Cited by

Clear and convincing evidence is “evidence that is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

“It is a violation of the defendant’s right to due process for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to cons ent to a warrantless search.” d 677, 687 (Minn. 2008) ( Jones II); n.3 (Minn. 2004) (Jones I) (“A passive refusal to consent to a search cannot be treated as evidence of a crime.”).

the appellant argued that the prosecutor had used his pre-arrest silence in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

(holding prosecutor’s 15 explanation of reasonable doubt standard using beyond “all possibility of doubt” was proper); see also Vue, d at 13–14.

“It is a violation of the defendant’s right to due process for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to consent to a warrantless search.”

Such proof is shown when the 6 truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (quotations and citations omitted).

(stating the defendant’s credibility was “seriously undermined” by the inconsistent statements he made to the police).

-92 (Minn. 2008) (“A prosecutor’s closing argument need not be colorless, so long as it is based on the evidence or reasonable inferences from that evidence.”).

That is, he must identify an error that “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

(noting that defendant’s “credibility was seriously undermined by the inconsistent statements he made to police and his admission that he perjured himself in the first trial”).

“Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” d 677, 696 (Minn. 2008).

A suspect has “the right to require a warrant before providing a sample of his DNA.” d 677, 687 (Minn. 2008).

“Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is more than a preponderance of the evidence but 4 less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

An error is “plain” if it is “clear or obvious” in that it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

But our “primary concern” when addressing any allegation of prosecutorial misconduct is “whether such misconduct deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial.”

(holding that jurors may consider their own experiences in evaluating the evidence presented).

See, (explaining that the unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct was not "clear” or "obvious” where no court had "conclusively resolved” the issue in question); (explaining that continuing doubt regarding the controlling law cut against the defendant’s

t be presented as evidence of guilt.”); United States v. Thame, 846 F.2d 200, 206–07 (3rd Cir. 1988) (holding the same and adding that a defendant’s decision to exercise his Sixth Amendment right to counsel cannot serve as evidence of guilt); –33 (Minn. 2010) (erroneous to admit defendant’s refusal of voluntary DNA test as evidence of guilt); (noting that it would be improper for prosecutor to comment on defendant’s refusal to give saliva sample).

See State *823 v. Jones, (stating that the standard of clear and convincing evidence requires a party to do more than present minimal evidence to support its position).