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 2022–2022 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berghuis v. Smithgreen2 sentences2022In State v. Veal, we held that to prove a Sixth Amendment fair-cross- section violation, the defendant “must identify some practice or combination of practices that led to the underrepresentation, and it must be something other than the ‘laundry list’ the Supreme Court declined to condemn in Berghuis [v. Smith].” 930 N.W.2d 319, 330 (Iowa 2019) (quoting Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 332 (2010)). 2022In State v. Veal (Veal I), we held that for a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claim, the defendant “must identify some practice or combination of practices that led to the underrepresentation, and it must be something other than the ‘laundry list’ the Supreme Court declined to condemn in Berghuis.” 930 N.W.2d 319, 330 (Iowa 2019) (quoting Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 332 (2010)). | 4 | 4 |
State of Iowa v. Kenneth L. Lillygreen2 sentences2022In State v. Veal, we held that to prove a Sixth Amendment fair-cross- section violation, the defendant “must identify some practice or combination of practices that led to the underrepresentation, and it must be something other than the ‘laundry list’ the Supreme Court declined to condemn in Berghuis [v. Smith].” 930 N.W.2d 319, 330 (Iowa 2019) (quoting Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 332 (2010)). 2022In State v. Veal (Veal I), we held that for a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claim, the defendant “must identify some practice or combination of practices that led to the underrepresentation, and it must be something other than the ‘laundry list’ the Supreme Court declined to condemn in Berghuis.” 930 N.W.2d 319, 330 (Iowa 2019) (quoting Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 332 (2010)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2022See Jones, 490 N.W.2d at 793 (noting “underrepresentation of as much as ten percent” did not establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement (citing Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 208–09 (1965))). | 1 | 1 |
Swain v. Alabamared1 sentence2022See Jones, 490 N.W.2d at 793 (noting “underrepresentation of as much as ten percent” did not establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement (citing Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 208–09 (1965))). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.