Cited by

The court said that Weeks had satisfied the first prong because “persons ‘self-identifying as [B]lack are a distinctive group in the community.’ ” ()

We have, at times, applied interchangeably the terms “jury pool,” “jury venire,” and “jury panel.” See, -01 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

State v. Griffin , rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

See, -01 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

Turning to the standard of review for issues concerning jury composition, we apply a de novo standard to “cases concerning Sixth Amendment challenges to the fair-cross-section requirement.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

d 93, 99 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

reflect a fair cross-section of the community.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

See, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

Within this requirement is a criminal defendant’s right to a jury pool that “reflect[s] a fair cross-section of the community.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

See State v. Griffin , review denied (Minn. Aug.

review denied (Minn. Aug.

State v. Griffin , -04 (Minn. App. 2014), (quoting State v. Jones , ), review denied (Minn. Aug.

review denied (Minn. Aug.

In State v. Griffin, we held that “[w]hen an unobjected-to trial error is not one of fundamental law or cont rolling principle and is first raised by a postverdict motion for a new trial, our review of a denial of the motion for new trial is limited to plain-error review.” review denied (Minn. Aug.

review denied (Minn. Aug.

(rejecting claim that district court’s admission of “evidence of an unspecified felony, along with two other identified felonies, allowed the jury to ‘assume the worst’ regarding the nature of the unspecified conviction”), review denied (Minn. Aug.

d 93, 105 (Minn. App. 2014) (“Because appellant did not object .