Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538.

165 citing documents.

State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
It is improper to request that the jurors “put themselves in the shoes of the victim,” or “look at their own experiences as proof that the defendant’s defense is not credible,”
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
For example, a prosecutor may not argue that a particular defense is one that is raised when “nothing else will work.”
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
In order to “establish a pri-ma facie showing” that his Sixth Amendment right to a representative jury venire have been violated, a defendant must show “that over a significant period of time— panel after panel, month after month — the group of eligible jurors in question has been significantly underrepresented on the panels and that this results from ‘systematic exclusion.’ ” -43 (Minn.1994).
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
Litzau, d at 185 (); (battering parent profile evidence inadmissible).
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Followed State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
DeShay compares the ten-point gang-identification criteria to the drug-courier profile and urges that we follow the supreme court’s -48 (Minn. 1994).
State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Schneider 597 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
-47 (Minn.1994) (stating that an officer may “keep a mental checklist” of factors relevant to determining whether a person might be a drug courier, but that the propriety of the officer’s conduct will be examined in the totality of the circumstances).
State v. Keeton 589 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1998
State v. Keeton 589 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1998
(granting defendant a new trial when several errors, taken cumulatively, had the effect of depriving defendant of a fair trial).
State v. Martinson 581 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1998
State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
Rairdon, d at 323 ; -04 (Minn.1994); see also Minn. R.Crim.
Hennepin County v. Perry 561 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1997
Hennepin County v. Perry 561 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1997
664, 668-69 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979)
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
(citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364-66 , 99 S.Ct.
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
-04 (Minn.1994); see also Minn.R.Crim.P.
Van Buren v. State 556 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1996
Van Buren v. State 556 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1996