parallel federal rule (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

parallel federal rule in Iowa

5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2021 2 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State of Iowa v. Matthew Joseph Elliottgreen
iowa · 2011 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017But based on the record before us, we 3 “As the time between the event and the making of the record expands, however, the danger of faulty recall or conscious fabrication increases.” Laurie Kratky Doré, 7 Iowa Practice Series: Evidence § 5.803:5, at 976 (2016) [hereinafter Doré]. 9 are not convinced the State demonstrated that Gerstenkorn’s statements to the police accurately reflected personal knowledge of the incident.4 In Thompson, our supreme court teased out two independent proofs necessary to satisfy the rule’s “accuracy” requirement: (1) “the accuracy of the statements which were made b

11

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
State v. Dullard green
iowa · 2003
2 sentences

2021The advisory committee note on a parallel federal rule provides that not all nonverbal conduct is assertive, but actions “such as . . . pointing to identify a suspect in a lineup, is clearly the equivalent of words, assertive in nature, and to be regarded as a statement.” Id. at 592 (quoting Fed.

2021The advisory committee note on a parallel federal rule provides that not all nonverbal conduct is assertive, but actions “such as . . . pointing to identify a suspect in a lineup, is clearly the equivalent of words, assertive in nature, and to be regarded as a statement.” Id. at 592 (quoting Fed.

22021–2021
McCarthy v. United States green
scotus · 1969
2 sentences

2017In McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969), the Supreme Court explained the prophylactic purpose of the parallel federal rule of criminal procedure: First, although the procedure embodied in Rule 11 has not been held to be constitutionally mandated, it is designed to assist the district judge in making the constitutionally required determination that a defendant’s guilty plea is truly voluntary.

2017In McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969), the Supreme Court explained the prophylactic purpose of the parallel federal rule of criminal procedure: First, although the procedure embodied in Rule 11 has not been held to be constitutionally mandated, it is designed to assist the district judge in making the constitutionally required determination that a defendant’s guilty plea is truly voluntary.

22017–2017
State v. Thompson green
iowa · 1986
1 sentence

2017But based on the record before us, we 3 “As the time between the event and the making of the record expands, however, the danger of faulty recall or conscious fabrication increases.” Laurie Kratky Doré, 7 Iowa Practice Series: Evidence § 5.803:5, at 976 (2016) [hereinafter Doré]. 9 are not convinced the State demonstrated that Gerstenkorn’s statements to the police accurately reflected personal knowledge of the incident.4 In Thompson, our supreme court teased out two independent proofs necessary to satisfy the rule’s “accuracy” requirement: (1) “the accuracy of the statements which were made b

12017–2017

Where else courts name it

MA 21 (1981–2023) WA 6 (1990–2019) CA 6 (2016–2020) MS 5 (2001–2020) IA 5 (2017–2021) HI 4 (2003–2011) UT 3 (2014–2017) OR 3 (1992–2015) MN 3 (1989–2012) MI 3 (1992–2025) NJ 3 (1977–2017) DC 2 (1981–1984) AK 2 (1977–1994) DE 2 (1992–2025) AZ 2 (1986–1987) KS 2 (1970–2021) AL 2 (2004–2008) FL 2 (1960–2003) VT 2 (2003–2004) WY 2 (1992–2000) LA 2 (2005–2016) ME 2 (1975–2020)

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