Allen claim in Nebraska

2023ALLEN Cite as 314 Neb. 663 with respect to alleged juror misconduct (2) by not granting his motion for new trial, (3) by not receiving his evidence at the hearing on the motion for new trial, (4) by ruling that jurors’ statements during deliberations regarding the Torres family were not extraneous prejudicial evidence, (5) by find- ing that jurors’ statements during deliberations regarding the Torres family were not sufficient to prove jury misconduct, (6) by finding that Allen did not meet his burden of proving jury misconduct through his evidence submitted to the court at the hearing on his

2023ALLEN Cite as 314 Neb. 663 with respect to alleged juror misconduct (2) by not granting his motion for new trial, (3) by not receiving his evidence at the hearing on the motion for new trial, (4) by ruling that jurors’ statements during deliberations regarding the Torres family were not extraneous prejudicial evidence, (5) by find- ing that jurors’ statements during deliberations regarding the Torres family were not sufficient to prove jury misconduct, (6) by finding that Allen did not meet his burden of proving jury misconduct through his evidence submitted to the court at the hearing on his

2025ALLEN Cite as 318 Neb. 627 was seized is presumed to have a right to its return, and the burden is on the government to show that it has a legitimate reason to retain the property.” However, the court apparently took at face value Allen’s claim that all items listed in his motion were seized from him.

2025ALLEN Cite as 318 Neb. 627 district court and remand the matter for further proceedings to remedy these issues.

2025ALLEN Cite as 318 Neb. 904 The district court overruled Allen’s objection because it found that both Czech’s motion and the order of prejudgment attachment were “sent” to him.

2025ALLEN Cite as 318 Neb. 904 Czech is correct that neither Allen’s motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, nor his arguments at trial, contemplated the witness’ testifying about Torres’ pain and suffering.

2022He provides only general legal propositions related to consent being given voluntarily, and not as the result of duress or coercion, citing to State v. Prahin, 235 Neb. 409 , 455 N.W.2d 554 (1990), and that the prosecution has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that incriminating statements by the accused were voluntarily given and not the product of coercion, citing to State v. Hernandez, 299 Neb. 896 , 911 N.W.2d 524 (2018).

2022He provides only general legal propositions related to consent being given voluntarily, and not as the result of duress or coercion, citing to State v. Prahin, 235 Neb. 409 , 455 N.W.2d 554 (1990), and that the prosecution has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that incriminating statements by the accused were voluntarily given and not the product of coercion, citing to State v. Hernandez, 299 Neb. 896 , 911 N.W.2d 524 (2018).

2022Ed. 2d 91 (1976), and State v. Lofquest, 227 Neb. 567 , 418 N.W.2d 595 (1988), that where the prosecution’s reference to a defendant’s silence “is not specific” but rather “general, it is a mistrial.” -6- Following a brief recess, the district court overruled Allen’s motion for mistrial.

2022Ed. 2d 91 (1976), and State v. Lofquest, 227 Neb. 567 , 418 N.W.2d 595 (1988), that where the prosecution’s reference to a defendant’s silence “is not specific” but rather “general, it is a mistrial.” -6- Following a brief recess, the district court overruled Allen’s motion for mistrial.

2022He provides only general legal propositions related to consent being given voluntarily, and not as the result of duress or coercion, citing to State v. Prahin, 235 Neb. 409 , 455 N.W.2d 554 (1990), and that the prosecution has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that incriminating statements by the accused were voluntarily given and not the product of coercion, citing to State v. Hernandez, 299 Neb. 896 , 911 N.W.2d 524 (2018).

2022He provides only general legal propositions related to consent being given voluntarily, and not as the result of duress or coercion, citing to State v. Prahin, 235 Neb. 409 , 455 N.W.2d 554 (1990), and that the prosecution has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that incriminating statements by the accused were voluntarily given and not the product of coercion, citing to State v. Hernandez, 299 Neb. 896 , 911 N.W.2d 524 (2018).

2018We found that the requirements of rule 804(2)(a) were met, because Minor’s deposition was taken by Allen’s counsel - 567 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports STATE v. ALLEN Cite as 301 Neb. 560 in compliance with Nebraska law and in the course of the same criminal proceeding in which it was offered and because Allen’s counsel had an opportunity to develop Minor’s tes- timony with a similar interest or motive on matters related to Allen’s defense.

2018In addition, he 31 Strickland, supra note 19 . 32 Foster, supra note 5 . 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Brief for appellant at 30. - 577 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports STATE v. ALLEN Cite as 301 Neb. 560 fails to discuss any of the contentions raised in his motion for postconviction relief.