Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

631 N.W.2d 373

State v. McDonough

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 2, 2001

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 2001-08-02

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2018

16 state decisions

Relies on State v. Salitros

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-08-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PAGE, Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I respectfully dissent. I agree generally with the court’s analysis and resolution of all of the issues raised by McDonough except one. With regard to that one, I agree that McDonough unequivocally invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The transcript of the interrogation indicates that he did so at least 10 times. I also agree that the district court’s failure to suppress the statements McDonough made after he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel was error. However, I disagree with the court’s resolution of this issue. Because Officer Wuorinen’s conduct constituted such a blatant disregard for McDonough’s constitutional rights, I would exercise this court’s supervisory authority and remand for a new trial. See State v. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d 815, 820 (Minn.1993).

/631/nw2d/373 · .json · Public domain