Judge orders Henry County Deputy removed from Brady-Giglio list

MT. PLEASANT — A District Court judge has ordered Henry County Deputy Carlos Lopez’s name removed from the Brady-Giglio list, ruling that County Attorney Darin Stater “abused his discretion” when placing the deputy on it and failed to show Lopez acted dishonestly.

Judge Tom Reidel issued the 23-page ruling Monday, Sept. 29.

  Buy Photo

“It is the ruling of the Court that the decision of the Henry County Attorney to place Plaintiff on the Brady-Giglio list is reversed,” Reidel wrote. “The Court orders Plaintiff be REMOVED from the Brady-Giglio list maintained by the Henry County Attorney’s Office regarding the incident on April 21, 2023, and all ensuing investigation of that incident by Respondent.”

Lopez’s Challenge

The Brady-Giglio list identifies law enforcement officers whose credibility might be called into question in court. Prosecutors must disclose that information to defense attorneys.

Lopez was initially placed on the Henry County Brady-Giglio list following the arrest of three members of the Wagler family and owners of Outdoor Tradition in Wayland in April 2023. After asking County Attorney Darin Stater to reconsider, Lopez remained on the list.

With the new amendment to Iowa Code which addresses Brady-Giglio matters allowing those on Brady-Giglio lists to request judicial review going into effect July 1, 2024, Lopez found another way to push against Stater’s decision.

In December 2024, Lopez, represented by attorney Charles Gribble, challenged his placement on the Brady-Giglio list arguing that Stater lacked evidence that he had been untruthful or deceptive.

‘Interagency Dynamics’

Reidel found that the dispute stemmed from tension between the Henry County Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office after the arrests of the Waglers.

“The evidence supports a key inference drawn by the Court: that this matter boils down to interagency dynamics within Henry County law enforcement,” he wrote.

He said correspondence from Stater’s office “demonstrates a breakdown in communication between Respondent’s office [Stater] and that of the Sheriff” and noted that “Respondent comes across as irritated that his office was caught off guard by the Waglers’ arrests, the multiple charges, and the Sheriff’s Office’s publicity of the matter. His testimony corroborated that sentiment.”

Reidel also pointed to changes in Stater’s own descriptions of Lopez over time, writing that the County Attorney’s letters “present markedly different characterizations of Plaintiff.”

In December 2023, Stater described Lopez’s actions as “willful and wanton,” while by April 2024 he had labeled the deputy “simply unreliable.”

Testimony from Assistant County Attorney Blake Vierra further underscored the court’s conclusion that the case reflected professional friction more than misconduct. Reidel called Vierra “perhaps the most objective witness at trial” and noted that both Vierra and Lopez “had a good working relationship before the April 21, 2023, incident and had collaborated on several other cases.”

He added that “there appeared to be no animus or blame between the two, even as they testified in opposition to one another.”

Those shifting assessments and professional tensions, Reidel concluded, reflected “interagency dynamics” rather than dishonesty by Lopez.

Timeliness and Constitutionality

Stater argued against the removal of Lopez from the Brady-Giglio list, stating that the amendment to Iowa Code 80F.1 was partially unconstitutional. He claimed Brady-Giglio decisions belong solely to the prosecuting attorney.

In his ruling, Reidel rejected Stater’s argument.

“If Respondent’s position, that a prosecutor’s decision vis-à-vis Brady-Giglio is absolute, is taken to its logical conclusion, then a party aggrieved by a prosecutor's decision would have no recourse at all,” Reidel wrote. “This would be true even if that decision was completely untenable or was based on unreasonable or unprofessional grounds.”

Reidel further stated that the Iowa or United States Constitution provide “no such unbridled authority to a prosecutor.”

The County Attorney additionally argued that Lopez’s petition for judicial review came too late because his placement on the Brady-Giglio list occurred in December 2023 — months before the new law allowing officers to challenge such decisions took effect on July 1, 2024. He said the statute could not be applied retroactively and that the County Attorney’s decision had already become final.

Reidel disagreed. He noted that although Stater had notified Lopez in April 2024 that his placement on the list would stand, correspondence from Stater’s office dated July 8, 2024 showed the issue was still being revisited. In that communication, Stater said he was “going to review his Brady-Giglio status” and requested additional information about the April 2023 incident.

Reidel wrote that the July 8 correspondence “indicates the matter was hardly settled when Iowa Code Chapter 80F.1 (25) went into effect,” concluding that “Respondent’s own continued investigation and openness to further reconsideration of Plaintiff’s placement on the Brady-Giglio list negates the inference that this litigation is untimely.”

That finding allowed the court to move beyond procedural questions and address the substance of Lopez’s challenge — whether his statements in criminal documents were intentionally misleading or simply the result of error.

Court finds ‘no intent to deceive’

Reidel’s ruling centers on Lopez’s wording in a search warrant affidavit and criminal complaints related to the Waglers’ business, Outdoor Tradition. One of those complaints stated that a victim “had not received a return in money or received any product.”

Stater argued that statement was false because one business, River City, had received lumber from the Waglers. Reidel disagreed, finding that while Lopez’s phrasing was inaccurate, it did not amount to dishonesty.

“There was extensive testimony regarding Plaintiff’s use of the phrase ‘not received product’ and its meaning or implication,” the judge wrote. “The Court sees no intent to deceive in Plaintiff’s duplicative paragraphs.”

Reidel explained that Lopez had used the same template for several complaints involving different victims of the Waglers, and the wording error carried through.

“Rather,” he continued, “the imprecise descriptions appear to be a simple scrivener’s error caused by the use of cut and paste with multiple alleged victims of the Waglers.”

The judge noted that the evidence showed River City had received some lumber but that the material was poor quality, prompting a refund request. Lopez testified that his intention was to state that victims “had not received the product that they had purchased.”

Reidel found that testimony credible.

“The error is relatable and, again, seems to have been a result of an oversight, not any calculated attempt to distort the facts,” he wrote.

Court rejects claim of dishonesty

Reidel concluded that Lopez’s conduct did not meet the threshold for dishonesty or lack of candor. He defined candor as forthrightness and stated that federal and state courts often require a showing of dishonesty or deceit in order to agree with claims of lack of candor.

With only one instance questioning Lopez’s candor and that instance being highly subjective, Reidel’s ruling states that Stater, “failed to provide sufficient evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged dishonesty or deceit, and that Plaintiff’s credibility or candor has not been called into question such that placement on the Brady-Giglio list is an appropriate decision.”

Reidel further explained that poor wordsmithing on Lopez’s part does not constitute deceitfulness or dishonesty either. Therefore, “Respondent’s conclusion to the contrary is an abuse of his discretion.”

Comments: AnnaMarie.Kruse@southeastiowaunion.com