Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II, 869 N.W.2d 1.

277 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“To satisfy a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, (1) the defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) the defendant must prove there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotation omitted) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–96, 6 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064–69 (1984)).
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial under the constitutions of both the United States and Minnesota.” (citing U.S. Const. amend.
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the first two interests are not implicated.”
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Such an error is grounds for reversal “only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Such an error is grounds for reversal “only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
However, “before we can apply the Waller test to determine if a closure is justified, we must determine whether a [Sixth Amendment] closure even occurred.”
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“We deem arguments waived on appeal if a pro se supplemental brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Pro se arguments Speedy trial “Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial under the constitutions of both the United States and Minnesota.” (citing U.S. Const. amend.
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Even if a district court abuses its discretion by admitting expert testimony against a criminal defendant, appellate courts will not reverse “if there is no reasonable possibility that [the testimony] substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted) (assuming, without deciding, that district court erred by admitting expert testimony and concluding that assumed error was harmless).
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Claimed Sixth Amendment violations are subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Billy Ray Garrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Billy Ray Garrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“But ‘the right to a public trial is not an absolute right.’” ().