Iowa Supreme Court confirms it will hear Jefferson County’s Brady-Giglio case

FAIRFIELD – The dispute between Jefferson County’s sheriff and its county attorney will be heard by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Ed Kelly informed the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors Monday, Oct. 6 that the state supreme court would hear the case of Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond v. Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding, where Richmond has taken legal action against the county attorney to have his name removed from the county’s Brady-Giglio list, a list of officials the prosecutor deems unreliable.

Until the formal announcement came late last week, it was not clear if the state supreme court would hear the case or whether the supreme court would pass it to an appeal’s court.

The announcement came at the very moment Jefferson County’s three supervisors were hoping to ease tension between the county attorney and sheriff and end the litigation. During Monday’s meeting, supervisors Lee Dimmitt, Susie Drish and Joe Ledger unanimously supported a motion calling for a meeting with Moulding and Richmond, where the supervisors could act as mediators. That decision came after Dimmitt had proposed reducing the county attorney’s budget after Moulding appealed a district court’s ruling in favor of Richmond back in February, granting Richmond’s request to be removed from the Brady-Giglio list.

At numerous meetings since the February judgment in Richmond’s favor, Dimmitt has expressed his desire for Moulding to stop the appeal and remove Richmond’s name from the list. Moulding has resisted that call, arguing that a recently enacted portion of the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights is unconstitutional.

Moulding appeared briefly at Monday’s supervisor meeting, telling the board he was taking time out of a child sex abuse case happening upstairs to address this proposal to reduce his office’s budget.

“It sounds like quid pro quo corruption. It could be coercion, or bribery of a public official,” Moulding said about the threat to reduce his budget over his appeal of the Brady-Giglio ruling. “If the board wants to go there, you better talk to a lawyer and make sure it’s legally sound.”

Dimmitt and Moulding had a back-and-forth about whether Moulding was using his “own time” on the Brady-Giglio case, after Moulding had been asked for an accounting of how much time he’d spent on the case.

“I was out of town three days while working on stuff like this. I don’t take vacation,” Moulding said.

“I have to assume you are using your office to pursue this cause,” Dimmitt said.

Moulding then left the meeting to attend to the hearing upstairs. The three supervisors continued the discussion amongst themselves. Dimmitt said he didn’t want the prospect of reducing the county attorney’s budget to be viewed as a punishment or retribution, but he added that the supervisors had the legal authority to do it.

“I just want some way to end this,” Dimmitt said. “I’m not picking sides per se, but I do feel he [Moulding] is holding all the cards.”

Drish disagreed, saying “both sides are holding cards.”

Kelly then informed the board that the matter would be taken up by the Iowa Supreme Court.

“I think it would bode well to have patience if possible and let the legal process carry itself out,” Kelly said. “We should remember there are unintended consequences, and it might be wise to postpone until the dust settles.”

As of Monday, Oct. 6, there is no date set for the Iowa Supreme Court to hear Jefferson County’s Brady-Giglio case.

Call Andy Hallman at 641-575-0135 or email him at andy.hallman@southeastiowaunion.com

  Buy Photo

  Buy Photo