Jefferson County Sheriff wins appeal against County Attorney

FAIRFIELD – A District Court Judge has ruled in favor of Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond, granting his request to be removed from the county’s Brady-Giglio list.

Judge Jeffrey Farrell issued his opinion in the case on Thursday, Feb. 27, about a month after a hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse which was partially open to the public. At that hearing, Richmond and his attorney Charles Gribble of Des Moines argued that Richmond’s name should be taken off the Brady-Giglio list, a list of officers the local prosecutor believes to be untrustworthy. During a trial, prosecutors must divulge if their witness is on the list, and Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding has stated that he will not call witnesses to testify in court who are on the list.

Moulding placed Richmond on this list in June 2024 after Moulding sought to investigate a use of force incident involving a Jefferson County sheriff’s deputy in April of that year. At the hearing on Jan. 23, the two sides presented evidence behind closed doors that included body camera footage of the incident, calling witnesses to testify, and a review of phone and email records.

In his 19-page opinion, Farrell wrote that Richmond was not being dishonest or deceitful in his response to Moulding’s investigation, though Farrell added that Richmond could have behaved differently to avoid this problem with the county attorney.

REVIEWING THE FACTS

Moulding emailed Richmond on May 1, 2024, expressing concern about the deputy’s conduct as captured on the body camera, and asked Richmond whether he felt the deputy’s behavior was in line with the county’s use of force policy. Richmond did not respond to this email, and during the hearing, he said that he did not respond because he did not have enough information at the time.

Moulding sent Richmond a second email on May 7, again asking for his opinion on the deputy’s conduct, and adding that Richmond’s failure to respond to the email would be interpreted as approval of the conduct. Richmond did not respond to this email either, and during the hearing said that he “kind of agreed” with Moulding’s statement about how a non-response would be interpreted.

Farrell wrote in his opinion, “As to the May 1, 2024 email in which Moulding first raised the use of force concern, Richmond could have simply responded that he had not had a chance to review it. As to the May 7 email, he could have simply responded that he reviewed the video with the chief deputy and the deputy and handled the matter internally. By failing to respond at all, and through other conduct, he fed into the impression that he was hiding or shielding information regarding the use of force incident.”

REASONS FOR BRADY-GIGLIO PLACEMENT

Moulding cited Richmond’s failure to respond to his emails as one of three reasons he was placing Richmond on the Brady-Giglio list on June 25. The other two reasons Moulding cited were his claim that Richmond failed to promptly provide a current version of his office’s use of force policy when requested, and Richmond’s failure to cooperate with the Keokuk County Attorney’s investigation by refusing to discuss how he handled the matter.

Though Farrell seemed to agree with Moulding’s first claim, he did not seem to agree with the other two claims. Farrell wrote that Moulding did not tell Richmond that the Keokuk County Attorney was conducting a review of the case, and Richmond came to know that only after speaking with Moulding’s assistant on May 24. Moulding then emailed Richmond on May 28 asking for the use of force policy.

“Richmond told Moulding’s assistant he was willing to talk to the Keokuk County Attorney about the issue,” Farrell wrote. “The record reflects that he did talk to her on May 28, the same day his office provided the use of force policy. There is no showing of dishonesty, deceit, or lack of candor under these facts.”

The Keokuk County Attorney asked Richmond what action he took in response to his own review of the body camera footage and use of force investigation. Richmond told the Keokuk County Attorney that the matter was handled internally, and that he was unsure whether he could discuss the deputy’s personnel record with a county attorney from another county.

“Richmond told the other attorney that he would share the information if she could provide any legal authority allowing him to share the information with her. There is no indication that she did so,” Farrell wrote.

Farrell wrote that Richmond’s refusal to discuss personnel information was reasonable and that he had a legitimate concern about the deputy’s confidentiality.

The only other point of contention between the two sides was Moulding’s concern that Richmond instructed employees, specifically Chief Deputy Jerry Marcellus, not to cooperate with the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office. Richmond and Marcellus both denied this claim during their testimony.

CASE LAW

After reciting the key facts from the hearing, Farrell went through case law to compare this current dispute to other Brady-Giglio cases, and to standards from the Department of Justice’s U.S. Attorney Manual. He noted that the only standard that came into play in this case was whether Richmond engaged in a “lack of candor during a criminal, civil, or administrative inquiry or proceeding.”

Ultimately, Farrell concluded that Richmond did not act with a lack of candor and that his name should be removed from the Brady-Giglio list.

“There is no evidence in this case that Richmond was dishonest or did not tell the truth,” Farrell wrote.

Though Farrell faulted Richmond for not responding to Moulding’s emails on May 1, 7 and 28, he argued that failing to respond to emails did not show dishonesty.

“Even if Moulding had established a lack of candor, it solely resulted from Richmond’s failure to respond to emails from the county attorney,” Farrell wrote. “It is difficult to see how such information, if provided, could result in a reasonable probability of changing a jury’s decision from guilty to a defense verdict. It is not real impeachment evidence.”

Farrell continued, “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. Game-playing the county attorney is not the standard of professionalism that Iowans expect of our elected county sheriffs, but it does not meet the materiality element of the Giglio test any more than it meets the credibility element of the test.”

REACTION

The Union reached out to Moulding, Richmond and Richmond’s attorney Charles Gribble for a comment following Farrell’s ruling. Richmond declined to comment, but Moulding submitted a response in writing.

“While I do not agree with it, I respect the decision of Judge Farrell when it comes to the facts at issue here,” Moulding stated. “That being said, my underlying concerns regarding the Sheriff’s actions surrounding a use of force review remain, and the Sheriff has done nothing to allay these concerns, despite the numerous opportunities he has had to do so. It is unfortunate that the Sheriff decided to litigate this issue publicly instead of resolving my office’s bona fide concerns when they were raised. By suing the County instead of addressing the issues raised by his County Attorney head-on, the Sheriff has wasted time, attention and resources which would have been better spent focusing on crime in Jefferson County.

“While I understand the Court’s ruling when it comes to the facts of this case, I stand by the grave constitutional concerns raised during this proceeding as they relate to the legality of portions of Iowa Code 80F, and look forward to clarifying these constitutional issues at the Supreme Court through certiorari.”

  Buy Photo

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

  Buy Photo

  Buy Photo