Judge hears arguments in Jefferson County Sheriff’s Brady-Giglio case

FAIRFIELD – The final hearing was held Thursday in a dispute between the Jefferson County Sheriff and Jefferson County Attorney.

In June of 2024, Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding placed Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond on what’s called a “Brady-Giglio list,” a list of law enforcement officers the local prosecutor believes are unreliable. In August, Richmond’s attorney Charles Gribble of Des Moines filed a motion in Iowa District Court to have Richmond’s name removed from the list, arguing there were insufficient grounds to place Richmond on the list.

The two sides met for a hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse on Thursday, Jan. 23, where they each made their case to District Court Judge Jeffrey D. Farrell. Only the closing arguments were open to the public. Earlier in the day, the two sides presented exhibits and witness testimony about an incident in April 2024 which Moulding sought to investigate, but claimed he was obstructed by the sheriff who failed to cooperate.

Judge Farrell did not issue a ruling at the close of arguments that day.

INCIDENT

Details of the incident that sparked the investigation and Brady-Giglio placement were sometimes discussed during closing arguments, though the court filings about it were put under seal after initially being public record. The Union obtained a copy of a filing before it was placed under seal, in which Moulding writes that in April of 2024, “a Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff was observed on body camera using physical force against an individual in the custody of another law enforcement agency while that individual was under arrest and in handcuffs.”

Moulding wrote that he sent an email to Richmond on May 1 “asking for his review and opinion of the incident,” and that a meeting had been scheduled with the criminal defense attorney for the subject the following day. Moulding wrote that he never received a response.

“Approximately a week later, on May 7, 2024, a follow-up email was sent to the Sheriff asking for his review, and stating that if no response was received, it would be interpreted as his determination that no violation of agency use-of-force policy occurred,” Moulding wrote. “No response was ever received from the Sheriff to this follow-up email.”

Moulding wrote that he then asked the Keokuk County Attorney’s Office to conduct a use of force review of the incident, to determine “whether the striking of a prisoner in handcuffs constituted a criminal assault or other violation of Iowa law on the part of the deputy.”

GRIBBLE’S CLOSING ARGUMENT

In Gribble’s closing argument to Judge Farrell, he argued that Moulding failed to provide due process to Richmond by failing to provide important details on the letter he sent Richmond on June 6 about possible placement on the Brady-Giglio list. He said that Moulding wanted to hold an interview with Richmond on a certain day, but Richmond’s attorney was going to be on vacation, and asked for a later date. At that time, Richmond’s attorney asked for a summary of the complaint, to prepare Richmond for the interview. Gribble said that Moulding refused to reschedule the interview, and refused to disclose information before the interview.

“That is a direct violation of Iowa Code 80F,” said Gribble, who added that it meant the sheriff had the right to demand to see the information the county attorney possessed to justify placing him on the Brady-Giglio list. “That was not forthcoming at any time in this case.”

Gribble said Richmond did not receive a summary of the complaint against him until June 25, after he had been placed on the Brady-Giglio list.

“(The sheriff) has not received any information. He has not received the assistance of counsel because the county attorney unreasonably refused to move the date of the interview. He does not even know the allegations against him at that time,” Gribble said. “There has been a complete failure to provide the sheriff due process in this case.”

Gribble made a number of other points to show that Richmond did not belong on the Brady-Giglio list. He said the person arrested during the incident in April 2024 never filed a complaint against law enforcement, and that the deputy involved was cleared after an independent investigation by Keokuk County officials.

Gribble sought to rebut the three allegations Moulding made against Richmond in his letter placing Richmond on the Brady-Giglio list. The first allegation was that the sheriff ignored requests for information about the April 2024 incident. Gribble said the deputy reported the incident to the chief deputy, who Gribble said “saw nothing out of the ordinary.” He said the sheriff conducted a thorough review of the matter, and of the applicability of the county’s use of force policy, a review of the recording and a review of the testimony, which resulted in a counseling memo.

“That should have ended the matter on May 7,” Gribble said.

The judge asked Gribble why Richmond did not respond to Moulding’s email on the use of force incident. Gribble said that Moulding phrased his email in a way that a failure to respond from Richmond would be interpreted as Richmond seeing no problem with the use of force, and that the sheriff accordingly declined to reply.

