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 1989–2015 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2014State v. Anderson, 448 N.W.2d 32, 33 (Iowa 14 813, 817 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (“[W]hen the prosecutor or the trial judge has told a prospective defense witness he could face prosecution if he testified, a majority of courts have found that no misconduct occurred.”). | 1 | 1 |
Parsons v. Bedford, Breedlove, & Robesongreen2 sentences2014Cf. Parsons v. Bedford, Breedlove & Robeson, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 433, 447 , 7 L.Ed. 732, 737 (1830) (noting the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution only guarantees a right to a jury trial in “suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered”). 2014Cf. Parsons v. Bedford, Breedlove & Robeson, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 433, 447 , 7 L.Ed. 732, 737 (1830) (noting the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution only guarantees a right to a jury trial in “suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Walter Morrison A/K/A "Skip" Morrison Appeal of Nick Bosciagreen2 sentences1995It will also be held against you in the penitentiary when you’re up for parole.”); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (prosecutor told eodefend-ant that he “would” be tried on all counts of the indictment, and his plea agreement “would” be void, if he testified); United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 225-26 (3rd Cir.1976) (prosecutor told defense witness that her testimony “would” be used against her in drug prosecution, and that perjury charges were “possible,” if she testified). 3 On the other hand, when the prosecutor or the trial judge has told a 1995It will also be held against you in the penitentiary when you're up for parole."); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (prosecutor told codefendant that he "would" be tried on all counts of the indictment, and his plea agreement "would" be void, if he testified); United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 225-26 (3rd Cir.1976) (prosecutor told defense witness that her testimony "would" be used against her in drug prosecution, and that perjury charges were "possible," if she testified). [3] On the other hand, when the prosecutor or the trial judge has told | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksengreen2 sentences1995See also Henricksen, 564 F.2d at 198 (court found substantial government interference with the defense witness’s free and unhampered choice to testify violated due process where witness whose testimony would tend to exonerate the defendant as a part of a plea bargain had agreed not to testify and the government said if he did testify, the plea bargain would be void); Morrison, 535 F.2d at 230-31 (court found prosecutor’s repeated warnings to a prospective defense witness about the possibility of a federal perjury charge if she testified falsely after she had agreed to give testimony favorable 1995It will also be held against you in the penitentiary when you’re up for parole.”); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (prosecutor told eodefend-ant that he “would” be tried on all counts of the indictment, and his plea agreement “would” be void, if he testified); United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 225-26 (3rd Cir.1976) (prosecutor told defense witness that her testimony “would” be used against her in drug prosecution, and that perjury charges were “possible,” if she testified). 3 On the other hand, when the prosecutor or the trial judge has told a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Simpson
green
2 sentences2015Accordingly, we will limit our discussion to use immunity. 5 Simpson, 587 N.W.2d at 773 . 2014Under the “effective defense theory,” the court may order immunity to a witness “whose testimony is essential to an effective defense.” Simpson, 587 N.W.2d at 772 . “[O]nly a small minority of cases” have embraced this theory. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Franzen v. Deere and Co.
green
1 sentence1989This conclusion is apparent from the language of the amended rule itself which first creates certain obligations upon those who sign court documents and then authorizes district courts to sanction the signer or represented party “[i]f a motion, pleading, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule.” Further, considering that the intention of the amended rule is to discourage frivolous filings and deter misuse of the litigation process, Franzen, 409 N.W.2d at 673-74 , retrospective application of the rule would fail to serve the rule’s intention. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.