Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Flowersgreen2 sentences2014State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007). 2014State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007). | 3 | 3 |
State v. McDanielgreen1 sentence2011See McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d at 749 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Novationgreen2 sentences2010“The State bears the burden of proving that an error passes muster under this standard.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (“[T]he original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.”). “[0]nce the defendant has established a violation of that right [to be present] his conviction is unconstitutionally tainted and reversal is required unless the State proves the e 2010"The State bears the burden of proving that an error passes muster under this standard." Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ("[T]he original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment."). "[O]nce the defendant has established a violation of that right [to be present] his conviction is unconstitutionally tainted and reversal is required unless the State proves the e | 1 | 1 |
Charles William Proffitt v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitationgreen2 sentences2010“The State bears the burden of proving that an error passes muster under this standard.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (“[T]he original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.”). “[0]nce the defendant has established a violation of that right [to be present] his conviction is unconstitutionally tainted and reversal is required unless the State proves the e 2010"The State bears the burden of proving that an error passes muster under this standard." Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ("[T]he original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment."). "[O]nce the defendant has established a violation of that right [to be present] his conviction is unconstitutionally tainted and reversal is required unless the State proves the e | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2010“The State bears the burden of proving that an error passes muster under this standard.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (“[T]he original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.”). “[0]nce the defendant has established a violation of that right [to be present] his conviction is unconstitutionally tainted and reversal is required unless the State proves the e 2010“The State bears the burden of proving that an error passes muster under this standard.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (“[T]he original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.”). “[0]nce the defendant has established a violation of that right [to be present] his conviction is unconstitutionally tainted and reversal is required unless the State proves the e | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brecht v. Abrahamson
green
2 sentences2010“The State bears the burden of proving that an error passes muster under this standard.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (“[T]he original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.”). “[0]nce the defendant has established a violation of that right [to be present] his conviction is unconstitutionally tainted and reversal is required unless the State proves the e 2010“The State bears the burden of proving that an error passes muster under this standard.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (“[T]he original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.”). “[0]nce the defendant has established a violation of that right [to be present] his conviction is unconstitutionally tainted and reversal is required unless the State proves the e | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.