Cited by

4 A Franks hearing is a proceeding in which a defendant may seek to declare a warrant invalid because it was based on “intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.” (discussing and applying the two-prong test developed in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978), -92 (Minn. 1977)).

In conducting this review, we assume that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.”

The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

The reviewing court assumes 7 that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

(stating that “[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses” is for the fact-finder to determine).

upon ‘proof of disproportionate impact upon the racial group, e.g., the prosecutor totally excluded all blacks from the venire.’ State v. 16 Onyelobi, ().

“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.” State v. Moore , 12 (referencing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 -72).

“Deference must be given to the district court’s credibility determinations.” ().

“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the finding of probable cause.” (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72).

In conducting this review, we assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

“Deference must be given to the district court’s credibility determinations.” Klamar, d at 691 ().

The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

Appellate courts must view the “ evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict , assuming the jury believed the state ’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.” (referencing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 −72).

We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

The reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.”

We defer to the district court’s credibility determinations, and the district court credited the officer’s testimony.

We assume that “the [factfinder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

The appellate court must assume “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

-69 (Minn. 1991); -78 (Minn. 1992).

We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.” (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978)).

Additionally, “[d]eference must be given to the district court’s credibility determinations.” Klamar, d at 691; (stating that “[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses” is for the fact-finder to determine).

“In rare cases a criminal defendant’s interest in learning the identity of a 32 police informant outweighs the state’s privilege not to disclose the identity.”