Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fageroos, 531 N.W.2d 199.

36 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-02 (Minn. 1995) (citing Waller, 467 U.S. at 48).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
met: that a party seeking closure has “advance[d] an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced” without the closure; that the closure is “no broader than necessary to protect that interest”; that “the trial court [has] consider[ed] reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding”; and that the district court has “ma[d]e findings adequate to support the closure.” –02 (Minn. 1995) (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 48).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minn. 2023
Devon James Pulczinski, Minn. 2022
–02 (Minn. 1995) (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 48) (alteration in Fageroos).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
advance[s] an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,’” (2) the closure is “‘no broader than necessary to protect that interest,’” (3) the district court considers “‘reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,’” and (4) the district court makes “‘findings adequate to support 8 the closure.’” (alteration omitted) (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co. v. Superior Court , 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984)); see also State v. Fageroos , -02 (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
advance[s] an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced ,’” (2) the closure is “‘no broader than necessary to protect that interest,’” (3) the district court consid ers “‘reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,’” and (4) the district court makes “‘findings adequate to support the closure.’” (alteration omitted) (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 2216 (1984)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
advance[s] an overriding interest that is lik ely to be prejudiced,’” (2) th e closure is “‘no broader than necessary to protect that interest,’” (3) the district court considers “‘reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,’” and (4) the district court makes “findings adequate to support the closure.” -02 (Minn. 1995) (alteration omitted) (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 2216 (1984)).1 Whether a district court violated a defe ndant’s right to a public trial i
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
’” -02 (Minn. 1995) (alteration omitted) (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S. Ct. at 10 2216).1 Whether a defendant’s right to a public trial has been violated is reviewed de novo.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
advance[s] an overriding interest th at is likely to be prejudiced,’” (2) the closure is “ ‘no broader than neces sary to protect that interest,’ ” (3) the distr ict court considers “‘reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,’” and (4) the dist rict court makes “findings adequate to support the closure.” State v. Fageroos , -02 (Minn. 1995) (alteration omitted) (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S. Ct. at 2216).
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
721 , 175 L.Ed.2d 675 (2010); witness testimony, Bobo, d at 139 ; -85 (Minn. 2007); closing arguments, jury instructions, Brown, d at 616-18; and returning of the verdict.
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.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
But “the right to a public trial is not an absolute right.”
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
advance[s] an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced”; (2) the closure is “no broader than necessary to protect that interest”; (3) the district court considers “reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding”; and (4) the district court makes “findings adequate to support the closure.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Krause 817 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 2012
State v. Krause 817 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 2012
-01 (Minn.1995), the district court closed the courtroom to spectators during the testimony of two minors, and the defendant claimed on appeal that a new trial was required because the district court plainly erred in closing the courtroom in violation of his right to a public trial.
State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
State v. Cross 771 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Cross 771 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
advanced] an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,’” (2) the closure is “ ‘no broader than necessary to protect that interest,’ ” (3) the district court considers “ ‘reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,’ ” and (4) the district court makes “findings adequate to support the *882 closure.” -02 (Minn.1995) (alteration omitted) (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
2210 ; (adopting the Waller standard).
State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
2210 ; (adopting Waller standard).
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
*452 -02 (Minn.1995), the supreme court acknowledged that the right to an open and public trial, although not absolute, is of constitutional importance.
State v. Biebinger 585 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1998
State v. Biebinger 585 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1998
the appropriate initial remedy in this situation is a remand for an evidentiary hearing, not retrial.