DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McRae, 494 N.W.2d 252.

76 citing documents.

  • State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
  • State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
    If the prosecutor had a discriminatory intent, the defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial because the harmless error analysis is “inappropriate in the case of a defendant convicted by a petit jury if there was racial discrimination in the selection of that jury.” Greenleaf, d at 500- *223 01 ().
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
    If the prosecutor indeed had such an intent or motive, then defendant would be automatically entitled to a new trial, because harmless error impact analysis is “inappropriate in the case of a defendant convicted by a petit jury if there was racial discrimination in the selection of the jury.”
  • State v. Fageroos 531 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Fageroos 531 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1995
    Mirroring Davis is a recent case we decided
  • State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Harris 521 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Harris 521 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1994
  • State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
    As to the race-neutrality of the prosecutor’s reasons, we said: Hernandez makes it clear that the explanation provided by the prosecutor does not have to be “valid” in the sense of establishing a reasonable cause for challenge, but the explanation must be race-neutral.
  • State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
    We agree that “the trial court has the duty to decide if there has been purposeful discrimination.” (citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Weatherspoon 514 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Weatherspoon 514 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (juror’s demeanor and tone in responding may be factors in prosecutor’s decision to strike).
  • Austin Daily Herald v. Mork 507 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Austin Daily Herald v. Mork 507 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    “Minnesota case law also authorizes trial courts to close courtrooms during the testimony of minor victims regarding sex crimes committed against them.”