showing error in Iowa

2025“A showing that the error ‘conceivably could have influenced the outcome’ of the proceeding is not enough.” Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 866 (Iowa 2012) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)).

2023See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 866 (Iowa 2012) (“A showing that the error ‘conceivably could have 9 influenced the outcome’ of the proceeding is not enough.

2025“A showing that the error ‘conceivably could have influenced the outcome’ of the proceeding is not enough.” Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 866 (Iowa 2012) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)).

2022“A showing that the error ‘conceivably could have influenced the outcome’ of the proceeding is not enough.” Lamasters, 821 N.W.2d at 866 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ).

2017See United States v. Llanez-Garcia, 735 F.3d 483, 493 (6th Cir. 2013). 25 discovery are ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district court and an error in administering the discovery rules is reversible only on a showing that the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.’ ” (quoting United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1978)).

2017Pretrial discovery in criminal cases is generally controlled by either statute or court rule unless otherwise grounded in the constitution. 8 State v. Tuttle, 238 Neb. 827 , 472 N.W.2d 712, 717 (1991); see also United States v. Olivares, 843 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Orders governing discovery are ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district court and an error in administering the discovery rules is reversible only on a showing that the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.’ ” (quoting United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1978)).

2017See United States v. Llanez-Garcia, 735 F.3d 483, 493 (6th Cir. 2013). 25 discovery are ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district court and an error in administering the discovery rules is reversible only on a showing that the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.’ ” (quoting United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1978)).

2017Federal Rule of Evidence 16 is therefore the “primary means of discovery in criminal cases.” United States v. Llanez-Garcia, 735 F.3d 483, 493 (6th Cir. 2013).

2016Id.; accord Zerbst, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S. Ct. at 1023 , 82 L.

2016Id.; accord Zerbst, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S. Ct. at 1023 , 82 L.

2020See State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 320 (Iowa 2015) (“A showing that the error ‘conceivably could have influenced the outcome’ of the proceeding is insufficient.” (citation omitted)); State v. Myers, 653 N.W.2d 574, 579 (Iowa 2002) (determining that “conclusory claims of prejudice” cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffectiveness claim).

2018Rather, the effect must be affirmatively demonstrated by showing ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025We need not address which version of the statute applies because we find the denial of visitation was improper even under the lower standard in effect at the time of the parents’ motion. 10 department to “create a plan to implement contact.” See B.H., 2025 WL 1452326 , at *4 (disagreeing with the court’s finding that the daughter could not safely interact with her father during fully supervised visits in a therapeutic setting where the father had complied with all recommendations other than sex offender treatment); In re S.P., No. 16-1919, 2017 WL 108798, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017) (c

2025Defense counsel has a responsibility to inform a defendant of “all the adverse immigration consequences” related to the defendant’s criminal charges “that competent counsel would uncover.” See Diaz v. State, 896 N.W.2d 723, 732 (Iowa 2017).

2020See State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 320 (Iowa 2015) (“A showing that the error ‘conceivably could have influenced the outcome’ of the proceeding is insufficient.” (citation omitted)); State v. Myers, 653 N.W.2d 574, 579 (Iowa 2002) (determining that “conclusory claims of prejudice” cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffectiveness claim).

2017Pretrial discovery in criminal cases is generally controlled by either statute or court rule unless otherwise grounded in the constitution. 8 State v. Tuttle, 238 Neb. 827 , 472 N.W.2d 712, 717 (1991); see also United States v. Olivares, 843 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Orders governing discovery are ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district court and an error in administering the discovery rules is reversible only on a showing that the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.’ ” (quoting United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1978)).

2017Pretrial discovery in criminal cases is generally controlled by either statute or court rule unless otherwise grounded in the constitution. 8 State v. Tuttle, 238 Neb. 827 , 472 N.W.2d 712, 717 (1991); see also United States v. Olivares, 843 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Orders governing discovery are ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district court and an error in administering the discovery rules is reversible only on a showing that the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.’ ” (quoting United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1978)).

2017Pretrial discovery in criminal cases is generally controlled by either statute or court rule unless otherwise grounded in the constitution. 8 State v. Tuttle, 238 Neb. 827 , 472 N.W.2d 712, 717 (1991); see also United States v. Olivares, 843 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Orders governing discovery are ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district court and an error in administering the discovery rules is reversible only on a showing that the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.’ ” (quoting United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1978)).

2016See Millam, 745 N.W.2d at 723 ; see also Iowa R.

2007See, e.g., Mickens, 535 U.S. at 174 , 122 S.Ct. at 1245 , 152 L.Ed.2d at 306 (noting Strickland requires “in other ineffectiveness-of-counsel cases ... a showing of probable effect upon the outcome of trial,” but that in conflict of interest cases such prejudice is presumed when there’s a showing of defense counsel’s “defective performance”). 6 Thus, in this case we are *347 looking to see whether Smitherman has made a showing whereby we can presume prejudice.

2007See, e.g., Mickens, 535 U.S. at 174 , 122 S.Ct. at 1245 , 152 L.Ed.2d at 306 (noting Strickland requires “in other ineffectiveness-of-counsel cases ... a showing of probable effect upon the outcome of trial,” but that in conflict of interest cases such prejudice is presumed when there’s a showing of defense counsel’s “defective performance”). 6 Thus, in this case we are *347 looking to see whether Smitherman has made a showing whereby we can presume prejudice.

2007See State v. Lane, 726 N.W.2d 371, 393 (Iowa 2007). 8 probable effect upon the outcome of trial,” but that in conflict of interest cases such prejudice is presumed when there’s a showing of defense counsel’s “defective performance”). 6 Thus, in this case we are looking to see whether Smitherman has made a showing whereby we can presume prejudice.

1995Rather, the moving party must “show the relative inconveniences were so unbalanced,” citing Douglas Machine & Engineering Co. v. Hyflow Blanking Press Corp., 229 N.W.2d 784, 792 (Iowa 1975), that jurisdiction should be declined on an equitable basis.

1987Doland v. Boone County, 376 N.W.2d 870, 873 (Iowa 1985).

1982See, e.g., Carey, 492 F.2d at 634-35 ; Bursey v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059, 1083 (9th Cir.1972); Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 992 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1125 , 93 S.Ct. 939 , 35 L.Ed.2d 257 (1973).

1982See, e.g., Carey, 492 F.2d at 634-35 ; Bursey v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059, 1083 (9th Cir.1972); Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 992 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1125 , 93 S.Ct. 939 , 35 L.Ed.2d 257 (1973).

1982See, e.g., Carey, 492 F.2d at 634-35 ; Bursey v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059, 1083 (9th Cir.1972); Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 992 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1125 , 93 S.Ct. 939 , 35 L.Ed.2d 257 (1973).