Cited by

(differentiating between the appellant’s challenge to the jury venire on these grounds); Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 493-94 (1977) (addressing an equal- protection challenge to grand-jury-selection process).

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 .

reflect a fair cross-section of the community.”

d 693, 700 (Minn. 1997).

Appe llate courts may look to sentences given to other offenders for the same conviction when considering whether a particular sentence “exaggerates the defendant’s criminality.” State v. Willis

5 A district court’s ruling on evidentiary matters, including on the admissibility of an expert opinion , “rest within the so und discretion ” of the district court and “will not be reversed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. , ; (“[T]his court will not reverse a trial court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).

(stating that “[a] Miranda warning is required if a suspect is both in custody and subject to interrogation”); (stating that the right to counsel “attaches when the state initiates adversary judicial proceedings against an accused”).

The constitutions of both the United States and Minnesota “guarantee a right of legal representation to anyone charged with a crime.” (citing U.S. Const, amend.

v. Perry, -97 (Minn.1997); -44 (Minn.1994).

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches as soon as the suspect is subject to adverse judicial proceedings “ ‘by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’ ” (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 , 92 S.Ct.

Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen

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

We note that Perry's equal protection claim relies on the same argument and statistics of minority underrepresentation as appellant’s -01 (Minn.1997).

Indeed, “[t]ime after time [we have] affirmed consecutive sentences for multiple murders.”

2292, 2297-98 , 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only “at or after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings against the defendant”); (both United States and Minnesota constitutions guarantee right of legal representation that attaches in a criminal proceeding when the state initiates adversary judicial proceeding); see also McDonnell, d at 853 (“Without question, the right to counsel guaranteed by the sixth amendment * * ⅜

2292, 2297-98 , 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only “at or after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings against the defendant” (citation omitted)); (both United States and Minnesota constitutions guarantee right of legal representation that attaches in a criminal proceeding when the state initiates adversary judicial proceeding).

The right attaches when the state initiates adversary judicial proceedings against an accused 'by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’ ” -98 (Minn.1997) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 , 92 S.Ct.

*527 “Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Minn. R. Evid.