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. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d 815.

215 citing documents.

  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
    “It is clearly improper for a prosecutor to suggest that the arguments of defense counsel are part of some sort of syndrome of standard arguments that one finds defense counsel making in ‘cases of this sort.’ ”
  • Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
  • Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
    -87 (Minn.2006); (“ ‘The prosecutor should not use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.’ ” (quoting I ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function 3-5.8(c) (2d ed.1979))).
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • In re the Welfare of the Child of B.J.-M. 744 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2008
  • In Re Bj-M. 744 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2008
  • In re the Welfare of the Child of B.J.-M. 744 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2008
  • In Re Bj-M. 744 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
    See, (exercising our “supervisory power over the trial courts and in the interests of justice” to reverse a conviction when the prosecutor committed misconduct).
  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
    This is so because, as we have repeatedly said, a prosecutor “is a minister of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” (citations omitted)
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
    (quoting Standards for Criminal Justice § 3 — 5.8(a) (1979)) (“It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence * * *.”).
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    But “the prosecutor is free to specifically argue that there is no merit to a particular defense in view of the evidence.”
  • State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
    We have repeatedly stated that a “prosecutor is a minister of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” (quoting I ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function 3-1.1 and Commentary at 3.7 (2d ed.1979)) (internal quotations omitted).
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
    The prosecutor is a “minister of justice” whose obligation is “to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” (quoting I ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function 3-1.1 and commentary at 3.7 (2d ed.1979)); -02 (Minn.2001) (“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.”).
  • State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
  • State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Kycia 665 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Kycia 665 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
    improper arguments to the jury can and are made by both the state and the defense, and the fact that most of the case law in this area involves misconduct by prosecutors simply reflects that, generally speaking, only the defendant can appeal in a criminal case.
  • 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. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001