Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Martin

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 16, 2006No. A04-279Published

1DissentMeyer, Justice

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Lennell Martin waived *627his right to be present for some jury communications, and its affirmance of Martin’s conviction. I would hold that the facts and law do not support a determination that Martin knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily relinquished his right to be present, and that the failure of the trial court to make a record of communications with the deliberating jury should result in reversal and remand for a new trial.

The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provide the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. United States v. GagnonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API