6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2014 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. Spurgingreen1 sentence2014In essence, appellant is objecting to trial strategy, and “[t]his court cannot reverse on grounds of inappropriate trial strategy.” State v. Spurgin, 358 N.W.2d 648, 651 (Minn. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Underwoodgreen1 sentence2000See id. at 342-44 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Seelyegreen2 sentences1976See, State v. Seelye, 297 Minn. 478 , 209 N. W. 2d 918 (1973). 1976See, State v. Seelye, 297 Minn. 478 , 209 N. W. 2d 918 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1991In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 , 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the court ruled that post-arrest, post-M- randa silence was inadmissible as a means of impeachment. 1991In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 , 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the court ruled that post-arrest, post-M- randa silence was inadmissible as a means of impeachment. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1977The lapse of time is itself significant in distinguishing this case from the situation in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. ed. 2d 416 (1975). 1977The lapse of time is itself significant in distinguishing this case from the situation in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. ed. 2d 416 (1975). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Griffin v. California
green
2 sentences1976In the more than a decade since Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 , 85 S. Ct. 1229 , 14 L. ed. 2d 106 (1965), courts have consistently held that the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendant’s failure to testify. 1976In the more than a decade since Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 , 85 S. Ct. 1229 , 14 L. ed. 2d 106 (1965), courts have consistently held that the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendant’s failure to testify. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.