Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hull, 788 N.W.2d 91.

57 citing documents.

Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
VI; see also Minn. Const, art. I, § 6; (noting that Confrontation Clause claims are analyzed identically under the federal and Minnesota constitutions).
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The district court stated that, under Minnesota caselaw, the relevant scientific community consists of “experts in the field,”
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Distinguished State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The jury could assume that Johnson would be in handcuffs as part of “standard law enforcement practice.” (stating that a defendant’s appearance in restraints inside a courtroom is distinguishable from an appearance in restraints in transit to or from the courtroom, which a jury would take to be “standard law enforcement practice”).