Iowa

Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says

Published

2 months ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says

The Iowa Supreme Court is reviewing a 2024 law that allows law enforcement officers to appeal their placement on a Brady-Giglio list.
A dispute between Jefferson County’s attorney and sheriff led to the sheriff being placed on the list, which identifies officers with credibility issues.
The county attorney argues the law is unconstitutional because it lets judges interfere with a prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence to defendants.

A feud between two Jefferson County officials has landed before the Iowa Supreme Court, which must decide if a 2024 addition to Iowa’s Rights of Peace Officers law is unconstitutional.

Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding is asking the state’s high court to overturn what he calls the “constitutionally vacuous” law, which allows officers to petition the courts to be removed from their county’s Brady-Giglio list.

Named for two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the lists compiled by prosecutors identify law enforcement officers and others whose credibility is in question, and it can provide grounds for questioning their testimony in court.

After a dispute over a case involving a sheriff’s deputy’s use of force, Moulding in 2024 notified Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond he was placing him on the Brady-Giglio list. Richmond petitioned a court to reverse Moulding’s decision, and a district judge did, finding Richmond’s actions in connection with the case, while unprofessional, did not bring his honesty or credibility into question.

In his appeal, Moulding argues that’s not up to the court to decide, and that the law lets judges improperly intrude on prosecutors’ professional judgment and, ultimately, defendants’ rights.

“The practical real application of (the 2024 law) is to create a Kafkaesque scenario where a criminal defendant could face the prospect of criminal charges involving a State witness who is so lacking in credibility that the State’s attorney has qualms about even calling him to testify, but is prevented from disclosure,” Moulding wrote. “Such a situation is unconscionable, and underlines the constitutional vacuousness of the statute itself.”

The court has not yet scheduled arguments for the case, which could have impacts far beyond Jefferson County. Attorney Charles Gribble, representing Richmond, said this is just one of three Iowa Brady-Giglio appeals he personally is involved in.

What is a Brady-Giglio list?

Under the Fifth Amendment, criminal defendants are entitled to due process of law. In Brady v. Maryland in 1963 and in subsequent cases the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process requires a prosecutor to disclose any known exculpatory evidence to the defense. That includes anything giving rise to doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, including law enforcement officers.

In 2022, Iowa formalized that process by mandating prosecuting agencies maintain a Brady-Giglio list of officers whose credibility can be questioned due to past dishonesty or other misconduct. The law requires agencies to notify officers when they are being put on a list and allows them to seek reconsideration.

Being placed on a list can damage or destroy an officer’s career, as prosecutors generally will decline to call them as witnesses or to bring charges that would depend on their testimony.

2024 law gives courts a role in Brady-Giglio lists

Iowa’s 2024 law went beyond requiring officers be notified of their placement on a Brady-Giglio list by giving them the right to appeal to a district court if their prosecuting agency refuses to take them off a list. The law requires judges to confidentially review evidence and allows them to affirm, modify or reverse an officer’s Brady-Giglio listing “as justice may require.”

In less than two years, courts have reversed local prosecutors on several Brady-Giglio placements, including a messy Henry County dispute in which prosecutors accused a sheriff’s deputy of making misleading statements on a search warrant application.

What happened in Jefferson County?

The lawsuit before the Iowa Supreme Court involves an April 2024 traffic stop by a Jefferson County deputy. As laid out in a subsequent memo by Moulding, video recordings show the deputy handling the driver roughly and, when the man complains, telling him “I can do whatever I want” and, “You’re not going to tell me what I can and can’t do. … You’re going to learn what respect is, young man.”

After learning about the incident, Moulding wrote, he repeatedly emailed Richmond, asking if the deputy’s actions had violated any county policies. Richmond did not respond. Concerned about possible litigation against the county, Moulding then asked another county to conduct an investigation. While the details are disputed, Moulding accuses Richmond of stonewalling both his office and the outside investigators and instructing his subordinates also not to cooperate.

“A county sheriff ordering deputies not to cooperate with an inquiry into a deputy’s use of force represents a fundamental lapse in judgment and raised serious concerns regarding the Sheriff’s honesty, candor and ethics as a law enforcement official,” Moulding wrote.

