Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Smith, 573 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Iowa 1997) (finding “little chance the alleged newly-discovered evidence would have changed the result of the trial”). 15 IV. | 1 | 1 |
Aguilera v. Stategreen1 sentence2024We consider the suppressed evidence collectively, not “item by item.” Aguilera v. State, 807 N.W.2d 249, 255 (Iowa 2011) (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436–37). | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Ritchiegreen2 sentences2020The harmless-error test reference in the Neiderbach footnote that Barrett cites was part of a quote from Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 , 107 S. Ct. 989, 1002 (1987), in which the Supreme Court found a due process violation based on confidential records alleged to contain exculpatory information that were withheld from the defendant. 2020The harmless-error test reference in the Neiderbach footnote that Barrett cites was part of a quote from Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 , 107 S. Ct. 989, 1002 (1987), in which the Supreme Court found a due process violation based on confidential records alleged to contain exculpatory information that were withheld from the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
David R. Desimone v. State of Iowa
green
2 sentences2023Importantly, “the materiality requirement requires the court to assess the 8 Bahena also makes references to evidence potentially implicating Lowe in the disappearance of another child. 26 possible effects nondisclosure had on trial preparation and strategy, not merely the weight of the evidence.” Id. 2020Under this standard, the court asks whether there exists “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” DeSimone, 803 N.W.2d at 105 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682 , 105 S. Ct. at 3383 ). | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
1 sentence2024We consider the suppressed evidence collectively, not “item by item.” Aguilera v. State, 807 N.W.2d 249, 255 (Iowa 2011) (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436–37). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences2020Under this standard, the court asks whether there exists “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” DeSimone, 803 N.W.2d at 105 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682 , 105 S. Ct. at 3383 ). 2020Under this standard, the court asks whether there exists “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” DeSimone, 803 N.W.2d at 105 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682 , 105 S. Ct. at 3383 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Strickler v. Greene
green
2 sentences2011Materiality requires a “reasonable probability” of a different trial outcome, not merely a “reasonable possibility.” Strickler, 527 U.S. at 291 , 119 S.Ct. at 1953 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 308 . 2011Materiality requires a “reasonable probability” of a different trial outcome, not merely a “reasonable possibility.” Strickler, 527 U.S. at 291 , 119 S.Ct. at 1953 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 308 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.