Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gaitan, 536 N.W.2d 11.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Eugene Francis Cuypers, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
at 356; (“Where, as here, the trial court proceeded to the second step in the process, the issue whether the defendant established a prima facie case of the discriminatory use of a peremptory strike is moot.” ); (declining to address whether a pr
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-16 (Minn. 1995) (upholding the district court’s finding that the state’s peremptory strike of a juror based on the juror’s reluctance to sit in judgment was not a pretext for racial discrimination).
State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
(suggesting that the preliminary issue of whether the defendant has made a prima facie showing “is moot” if the district court proceeds to the second step and rules on the ultimate question of purposeful discrimination).
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
(peremptory strike based on prospective juror’s expressed discomfort at deciding whether “to put someone away” and deciding another person’s future was race-neutral).
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(upholding peremptory strike of juror who “was having a very difficult time understanding a lot of the terms [being used]”); State v. Ring, 29 Minn. 78, 81-82 , 11 N.W.
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that state’s peremptory challenge to veniremember based on possible sympathy to defendant’s case was “a permissible use of its challenges”); (upholding state’s peremptory challenge that was based on three race-neutral reasons involving “lack of education, demean- or, and reluctance to sit in judgment”); (stating that a juror’s demean- or and tone can be considered to determine whether the fact
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
(prospective juror stricken because of expressed reluctance to sit in judgment of others); (venireperson stricken because he might favor police testimony).
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
Where a district court resolves the issue of pretext first instead of addressing whether a prima facie case was made, “the issue whether the defendant established a prima facie case of the discriminatory use of a peremptory strike is moot.”
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998
Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998
(citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-16 (Minn.1995) (granting trial court great deference in deciding Batson factual issues).