Jefferson County’s Brady-Giglio case could go to Iowa Supreme Court

FAIRFIELD – The legal battle between the Jefferson County Attorney and Jefferson County Sheriff has attracted the attention of the Iowa Senate.

Twenty-eight State Senators signed their name to an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the Legislature’s “Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights,” or Chapter 80F of the Iowa code. This piece of legislation has taken center stage in a dispute between Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding and Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond, which began in the late spring of 2024. The two sides are now presenting arguments in a case that could be taken up by the Iowa Supreme Court, or an appellate court.

Moulding argues that a recently added section of this law is unconstitutional, specifically Chapter 80F.1(25), that went into effect on July 1, 2024. Richmond’s attorney Charles Gribble disagrees, arguing it is constitutional, and now 28 State Senators have expressed support for Gribble’s position, in a brief filed by attorney W. Charles Smithson on July 27.

The section of the law at issue gives officers the right to petition the district court to intervene when a prosecutor places an officer on a Brady-Giglio list, a list of officers the prosecutor deems unreliable. Moulding placed Richmond on the Brady-Giglio list in the summer of 2024 related to an officer use-of-force incident that spring. Richmond filed a lawsuit to have his name removed from the list and won his case before District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell, who sided with Richmond in his opinion issued Feb. 27. Moulding claimed that Richmond had obstructed an investigation into the use-of-force incident, but Judge Farrell wrote in his ruling there was “no evidence in this case that Richmond was dishonest or did not tell the truth.” Moulding appealed Judge Farrell’s ruling.

MOULDING’S ARGUMENT

In his brief addressed to the Iowa Supreme Court, Moulding argues that Iowa Code 80F.1(25) is unconstitutional because it intrudes into the ethical obligations of prosecutors and the due process rights of defendants. He wrote that it encroaches on prosecutorial discretion, “a core executive function, in violation of the separation of powers provisions of the United States and Iowa constitutions.”

Moulding refers to this section of Iowa code as a “confusing and poorly drafted statute” which “shoehorns a Brady-Giglio appeal process into an otherwise straightforward employment protection statute.”

He says that this interference in a prosecutor’s discretion “unconstitutionally blocks a criminal defendant’s access to relevant impeachment information” of government witnesses.

“A prosecuting attorney’s determination that an officer’s candor and credibility are in question … constitutes exculpatory and/or impeachment information which a prosecutor is ethically bound to provide to Defendant and Defendant’s attorney,” Moulding wrote.

GRIBBLE’S ARGUMENT

Gribble argues in his brief that the proper standard for evaluating Chapter 80F.1(25) is “rational review” whereby laws are valid so long as they are “related to a legitimate government interest.”

“Establishing an appeal process for a police officer to potentially be removed from a Brady-Giglio list doesn’t implicate any suspect class, doesn’t interfere with a fundamental right, and maintains due process for defendants, prosecutors, and police officers alike,” Gribble wrote.

Gribble contested Moulding’s assertion that Section 25 of the law undermines the separation of powers.

“The appeal process strengthens the separation of powers because otherwise the County Attorney has the power to initially, unreviewable and permanently place a police officer on the Brady-Giglio list,” he wrote.

Gribble argues that a court removing an officer from a Brady-Giglio list does not prevent the prosecuting attorney from complying with his duties under Brady v. Maryland.

“The duty of a prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence never ceases,” Gribble wrote. “Disclosure of an officer’s alleged wrongful conduct in any one case and the placement of that same officer on a Brady-Giglio list are complete and separate matters.”

SMITHSON’S ARGUMENT

In Smithson’s brief signed by the 28 State Senators, he argues that the statute is not “void for vagueness” and that the statute does not result in criminal prosecution but rather an administrative and civil matter, “so the doctrine is less stringent.”

“Iowa Code Chapter 80F.1(25) provides that an ‘officer shall have the right to petition the district court…in an action regarding a prosecuting agency’s decision to place an officer on a Brady-Giglio list.’ The parties may request a closed hearing and present evidence. The legislature set out a clear process resulting in both parties having a reasonable understanding of the process,” Smithson wrote.

Smithson argues the law provides sufficient guidance to prevent the “exercise of power in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion,” and that the “language of the statute is specific on the appeal process.”

“Based on precedent of the Iowa Supreme Court, Iowa Code Chapter 80F.1(25) does not violate the void-for-vagueness doctrine,” he wrote.

RESPONSES BY RICHMOND AND MOULDING

On Friday, July 25, The Union sent a list of questions about this case to Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond, his attorney Charles Gribble, and Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding. Gribble’s law firm responded to the email by supplying The Union with the most recent briefs filed in the case, but did not provide any further commentary on them. Moulding responded to The Union’s questions in writing, and Richmond responded via phone.

