Legal Opinion

State v. Folkerts

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided September 16, 2005No. 03-1862PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIGGINS, Justice.

In this appeal, we must decide whether a defendant is required to be present at the deposition of an eyewitness to a crime when the attorneys question the eyewitness regarding the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. In order to avoid an impermissibly suggestive identification of the defendant during the course of a deposition, we hold the defendant is not required to be present at the deposition until the parties have completed questioning the eyewitness as to the identity of the perpetrator. For this reason, we reverse the order of the district court and remand the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. United States v. Robert ArchibaldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
  5. State v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Robert Krogmann v. State of IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2018
  2. Glendale More Jr. v. State of IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2016
  3. Amended August 17, 2016 Glendale More Jr. v. State of IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2016
  4. Aries Nzgoi McGee v. State of IowaCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2025
  5. Danny Rankins, Applicant-Appellant v. State of IowaCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2014

22 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