Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ross, 472 N.W.2d 651.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
James Ervin Owen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A defendant’s waiver of their jury-trial right 7 must “be knowing, intelligent and voluntary.” see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
30, 2019) ( (stating that courts should avoid inquiry into attorney-client communications when evaluating validity of jury-trial waiver)); Minn. R. Civ.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Salat Issa Salat, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To ensure a waiver is “knowingly and voluntarily made,” the district court should engage in an on-the-record colloquy focusing on “the basic elements of a jury trial.” 1 “The nature and extent of the inquiry may vary with the circumstances of a particular case.” Id.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To ensure a waiver is “knowingly and voluntarily made,” the district court should engage in an on-the-record colloquy focusing on “the basic elements of a jury trial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1(2)(a), does not require consultation with counsel; it requires the “opportunity to consul t with counsel.” See State v. Ross , (finding that “defendant had ample opportunity to co nsult with his attorneys who presumably also told him about the pros and cons of a jury trial”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ross , d 651, 653 (Minn. 1991).
Abraham Deng Woi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The defendant’s waiver must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and the district court “must be satisfied that the defendant was informed of his rights and that the waiver was voluntary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Albert Silas Garner, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Albert Silas Garner, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1(2)(a) (“The defendant, with the approval of the court, may waive a jury trial on the issue of guilt provided the defendant does so personally, in writing or on the record in open court, after being advised by the court of the right to trial by jury, and after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.”); -54 (Minn. 1991) (explaining that “[t]he focus of [an] inquiry [regarding a jury waiver] is on whether the defendant understands the basic elements of a jury trial” and providing guide
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that it is not the judge’s function to explore merits of case or matters of trial strategy and tactics with the defendant).
State of Minnesota v. Laura Kirstine Avery Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Laura Kirstine Avery Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Validity of Jury-Trial Waiver Avery’s jury-trial waiver must “be knowing, intelligent and voluntary.”
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 651, 653 (Minn. 1991).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Rasmussen 749 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rasmussen 749 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
l(2)(a), not to mention the constitutional requirements that a waiver of the right to a jury trial be “knowing, intelligent and voluntary,”
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); see also Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
In fact, we have said that the advisory by the court must be accompanied by “searching questions” to be satisfied that “the defendant was informed of his rights and that the waiver was voluntary.” (quoting State v. Piet- *443 raszexuski, ).
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-59 (Minn.App.2004); (defendant’s waiver of jury-trial rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary).
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See *394 -78 (Minn.1998) (holding that when defendant voluntarily leaves courtroom, he waives right under Confrontation Clause to be present at trial); (stating defendant may intelligently waive right against self-incrimination); (stating that defendant may waive right to jury trial if waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary).
State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Compare id., (stating that a defendants waiver of his constitutional right to a trial by jury must be made knowingly and voluntarily).
State v. Whitley 682 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Whitley 682 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. LaRose 673 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. LaRose 673 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-54 (Minn.1991) (jury trial waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary).
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Roberts 651 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Roberts 651 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-54 (Minn.1991) (upholding knowing and voluntary waiver of jury trial and agreement to.