Here’s my Facebook movie. Find yours at #FacebookIs10

Posted by Sharon Anderson on Monday, February 10, 2014

Steinhauser vs CitySt.Paul et al


Saturday, May 3, 2008

Nancy Lazaryan v. Judge VanDeNorth Jury Tampering

Attry Gen Swanson must intervene in the Lazaryan Cases
Sharon Anderson
QUESTION CAN ANYONE in the State of Minnesota get a fair, impartial trial when the Judges covertly mislead the Jury's?
cases at
re: NancyLazaryan found at
In this health-tobacco-smoking
5. Prosecutorial Misconduct
A district court’s denial of a new trial motion based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct will be reversed only “when the misconduct, considered in the context of the trial as a whole, was so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial was impaired.” State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720, 727-28 (Minn. 2000).
There are two distinct standards for determining whether prosecutorial misconduct is harmless error; serious misconduct will be found “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error,” while for less serious misconduct, the standard is “whether the misconduct likely played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.”
State v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 678
(Minn. 2003)(citing State v. Hunt, 615 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2000)); but see State v. Mayhorn, 720 N.W.2d 776, 785 (Minn. 2006)(stating that supreme court has more recently applied “streamlined approach,” applying only the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-d oubt standard).
“If the defendant failed to object to the misconduct at trial, he forfeits the right to have the issue considered on appeal, but if the error is sufficient, this court may review.” State v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 678 (Minn. 2003)(citing State v. Sanders, 598 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn. 1999)). Only when the misconduct is unduly prejudicial will relief be granted absent a trial objection or request for instruction. State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440, 450 (Minn. 1997). When the defendant fails to object, prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed under the plain-error standard announced in State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998). On the third, or “prejudice” prong, the state now bears the burden of proving that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct would have a significant effect on the jury's verdict. State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).
The general rule that a party must object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct or waive the issue does not apply to a criminal defendant appearing pro se. State v. Reed, 398 N.W.2d 614, 617 (Minn. App. 1986)(citing State v. Stufflebean, 329 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Minn. 1983)), review denied (Minn. Feb. 13, 1987).
6. Juror Misconduct
“The standard of review for denial of a Schwartz hearing is abuse of discretion.” State v. Church, 577 N.W.2d 715, 721 (Minn. 1998).“The granting of a Schwartz hearing is generally a matter of discretion for the trial court.” State v. Rainer, 411 N.W.2d 490, 498 (Minn. 1987). ? page=JudgeBio_v2&ID=30291
In the Lazaryan Sceniero Judge John VanDeNorth
JSTOR: California Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 3,(1987 ), pp. 1071-1092
This writer has for 30 yrs been victimized by the Courts as Sharon Scarella for Associate Justice 221NW2d562,



SharonsSocratiesMethod TruthTrust4YOU

JURIST Paper Chase

Dayton's MN ShutDown Costs

2007 Sharon StPaul Ward(2) Election

Blog Directory for St Paul, MN

Snap Shots

Get Free Shots from


Sharon4Council: Empower Ethics Empathize Energize Educate:

Sharon4Council: Empower  Ethics Empathize Energize Educate:

My photo

VA Widow, Political-Realeste Entreprenuer, Blogger, More fun getting there than being there.
Favorite Saying " Supbonea God into the Court Room" aka Shewolfeagle , CobraShar