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 1910–2015 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. Niklegreen1 sentence2015Mich. Aug. 16, 2010) (distinguishing Mach on ground the trial court judge investigated potential taint); Wells, 2008 WL 506294 , at *36 (collecting cases and stating the court could not find “any case other than Mach supporting the 31 dismissal of an entire voir dire panel due to a potential juror’s remarks unrelated to the defendant” and concluding “the case law holds that the disqualification of an individual juror for the expression of an opinion, or for making remarks indicating bias, does not constitute a sufficient ground for a challenge of the entire panel”); People v. Martinez, 74 P.3d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2015Mich. Aug. 16, 2010) (distinguishing Mach on ground the trial court judge investigated potential taint); Wells, 2008 WL 506294 , at *36 (collecting cases and stating the court could not find “any case other than Mach supporting the 31 dismissal of an entire voir dire panel due to a potential juror’s remarks unrelated to the defendant” and concluding “the case law holds that the disqualification of an individual juror for the expression of an opinion, or for making remarks indicating bias, does not constitute a sufficient ground for a challenge of the entire panel”); People v. Martinez, 74 P.3d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dalglieshgreen1 sentence1978“Ordinarily, disqualification of individual jurors for expressions of opinions or for making remarks during selection of the jury indicating in some manner possible prejudice or bias against the accused or the occurrence of circumstances during that procedure from which such bias or prejudice might be implied does not constitute a sufficient ground for a challenge of the entire panel. * * * [citing authority].” See *246 also State v. Dalgliesh, 223 N.W.2d 627, 628 (Iowa 1974). | 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. Taylor
green
2 sentences2015State v. Taylor, (Mo. 1959), 324 S.W.2d at 648 . 33 Staker, 22 N.W.2d at 616. 1974State v. Taylor, (Mo.1959), 324 S.W.2d at 648 . | 2 | 1974–2015 |
State v. Clark
green
1 sentence2015Absent some such indication, we decline to speculate that hearing these opinions must somehow have irretrievably tainted the other prospective jurors.”); State v. Clark, 283 P.3d 1116 , ____ (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2012) (distinguishing Mach on grounds “both sides had an opportunity to extensively question the jurors, and the defense was able to identify jurors who expressed an inability to keep an open mind”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Silversmith v. Kenosha Auto Transport
green
2 sentences2001Silversmith, 301 N.W.2d at 727 . 2001Silversmith, 301 N.W.2d at 727 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Peterson
green
1 sentence1910State v. Burns, 119 Iowa, 663 ; State v. Peterson, 110 Iowa, 647 ; State v. Waters, 132 Iowa, 481 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
State v. Burns
green
1 sentence1910State v. Burns, 119 Iowa, 663 ; State v. Peterson, 110 Iowa, 647 ; State v. Waters, 132 Iowa, 481 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
State v. Waters
neutral
1 sentence1910State v. Burns, 119 Iowa, 663 ; State v. Peterson, 110 Iowa, 647 ; State v. Waters, 132 Iowa, 481 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.