He scheduled a meeting that Richmond did not attend and then placed him on the county’s Brady-Giglio list. In an emailed statement, Moulding called the entire matter “unfortunate.”

“Frankly, I am shocked that instead of attempting to address this matter with my office cooperatively, the Sheriff instead decided to stonewall an investigation, stonewall the Brady-Giglio investigation, and then take this matter to court instead of sitting down and addressing the matter like an adult and an elected official,” he said.

In a letter, Moulding warned Richmond that he would no longer be called as a law enforcement witness and advised him to limit his involvement with criminal investigations, as “your engagement in such activities could likely negatively impact the outcomes in court.”

Judge disagrees with sheriff’s placement on list

After Moulding denied Richmond’s request for reconsideration, Richmond filed suit. In February 2025, Judge Jeffrey Farrell ruled Richmond should be removed from the list.

Farrell’s order criticized both parties, finding that Moulding had failed to comply with some procedural elements of the law but that Richmond could have avoided the whole situation with “basic and professional” responses to Moulding’s emails. Nonetheless, he found Richmond’s actions did not demonstrate dishonesty or deceit that would justify placement on a Brady list.

“This is not a case in which an officer lied to a court, was convicted of a crime, manufactured or destroyed evidence, or committed some other act that would serve as the basis for impeachment in any criminal case,” Farrell wrote. “Game-playing the county attorney is not the standard of professionalism that Iowans expect of our elected county sheriffs,” he added, but does not constitute grounds for a Brady-Giglio listing.

Prosecutor appeals, argues law is unconstitutional

In his appeal, Moulding does not address Farrell’s factual findings, instead asking the court only to decide whether the law is constitutional.

“The most glaring constitutional defect in (the 2024 law) is that it impedes a criminal Defendant’s substantive and procedural due processes of law, and right to a fair trial,” the appeal says. “These fundamental rights constitute the bedrock raisons d’être for the entire body of Brady-Giglio jurisprudence in the first place.”

Iowa appears to be the only state with a law allowing officers to sue to be removed from a Brad-Giglio list, but Moulding cites a recent federal lawsuit where a judge rejected a South Dakota officer’s attempt to get removed from a list, finding the request “in essence, asks this Court to require a State’s Attorney to violate the constitution.” He further argues that the law violates the constitutional separation of powers and is “so poorly drafted as to be unenforceable and void for vagueness.”

Sheriff’s attorney says single lapse of judgment is not grounds for listing

Gribble, Richmond’s attorney, argued in his Supreme Court brief that the law is constitutional and that the sheriff’s actions fall well short of Brady-Giglio standards.

“Under (the 2024 law), placement on the Brady-Giglio list results not from a single lapse of judgment but rather from repeated, sustained, intentional and egregious acts over a period of time,” he wrote. “Thus, while a singular act of bad judgement may undermine a police officer’s credibility in a particular case, placement on the Brady-Giglio list places a permanent and unreviewable scarlet letter on the officer that he/she is unlikely to be able to ever overcome.”

He also suggests that a court order removing an officer from a list “does not in any way alter the prosecuting attorney’s duty to provide exculpatory evidence in all cases.” In an interview, he argued there should be a legal distinction between prosecutors disclosing concerns about an officer’s conduct in the case in which it occurred, and doing so in every future case involving them.

“To me, that’s what Brady-Giglio is for, not for occasional or first-time wrongs, even if established of a police officer, but those that have a history of that sort of thing,” he said.

The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for arguments in the case.

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.

Source link

Click to comment

Iowa

Iowa House OKs ‘3 strikes’ bill with 20-year prison terms. What to know

Published

8 hours ago

March 5, 2026

Press Room

Iowa House OKs ‘3 strikes’ bill with 20-year prison terms. What to know

Iowans who commit multiple serious crimes would face a mandatory 20-year prison sentence under a “three strikes” bill passed by House lawmakers.
Republicans said the bill would keep Iowans safe and “prioritize victims and public safety over criminals.”
A nonpartisan state agency says the bill would disproportionately impact Black Iowans and could require the state to spend millions to build a new prison.

Repeat offenders convicted of multiple serious crimes would receive a mandatory 20-year prison sentence under a bill passed by House lawmakers.

House lawmakers debated for more than an hour about high costs, lack of prison space and the bill’s impact on Black Iowans before voting 68-23 to pass House File 2542, sending it to the Iowa Senate.

