Id. Because the basis for relief here is a due process violation, we employ a de novo review of the court's ruling on the asserted Brady violation. See State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 551 (Iowa 1996) (conducting a de novo review of due process claim based on a Brady violation). Our review of the court's ruling on the State's statute-of-limitations defense is for correction of errors of law.
"We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, making any legitimate inferences that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the evidence." State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 545 (Iowa 1996). A reasonable jury could find the following facts from the record.
We conduct a de novo review of alleged constitutional violations. See Wemark v. State, 602 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1999) (ineffective assistance of counsel); State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 551 (Iowa 1996) (due process). III. Necessity of Raising Claim in Direct Appeal.
In deciding whether the evidence is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and make all reasonable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the evidence. See State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 545 (Iowa 1996). "Inherent in our standard of review of jury verdicts in criminal cases is the recognition that the jury was free to reject certain evidence, and credit other evidence."
For purposes of this appeal, we focus on materiality. See State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 552 (Iowa 1996) (opting to only address one prong of the analysis). On this element, the district court found the draft diagrams were not material to guilt because they had little impact on trial preparation, strategy, or the ultimate weight of the evidence.
" Cornell v. State , 430 N.W.2d 384, 386 (1988) (quoting Bagley , 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S.Ct. at 3383 ) (noting we adopted the Bagley standard in State v. Anderson , 410 N.W.2d 231, 232–34 (Iowa 1987) ). Reasonable probability does not require the defendant to demonstrate that the disclosure of the evidence "would have resulted in his [or her] acquittal." State v. Romeo , 542 N.W.2d 543, 551 (Iowa 1996). Rather, the defendant establishes reasonable probability when "the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict."
Nondisclosure of evidence is the touchstone for suppression; the good or bad faith of the prosecutor is not relevant. State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 551 (Iowa 1996). The prosecution has a duty to disclose regardless of whether the accused requests Brady material. Harrington, 659 N.W.2d at 522.
Accordingly, we hold the commission did not err in denying McGrath's request to depose investigator Sobel. C. Due process. Relying on criminal cases holding a defendant has a right to discover exculpatory evidence, McGrath claims his due process rights were violated here because the testimony of the board's investigator would have impeached Jane Doe. See generally Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 218 (1963) (holding prosecution's failure to produce exculpatory evidence was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 551 (Iowa 1996) (holding "[e]vidence that may be used to impeach a witness's credibility is included in [ Brady] rule"). It is not entirely clear what exculpatory evidence McGrath sought from the board's investigatory file, but it appears he wanted, at a minimum, documentation of Sobel's communications with Doe. An attorney is entitled to procedural and substantive due process in disciplinary proceedings.
On the other hand, section 715A.5, under which defendant was charged, has been interpreted broadly to include not only formal business records but also other writings that have been falsified with an intent to deceive. Walker, 574 N.W.2d at 288-89 (creation of false proof of service on a subpoena never served); State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 547-50 (Iowa 1996) (creation of false sales receipts). In both Walker and Romeo, we viewed "falsification" as used in this statute as including forgery.
We concur in the commission's findings and its recommended sanction. I. The facts surrounding Romeo's criminal activity are recounted in State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 1996), and will be summarized only briefly here. An investigation into a theft ring led police to one of Romeo's clients, Frank Bode. Bode was involved in buying and selling two stolen skid loaders valued in excess of $20,000 each. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d at 546-47. Romeo agreed to meet with Bode, and the two men who had stolen the equipment, to prepare bills of sale.