Motions filed in Jefferson County Sheriff’s Brady-Giglio case

FAIRFIELD – Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond has filed a motion in district court to have his name removed from the Brady-Giglio list, and now Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding has filed a response asking the court to dismiss Richmond’s request.

A Brady-Giglio list is a list of law enforcement officers who the prosecutor, in this case the county attorney, determines to have a history of “incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or some other type of issue which places the officer’s credibility into question.” On June 25, 2024, Moulding placed Richmond on this list for allegedly interfering with an investigation by withholding information from the county attorney’s office, and instructing his subordinates to do the same. Richmond declined to comment on the case when reached by The Southeast Iowa Union.

The main consequence of Richmond’s placement on the Brady-Giglio list is that Moulding will not call him to testify in court, because Richmond’s placement on the Brady-Giglio list could be used by defense counsel to undermine his testimony.

On Aug. 21, 2024, Richmond’s attorney Charles Gribble of Des Moines filed a motion in the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County to have his client’s name removed from the Brady-Giglio list. Gribble argued that sufficient grounds did not exist to place Richmond on the list.

“Mr. Richmond further seeks reimbursement for his actual damages, court costs, and his attorney fees pursuant to Iowa Code § 80F.1(13) and § 80F.2,” stated Gribble’s motion. “Wherefore, for the reasons set forth herein and following a review by this court, Mr. Richmond prays for an order from the court removing his name from the Brady-Giglio list, reimbursement for his actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees pursuant to Iowa Code § 80F.1.(13) and § 80F.2.”

Gribble did not respond to a request for comment.

Chapter 80F of the Iowa Code refers to the “Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights” that the Iowa Legislature amended earlier this year and which applies to peace officers, public safety officers and emergency personnel. The timing of the newly amended language of Chapter 80F is relevant because it figures in Moulding’s response to Richmond’s petition.

Published on Sept. 12, 2024, Moulding wrote in his response that this section of Iowa Code that Richmond is seeking redress under does not apply in his case because that section of code went into effect July 1, 2024, after Richmond was placed on the Brady-Giglio list on June 25. Moulding argued that the Legislature made no indication that it intended this section of code to be retroactive, and thus would only apply to Brady-Giglio decisions after July 1.

But Moulding went further than that, arguing that this section of code is unconstitutional. Specifically, Moulding referred to section 80F.1(25), which states:

“An officer shall have the right to petition the district court, appeal, or intervene in an action regarding a prosecuting agency's decision to place an officer on a Brady-Giglio list. The district court shall have jurisdiction over the review of the prosecuting agency's decision. The district court shall perform an in camera review of the evidence and may hold a closed hearing upon the request of the officer or prosecuting agency, or upon the court's own motion. The district court may affirm, modify, or reverse a prosecuting agency's decision, and issue orders or provide relief, including removal of the officer from a Brady-Giglio list, as justice may require.”

Moulding argued that this section of code violates the separation of powers clause of the Iowa Constitution, saying that the Court has no purview to determine which witnesses are sufficiently credible to be called by a prosecuting attorney.

“This provision inserts the courts into a position of evaluating a prosecuting attorney’s independent judgment regarding the credibility of a witness who the prosecutor must rely on in order to present evidence. This exercise of independent judgment is one of the principal obligations of a criminal prosecutor,” Moulding wrote.

Later in his response, Moulding argued that this section of code violates the due process clause of the Constitution, which courts have found requires prosecuting attorneys to disclose concerns about an officer’s candor or credibility on the witness stand. He wrote that, if a judicial officer overturns a prosecutor’s decision to place an officer on a Brady-Giglio list, the prosecutor is then put in an “untenable position” where they are “duty-bound to both provide exculpatory information to the Defense, and to also comply with a Court’s order.”

Lastly, Moulding argued that Richmond is not entitled to seek reimbursement for defense costs because he is the plaintiff in this case, not the defendant. He wrote that relief from defense costs applies to officers charged with an offense who are later acquitted or where the charges are dismissed, but Richmond has not been charged with a crime, so Moulding argued the statue does not apply to him.

The Union will publish further updates on this case as they become available.

  Buy Photo

  Buy Photo

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