DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Logan, 535 N.W.2d 320.

90 citing documents.

  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
    2 When a juror expresses such a state of mind, the district court must either “ ‘excuse [the juror] for cause, or by instructions and additional questions convince the [juror] that there is no special credence due the testimony of [police] officer[s].’ ” (third alteration in original) (fourth alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Amerson, 938 F.2d 116 (8th Cir.1991)).
  • State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
  • Explained State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
    niremember may be challenged for cause if the veniremember’s state of mind “satisfies the court that the [venire-member] cannot try the case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging.” In State v. Logan, we explained that when the veniremember admits to such a state of mind, then the veniremember should be excused unless the he or she is “rehabilitated.” (citing 2 Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 21.3(c) at 729-30 (1984)).
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
    Permitting a biased juror to serve undermines the basic “ ‘structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself, and is not amenable to harmless-error review.’ ” (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
  • Distinguished State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
    Clark asserts that “the rationale of Bigelow applies equally to non-capital cases.” Costello and Logan , however, are also clearly distinguishable.
  • State v. Ritter 719 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Ritter 719 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    the Minnesota Supreme Court found reversible error where the district court denied the defendant’s motion to strike for cause a juror who stated during voir dire that he was inclined to give greater credence to police officer testimony than to lay witness testimony.
  • State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
    (whether Tax Court hearing should be closed to protect trade secrets); (whether newspaper retained unpublished photographs relevant to a criminal defense); (whether Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms records contained impeachment evidence); -10 (Minn.1987) (whether police department’s internal affairs files were proper for civil discovery); (whether confide
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
    Where a district court erroneously sustains a Bat-son objection to a peremptory challenge and refuses to dismiss the stricken venire-member, the error undermines the basic “structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself, and is not amenable to harmless-error review.” Reiners, d at 835 ().
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    at 708 ; (citations omitted).
  • State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
    -24 (Minn.1995); -07 (Minn.1985).
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    In ruling on a challenge for cause, where the striking party’s burden is to demonstrate that the prospective juror cannot be impartial, the trial court may assess the credibility of a “prospective juror’s protestation of impartiality.”
  • State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
    supports his contention that his right to an impartial jury was violated.
  • State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    In its report of certified questions, as supporting its decision to grant a remedial jury instruction.
  • State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
    Williams’ final argument is that his conviction must be reversed because the trial court seated a juror, D.W.F., who during voir dire had answered “yes” when asked if he “would tend to believe a police officer either more or less than any other witness.” where we reversed a conviction because the trial court had seated a juror who had admitted bias towards police.
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Finally, appellant argues that the district court erred by not instructing the jury that Sieling’s failure to record the fourth statement may be considered in evaluating his testimony as to what appellant said.
  • State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996