Skip to main content
· 4/26/1988

State v. Rothstein

Citations

  • 422 N.W.2d 300
  • 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 411
  • 1988 WL 36178

How courts have described this case

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

  • disclosure not required because there was no claim that the informant was present at either transaction
  • defendant must make a prima facie showing of entrapment to warrant an in camera hearing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Foley, Norton, Mulally

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.