Schwartz hearing in Minnesota

2026Counsel accepted this ruling without requesting a hearing to determine whether any of the jurors had seen or read the bracelets under the procedure announced in Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 104 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. 1960), known as a “Schwartz hearing.” See State v. Jackson, 977 N.W.2d 169 , 170 & n.1 (Minn. 2022).

2025Gerald 2 A Schwartz hearing is a procedure which allows a district court to “investigate alleged juror misconduct by summoning a juror for questioning about the alleged misconduct in the presence of counsel for both parties.” State v. Jackson, 977 N.W.2d 169 , 170 n.1 (Minn. 2022); see also Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 104 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. 1960). 3 At the time of his trial and direct appeal, Kambon was known as Shannon Bowles. 4 The full facts can be found in our previous decisions: Bowles I, 530 N.W.2d at 525–29, and State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. 1995) (reviewing the conv

2017State v. Pederson, 614 N.W.2d 724, 730 (Minn. 2000); State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn. 1979) (noting that the rule “implicitly requires [a] defendant to establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct before a Schwartz hearing is mandated”).

2017State v. Pederson, 614 N.W.2d 724, 730 (Minn. 2000); State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn. 1979) (noting that the rule “implicitly requires [a] defendant to establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct before a Schwartz hearing is mandated”).

1979Co., 259 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Minn.1977), we set out the standard of review and purpose of a Schwartz hearing: “The granting of a Schwartz hearing is generally a matter of discretion for the trial court.

1979Co., 259 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Minn.1977), we set out the standard of review and purpose of a Schwartz hearing: “The granting of a Schwartz hearing is generally a matter of discretion for the trial court.

2026“The standard of review for denial of a Schwartz hearing is abuse of discretion.” State v. Church, 577 N.W.2d 715, 721 (Minn. 1998).

2026“The standard of review for denial of a Schwartz hearing is abuse of discretion.” State v. Church, 577 N.W.2d 715, 721 (Minn. 1998).

2008Evans argues that Schwartz forbids attorneys to initiate communication with jurors in relation to a Schwartz hearing, citing Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334 , 191 N.W.2d 418 (1971).

2008Evans argues that Schwartz forbids attorneys to initiate communication with jurors in relation to a Schwartz hearing, citing Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334 , 191 N.W.2d 418 (1971).

2026A defendant is entitled to a Schwartz hearing when they present a prima facie case that, “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Martin, 614 N.W.2d 214, 225-26 (Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).

2026A defendant is entitled to a Schwartz hearing when they present a prima facie case that, “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Martin, 614 N.W.2d 214, 225-26 (Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).

2026Rather, Berg merely speculates what he believes the juror may have felt based on her brief statement that she “lied” and that she “didn’t agree with the end result.” See Martin, 614 N.W.2d at 226 (stating that an appellant is not entitled to a Schwartz hearing on the basis of wholly speculative allegations of misconduct without more); see also State v. Mings, 289 N.W.2d 497, 498 (Minn. 1980) (holding that a Schwartz hearing was unwarranted for a claim that was wholly speculative and not based on evidence reasonably suggesting misconduct).

2026Rather, Berg merely speculates what he believes the juror may have felt based on her brief statement that she “lied” and that she “didn’t agree with the end result.” See Martin, 614 N.W.2d at 226 (stating that an appellant is not entitled to a Schwartz hearing on the basis of wholly speculative allegations of misconduct without more); see also State v. Mings, 289 N.W.2d 497, 498 (Minn. 1980) (holding that a Schwartz hearing was unwarranted for a claim that was wholly speculative and not based on evidence reasonably suggesting misconduct).

2011See, e.g., State v. Shoen, 578 N.W.2d 708, 716 (Minn.1998) (remanding for a Schwartz hearing to determine whether the improper use of leg restraint on the defendant prejudiced the jury).

2011See, e.g., State v. Shoen, 578 N.W.2d 708, 716 (Minn.1998) (remanding for a Schwartz hearing to determine whether the improper use of leg restraint on the defendant prejudiced the jury).

2008On appeal, the State cites Bianchi v. Nordby, 409 N.W.2d 835 (Minn.1987), to support its argument that the prohibition against juror contact does not apply once the district court rules on a Schwartz hearing request.

2008On appeal, the State cites Bianchi v. Nordby, 409 N.W.2d 835 (Minn.1987), to support its argument that the prohibition against juror contact does not apply once the district court rules on a Schwartz hearing request.

2008P. 26.03, subd. 19(6), and to obtain a Schwartz hearing, the defense has the “burden of adducing ‘sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’” See Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414, 422 (Minn.2004) (quoting State v. Church, 577 N.W.2d 715, 720 (Minn.1998)); State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn.1979).

