosecutor engages in misconduct by violating “clear or established standards of conduct” such as “rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” ().

“While a prosecutor must not personally endorse a witness’s credibility, the S tate may, in closing argument, argue that a witness was or was not credible.” Id.; (discerning no prosecutorial misconduct where challenged statements were about “the credibility of witnesses in the context of the evidence before the court and the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence”).

“[A]ttempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence may constitute [prosecutorial] misconduct.”

Prosecutors have “a right to analyze the evidence and vigorously argue that the state’s witnesses [are] worthy of credibility.” (discerning no prosecutorial misconduct when alleged vouching concerned statements about “the credibility of witnesses in the context of the evidence before the court and the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence.”).

Prosecutors may not attempt to elicit or actually elicit “clearly inadmissible evidence.”

Prosecutorial misconduct “results from violations of clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.”

ielinski argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for Nicholas’s credibility during closing argument, specifically calling his testimony “credible and truthful.” We have held that, “[a]lthough prosecutors may not personally endorse witnesses, the State is free to argue that a particular witness is credible.” ().

A “prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”

See State v. Fields , (“attempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence may constitute misconduct”).

“The prosecutor is an officer of the court charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.”

“The prosecutor is an officer of the court charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.”

“The prosecutor is an officer of the court charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.” (citation omitted).

In determining whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred, we assess whether the prosecutor’s acts “have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.” d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007).

“The prosecutor is an officer of the court charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.” d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007) “A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” -35 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

Rule 608(b) states that “prior misconduct, other than conviction of a crime, may be admissible for the purpose of attacking [a] witness’s credibility if the prior misconduct is probative of untruthfulness .” State v. Fields , .

“When evaluating alleged vouching, a court will look at the closing argument as a whole.” (quotation omitted).