The claims are based in part on state law claims under the Iowa's tort claims act. The lower court held that sovereign immunity is waived only to the extent the state waived it by statute and that the state did not waive it by statute with respect to state torts sounding in false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process etc.

  However, the lower court also found that the plaintiffs claims successfully raised CONSTITUTIONAL claims which require a different analysis and that immunity does not bar a suit for damages on the constitutional claims.

The prosecutors are now arguing that the coaching of witnesses and "procuring" of false testimony cannot establish a CONSTITUIONAL claim because without more (so their argument goes) a defendan't constitutional rights are not implicated at that stage. The prosecutors claim that only the knowing USE of false testimony in court creates a a CONSTITUTIONAL issue and for that they have absoulte immunity. (see the argument from Buckley cited that if a prosecutor tortured a witness to get a false statement the person against whom the statement was used would suffer no prejudice or injury if the prosecutor then just threw away or locked the false statement in a drawer).