2008P. 26.03, subd. 19(6), and to obtain a Schwartz hearing, the defense has the “burden of adducing ‘sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’” See Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414, 422 (Minn.2004) (quoting State v. Church, 577 N.W.2d 715, 720 (Minn.1998)); State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn.1979).

2003This court has found, “that the manner in which a Schwartz hearing is conducted rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 109 (Minn.1980).

2003This court has found, “that the manner in which a Schwartz hearing is conducted rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 109 (Minn.1980).

2024This hearing, known as a Schwartz hearing, investigates “whether a jury verdict is the product of misconduct.” State v. Greer, 635 N.W.2d 82, 93 (Minn. 2001).

2024This hearing, known as a Schwartz hearing, investigates “whether a jury verdict is the product of misconduct.” State v. Greer, 635 N.W.2d 82, 93 (Minn. 2001).

2000See State v. Shoen, 598 N.W.2d 370, 377 (Minn.1999) (Shoen II); State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 292 (Minn.1997). *338 Testimony given at the Schwartz hearing shows that nine of the twelve jurors were unaware that appellant was wearing a leg restraint during trial.

2000See State v. Shoen, 598 N.W.2d 370, 377 (Minn.1999) (Shoen II); State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 292 (Minn.1997). *338 Testimony given at the Schwartz hearing shows that nine of the twelve jurors were unaware that appellant was wearing a leg restraint during trial.

1999See State v. Benedict, 397 N.W.2d 337 , 340 n. 1 (Minn.1986); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 109 (Minn.1980).

1999See State v. Benedict, 397 N.W.2d 337 , 340 n. 1 (Minn.1986); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 109 (Minn.1980).

1999See State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70, 80 (Minn.1985) (facts alleged for a Schwartz hearing may not be wholly speculative). 2.

1999See State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70, 80 (Minn.1985) (facts alleged for a Schwartz hearing may not be wholly speculative). 2.

1994Before a Schwartz hearing must be ordered, the defendant must establish a pri-ma facie case of jury misconduct, evidence which “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973 , 100 S.Ct. 467 , 62 L.Ed.2d 388 .

1994Before a Schwartz hearing must be ordered, the defendant must establish a pri-ma facie case of jury misconduct, evidence which “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973 , 100 S.Ct. 467 , 62 L.Ed.2d 388 .

1994Before a Schwartz hearing must be ordered, the defendant must establish a pri-ma facie case of jury misconduct, evidence which “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973 , 100 S.Ct. 467 , 62 L.Ed.2d 388 .

1994Before a Schwartz hearing must be ordered, the defendant must establish a pri-ma facie case of jury misconduct, evidence which “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973 , 100 S.Ct. 467 , 62 L.Ed.2d 388 .

1994Before a Schwartz hearing must be ordered, the defendant must establish a pri-ma facie case of jury misconduct, evidence which “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973 , 100 S.Ct. 467 , 62 L.Ed.2d 388 .

1994Before a Schwartz hearing must be ordered, the defendant must establish a pri-ma facie case of jury misconduct, evidence which “standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973 , 100 S.Ct. 467 , 62 L.Ed.2d 388 .

1987Citing Miley v. Grabill, 392 N.W.2d 52 (Minn.App.1986), and Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. App.1986), the trial court stated "that those two cases mandate a refusal by this Court to grant the plaintiff the relief requested." The problem with this analysis is that the trial court had already concluded that this was not a Schwartz hearing situation before Bianchi's counsel did those things which the trial court determined violated Schwartz hearing procedures.

1987Citing Miley v. Grabill, 392 N.W.2d 52 (Minn.App.1986), and Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. App.1986), the trial court stated "that those two cases mandate a refusal by this Court to grant the plaintiff the relief requested." The problem with this analysis is that the trial court had already concluded that this was not a Schwartz hearing situation before Bianchi's counsel did those things which the trial court determined violated Schwartz hearing procedures.

2000Kelley, 517 N.W.2d at 910 ; see also State v. Lehman, 511 N.W.2d 1 , 3 n. 1 (Minn.1994) (questions to jurors “about their thought processes in concluding the defendant was guilty” are “forbidden at a Schwartz hearing”).

2000Kelley, 517 N.W.2d at 910 ; see also State v. Lehman, 511 N.W.2d 1 , 3 n. 1 (Minn.1994) (questions to jurors “about their thought processes in concluding the defendant was guilty” are “forbidden at a Schwartz hearing”).

