Daily Newsletters
Account
Washington Evening Journal
111 North Marion Avenue
Washington, IA 52353
319-653-2191
Iowa Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Richmond v. Jefferson County Attorney
Southeast Iowa Union offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
DES MOINES – A dispute between two Jefferson County officials took center stage at the Iowa Supreme Court on Wednesday, Feb. 11, when the court heard oral arguments in the case of Bart Richmond v. Jefferson County Attorney.
In February 2025, Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond won his appeal to be removed from the Brady-Giglio list after he was placed on it in 2024 by Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding. Names on the list are officials the prosecutor does not consider trustworthy, and an official’s placement on the list must be disclosed in court.
In appealing the district court judge’s ruling, Moulding argued that the very judicial review that allowed Richmond to appeal his placement on the Brady-Giglio list was unconstitutional. He claimed that Iowa Code 80F.1(25) encroached on prosecutorial discretion, “a core executive function, in violation of the separation of powers provisions of the United States and Iowa constitutions.” Richmond’s attorney, Charles Gribble, contested Moulding’s characterization, arguing that judicial reviews permitted by 80F strengthened the separation of powers, because otherwise the county attorney can place an officer on the Brady-Giglio list permanently and without review.
When the two sides met at the Iowa Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines to make their arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court, Assistant County Attorney Elizabeth Estey was the one answering questions from the justices, while Moulding was also present. After Estey appeared before the panel of justices, it was Gribble’s turn to answer questions.
The Union reached out to Moulding, Estey, Gribble and Richmond for comments on the questions they heard from the justices during oral arguments. Gribble and Richmond had not responded to a request for comment by press time Wednesday. Estey did respond but declined to offer any comments.
Moulding did not comment directly on the issues raised, but remarked that “Assistant County Attorney Estey handled her argument with aplomb.”
After about 40 minutes of oral arguments, Chief Justice Susan Christensen invited the audience to ask questions of the court. The court was asked when they would return a judgment in this case. Christensen said it would most certainly be entered by June 30. Justice Thomas Waterman added that the court’s normal timeline from arguments to ruling is 60 days.
Call Andy Hallman at 641-575-0135 or email him at andy.hallman@southeastiowaunion.com
