Cited by

This deference recognizes “that the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.”

In other words, “the jury does not have to unanimously agree on the facts underlying an element of a crime.”

1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) ; see also State v. Pendleton , , 723 (Minn. 2007).

(citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S. Ct. at 1719); see also U.S. Const. amend.

See State v. Pendleton , -25 (Minn. 2007).

On the other hand, peremptory challenges may be exercised for any reason, such as "sudden impressions, gestures, or a mere feeling," State v. Bowers , , 776 (Minn. 1992) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), as long as its purpose is not discriminatory, see State v. Pendleton , , 726-27 (Minn. 2007).

It is true that a jury need not “unanimously agree on the facts underlying an element of a crime in all cases.”

“Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

State v. Pendleton , , 726 (Minn. 2007).

“Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” State v. Pendleton

“Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” State v. Pendleton

4 “Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” State v. Pendleton

The right to a unanimous verdict forbids the grouping of different alleged acts that are “inherently separate” or the grouping of different alleged acts in a manner that is “irrational or unfair.” -32 (Minn. 2007).

The jury need not unanimously agree on each element’s underlying facts so long as the differing factual circumstances show “equivalent blameworthiness or culpability.” , 731 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

Stated somewhat differently, “the jury need not unanimously agree on each element’s underlying facts so long as the differing factual circumstances show ‘equivalent blameworthiness or culpability.’” (), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2011).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See, d 514, 520 (Minn. 2009) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion when applying the fifth factor because “the identity of the perpetrator was a central issue at trial in which appellant’s testimony would have contradicted the other witnesses” (emphasis added)); (finding credibility issue to be critical because defendant’s “‘wrong place, wrong time’ defense contradict[ed] the consistent story of the state’s witnesses” (emphasis added)); Swanson, d at 655– 56 (concluding that credi

Appellate courts “give great deference to the district court’s ruling on a Batson challenge, recognizing that the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.”

“Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.”

The supreme court has stated that, if the district court errs in applying the Batson 10 framework, the reviewing court will apply Batson by “examin[ing] the record without deferring to the district court’s analysis.”

Those factors are often considered together and “[i]f credibility is a central issue in the case, the fourth and fifth Jones factors weigh in favor of admission of the prior convictions.” Swanson, d at 655

“To achieve that end, a jury must unanimously find that the government has proved each element of the offense.” -31 (Minn. 2007).

(); (“[T]he ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” (quoting Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768)).

is 14 warranted because the district court occupies a unique position to observe the demeanor of the prospective juror and evaluate the credibility of the party that exercised the peremptory challenge, and the ‘record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.’” Diggins, d at 355 (quoting Pendleton, ).

“Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.