Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Greer, 635 N.W.2d 82.

83 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
exclusion, we “must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an average jury (i.e., a reasonable jury) would have reached the same verdict ‘if the evidence had been admitted and the damaging potential of the evidence fully realized.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“This right includes the ability to conduct ‘an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors.’” (quoting Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729, 112 S. Ct. 2222, 2230 (1992)).
State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
State v. Greer (Greer I)
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
(“Trial court decisions relating to the conduct of voir dire will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”).
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
2142 (stating that harmless error analysis applies to determine if defendant’s right to present a complete defense was violated); (concluding that any error was harmless because defendant was otherwise able to directly attack the credibility of his statement to police).
State v. Ritter 719 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ritter 719 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
This right to an impartial jury “includes the ability to conduct ‘an *220 adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors.’ ” (quoting Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729 , 112 S.Ct.
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
YI, XIV; Minn. Const, art. 1, § 6
A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(noting that evidence that is only marginally useful to show bias may be excluded); cf. Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 232 , 109 S.Ct.
Greer v. State 673 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2004
Greer v. State 673 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2004
State v. Greer 662 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 2003
State v. Greer 662 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
Indifference or neutrality is exactly the trait we desire in jurors, and therefore the prosecutor’s reliance in part on the juror’s indifference to.