Iowa Supreme Court holds that a non corroboration instruction is improper. A court should not inform a jury that the complaining witness’ testimony need not be corroborated.

Read the case here

Client charged with 7 counts, including attempted murder, going armed with intent, carrying weapons, willful injury causing serious injury, assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of firearm while subject to a protective order, and tampering with a witness, pleads only to possession of a firearm while subject to a protective order and tampering with a witness, for an agreed-upon deferred judgment, civil penalties, and 2 years of probation.

Iowa Court of Appeals discusses proper calculation for time served, particularly when a Defendant has a warrant on a separate case, or is being held in a different county.

Read the case here

Iowa Court of Appeals rules there was insufficient evidence for a no contact protective order, for the evidence did not prove an assault

Read the case here

Iowa Supreme Court reverses conviction as a result of the trial court improperly allowing prior bad acts evidence.

Read the case here

Although the Iowa Supreme Court has held that probable cause gives officers the right to search an automobile and its contents, including the passengers’ effects and containers, the automobile exception does not apply to the persons of passengers without particularized cause pertaining to that particular passenger.

Read the case here

The Iowa Supreme Court has held that the 45-day speedy indictment rule is violated when the State fails to file a Trial Information within 45 days of a citation in lieu of arrest.

Read the case here

Iowa Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling regarding what constitutes perjury and obstruction of justice. The standards are higher than one might think.

Read the case here

U.S. Supreme Court issues interesting reversal of conviction as a result of a violation of the Defendant’s confrontation clause rights.

Read the case here

Extension of a no contact order requires more than mere fear, but must be grounded upon something objective after the initial no contact protective order was granted.

Read the case here

Client’s theft charge dismissed. Client was actually innocent and merely present at the time another person committed a theft.

Iowa Court of Appeals holds that there was insufficient evidence of an assault to grant a domestic protective order (no contact order). The Defendant was pushing the door open to get inside to retrieve an item, and had no intent to place the Petitioner in fear of unwanted touching, so even if the door made contact with the Petitioner, it was not an assault.

Read the case here