Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jama v. State, 756 N.W.2d 107.

20 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Liban Dahir Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Krutchek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Pazdernik Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This court has held that an attorney’s representation during jury selection is below the objective standard of reasonableness if the party can prove “that defense counsel was so inattentive or indifferent during the jury selection process that the failure to remove a prospective juror was not the product of a conscious choice or preference.”
Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1 (2022); (“An evidentiary hearing is not required unless there are material fac ts in dispute which must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”).
Alexander James Ray v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The deference that courts give to an attorney’s strategic decisions is especially strong in matters of jury selection, which “depends heavily on counsel’s experience, perception of and rapport with prospective jurors.” Geleneau, d at 382 (quoting 13 ).
Chris Marquis McMorris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
failure to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is presumptively neither deliberate nor inexcusable and that, in fairness, further review should not be barred.”
Faron Wayne Ruel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Buk Gaak Gany Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” Jama v. State , (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Illya Cotten Minn. Ct. App. 2019
to support his contention that “defense c ounsel was so inattentive or indi fferent during the jury selection process that [appella nt] was denied his constitutiona l right to the effective assistance of counsel.” See Jama, d at 114.
State of Minnesota v. James Richard Jerome Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, “Minnesota courts have recognized that ‘[a]ttorneys must make tactical decisions during jury selection, and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be established by merely complaining about counsel’s failure to challenge certain jurors or his failure to make proper objections.’” Jama v. 18 State, -14 (Minn. App. 2008) ( review denied (Minn. Sept.
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
In so ruling, the postconviction court relied on a decision by the court of appeals
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, –11 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that defendant was entitled to postconviction evidentiary hearing on claim that he received ineffective assistance due to attorney’s inattention during trial preparation); –15 (Minn. App. 2008) (reviewing whether attorney 7 exhibited inattentiveness or indifference during jury selection that constituted ineffective assistance).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The deference that courts give to an attorney’s strategic decisions is especially strong in matters of jury selection, which “depends heavily on counsel’s experience, perception of and rapport with prospective jurors.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
counsel’s investigation” and counsel’s “decisions to present certain evidence and call certain witnesses at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel” (quotation omitted)); (stating that “Minnesota courts have recognized that attorneys must make tactical decisions during jury selection, and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be established by merely complaining about counsel’s failure to challenge certain jurors” (quotations omitted)).