Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cuypers v. State, 711 N.W.2d 100.

43 citing documents.

Andrew Vernard Glover v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
A. A defendant has a constitutional right to a trial before “a fair and impartial judge.” Duol, d at 141 (internal quotation marks omitted) () (explaining that the constitutional right derives from the right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7, of the Minnesota Constitution).
State of Minnesota v. Buay David Duol Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Buay David Duol Minn. 2025
These due process rights include the fundamental right to a fair trial and “a fair and impartial judge.” (citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904–05 (1997)); see also Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577 (1986) (“The state of course must provide a trial before an impartial judge .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
However, there is no presumption of vindictiveness “[i]n the area of pretrial prosecutorial decisions.” (citing Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 384).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(explaining that “[a] Sixth Amendment violation can be demonstrated by showing that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel’s performance” by showing “that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests”) (quotation omitted).
Eziquel Ignacio Leal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Marcel Moses, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 100, 104 (Minn. 2006) (stating disagreements over trial strategy generally will not establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim).
Matthew Howard Isensee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Craig David Halicki, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Cuypers v. State , d 100, 104 (Minn. 2006); State v. Mems
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Cuypers v. State , 10 (Minn. 2006).
Catherine Ann Moore, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Louis Ambrose, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Criminal defendan ts have a constitutional right to be tried before a fair and impartial judge.”
Samuel Johosephat Taylor, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Instead of the typical two-prong analysis, “[a] Sixth Amendment violation can be demonstrated by showing that an actual conflict of inte rest adversely affected counsel’ s performance .” Cuypers v. State , (citing Sullivan, 446 U.S. at 348, 100 S. Ct. at 1719).3 A. Conflict of Interest The district court found the unacceptable sexual encounter between Bulmer and Taylor’s wife created an actual conflict of interest between Bulmer and Taylor.
State of Minnesota v. Allen Maurice Moffett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Allen Maurice Moffett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Typically, a presumption of vindictiveness arises when a defendant’s exercise of a procedural right causes a complete retrial after he had been once tried and convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Right to an impartial judge “Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be tried before a fair and impartial judge.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Typically, a presumption of vindictiveness arises when a defendant’s exercise of a procedural right causes a complete retrial after he had been once tried and convicted.” (quotation omitted).
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Vindictive Prosecution1 Vindictive prosecution is presumed “when a defendant’s exercise of a procedural right causes a complete retrial after he had been once tried and convicted.” (quotation omitted).
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 100, 104 (Minn. 2006) (noting that right).
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that “until a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim” (quotation omitted)).
Williams v. State 760 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Williams v. State 760 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904-05 , 117 S.Ct.
Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
(citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904-05 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Hughes 742 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hughes 742 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007