Gribble addressed the allegation that Richmond ignored requests to produce the county’s use of force policy during the investigation. Gribble said that Richmond had a phone conversation with Michelle Manning, employee of the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office on Friday, May 24. Manning asked for the county’s use of force policy, and when Richmond asked why her office needed it, she said it was for an investigation being done by the Keokuk County Attorney. Gribble said Richmond arranged for the Keokuk County Attorney’s Office to receive the use of force manual, and that office acknowledged receipt of the policy.

The third allegation Gribble addressed was that Richmond instructed his staff not to cooperate with the investigation into the April 2024 incident. Gribble said two deputies testified during the closed portion of the hearing that there was no such directive given.

Gribble said that all this information taken together shows that Richmond does not belong on the Brady-Giglio list. He said that list is meant for officers who lie under oath, who file false police reports, or who place innocent people in jeopardy.

“This case does not come close to rising to the level that would constitute grounds to place someone on the Brady-Giglio list,” he said.

MOULDING’S CLOSING ARGUMENT

In his closing argument, Moulding disagreed with Gribble’s characterization of how cooperative Richmond was with the investigation. Moulding spoke about Richmond’s failure to respond to his initial email the day before Moulding had to meet with an attorney for the arrested subject. He said he didn’t understand how the sheriff could see no cause for concern upon reviewing footage from the incident, and said the communication breakdown between the two departments hindered both.

“I think that there’s a duty on the part of the sheriff to cooperate with questions like this, and it leaves everybody frustrated when you don’t have that,” the county attorney said. “We have to get past this, but the use of force and the inquiry thereto were not things I think were appropriate to stonewall, brush under the table, which is what appears to have happened.”

Moulding said he felt his office was getting the “runaround” from the sheriff’s office while attempting to pursue this investigation.

Moulding said that while the sheriff did eventually share the use of force policy, he only did so after several calls and emails. And while the county attorney acknowledged that Richmond likely didn’t make a “blanket order” telling officers to obstruct an investigation, Moulding said that wasn’t the allegation at play.

“The allegation is that there was an order to not provide information ‘related to confidential personnel matters,’” Moulding said. “Confidential personnel matters happened to be a deputy’s use of force with an individual, and the response thereto.”

The county attorney also responded to an argument about why he did not file a formal complaint against Richmond before placing him on the Brady-Giglio list. He said he couldn’t understand why it was so hard to schedule a meeting to be in the same room as Richmond as he sought answers about the incident.

“I’m trying to judge the sheriff’s candor, credibility and truthfulness here. Frankly, I just wanted to look him in the eye and be like, ‘Hey, what’s going on?’” Moulding said. “I didn’t want him to come in with a prepared speech, and a prepared list of issues. I wanted him to look me in the eye and be like, ‘Hey, here’s what I’m thinking about this.’”

Judge Farrell then asked why Moulding did not reschedule the interview with Richmond once he learned Richmond’s attorney was on vacation. Moulding said he was simply anxious to resolve the matter as soon as possible.

“It had been on my mind for a week and I was concerned,” Moulding said. “Frankly, we could’ve kicked it back. I just didn’t want to delay, and I wanted to get this over and done with.”

The county attorney pushed back on motions to dismiss the case, noting the lack of precedent for a Brady-Giglio dispute between a county attorney and a sheriff. He argued that recently enacted state laws on the matter were poorly written, and may not necessarily apply to prosecutors who exist outside police department chains of command.

“What we have here is a statute related to Brady-Giglio issues that has been shoe-horned into a police officers’ Bill of Rights related to employment matters,” Moulding said. “Maybe we wouldn’t be here if the statute was better drafted.”

COMMENTS

After the hearing, Richmond said he felt the closed-door proceedings went well.

“I think it went well for me,” he said. “I told the truth. I got on the stand and was up there quite awhile. I’m still the sheriff of this county. I want people to know that. I had some accusations against me that weren’t proven, so we’re moving on.”

Moulding declined to comment.

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

  Buy Photo

  Buy Photo

  Buy Photo

  Buy Photo