Are County Attorneys in Jefferson and Henry Counties weaponizing Brady-Giglio Lists to settle personal scores?

Today I am writing out of concern about a series of articles in the Union about conflicts between county attorneys and sheriffs in Henry and Jefferson Counties that have escalated into lawsuits. These conflicts are a consequence of the county attorneys placing law enforcement officers on Brady-Giglio lists — rosters that effectively sideline officers from testifying in court after county attorneys believe them dishonest or corrupt.

On the one hand, these lists are designed to protect prosecutors from accusations of wrongful convictions. The Brady v. Maryland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972) decisions from the United States Supreme Court require that prosecutors show exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense. In short, if the State has information that may be favorable to the accused, whether it points to innocence or undermines the credibility of a witness or law enforcement officer, that information must be shared.

On the other hand, some observers, such as a former prosecutor writing for a police newsletter, have found that these lists have become a tool for political maneuvering, personal vendettas, or the arbitrary destruction of reputations. I would argue that these lists amount to a form of professional decertification often lacking statewide standards, clear criteria, or an avenue for grievance or appeal.

Imagine, for a moment, if county sheriffs held the unilateral authority to disbar county attorneys without allowing them to contest such decisions, except through expensive lawsuits. A sheriff, for example, might want to disbar the county attorney after a driver charged with driving under the influence had three charges of vehicular homicide dismissed by the judge for trial delays. Such a dismissal happened in Henry County. A man charged in February 2019 with drunk driving avoided standing trial for three counts of vehicular homicide because, according to court documents, the court: “FINDS (emphasis in original) that this matter must be dismissed for failure to prosecute and bring the matter to trial within one year after initial arraignment as required by Rule 2.33 of the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure. No good cause was shown for the delay … (Source: case FECR007821, Eight Judicial District of Iowa, 2022 Aug 02 ruling)

The costs, both human and financial, are real. Behind every misuse of the Brady-Giglio list is a human story — an officer who may be targeted unfairly because of bureaucratic tensions way above the officer’s pay grade or one elected official trying to discredit another elected official before next year’s election. There are serious financial costs as well. Jefferson County has spent $45,000 on outside counsel to defend its sheriff. Although a district court ordered the sheriff’s name removed from the list, the county attorney is appealing to the Iowa Supreme Court, arguing that courts lack authority over the lists despite state law requirements. What amount of taxpayer funds will be used to fund the county attorney’s battle of wills with the district court and the sheriff? Meanwhile Henry County’s Sheriff has had to mortgage his house to provide funds for legal expenses, although the county has since authorized him to reallocate his office’s budget towards some of these expenses.

I cannot definitively answer my question on whether the county attorneys of Jefferson and Henry counties are weaponizing the use of the Brady-Giglio lists, but it certainly looks like they are to me, and such legal wrangling at the taxpayers’ expense and at the expense of public servants who can ill afford it needs to stop. While I do not know what the answer is for Jefferson County, there is a simple solution for Henry County. The Henry County attorney is an elected official who has run unopposed for several election cycles. It is time for this to end as well. In this time of deep political divisions, I have found one surprising area of political agreement in my unscientific survey across political views in Mt. Pleasant — the County Attorney needs to go. Therefore, I strongly urge both parties to recruit candidates for next year’s election for county attorney. Henry County deserves an attorney who collaborates well with the sheriff and other law enforcement officers as well as ensures citizens receive justice.

Donna Byers, Mt. Pleasant