We should leave this determination for another day. The issue has never been framed as a challenge to any specific restrictions in the release plan. The parties never requested that we formulate a test for determining when specific conditions of release would satisfy due process, or provide the district court with guidance as to what release conditions would do so. And it is in no way necessary that we resolve this issue in order to address the issue that is properly presented in this case. Thus, we should follow our typical practice of moving the law forward incrementally and wait for a case that requires us to craft a test for determining when specific conditions of release violate due process. See State v. Pearson, 836 N.W.2d 88, 99 (Iowa 2013) (Cady, C.J., concurring specially) (<HOLDING>). Preferably, a case in which the parties ask
holding that the prosecutor acted improperly when he misstated that the key witness had not come forward until the day before trial when the witness had actually come forward over two months before trial holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition recognizing value of moving the law forward on an incremental basis holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value recognizing the witnesss failure to come forward promptly may impact the credibility of the witness