7 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
DeVoss v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Gomez Medina objected to “improper argument” after the prosecutor attributed to L.G.M. the statement, “Mom said [K.D.] lied” and surmised that L.G.M. had been repeatedly told “don’t believe your sister.” Gomez Medina now asserts that is in effect calling an exculpatory witness a “liar.” The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, 14 section 9 of the Iowa Constitution provide protection from prosecutorial error.5 See DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa 2002) (stating prosecutorial misconduct that denies the defendant a fair trial is a 2014See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Iowa 2003); DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa 2002) (stating prosecutorial misconduct that denies the defendant a fair trial is a violation of due process); see also U.S. Const. amend. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Martegreen1 sentence2020In People v. Marte, the same court held that “no similar per se rule applies to an identification in which the police are not involved.” 912 N.E.2d 37, 38 (N.Y. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gravesgreen1 sentence2014See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Iowa 2003); DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa 2002) (stating prosecutorial misconduct that denies the defendant a fair trial is a violation of due process); see also U.S. Const. amend. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Adams
green
1 sentence2020The defendant receives the full benefit of a trial by jury, presided over by an impartial judge, with representation by counsel, and witnesses subject to oath and cross-examination.”); State v. King, 934 A.2d 556 , 560–61 (N.H. 2007) (declining to require a prescreening and stating “[t]he inherent suggestiveness in the normal trial procedure employed here does not rise to the level of constitutional concern”); People v. Morales, 109 N.Y.S.3d 650 , 651 (App. Div. 2019) (“In cases where . . . the defendant is identified in court for the first time, ‘the defendant is not deprived of a fair trial | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Medina
green
1 sentence2020The defendant receives the full benefit of a trial by jury, presided over by an impartial judge, with representation by counsel, and witnesses subject to oath and cross-examination.”); State v. King, 934 A.2d 556 , 560–61 (N.H. 2007) (declining to require a prescreening and stating “[t]he inherent suggestiveness in the normal trial procedure employed here does not rise to the level of constitutional concern”); People v. Morales, 109 N.Y.S.3d 650 , 651 (App. Div. 2019) (“In cases where . . . the defendant is identified in court for the first time, ‘the defendant is not deprived of a fair trial | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. King
green
1 sentence2020The defendant receives the full benefit of a trial by jury, presided over by an impartial judge, with representation by counsel, and witnesses subject to oath and cross-examination.”); State v. King, 934 A.2d 556 , 560–61 (N.H. 2007) (declining to require a prescreening and stating “[t]he inherent suggestiveness in the normal trial procedure employed here does not rise to the level of constitutional concern”); People v. Morales, 109 N.Y.S.3d 650 , 651 (App. Div. 2019) (“In cases where . . . the defendant is identified in court for the first time, ‘the defendant is not deprived of a fair trial | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Neuman
green
1 sentence2003E.g., Curtis, 681 P.2d at 511-12 ; Neuman, 371 S.E.2d at 81 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Curtis
green
1 sentence2003E.g., Curtis, 681 P.2d at 511-12 ; Neuman, 371 S.E.2d at 81 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Locksley v. Anesthesiologists of Cedar Rapids, P.C.
green
1 sentence1989Locksley, 333 N.W.2d at 454 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Díaz v. Arkadia Sugar Co.
green
1 sentence1923In Graves v. Graves, 132 Iowa 199 , we discuss the question of fraud that would vitiate a judgment, and there cite with approval Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129 ( 25 Pac. 970 , 27 Pac. 537 , 13 L. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Pico v. Cohn
green
1 sentence1923In Graves v. Graves, 132 Iowa 199 , we discuss the question of fraud that would vitiate a judgment, and there cite with approval Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129 ( 25 Pac. 970 , 27 Pac. 537 , 13 L. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Graves v. Graves
green
1 sentence1923In Graves v. Graves, 132 Iowa 199 , we discuss the question of fraud that would vitiate a judgment, and there cite with approval Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129 ( 25 Pac. 970 , 27 Pac. 537 , 13 L. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.