federal due process clause in Iowa

2025See Davis, 443 N.W.2d at 710–11. 1 Our court has addressed several previous direct appeals related to this case.

2025See Davis, 443 N.W.2d at 710–11.

2008Ct., 688 N.W.2d 790, 795 (Iowa 2004) ("Because the parties have articulated no basis for distinguishing these clauses for purposes of determining a parolee’s right to counsel, our discussion of the federal due process claim applies equally to the claim made under the Iowa Constitution.”).

2008Ct., 688 N.W.2d 790, 795 (Iowa 2004) (“Because the parties have articulated no basis for distinguishing these clauses for purposes of determining a parolee’s right to counsel, our discussion of the federal due process claim applies equally to the claim made under the Iowa Constitution.”). 11 McNeal.

2016See, e.g., Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147 (1938).

2010See, e.g., Welch, 305 U.S. at 147 , 59 S.Ct. at 125-26 , 83 L.Ed. at 93 .

2016See, e.g., State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757, 768-69 (Iowa 2010) (departing from federal precedent and finding a due process violation under article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution by rejecting a federal balancing test for admission of prior bad acts evidence). 4 .

2016See, e.g., State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757 , 768–69 (Iowa 2010) (departing from federal precedent and finding a due process violation under article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution by rejecting a federal balancing test for admission of prior bad acts evidence). 22 (2013) (“[T]he various rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in particular can be understood as largely focused on establishing mechanisms for ensuring reliability of the trial evidence and the trial process.”).

2021See King v. State, 797 N.W.2d 565, 571 (Iowa 2011). 7 and (3) material to determining guilt.

2018Iowa 2015) (“Plaintiffs provide no authority for the proposition that noncompliance with state regulations implicates the Due Process Clause, and the court is aware of none.”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 840 F.3d 987 ; see also Williams v. Nix, 1 F.3d 712 , 717 (8th Cir. 2013) (“It is clear . . . that, without more, the mere violation of a state law or rule does not constitute a federal due process violation.”).

2018Iowa 2015) ("Plaintiffs provide no authority for the proposition that noncompliance with state regulations implicates the Due Process Clause, and the court is aware of none."), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds , 840 F.3d 987 ; see also Williams v. Nix , 1 F.3d 712 , 717 (8th Cir. 1993) ("It is clear ... that, without more, the mere violation of a state law or rule does not constitute a federal due process violation.").

2018See, e.g., Folkerts v. City of Waverly, 707 F.3d 975, 981 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing the 2 Gross testified Sheeler had admitted to being the person in the article and then she refused further comment. 7 factors of inadequate investigation that violate fundamental rights).

2004See Maghee v. State, 639 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Iowa 2002) (refusing to distinguish due process right to counsel in disciplinary proceedings under Iowa Constitution from federal due process right to counsel); cf. In re Detention of Garren, 620 N.W.2d 275, 280 (Iowa 2000) (refusing to deviate from federal analysis in considering state constitutional claim because appellant “ha[d] suggested no legal deficiency in the federal principles ..., nor ha[d] he offered an alternative test or guidelines”).

2004See Maghee v. State, 639 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Iowa 2002) (refusing to distinguish due process right to counsel in disciplinary proceedings under Iowa Constitution from federal due process right to counsel); cf. In re Detention of Garren, 620 N.W.2d 275, 280 (Iowa 2000) (refusing to deviate from federal analysis in considering state constitutional claim because appellant “ha[d] suggested no legal deficiency in the federal principles ..., nor ha[d] he offered an alternative test or guidelines”).