Carlson v. Minnesota

Carlson v. Minnesota concerns a habeas corpus petition by a prisoner who was convicted in state court of a heinous murder, in a case in which he defended himself pro se. He was appointed counsel to handle his appeal to the Eighth Circuit after the district court denied his habeas corpus petition.

The Eighth Circuit rejected his request for a new trial by holding:

“

Carlson claims that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper and unfairly prejudiced him. As indicated above, Carlson made no objection to the prosecutor's remarks at the time, nor did he request a curative instruction to the jury. We will reverse for prosecutorial misconduct only if the conduct, even if improper, so prejudiced Carlson that he was unable to obtain a fair trial. See United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353, 1362 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069, 104 L. Ed. 2d 636, 109 S. Ct. 2072 (1989). Having reviewed the comments Carlson identifies as objectionable, we agree with the magistrate judge that the prosecution did not misstate the facts and that the alleged improper statements, when viewed in the context of the entire argument 3 did not rise to the level of depriving Carlson of a fair trial.

”

Carlson v. Minnesota, 945 F.2d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir. 1991).

The Eighth Circuit concluded by reciting the standard for a new trial:

“

[W]e cannot say that a rational jury could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlson [committed the murder].

”

Carlson v. Minnesota, 945 F.2d 1026, 1030 (8th Cir. 1991).