Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bailey, 677 N.W.2d 380.

69 citing documents.

State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
the concerns that we expressed in State v. Bailey, where a suspect is "apprehended under coercive circumstances, is subjected to lengthy custodial interrogation before being given a Miranda warning, does not have the benefit of a significant pause in the interrogation after the Miranda warning is given, and essentially repeats the same inculpatory statements after the Miranda warning as before.”
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey (Bailey I)
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
404(b); -35 (Minn.1998).
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
“[OJnce a discovery violation has occurred, a district court ‘is particularly suited to determine the appropriate remedy * * ” (-98 (Minn.1995)).
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-04 (Minn.2004) (noting that it was improper for a prosecutor to make negative references to the witness’s character beyond the witness’s testimony).
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
Without deciding the issue, we nonetheless caution prosecutors to refrain from describing DNA evidence as "magical stuff,” and "the best thing to happen to the criminal justice system since the United States Constitution because it's like truth serum.”