Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Joshua Venckus v. City of Iowa City

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 28, 2019No. 18-1280Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

APPEL, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I. Introduction.

After being acquitted by a jury of a rape charge, Joshua Venckus alleges that police and prosecutors recklessly ignored evidence proving he was innocent, improperly engaged in expert shopping after a state criminologist provided them with an unfavorable opinion, filed an ethics complaint against Venckus's attorney over an unrelated matter that state authorities ultimately dismissed, threatened one of Venckus's alibi witnesses if he did not change his testimony, and offered the actual rapist a lenient plea deal in order…

2Cases cited101 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

96 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