Cited by

(stating that evidence that poses an undue risk of confusion 10 of the issues may be excluded despite a defendant’s constitutional right to present a meaningful defense).

d 82, 91-92 (Minn. 2001).

The right to an impartial jury “includes the ability to conduct an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors.” (quotation omitted); (“The purpose of voir dire is to probe the jury for bias or partiality to enable counsel to exercise informed peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

“Both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to present a meaningful defense.” (citing U.S. Const. amends.

VI, XIV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6

This hearing, known as a Schwartz hearing, investigates “whether a jury verdict is the product of misconduct.”

This hearing, known as a Schwartz hearing, investigates “whether a jury verdict is the product of misconduct.”

State v. Greer (Greer I)

VI, XIV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6; State v. Greer

“The essence of confrontation is the opportunity to cross-examine opposing witnesses.”

The United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee that a criminal defendant has the right to an impartial jury, which “includes the ability to conduct an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors.” (quotation omitted).

Thus, district courts “have broad discretion to control the scope of cross-examination.”

18 (stating that “trial courts have broad discretion to control the scope of cross-examination”).

VI, XIV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6; Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 595 n. 6, 96 S. Ct. 1017, 1020 (1976); State v. Greer

The district court “remains willing to order a change of venue if the jury questionnaires and voir dire process demonstrate that it is not possible to impanel a fair and impartial jury in Hennepin C ounty.” The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury “includes the ability to conduct ‘an adequate voir dire to identify u nqualified jurors.’” (quoting Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729, 112 S. Ct. 2222, 2230 (1992 )).

“The e ssence of confrontation is the opportunity to cross-exam ine opposing witnesses.” State v. Greer , see also State v. Brown , (“[T]he defendant’s right to cross-examine witne sses for bias is secured by the Sixth Amendment.”).

only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of harassment, prejudice [or] confusion of the issues may be exclu ded.” (alterations in original) (citation and quotation omitted).

only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues may be excluded.” (citation and quotations omitted).

“Erroneous exclusion of defense evidence is subject to harmless error analysis.” .

Evidentiary rulings are reviewed “for an abuse of discretion, and any error is subject to harmless error analysis.” State v. Greer , (citation omitted).

VI, XIV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 7; State v. Greer

“[District] court decisions relating to the conduct of voir dire will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”

The purpose of the hearing, commonly known as a Schwartz hearing, “is to determine whether a jury verdict is the product of misconduct.” d 82, 93 (Minn. 2001).

The purpose of a Schwartz hearing “is to determine whether a jury verdict is the product of misconduct.”

Evidentiary rulings are reviewed “for an abuse of discretion and any error is subject to harmless error analysis.” (citation omitted) .

We must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doub t that an average ju ry (i.e., a reasonable jury) would have reached the same verdict “if the evidence had be en admitted and the damaging potential of the ev idence fully realized.” State v. Greer , ().

Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt means th at the reviewing court “must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an average jury (i.e. a reasonable jury) would have reached the same verdict ‘if the evid ence had been admitted and th e damaging potential of the evidence fully realized.’” ().

VI, XIV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6 ; State v. Greer

“This right includes the ability to conduct an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors.” (quotation omitted ).

The purpose of the hearing, commonly known as a Schwartz hearing, “is to determine whether a jury verdict is the product of misconduct.”