concomitant presumption (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

concomitant presumption in Iowa

6 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2015 0 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Roosevelt v. Foskeygreen
cadc · 1980 · cited in 3 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2004–2010
2 sentences

2010The policy against admissibility of general propensity evidence stems from “ ‘a fundamental sense that no one should be convicted of a crime based on his or her previous misdeeds.’ ” Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116 ). “ ‘A concomitant of the presumption of innocence is that a defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.’ This concept is ‘fundamental to American jurisprudence.’ ” Id. at 23-24 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Foskey, 636 F.2d 517, 523 (D.C.Cir.1980)).

2010The policy against admissibility of general propensity evidence stems from “ ‘a fundamental sense that no one should be convicted of a crime based on his or her previous misdeeds.’ ” Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116 ). “ ‘A concomitant of the presumption of innocence is that a defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.’ This concept is ‘fundamental to American jurisprudence.’ ” Id. at 23–24 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Foskey, 636 F.2d 517, 523 (D.C.

33
United States v. Larry Allen Myersgreen
ca5 · 1977 · cited in 3 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2004–2010
2 sentences

2010The policy against admissibility of general propensity evidence stems from “ ‘a fundamental sense that no one should be convicted of a crime based on his or her previous misdeeds.’ ” Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116 ). “ ‘A concomitant of the presumption of innocence is that a defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.’ This concept is ‘fundamental to American jurisprudence.’ ” Id. at 23-24 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Foskey, 636 F.2d 517, 523 (D.C.Cir.1980)).

2010The policy against admissibility of general propensity evidence stems from “ ‘a fundamental sense that no one should be convicted of a crime based on his or her previous misdeeds.’ ” Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116 ). “ ‘A concomitant of the presumption of innocence is that a defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.’ This concept is ‘fundamental to American jurisprudence.’ ” Id. at 23–24 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Foskey, 636 F.2d 517, 523 (D.C.

23

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Lau v. City of Oelwein green
iowa · 1983
2 sentences

2015Id. rs. 1.442(6)–(7), .443(2).

2015Id. rs. 1.442(6)-(7), .443(2).

32015–2015
United States v. Gregory O. Daniels green
cadc · 1985
2 sentences

2010The policy against admissibility of general propensity evidence stems from “ ‘a fundamental sense that no one should be convicted of a crime based on his or her previous misdeeds.’ ” Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116 ). “ ‘A concomitant of the presumption of innocence is that a defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.’ This concept is ‘fundamental to American jurisprudence.’ ” Id. at 23–24 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Foskey, 636 F.2d 517, 523 (D.C.

2010The policy against admissibility of general propensity evidence stems from “ ‘a fundamental sense that no one should be convicted of a crime based on his or her previous misdeeds.’ ” Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116 ). “ ‘A concomitant of the presumption of innocence is that a defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.’ This concept is ‘fundamental to American jurisprudence.’ ” Id. at 23–24 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Foskey, 636 F.2d 517, 523 (D.C.

22010–2010
State v. Sullivan green
iowa · 2004
2 sentences

2010The policy against admissibility of general propensity evidence stems from “ ‘a fundamental sense that no one should be convicted of a crime based on his or her previous misdeeds.’ ” Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116 ). “ ‘A concomitant of the presumption of innocence is that a defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.’ This concept is ‘fundamental to American jurisprudence.’ ” Id. at 23-24 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Foskey, 636 F.2d 517, 523 (D.C.Cir.1980)).

2010The policy against admissibility of general propensity evidence stems from “ ‘a fundamental sense that no one should be convicted of a crime based on his or her previous misdeeds.’ ” Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting Daniels, 770 F.2d at 1116 ). “ ‘A concomitant of the presumption of innocence is that a defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is.’ This concept is ‘fundamental to American jurisprudence.’ ” Id. at 23–24 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1044 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Foskey, 636 F.2d 517, 523 (D.C.

22010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IA § Iowa Code § 17A.19 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 368.22 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 4.1 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 602.4201 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 602.4202 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 602.8104 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 21 (1962–2025) NY 13 (1941–2008) TX 11 (1984–2024) PA 10 (2001–2022) CT 8 (1963–2022) TN 7 (1994–2013) FL 6 (1985–2026) IA 6 (2004–2015) NJ 6 (1902–1996) OR 5 (1991–2019) MD 5 (1975–2016) KS 4 (1948–2021) MI 4 (1979–2024) NM 3 (1997–2004) MO 3 (1971–1991) AZ 3 (1972–1984) OH 3 (1983–1990) MT 3 (2010–2014) GA 3 (1993–2014) DC 2 (1982–1989) WA 2 (1975–1989) MA 2 (1996–2024) RI 2 (1981–1983) IL 2 (1954–1969) DE 2 (2016–2021) AL 2 (2004–2005) WY 2 (2004–2006) ME 2 (1965–1988)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check