Cited by

the prosecutor said during closing, “I mean, I find that impossible to believe that, if that is in fact the fact.” The court held that “[a]lthough the prosecutor’s statement was inappropriate, [the court did] not believe it was prejudicial.” Id.

(Minn. 28 Nevertheless, even if the prosecutor’s remarks constitute an error that is plain, we conclude that the State has proved that any error did not affect Segura’s substantial rights.

To obtain a Schwartz hearing, a party “must establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct” by pointing to facts that “standing alone and unchallenged would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.”

Before a Schwartz hearing must be ordered, the defendant must establish a prima facie case of jury miscondu ct, evidence which “standing alone and unchallenged would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Starkey , (quotation omitte d).

See State v. Starkey , (noting that a prosecutor has a “right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences” that can be drawn from the evidence).

at 16; (holding that it was in appropriate where the prosecutor argued “I find that impossible to believe” when discussing the defendant’s credibility).

This requires the requesting party to present evidence which “standing alone and unchallenged , would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” , 928 (Minn. 1994) (quotation omitted).

(finding no error when a prosecutor stated that the defense would “divert your attention from the real facts, the real logic and the real common sense of this case”).

(concluding that prosecutor did not commit misconduct by arguing that defense would try to divert jury’s attention “from the real facts, the real logic and the real common sense of this case”).

(noting that prosecutor may call into question an anticipated defense argument).

-28 (Minn.1994) ( and finding no prosecutorial misconduct when prosecutor in closing allegedly disparaged the role of defense counsel and asserted his opinion concerning the credibility of a witness).

Specifically, the court of appeals stated that the question was whether there was a reasonable possibility that erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the jury’s guilty verdict, then said, “This determination is dependent upon the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial.” the mere fact that the evidence of guilt was “sufficient” means nothing.