2014To warrant a Schwartz hearing to examine possible jury misconduct, a “defendant must first present evidence that if unchallenged would warrant the conclusion that jury misconduct occurred.” State v. Jackson, 615 N.W.2d 391, 396 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Oct. 17, 2000).

2014To warrant a Schwartz hearing to examine possible jury misconduct, a “defendant must first present evidence that if unchallenged would warrant the conclusion that jury misconduct occurred.” State v. Jackson, 615 N.W.2d 391, 396 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Oct. 17, 2000).

2024See State v. Cox, 322 N.W.2d 555, 559 (Minn. 1982) (stating considerations for reviewing the effect of outside influences on a jury verdict).

2006The court then said: "Anything like that, I'm presuming that you don't really need to be involved in that decision making." Martin's counsel stated: "I don't need to be * * * involved in that, Judge." Thus, the court did not commit reversible error in providing a VCR to the jury. [10] For example, we have recognized that "[s]tatements of a court official about the merits of a criminal case raise a rebuttable presumption of prejudice." State v. Cox, 322 N.W.2d 555, 558 (Minn.1982). [11] In Erickson , "because of the existence of several other serious errors" in addition to the error in allowing

2017See Larson, 281 N.W.2d at 484 (placing burden on defendant); see also Chambers v. State, 769 N.W.2d 762, 764 (Minn. 2009) (“We have generally required that the petitioner factually support his claims with admissible evidence.”); see also State v. Usee, 800 N.W.2d 192, 201 (Minn. App. 2011) (“[A] Schwartz hearing is inappropriate where the claim of misconduct is wholly speculative and not based on any evidence reasonably suggesting 6 that misconduct had occurred.” (quotation omitted)).

2015Appellant argues that the juror’s statements “had a high probability of affecting the jury’s ability to remain impartial,” but did not submit evidence supporting this statement. “[A] Schwartz hearing is inappropriate where the claim of misconduct is wholly speculative and . . . not based on any evidence reasonably suggesting that misconduct had occurred.” State v. Usee, 800 N.W.2d 192, 201 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2011).

2017State v. Pederson, 614 N.W.2d 724, 730 (Minn. 2000); State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn. 1979) (noting that the rule “implicitly requires [a] defendant to establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct before a Schwartz hearing is mandated”).

2017State v. Pederson, 614 N.W.2d 724, 730 (Minn. 2000); State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn. 1979) (noting that the rule “implicitly requires [a] defendant to establish a prima facie case of jury misconduct before a Schwartz hearing is mandated”).

2010See Knaffla, 309 Minn, at 252, 243 N.W.2d at 741 ; Evans, 756 N.W.2d at 867-69 (addressing Evans' argument that alleged errors during the Schwartz hearing entitled Evans to a new trial).

2010See Knaffla, 309 Minn, at 252, 243 N.W.2d at 741 ; Evans, 756 N.W.2d at 867-69 (addressing Evans' argument that alleged errors during the Schwartz hearing entitled Evans to a new trial).

2011In addition, “[a] party who learns of [juror misconduct] during trial may not keep silent and then attempt to take advantage of it in the event of an adverse verdict.” State v. Durfee, 322 N.W.2d 778, 786 (Minn.1982); see also Zimmerman v. Witte Transp.

2011In addition, “[a] party who learns of [juror misconduct] during trial may not keep silent and then attempt to take advantage of it in the event of an adverse verdict.” State v. Durfee, 322 N.W.2d 778, 786 (Minn.1982); see also Zimmerman v. Witte Transp.

2008At a Schwartz hearing, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating actual bias, State v. Kelley, 517 N.W.2d 905, 910 (Minn.1994), which refers to “a state of mind on the part of the juror, in reference to the case or to either party, which would prevent the juror from trying the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of either party,” State v. Brown, 732 N.W.2d at 629 n. 2 (Minn.2007).

2008At a Schwartz hearing, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating actual bias, State v. Kelley, 517 N.W.2d 905, 910 (Minn.1994), which refers to “a state of mind on the part of the juror, in reference to the case or to either party, which would prevent the juror from trying the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of either party,” State v. Brown, 732 N.W.2d at 629 n. 2 (Minn.2007).

1986In State v. Stofflet, 281 N.W.2d 494 (Minn.1979), the issue was whether the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a Schwartz hearing to question one of the jurors about possible bias toward defense counsel because of a feud relating to defense counsel’s management of an amateur hockey club.

1986In State v. Stofflet, 281 N.W.2d 494 (Minn.1979), the issue was whether the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a Schwartz hearing to question one of the jurors about possible bias toward defense counsel because of a feud relating to defense counsel’s management of an amateur hockey club.