Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Varner, 643 N.W.2d 298.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
12 “The exposure of a jury to potentially prejudicial material creates a problem of constitutional magnitude, because it deprives a defendant of the right to an impartial jury and the right to confront and cross- examine the source of the material.” State v. Varner , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
” which appellant relied on, stating that “the allegation [there] was that a juror had made a specific reference to race and the risk of a white person being beaten up or robbed in a particular neighborhood.” Here, instead, the district court analyzed the juror’s second allegation and noted that the “
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[R]acial considerati ons, in particular, can affect a juror’s impartiality and must be removed from courtroom proceedings to the fullest extent possible.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“In cases where race should be irrelevant, racial considerations, in particular, can affect a juror’s impartiality and must be removed from courtroom proceedings to the fullest extent possible.”
State of Minnesota v. Peter Joseph Nayquonabe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Peter Joseph Nayquonabe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[R]acial considerations, in particular, can affect a juror’s impartiality and must be removed from courtroom proceedings to the fullest extent possible.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jorge Alberto Martinez Reyes, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In support of that principle, in which a juror was overheard making a potentially racially prejudicial comment to other jurors during a break in the trial.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The law guarantees that every defendant will have his case decided strictly according to the evi dence presented and not by extraneous matters or by the predilections of individual jurors.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “Criminal defendants have due process rights to a fair trial and an impartial jury.” (citing U.S. Const. amends.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
18, 2017) (citing State v. Varner , 307 (Minn. 2002) (determini ng that an exchange of sexual favors for drugs constituted a sale and declining to apply Carithers because none of the parties involved were married); and Barrow, d at 687, 690 n.2 (distinguishing Carithers on the basis that, although Barrow gave drug s to his wife, the dr
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
XIV; Minn. Const, art. I, § 7
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Hanke 712 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hanke 712 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
And it didn’t help when, in response, defense counsel referenced the witnesses as part of a “broad society” that’s “like a bell curve.” “Above all, demeaning references to racial groups compromise the right to a fair trial by inviting the jurors to view a defendant as coming from a different community than themselves.” Ray, d at 747 ().
State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In reviewing a trial court’s refusal to question jurors about outside influences, the reviewing court looks to whether the trial court properly determined that “serious questions of possible prejudice were not raised.”
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
We are concerned that the dissimilar means by which the photographs were offered at Chomnar-ith’s trial impermissibly placed race or bias in the courtroom, thereby “inviting [the] jurors to view [the] defendant as coming from a different community than themselves.”
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002