Cited by

(countering was effective when counsel “supported [the defendant’s] explanation in closing argument”).

when the evidence is cumulative.”

(quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963)).

5 In Minnesota, the admissibility of a defendant’s statement made during a custodial interrogation must be considered “in light of the policies served by the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining that erroneously admitted evidence is harmless when it is cumulative) .

(“I mproperly admitted evidence is harmless, however, when the evidence is cumulative” of other admissible evidence).

When evidence is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, “[t]he exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial physical, tangible materials obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion.”

N.W.2d 642, 650 (Minn. 1999) ( holding that erroneously admitted statements, including a reference to “my victim,” were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the statements did not amount to a confession and there was overwhelming independent evidence of guilt), or when the impact of the statement is merely “cumulative” to that of properly admitted evidence

under the clearly erroneous standard, but we review the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”

The erroneous admission of evidence is harmless error “when the evidence is cumulative or there is other extensive evidence connecting [ the defendant] to the commission of the crime.” (quotation omitted).

Consequently, any error in admitting the examiner’s reference to the report “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” (“Improperly admitted evidence is harmless .

(“When reviewing a challenge under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution on 4 undisputed facts, the reviewing court may independently analyze the facts to determine whether e

(“Improperly admitted evidence is harmless .