Seven Democrats, including Minority Leader Brian Meyer, D-Des Moines, joined Republicans in voting in favor of the bill.

“It will put public safety first,” said the bill’s floor manager, Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison. “It will ensure that the debt to victims and society is paid. It will prioritize victims and public safety over criminals. It will establish real and effective deterrence that is nonexistent in our current system. It will reduce chaos and violence in our society.”

Here’s what to know about the bill.

What would the House Republican three strikes bill do?

Iowans who accumulate three strikes would face a mandatory 20-year prison sentence, with no parole, under the bill.

That would replace Iowa’s current law that says habitual offenders must serve a minimum three-year prison sentence before they are eligible for parole.

All felonies, as well as aggravated misdemeanors involving sexual abuse, domestic abuse, assault and organized retail theft would be considered level-one offenses that are worth one full strike.

Other aggravated misdemeanors, as well as serious misdemeanors involving assault, domestic abuse and criminal mischief would be considered level-two offenses worth half a strike each.

Lawmakers amended the bill to remove theft, harassment and possession of a controlled substance from the crimes that would count toward a person’s strikes.

And the amendment specifies that the bill would only apply to convictions that occur beginning July 1, 2026.

If someone is arrested and convicted of multiple offenses, only the most serious charge would count towards the defendant’s strikes.

Convictions would not count toward someone’s total if more than 20 years passes between a prior conviction and their current conviction.

Rep. Ross Wilburn, D-Ames, tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to say that only a violent crime would qualify as someone’s third strike, but Republicans rejected the amendment.

“The bill still scores murder, felony embezzlement and felony theft the same, even though they are very different crimes,” Wilburn said. “One point is one point and three gets you 20 years with no ability for parole or judicial discretion.”

Holt said the legislation leaves room for judicial and prosecutorial discretion.

“There are deferred sentences, there are plea bargains,” he said. “There is plenty of opportunity for grace and judicial discretion in the legislation that we are proposing.”

Bill could cost millions, require Iowa to build a new prison, agency says

A fiscal analysis of the bill by the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency said it could cost Iowa nearly $165 million more per year by 2031 based on the cost of housing inmates for longer prison stays.

FY 2027: $33 million
FY 2028: $66 million
FY 2029: $99 million
FY 2030: $132 million
FY 2031: $164.9 million

The agency said if the bill had been in effect between fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2025, there would have been 5,373 people who qualified for the 20-year mandatory minimum sentence.

“An increase in the prison population due to increased (length of stay) will require the DOC to build additional prison(s),” the agency states. “The size, security and other features that a future prison may require cannot be determined, but costs would be significant.”

The analysis noted that South Dakota appropriated $650 million last fall to build a 1,500-bed prison.

As of March 1, the Iowa Department of Corrections’ website describes the state’s prison system as being overcrowded by 25%, with 8,705 inmates compared to a capacity of 6,990.

The Office of the State Public Defender could see a projected cost increase of $1.6 million due to an increased number of trials resulting from the legislation.

But the agency’s estimates come with a caveat — the Department of Corrections did not respond to its requests for data.

“The LSA has not received a response to multiple requests for information from the DOC,” the note states. “Without additional information, the LSA cannot estimate the total fiscal impact of the bill.”

Holt called the fiscal note “an embarrassment to the Department of Corrections” and “an agenda masquerading as math.”

“It is clear, in my judgment, that because they did not like the legislation they went all out and extreme to create a fiscal note that cannot be taken seriously in its assumptions,” he said. “It assumes that nothing will change, that there will be no deterrent factor and that the numbers will continue as usual.”

Black Iowans would be disproportionately impacted by the law

The Legislative Services Agency analysis says the bill “may disproportionately impact Black individuals if trends remain constant.”

Of the 29,438 people convicted in fiscal year 2025 of felonies and aggravated misdemeanors that constitute a level one offense under the bill, the agency said about 70% were White, 22% were Black and 9% were other races.

Iowa’s overall population is 83% White, 4% Black and 13% other races, the agency said.

It’s not clear how the bill’s impact would change to account for the House amendment removing some crimes from counting towards the three strikes.

