Cited by

The district court cited Andersen and other Minnesota cases that reached the same conclusion, and Griffin, d at 102, stating, “[t]he juror- selection process that Dakota County relied on in Weeks’s case is the same juror-selection process that Minnesota Courts have routinely held does not systematically exclude people of color.” Because it concluded that the facts alleged in Weeks

And the supreme court has repeatedly held that a “jury selection system that ‘used registered voters, driver’s licenses, and registered Minnesota identification card holders’ d[oes] not systematically exclude people of color.” (d 563, 569 (Minn. 1995)); (“ Even if [the defendant] were to show the necessary underrepresentation, as a matter of law, he could not demonstrate that the underrepresentation resulted from the state’s procedures because .

(holding that the non -disclosure of files held by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) did not amount to a discovery violation by the State because “[t]he BATF, as a federal agency, does not ‘report’ to the Hennepin County prosecutor’s office .

Supreme Court in the State v. Roan, case

Moreover, “being the victim of a crime does not, standing alone, create ‘preconceived bias in the mind of the prospective juror.’” ().

And the supreme court has repeatedly held that a “jury selection system that use[d] registered voters, driver’s licenses, and registered Minnesota identification card holders d[oes] not systematically exclude people of color.” -82 (Minn. 2020) ().

Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that it had previously held, in State v. Roan, “that a jury selection system that ‘use [d] registered voters, driver’s licenses, and registered Minnesota identification card holders’ did not systematically exclude people of color.” ( (Mi nn.

“The admission of pretrial identification evidence violates due process if the procedure ‘was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’” Hooks, d at 83 (citing Simmons v. Unite d 5 States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S. Ct. 967, 971 (1968) ).

14 , we held that a jury selection system that “use[d] registered voters, driver’s licenses , and registered Minnesota identification card holders” did not systematically exclude people of color.

(affirming trial court’s admission of witness testimony that the witness observed defendant making a gesture “like a gun to the head” after being asked to confirm that he had shot someone ); 10 (affirming trial court’s admission of witness testimo

State v. Roan , , 570 (Minn. 1995) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A pre-trial identification of a defendant is inadmissible if the procedure that led to the identification “was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S. Ct. 967, 971 (1968)

5, provides the exclusive grounds upon which jurors may be challenged for cause.” see also State v. Curtis, __ N.W.2d __, __, slip op.

(“A prosecutor should not knowingly withhold evidence from the grand jury which would tend to substantially negate a suspect’s guilt.”).

An indictment must be based on evidence admissible at trial, but the presentation of inadmissible evidence does not require dismissal if there is sufficient admissible evidence to sustain the indictment and the defendant does not show that “incompetent evidence has so far influenced the grand jury that an indictment would not have been returned without it.” (quotation omitted).

However, being the victim of a crime does not, standing alone, create “preconceived bias in the mind of the prospective juror.”

967, 971 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)

In other cases, appellate courts have applied the harmless-error test, holding that a new trial is not *73 necessary unless the denial of discovery is “prejudicial [to] the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” -07 (Minn.2008); (“Even if the trial court erred in quashing the subpoena, á new trial is required only if the ...

967, 971 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)

(discussing the grand jury selection process used in Hennepin County); (discussing the petit jury selection process used in Hennepin County).

See Mckenzie, d at 645 (“[I]n light of our determination in Roan that a Hennepin County jury selection process, which, like the grand jury selection process in question, used registered voters, driver’s licenses, and registered Minnesota identification card holders, was constitutional, [petitioner’s] claim is not reviewable under either [Knaffla exception].”) ().

(Sixth Amendment challenges); -01 (Minn.1997) (Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection challenges).

that the Hennepin County jury selection process was constitutional.