DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Richards, 456 N.W.2d 260.

83 citing documents.

  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
    (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct.
  • State v. Christian 657 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Christian 657 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2003
    In State v. Richards, we held that the deprivation of the right of self-representation is not subject to a harmless error analysis and overturned Richards’ conviction because the district court’s refusal to let Richards proceed pro se was “clearly erroneous.” -64 (Minn.1990) (hereinafter “Richards /”).
  • In Re the Welfare of S.J.D. 617 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of S.J.D. 617 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 604 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Cassidy 567 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Cassidy 567 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1997
    194, 196 , 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973) (“The right at issue is the right to be present, and the question becomes whether that right was effectively waived by [defendant’s] voluntary absence.”) “A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege, and its validity depends * * * upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case * *
  • State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997
    The right of self-representation “embodies such bedrock concepts of individualism and personal autonomy that its deprivation is not amenable to harmless error analysis.”
  • State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
  • State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    At the time he had a (discussing right to self-representation).
  • State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Nelson 523 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Nelson 523 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Thornblad 513 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Thornblad 513 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)
  • State v. Graff 510 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Graff 510 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct.
  • In Re Rodriguez 506 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Savior 480 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Savior 480 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    In addition, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, does not apply to the facts of this case.
  • State v. Parson 457 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Parson 457 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1990