Richmond said he wanted the public to know that, “I’m not suing the county. I’m defending myself and the office of sheriff.”

Richmond said Moulding’s decision to place him on the Brady-Giglio list was part of a broader agenda.

“He wants to control the office of sheriff,” Richmond said of Moulding. “And he wants to control who holds the office of sheriff.”

Richmond said Moulding’s actions amount to “harassment and defamation” and added, “I really think he’s trying to get me decertified through the Academy Council, so that I wouldn’t be certified in the state of Iowa.”

Richmond said his problems with Moulding began in the wake of the 2020 election, when Richmond defeated Tracy Vance to become Jefferson County Sheriff. Early the following year of 2021, in January or February, Richmond said that Moulding requested hiring courtroom security that was certified law enforcement, but Richmond pointed out at the time that such an action was under the purview of the sheriff, according to state code. Richmond said that Moulding was difficult to work with from then on.

Richmond said he believes he has a good chance of winning this appeal.

“I do feel comfortable the court will uphold Judge Farrell’s ruling,” he said. “My name should have never been on the list.”

Moulding’s responses to The Union’s questions, sent via email, are reproduced here:

The Union: District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell ordered Sheriff Richmond's name to be removed from the Brady-Giglio list in his ruling filed Feb. 27. Was the Sheriff's name subsequently removed from the Brady-Giglio list?

Moulding: The order removing the Sheriff from the Brady-Giglio list is on appeal, and as such, he remains on said list pending review by the appellate courts.

The Union: [Following up on the first question] Can you elaborate on why Sheriff Richmond's name would remain on the Brady-Giglio list during the appeal, as opposed to Judge Farrell's order taking immediate effect?

Moulding: Awaiting final determination by the appellate courts.

The Union: Are you intending to put [Sheriff Richmond’s name] back on the list if you win the appeal?

Moulding: Because he was not removed, he would not need to be “put back” on the list. That said, I have endeavored greatly to attempt to resolve the serious underlying concerns that the Sheriff’s behavior has generated with regards to his candor and credibility. He has thus far resisted these attempts.

The Union: When you placed Sheriff Richmond on the Brady-Giglio list in 2024, you indicated that you would not call anyone on the list to testify in court. Since placing Sheriff Richmond on this list, have you called him to testify in court? Were there any cases where you would have called him to testify had he not been on the Brady-Giglio list?

Moulding: I have not called the Sheriff to testify since placing him on the list. When he was notified of list placement on June 25, 2024, he was informed that he should refrain from engaging in actions which would make him a necessary witness in criminal cases charged in Jefferson County, as that would have a negative impact on court outcomes. The Sheriff has heeded this instruction up to this date, and his list placement has not had a negative impact on criminal cases in Jefferson County. It should be noted that the Sheriff’s job is principally an administrative one, and even before his list placement, his involvement with direct investigation of criminal activity in the County was limited. The Deputies do an excellent job in that.

The Union: When do you expect the appellate court [or Supreme Court] to issue a ruling on the appeal?

Moulding: I can not say for certain when the matter will be argued before the courts, but I would hope for oral arguments before the first of the year.

ATTEMPT AT MEETING

In subsequent commentary, Moulding said he has attempted to schedule a face to face meeting with Richmond following the Board of Supervisors’ meeting on July 21, where Supervisor Lee Dimmitt implored the two men to meet and resolve their differences.

“He now refuses to meet to discuss moving forward,” Moulding wrote to The Union on July 25. “If he wants to continue this litigation, that is his decision at this point. I look forward to the Supreme Court’s opinion on the issues raised on appeal. It is a shame that the Sheriff is too sheepish to meet face to face before then.”

The Union asked Richmond about the prospect of meeting with Moulding. He said that, after consulting with his attorney Charles Gribble, Gribble advised him not to meet with Moulding.

LIST OF SENATORS

The following is a complete list of the Iowa Senators who signed the amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of Chapter 80F.1(25):

Jack Whitver, Senate Majority Leader; Amy Sinclair, Senate President; Ken Rozenboom, Senate President Pro Tempore; Mike Klimesh, Senate Majority Whip; Adrian Dickey, Assistant Majority Leader; Lynn Evans, Assistant Majority Leader; Tim Kraayenbrink, Assistant Majority Leader; Carrie Koelker, Assistant Majority Leader; and Senators Kevin Alons, Mike Bousselot, Dan Dawson, Dawn Driscoll, Jesse Green, Kerry Gruenhagen, Mark Lofgren, Charlie McClintock, Mike Pike, Jeff Reichman, Dave Rowley, Sandy Salmon, Jason Schultz, Tom Shipley, Dave Sires, Annettee Sweeney, Kara Warme, Scott Webster, Cherielynn Westrich, and Dan Zumbach.

  Buy Photo

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

  Buy Photo

  Buy Photo