Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Walen v. State, 777 N.W.2d 213.

82 citing documents.

Jamal Abdi Madar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The Knaffla rule also bars any claims not made but about which a petitioner knew or should have known at the time of an earlier appeal or petition.”
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that one of the elements of a Brady violation is that the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution).
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Baron Montero Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Baron Montero Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sara Elaine Katra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sara Elaine Katra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
C. Brady Violation “[T]he suppression by the State, whether intentional or not, of material evidence favorable to the defendant violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.” (citing Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97); (explaining that the state has a duty to disclose even when there has been no request for the evidence by the defendant and that the remedy for a Brady violation is a new trial).
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he suppression by the State, whether intentional or not, of material evidence favorable to the defendant violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.” (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963)).
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the supreme court examined the Brady materiality of a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension report not produced for the defendant.
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
-37 (Minn.2010); , 711 n. 4 (Minn.2005); (electing not to decide whether the petitioner’s claims were Knaffla barred because they failed on the merits).