Henry County deputy challenges placement on Brady-Giglio list, county seeks dismissal

MT. PLEASANT — The Henry County Attorney’s Office has filed a motion to dismiss a case brought by Deputy Carlos Lopez, who is contesting his placement on the Brady-Giglio list.

On Tuesday, March 11, Seventh Judicial District Court Judge Thomas Reidel heard arguments from both sides on whether to dismiss the case, and will return with a ruling on the motion within 10 days.

  Buy Photo

Lopez, represented by attorney Charles Gribble, is seeking judicial review of his inclusion on the list, which can impact a law enforcement officer’s credibility and career. The County Attorney’s Office, represented by Assistant County Attorney Steve Giebelhausen, argues that the legal challenge should be dismissed on multiple grounds, including the claim that the newly enacted state law allowing officers to contest their placement is not retroactive. The County Attorney’s Office states that Lopez was placed on the list before the law’s effective date of July 1, 2024.

“The addition has no language in it stating that it is retroactive, and it is a basic principle that it either has to state that it is retroactive or give some other clue that it’s retroactive” Giebelhausen said.

He went on to argue that because newly proposed legislation in a pending bill, Senate File 362, seeks to clarify that retroactivity would apply in future cases, “that the current law does not apply to past placements.”

Gribble countered that the law should be interpreted as a remedial statute, which would allow retroactive application. Giving case examples, Gribble argued for an exception to the rule that a statute must include specific language for retroactivity to apply.

“There is an exception to the general rule that statutes only operate prospectively,” Gribble said. “That is a remedial statute, that it operates both prospectively and retroactively. And that's what we have here, and applying the three-part test, I believe we have good reason.”

Gribble explained that the statute itself allows simply for review and does not initially change anything about the “evil” that came before. He described this evil as “a decision made by not anyone in the judiciary which would otherwise be completely permanent and unreviewable would stay with an officer for his or her career.”

“That is the evil they say, which is just giving an officer the opportunity to review a decision made by a non-judicial officer,” Gribble said.

Gribble also argued that interpreting the statute as remedial does not change anything else about the statute as the county attorney will still make the initial determination and would still have the same obligations to supply information.

Additionally, Gribble referenced the Jefferson County case in which Judge Jeffrey Farrell granted Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond’s request to be removed from the Brady-Giglio List.

In November 2024, Farrell heard similar arguments to dismiss from Jefferson County’s Attorney Office. In Farrell’s decision to deny the Motion to Dismiss, he stated, “the statute does not bar an officer who was placed on a Brady-Giglio list prior to July 1, 2024, from filing an action in District Court.”

Gribble argued that the mere absence of a deadline in the statute suggests the opportunity to challenge should remain open. Furthermore, Gribble challenged the assertion made by the County Attorney’s Office that Lopez’s placement on the Brady-Giglio list was completed before the passing of the legislation allowing for judicial review on July 1, 2024.

“The county attorney reopened the matter after the statute was passed on July 8, again, asking for additional answers from Mr. Lopez and others who had any involvement in this particular arrest,” Gribble said.

He then shared a timeline that included Sheriff Rich McNamee responding to this July 8, 2024 request, but Stater determining that answer was not sufficient as of July 22, 2024.

In addition to procedural concerns, the county attorney also asserts that the statute is unconstitutional, as it interferes with prosecutorial discretion.

“We believe there is a separation of powers issue,” Geibelhausen said.

“Wouldn’t the check and balances provision in the constitution indicate that it is a proper use of judicial resources for the judicial right to determine whether that is something wrong with the prosecutor’s determination?” Judge Thomas Reidel asked Geibelhausen. “What is somebody, and I’m not saying Mr. Stater did this, but what if somebody just abused their authority? Would there be no remedy?”

  Buy Photo

“There's always the remedy of the ballot box, your honor, I know that's a push ahead,” Geibelhausen said. “This comes down to the prosecutor’s ethics professional judgment on their part. Where I find trouble is that the court’s going to step in and make that decision, which basically is an ethical decision for the prosecutor, then what do we do?”

Geibelhausen then painted a pictured of a hypothetical situation in which a prosecutor determines an individual is credible and a county attorney’s office places them on the Brady-Giglio list and the court overturns that decision.

“What do we do then at that point?” Geibelhausen asked. “Does that mean we now have to use that individual in cases? If we do use that individual in a case, are we still required, under the Brady-Giglio doctrine, that we have to turn over this evidence?”

In response, Reidel asked Geibelhausen about a hypothetical instance in which County Attorney Darin Stater doesn’t run for re-election and someone else takes on his position. If that new individual chose to remove Lopez from the Brady-Giglio list, “What would you think your obligation would be as a prosecutor at that point in time?”

When Geibelhausen answered that the information of the officer’s previous placement on the list would be disclosed, Reidel questioned why the response would be any different if a court made the decision instead.

Geibelhausen argued that a more “practical” alternative to the District Court deciding matters of Brady-Giglio list placement would be a review by the executive branch such as the Attorney General’s Office.

“It would be a group of prosecutors that review cases to decide which ones should stay on and which ones don’t,” Geibelhausen said.

While Reidel questioned why this would be any different from a judge making this determination, Geibelhausen maintained his stance that judicial intervention would create ethical conflicts.

“If a court orders an officer removed from the list but we as prosecutors still believe they lack credibility, we face a dilemma,” Geibelhausen said. “We either go against our ethical duties or risk contempt of court for refusing to use that officer as a witness.”

Gribble asserted that the law is not unconstitutional as every statute is presumed to be constitutional.

“We don't see that there's any interference with county attorney's duties, because regardless of the outcome of this case, it is right to determine what cases to take, what witnesses to call, what information should be disclosed are not impacted at all, by the decision with respect to whether Mr. Lopez remains or does not remain on the Brady-Giglio list,” Gribble said.

After both sides presented their arguments, Judge Reidel assured them he would take both under advisement and they could expect a ruling within the next 10 days. If the motion to dismiss is denied, Lopez’s case will move forward, potentially setting a precedent for other law enforcement officers in Iowa seeking to challenge their Giglio designation.

Comments: AnnaMarie.Kruse@southeastiowaunion.com