Supreme Court of Minnesota· 9/23/2010

State v. Morales

Citations

788 N.W.2d 737
2010 Minn. LEXIS 551
2010 WL 3701313

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that the immunity granted under the use-immunity statute is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
holding that the state did not call a witness in bad faith when it knew “with a great degree of certainty” that the witness would refuse to testify
holding witness who was granted use immunity did not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege based on fear of a perjury prosecution
reasoning that because the state believed that the privilege was inapplicable, the state may have had a legitimate reason to call the witness
affirming a district court's ruling to not admit the recorded statements of a separately tried co-defendant under Rule 807 when the declarant had a strong motive to lie
“Courts in other jurisdictions agree that a defendant is unfairly prejudiced when a witness refuses to answer [by invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege], regardless of whether the witness was protected by a valid privilege.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson, Gildea, Stras

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.