Legal Opinion

State of Iowa v. Andrew Lee Russell

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 23, 2017No. 16–0807PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZAGER, Justice.

In this interlocutory appeal, Andrew Russell asserts' the right to serve ex parte subpoenas duces tecum 1 upon third parties under the rules of. criminal and civil procedure without providing notice to the State. Additionally, Russell asserts that denying him the right to issue ex parte subpoenas duces tecum denies him the constitutional rights to the effective assistance of counsel, compulsory process, and due process under the United States and Iowa Constitutions. The State filed a motion to regulate discovery that would prevent the defendant from issuing an investigatory…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Gail v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1987
  2. Myron Dennis Behm, Burton J. Brooks, Bobby Lee Langston, David Leon Brodsky, Jeffrey R. Olson, and Geoff Tate Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2019
  3. Com. of Ky. v. CambronCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2018
  4. David Paul Douglass v. State of IowaCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2021
  5. Gregory Donald Harris v. State of IowaCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2021

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API