This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A13-2321

State of Minnesota, 

Respondent, 

vs. 

Antawon Antonio Baker,

Appellant.

Filed November 3, 2014

Affirmed

Klaphake, Judge*

Sherburne County District Court

File No. 71-CR-12-1910

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Matthew Frank, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, 

Minnesota; and

Kathleen A. Heaney, Sherburne County Attorney, Leah G. Emmans, Assistant County 

Attorney, Elk River, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant 

Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and 

Klaphake, Judge. 

 

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to 

Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. 
2

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

KLAPHAKE, Judge

On appeal from his conviction of burglary, appellant Antawon Antonio Baker 

argues that the district court erred by denying his request for a Schwartz hearing 

regarding jury misconduct. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

Appellant argues that the district court erred by denying his request for a Schwartz

hearing because a juror was allegedly intimidated into convicting him. See Schwartz v. 

Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328, 104 N.W.2d 301, 303 (1960) 

(stating the procedure for questioning jurors following a verdict to determine whether 

jury misconduct occurred). “In cases in which a petitioner alleges juror misconduct, the 

trial court may order a hearing with jurors who were privy to the alleged misconduct in 

the presence of all interested parties.” Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414, 421 (Minn. 

2004) (citing Schwartz, 258 Minn. at 328, 104 N.W.2d at 303). To warrant a Schwartz 

hearing to examine possible jury misconduct, a “defendant must first present evidence 

that if unchallenged would warrant the conclusion that jury misconduct occurred.” State 

v. Jackson, 615 N.W.2d 391, 396 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Oct. 17, 

2000). This court will reverse a district court’s decision not to hold a Schwartz hearing 

only if it abused its discretion by denying a request for the hearing. State v. Church, 577 

N.W.2d 715, 721 (Minn. 1998). 

After appellant’s trial, a juror spoke with appellant’s defense counsel. Appellant’s 

defense counsel requested a Schwartz hearing and submitted an affidavit outlining the 
3

conversation. The juror explained that she felt “strongly intimidated and pressured into 

voting for conviction,” and that “the jury ignored the evidence, and were mostly 

interested in getting done with the deliberations so they could go home.” Based on this 

evidence, the district court denied appellant’s request for a Schwartz hearing by 

reasoning,

The evidence that’s proffered to the Court at this time does 

not indicate that there was any extraneous, prejudicial 

information improperly brought to the jury’s attention nor 

does the information indicate that there was any outside 

influence improperly brought to bear on any juror. And 

finally the evidence does not demonstrate that there was 

threat of violence or a violent act brought to bear on the jurors 

from whatever source, whether it be internal or external to 

reach a verdict. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

appellant’s request. “The trial court must distinguish between testimony about 

‘psychological’ intimidation, coercion, and persuasion, which would be inadmissible, as 

opposed to express acts or threats of violence.” Minn. R. Evid. 606(b) 1989 committee 

cmt. The juror stated that she felt “strongly intimidated and pressured,” but did not 

indicate that she had been threatened with violence, received improper extraneous 

prejudicial information, or outside influence. 

Appellant argues that because defense counsel “did not question [the juror] in any 

way and simply allowed her to speak what was on her mind . . . it is quite possible that 

more details would have emerged if [the juror] was questioned about threats of physical 

violence.” We disagree. Appellant is correct that “it is undesirable to permit attorneys or 

investigators for a defeated litigant to harass jurors by submitting them to interrogation 
4

. . . without more protection for the ascertainment of the facts.” Schwartz, 258 Minn. at 

303, 104 N.W.2d at 328. But appellant bears the burden to “present evidence that if 

unchallenged would warrant the conclusion that jury misconduct occurred.” Jackson, 

615 N.W.2d at 396. Standing alone and unchallenged, the juror’s statements do not

warrant a Schwartz hearing. Consequently, the district court did not err by denying 

appellant’s request.

Affirmed.