Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Juma

A11-2142 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2012)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Juma

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Taylor

    869 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2015)   Cited 230 times
    Holding that a photo identification requirement to enter a courtroom "did not constitute a ‘true’ closure" when there was no evidence anyone was actually excluded

    Our cautionary statement has not been followed, as evidenced by the fact that we have denied nine petitions for review since Brown that have challenged a trial court's decision to close or lock the courtroom doors at various stages of the trial.See State v. Hicks, 837 N.W.2d 51 (Minn.App.2013), rev. denied on courtroom closure (Minn. Nov. 13, 2013); State v. Mosby, A12–0988, 2013 WL 2923486 (Minn.App. June 17, 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013); State v. Trautman, No. A12–0929, 2013 WL 2301796 (Minn.App. May 28, 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 2013); State v. Richmond, No. A12–0899, 2013 WL 1942995 (Minn.App. May 13, 2013), rev. denied (Minn. July 16, 2013); State v. Perez–Martinez, No. A11–2003, 2012 WL 5476112 (Minn.App. Nov. 13, 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 29, 2013); State v. Juma, No. A11–2142, 2012 WL 4856158 (Minn.App. Oct. 15, 2012), rev. denied on courtroom closure, (Minn. Jan. 15, 2013); State v. Irby, 820 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.App.2012), rev. denied on courtroom closure (Minn. Nov. 20, 2012); State v. Cook, No. A11–1332, 2012 WL 3263760 (Minn.App. Aug. 13, 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2012); State v. Thomas, No. A11–1215, 2012 WL 3023335 (Minn.App. July 23, 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 16, 2012). I, like the court, am “extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent,” and I understand that we require a “compelling reason” to do so.

  2. State v. Silvernail

    831 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 2013)   Cited 458 times
    Finding circumstantial evidence sufficient to support first-degree premeditated murder conviction

    For example, during the 2011–12 term, we denied five petitions for review that challenged the district court's decision to close or lock the courtroom doors during final jury instructions. See State v. Perez–Martinez, No. A11–2003, 2012 WL 5476112 (Minn.App. Nov. 13, 2012), rev. denied, (Minn. Jan. 29, 2013); State v. Juma, No. A11–2142, 2012 WL 4856158 (Minn.App. Oct. 15, 2012), rev. denied on courtroom closure, (Minn. Jan. 15, 2013); State v. Irby, 820 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.App.2012), rev. denied on courtroom closure, (Minn. Nov. 20, 2012); State v. Cook, No. A11–1332, 2012 WL 3263760 (Minn.App. Aug. 13, 2012), rev. denied, (Minn. Oct. 24, 2012); State v. Thomas, No. A11–1215, 2012 WL 3023335 (Minn.App. July 23, 2012), rev. denied, (Minn.