Cited by

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986); –11 (Minn. 2019).

In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), “the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusion of prospective jurors through peremptory challenges is subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

P. 31.01 (stating that any error that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded); (stating that error is harmless if “there is no reasonable possibility” it influenced the outcome).

at 726 (citing State v. Reiners , -34 (Minn. 2003)); n.11 (Minn. 2016); (citing Onyelobi for this principle).

To do so, the party must show that (1) a member of a “protected racial group” was excluded from the jury, and (2) “circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.” (quotation omitted).

If a peremptory challenge is used against a prospective juror because of their race, both the prospective juror and the defendant are denied equal protection, as the prospective juror is denied their right to participate in jury service, and the defendant is denied their right “to be tried by a jury made up of members selected by nondiscriminatory criteria.” -11 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

In its postconviction order, the district court quoted the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in 6 State v. Harvey for the proposition that “[a]ppellate courts afford great deference to a district court’s Batson ruling because the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.” (quotation omitted).

In addition, Chamberlain cites the supreme court’s in which the supreme court considered, among other things, whether police officers violated section 626A.42 when they sought and obtained an order authorizing a search for CSLI relating to the appellant’s cellphone.

3 “In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusion of prospective jurors through peremptory challenges is subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Harvey , (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 89).

17 An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” d.

d 792, 811 (Minn. 2019).

An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” 6 (quotation and citation omitted); State v. Bigbear, __ N.W.3d __, __ (Minn. July 31, 2024) (reiterating that “[h]armless-error review considers whether a reasonable possibility exists that the error significantly influenced the verdict, not merely whether the other properly admitted evidence

An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

-97 (Minn. 2019) (affirming a search warrant tracking the defendant’s CSLI); Contreras-Sanchez, d at 155, 167 (affirming use of a geofence warrant to gather CSLI for about one month).

An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (“If no constitutional right was implicated, [a reviewing court] will reverse only if the district court’s error substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted)).

Clearly, the previously unknown identity of one’s biological parents is “deeply private” information with the Harvey, (recognizing that cell tower location data is “subject to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement”).

(holding 6 that a district court’s ruling on a Batson challenge is reviewed for clear error unless the district court “makes its determinations using the wrong legal standard”).

see also White, d at 507 (concluding that the defendant had not established a prima facie case in part because a Native American woman with a Black husband “had already been accepted as a juror”).

An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotations omitted).

(“[N]otwithstanding the State’s failure to cite [Minn. Stat. § 626A.42] in its application, the State complied with the substantive requirements of [the statute].”).

2 ShotSpotter is a “gunshot-detection technology employed by police departments, including the Minneapolis Police Department.” n.2 (Minn. 2019).

John’s require more information to establish probable cause.

(holding an error is harmless when there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury’s decision).

An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the [fact-finder’s] decision.” (quotation omitted); see Midway Ctr.

An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the [fact-finder’s] decision.” (quotation omitted).

Batson, 476 U.S. at 89; –11 (Minn. 2019) (“A peremptory challenge, if used against a prospective juror because of the juror’s race, denies equal protection both to the prospective juror, because it denies her the right to participate in jury service, and to the defendant, because it violates his right to be tried by a jury made up of

“In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusion of prospective jurors through peremptory challenges is subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutio n. ” (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S. Ct. at 1719).