Verdict sealed until Yoder trial

A verdict was reached in the case of Jack Seward Jr., of West Chester, who is charged with unlawfully receiving a campaign contribution from a corporation. The 12-member jury reached their verdict Tuesday afternoon after it heard closing arguments from both sides earlier that day. The verdict was put in a sealed envelope and will not be made public until the conclusion of Bob Yoder?s trial, which began Wednesday morning.

Washington County Attorney Larry Brock, representing the state, argued that Seward willfully violated Iowa law by accepting a donation from a business he knew to be a corporation, Custom Impressions Inc. Brock said Seward testified that he knew ?Inc.? stood for ?incorporated.? Brock said Seward had to know Custom Impressions was a corporation because ?Inc.? was in the name.

Brock said Seward wanted to believe the $75 he received from Custom Impressions was a ?discount? for the store delivering his signs late. However, the invoice itself says ?donation? next to the $75 line item.

During the trial, there was disagreement between the two sides as to whether Custom Impressions was technically a corporation. Brock pointed to the testimony of Megan Tooker of the state ethics board, who said she asked Custom Impressions? owner Marcus Fedler if his business was a corporation, and he said it was.

The defense called 11 witnesses to testify about Seward?s character. Brock said the witnesses spoke about how thorough Seward was in his work. He said it is hard to believe that somebody who is normally so thorough never talked about the price of the yard signs with anybody at Custom Impressions.

Brock said Seward willfully violated the law because he received a document from the state ethics board on April 17 that contained a list of common campaign violations, and that one of them was accepting contributions from a corporation.

?It doesn?t get any simpler than that,? he said.

Defense attorney Barbara Edmondson began her closing arguments by writing on a blackboard the list of reasons Seward was not guilty of the crime he?s charged with, and that in fact no crime was committed at all. On the other side of the blackboard she summarized the prosecution?s case.

Edmondson quoted Tooker?s testimony, which was that Seward?s campaign disclosure reports would need to be looked into further. Edmondson said the prosecution did not do this and said there was no investigation as to what the ?donation? was or how it came to appear on Seward?s disclosure form.

?No one tried to find out the truth,? she said about the prosecution?s case.

She said Seward did not discuss the price of the signs with Custom Impressions because he heard from the other candidate that they would be about $2 a sign.

She argued that Seward?s conduct in this case demonstrates his honesty. Seward wrote on his disclosure form that he had gotten a donation from Custom Impressions. Edmondson said Seward thought nothing of that because he believed it to be a discount from the company for delivering the signs late. If Seward were attempting to hide a donation, he would not have written it on his disclosure report, Edmondson argued.

Edmondson said nobody would expect a donation on a bill invoice, so it is reasonable to take Seward at his word that he did not notice it when he paid the bill. Further, whether or not Fedler intended the $75 to be a donation is irrelevant since Seward was not on trial for the actions of Fedler.

Edmondson said there is reason to believe Custom Impressions might not actually be incorporated, even though ?Inc.? is part of the name and even if the owner thinks it?s incorporated. She said an entity becomes a corporation the date it receives its certificate of incorporation from the state. She said such a certificate from Custom Impressions is missing from the state?s records. If Custom Impressions is not a corporation, then it would be legal for Seward to accept money from such an entity, although in this case Seward returned the $75 anyway.

According to Edmondson, the state did not show the jury all the pertinent documents from the case. For instance, when Seward returned the $75 to Custom Impressions, he made a photocopy of the check and sent it to the state ethics board. Brock did not present this document during his case. Edmondson said Seward had already returned the money by the time Brock filed charges against him.

?When the state selectively shows you evidence, you should doubt their theory,? Edmondson said.

Edmondson brought up Seward?s May 19 campaign disclosure report, which included the $75 donation from Custom Impressions. Tim Annee, an auditor with the state ethics board, received information from Seward indicating he had repaid Custom Impressions, so Annee deleted the donation from the May 19 report. Edmondson said that Brock originally tried to blame Seward for changing the May 19 report, but later in the trial the two sides agreed that it was Annee, not Seward, who changed the report.

In his rebuttal, Brock said Seward might refer to the $75 as a ?discount? now, but he reported it as a ?donation? on his form. He said Seward returned the money only after the ethics board told him to.

Brock talked about the May 19 report that was changed by Annee. Brock said Seward was not charged with changing a report and that that was not why he was in court.

The court costs from the trial that the state will have to incur include paying the jury about $1,700 for their work Monday. The state had to pay 45 people because that was the size of the jury pool before it was whittled down to 12 jurors and one alternate. The jurors are paid $30 per day and they receive 5 cents for every mile they drive. The state paid the jury $525 for its work Tuesday.