“Expanding three-strike laws will intensify disparities — and that’s what this statement shows — by mandating longer sentences, limiting judicial discretion,” Wilburn said. “We already have a habitual offender statute. We already have one in place. We have a 10-year low in recidivism in our correctional system.”

Rep. Angel Ramirez, D-Cedar Rapids, said California’s three strikes law, passed in the 1990s, worsened racial disparities, and “Iowa is about to repeat the same mistake.”

“I urge every member here, do not pass legislation that our own minority impact statement tells us will deepen inequality in our state,” Ramirez said.

Holt said minority communities in Iowa are impacted by crime and that the legislation “will make citizens of all colors safer.”

And he said the minority impact statement “tells only one side of the story, doesn’t it? It tells the criminal’s story. What about the victim’s story?”

“What about the mother who will continue to tuck her kids in at night and read them Bible stories because she never became the next victim of a violent career criminal?” he said. “Where is that data point in the minority impact statement?”

House lawmakers also approved separate legislation that would increase Iowa’s statewide bond schedule, Senate File 2399.

That bill passed on a vote of 74-19.

Iowans could see more information on judges’ rulings

Iowans would have access to more information about judges’ rulings ahead of the state’s judicial retention elections under a separate measure, House File 2719, which passed on a 73-19 vote.

The Iowa secretary of state’s office would be required to publish information including:

The percentage of cases in which the judge set a bond amount lower than the state’s bond schedule
The frequency that the judge releases someone on their own recognizance for a violent offense compared to a nonviolent offense
The frequency that the judge’s final sentence is lower than statutory recommendations or a prosecutor’s recommendations
The number of times the judge issues a deferred judgement, deferred sentence or suspended sentence
The number of times the judge’s rulings are reversed on appeal due to abuse of discretion or error of law
The average time it takes the judge to rule on a motion or case
The number of cases the judge has resolved compared to the number of cases on the judge’s docket

The data would have to be displayed with a five-year trend line beginning five years after the bill takes effect.

The Secretary of State’s Office would also be required to maintain a searchable database of all judicial opinions and orders for the judge’s current term and the preceding six years. The decisions would be redacted when appropriate.

And judges would have the opportunity to write a 2,000-word personal statement on their judicial philosophy or data trends present in their rulings.

Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@registermedia.com or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on X at @sgrubermiller.

Source link

Iowa

Man sentenced for killing 4 people appeals his sentence to the Iowa Supreme Court

Published

20 hours ago

March 4, 2026

Press Room

Man sentenced for killing 4 people appeals his sentence to the Iowa Supreme Court

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (KCRG) – Luke Truesdell’s attorney has filed as of Sunday to appeal his sentence to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Truesdell was sentenced last week to three consecutive life sentences plus 50 years for the deaths of four people killed in rural Linn County.

A jury convicted Luke Truesdell, 36, in November on the first-degree murder of Brent Brown, 34; his girlfriend, Keonna Ryan, 26, of Cedar Rapids; and Amanda Parker, 33, of Vinton. They also found him guilty of second-degree murder in the death of Romondus Cooper, 44, of Cedar Rapids.

His attorneys previously argued multiple reasons for a retrial that could potentially be brought up again.

They said that one juror was overheard talking about news on the case.

They also said the prosecutors inflamed the jury, rather than focusing on the facts.

His lawyers said there is no direct evidence that Truesdell committed the murders.

Truesdell’s defense also pointed to Truesdell’s father, Larry Tuesdell, who was found covered in blood at the scene but never fully investigated. Authorities have not been able to locate Larry.

The state disagreed, citing overwhelming evidence including DNA on the murder weapon, eyewitness testimony and video of Truesdell entering the garage where the four people were found dead.

Source link

Iowa

2026 Iowa high school boys basketball state tournament brackets, schedule

Published

1 day ago

March 4, 2026

Press Room

2026 Iowa high school boys basketball state tournament brackets, schedule

The Iowa high school boys state basketball tournament is just around the corner and the full field has now been set.

By March 13, four teams will be crowned state champions and there are plenty of worthy squads vying for the title. On Tuesday, the final brackets were released and we now have a clear picture of the eight teams in each class hoping to take home the trophy.

Here’s a look at the first-round pairings and the full state tournament schedule for next week’s IHSAA action.