Iowa

‘So happy I want to cry’: 7,000 fans celebrate Caitlin Clark, Iowa women’s basketball team

Published

2 years ago

April 10, 2024

‘So happy I want to cry’: 7,000 fans celebrate Caitlin Clark, Iowa women’s basketball team

“I would say you all inspired me as much as I inspired you.”

That was how superstar guard Caitlin Clark opened her remarks to the more than 7,000 University of Hawkeye fans who packed into Carver-Hawkeye Arena Wednesday night to celebrate the team’s second-straight NCAA Final Four appearance.

The crowd — comprised of fans of all ages and many donning Clark’s name and number on their back — roared for seniors, returning players, coaches and managers as they were announced.

The full lineup was on hand for the celebration, with head Coach Lisa Bluder and seniors Clark, Kate Martin, Gabbie Marshall, Molly Davis and Sharon Goodman speaking to the large crowd.

When the celebration wrapped up, Clark hung around to sign autographs for more than half an hour as hundreds of eager children — most of them young girls — held out hats, posters, signs, and T-shirts for her to immortalize.

They shouted her name endlessly, and she responded to as many as she could.

Those lucky enough to receive Clark’s coveted signature were beaming as they marched out of the arena.

Blair Merrick, 7, and her sister Blayne, 11, were among those who got autographs from the team.

“I feel real happy, so happy I want to cry right now,” Blair said.

Alyssa Noss, who attended several games over the last two seasons, stayed with her daughter until the arena emptied.

“My daughter is a huge Caitlin Clark fan, and her friend is a huge Gabbie Marshall fan,” Noss said. “They idolize all of them. This team is just incredible.”

More: Iowa announces it will retire Caitlin Clark’s No. 22 jersey, third retired number in women’s basketball program history

University of Iowa President Barbara Wilson, Athletic Director Beth Goetz and Iowa City Mayor Bruce Teague joined the team on the hardwood for the festivities.

Goetz confirmed that Clark’s No. 22 would hang in the rafters forever, drawing a lengthy roar from the Carver crowd. Teague declared April 10, 2024, as “Iowa Women’s Basketball Day” in Iowa City at the beginning of the festivities.

More: Kim Reynolds says Caitlin Clark, Iowa women’s basketball ‘changed women’s sports forever’

“You’ve changed the game that you’ve played,” Wilson said. “You’ve changed the face of collegiate athletics. You’ve created special memories for countless families. And you left an indelible mark on our university.”

Bluder credited the effect the Iowa women’s basketball team has created for younger kids.

“Now there’s thousands and thousands of girls and boys all around this country that say, ‘I want to be like them.’”

The final words from the seniors

“I want (fans) to remember how hard I worked,” Marshall said when asked what she hoped everyone remembers about her time. “I’ve always given it my all on the court and in everything that I do in life. Everybody matters here, speaking to the culture Coach Bluder has built. We’re really a family here.”

“You have to believe in yourself, because if you don’t, no one else will,” Martin said.

“It’s absolutely awesome!” Davis said of the fan support. “I mean, coming from a place where there’s about 1,500 people in the stands to 15,000 a game, it’s really special and happy to be a part of it.”

More: WNBA counting on Caitlin Clark bump as Indiana Fever get most national TV games for 2024.

“Our coaches really value academics and so to be at a place where they support that and value that even above basketball itself,” Goodman said on balancing school and basketball. “They want us to be strong women, and women that are doing something more than less.”

“I would say you all inspired me as much as I inspired you and you allowed me to live out my dream every single day and for that, I’m forever thankful,” Clark said in her final remarks to fans. “Thank you. It’s been very special and this place will always be home to me.”

Ryan Hansen covers local government and crime for the Press-Citizen. He can be reached at rhansen@press-citizen.com or on X, formerly known as Twitter, @ryanhansen01.

Marc Ray covers high school sports for the Iowa City Press-Citizen. Email him at maray@press-citizen.com or follow him on Twitter/X @themarcszn.

Source link

Click to comment

Iowa

Iowa Great Lakes businessman Butch Parks dies at 81

Published

3 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Iowa Great Lakes businessman Butch Parks dies at 81

SPIRIT LAKE, Iowa (KTIV) – The Iowa Great Lakes community is remembering Leo “Butch” Parks, a longtime lakes-area businessman and founder of Parks Marina.

He died Tuesday, Jan. 6, at the age of 81.

Parks established the marina on East Lake Okoboji in 1983, growing it from a small fishing boat operation into a business with marinas, sales, service, rentals, storage, and popular destinations like the Barefoot Bar.

Parks and his wife, Debbie, also owned Okoboji Boat Works for 23 years.

Funeral services are set for Friday, Jan. 16, at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Spirit Lake. It will be followed by a celebration of life at Snapper’s restaurant in Okoboji that evening.

Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.

Source link

Iowa

Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare

Published

15 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare

AURELIA, Iowa (KTIV) – A Northwest Iowa woman is facing charges of harassment and pandering for prostitution after two incidents took place in December 2025.

Forty-seven-year-old Kristal Miller of Odebolt was taken into custody on an arrest warrant and faces three charges: one count of pandering for prostitution and two counts of first-degree harassment, according to court documents.

Kristal Miller(Cherokee County Jail)

The charges stem from two separate incidents that took place on Thursday, Dec. 18. 2025.

According to court documents, at 6:15 a.m., Miller reportedly went to the Casey’s General Store, located at 100 Pearl St. in Aurelia. Documents state Miller approached an employee and customers, requesting money from them.

Authorities state Miller claimed she was wanted by the FBI and told people, if anyone called the police, “she would kill them.”

During this encounter, she also allegedly asked an employee to remove the string from her hooded sweatshirt. Documents state when the employee refused this request, she threatened to strangle them.

That same day at 7 a.m., Miller reportedly approached a female employee outside an Aurelia daycare and asked them for money.

Court documents stated Miller suggested the unnamed employee leave her boyfriend. Miller reportedly told the employee, if she did, then she and Miller would both be paid.

Authorities say when she was told no by the employee, Miller became upset and started yelling at them.

Miller also allegedly threatened to “steal her car” and ”take her away to her guys to start a new life.”

She was booked into the Cherokee County Jail on a cash-only bond of $5,000. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled in Cherokee for Friday, Jan. 9, at 10 a.m.

Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.

Source link

Iowa

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

Published

1 day 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