What sentencing trends emerged after the Cody Brown verdict that defense attorneys are using in 2025 plea negotiations?

1. The concrete record: which Cody Brown cases the sources actually cover

Local coverage from 2019 documents Cody Lee Brown’s involuntary‑manslaughter conviction for the 2018 death of Stephanie Bowling and a subsequent sentence of up to five years; the judge said he wanted to “set an example” in a domestic‑abuse case ^{[1] [2]}. Additional 2019 contemporaneous reporting confirms the guilty verdict and that Brown remained out on bond pending sentencing ^[3]. These items are the only direct, detailed entries about a “Cody Brown” verdict in the supplied reporting ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What the sources do not show: no reporting tying that verdict to 2025 plea bargaining strategies

None of the supplied sources describe how defense attorneys in 2025 are invoking the Cedar Rapids verdict or any “Cody Brown verdict” as a bargaining chip in plea negotiations, nor do they show a nationwide trend that stems from that case. The search results include many unrelated items (other Browns, Kody Brown from reality TV, unrelated pleas and continuances) but do not provide a direct connection between the 2019 sentence and 2025 defense strategies; therefore, available sources do not mention sentencing trends in 2025 traceable to the Cody Brown case ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Multiple people, same name: reporting noise that can create false links

The corpus contains multiple items referencing different “Brown” defendants and plea processes — for example, docket entries and plea continuances in unrelated federal cases, reporting about a different “Cody” in Missoula and other jurisdictions, and even pop‑culture pieces about Kody Brown ^{[4] [5] [6] [7]}. This mix of similarly named subjects can produce the impression of a single, influential precedent when the underlying reporting actually concerns separate matters; the supplied reporting demonstrates those distinct threads but does not tie them together ^{[4] [6] [7]}.

4. What trends would need to be shown to support the user’s claim—and are absent here

To demonstrate that defense attorneys are using a specific 2019 sentencing outcome in 2025 plea talks, reporting would need to show: (a) defense attorneys citing that sentence in negotiation memos or court hearings; (b) prosecutors or judges responding to such citations; or (c) data comparing plea deals before and after a named verdict. None of the supplied items provide those elements. For example, the 2019 local coverage describes the conviction and sentence itself but contains no follow‑up indicating the decision changed plea practice elsewhere or later ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Broader sentencing context in the available materials (what we can say)

The search results include policy‑level material about national incarceration and sentencing debates — The Sentencing Project’s brief frames incarceration as overused and notes research supporting reduced prison admissions and scaled‑back sentences, which would be the kind of macro trend defense counsel sometimes invoke in plea bargaining ^[8]. But the Sentencing Project piece does not reference the Cody Brown case, nor does any supplied source link that policy discussion with 2025 plea negotiations invoking Brown ^[8].

6. How to proceed to answer the question more decisively

If you want a definitive, sourced account of sentencing trends defense attorneys used in 2025 plea negotiations that specifically cite a “Cody Brown verdict,” I can search for (a) 2024–2025 coverage of plea negotiations or defense arguments referencing that name, (b) court filings or local‑press follow‑ups tying the 2019 sentence to later negotiations, and (c) any policy papers or prosecutor statements that note the case as precedent. The current selection of documents does not contain that material ^{[1] [2] [8]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

Based on the supplied reporting, the only well‑documented “Cody Brown” verdict is the 2019 involuntary‑manslaughter conviction and up‑to‑five‑year sentence in Cedar Rapids, and the supplied sources do not show that this verdict produced identifiable, reported sentencing trends that defense attorneys invoked in 2025 plea negotiations ^{[1] [2] [3]}. For claims linking that verdict to 2025 plea bargaining practice, further, more specific reporting or primary court documents would be required.