Assistant attorney general: Court likely to reverse Lindaman verdict

 By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

CHARLES CITY — Whether Douglas Lindaman’s conviction for third-degree sexual abuse will be reversed and his case sent back for retrial is in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court, but it would be unusual for the court not to agree, said a state assistant attorney general.

As the Press reported online Thursday and in print Friday, the Iowa Attorney General’s Office has agreed with an appeal by Lindaman that the Floyd County District Court did not go far enough to guarantee Lindaman’s right to counsel during the original trial.

Lindaman, who has a law degree and was a former attorney, represented himself during his April 2016 trial for third-degree sexual abuse. He was charged with touching the genitals of a 17-year-old boy in 2011.

The Attorney General’s Office recently filed a motion with the state Supreme Court asking that the verdict in the trial be reversed and the case remanded for retrial.

Kevin Cmelik, an Iowa assistant attorney general who worked on the case, said it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to accept or reject the motion from the attorney general.

He said it would be unusual for the court to reject a case such as this where the defendant and the state are essentially in agreement, but “it has happened.”

This type of case typically will be looked at by a three-judge panel of the court which will decide whether or not to review it, Cmelik said. If the court decides to review it, the full court will look at the case and issue its ruling.

“This is motion practice,” he said. The justices will make their determinations based on the paperwork filed in the case by the defendant — Lindaman — and by the state. There would be no oral arguments.

There is also no formal timeline. Although Cmelik said it is likely the court would make a decision on the case before this year’s term ends in June, there is no requirement that it do so.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the attorney general’s motion, reverses the verdict and sends it back for retrial, the case will once again be in the hands of the county attorney.

“It returns the parties to a position before the first trial,” Cmelik said. So even though the court sends the case back for retrial, it would be up to the county attorney whether to proceed again.

At the current point in the process, however, the county attorney does not play a role.

Iowa law says that in criminal appeals cases, the state is represented “by the attorney general and only by the attorney general,” Cmelik said.

Floyd County Attorney Rachel Ginbey, who originally prosecuted the Lindaman case and won the conviction, did not return a call from the Press asking for her comments on the case and the current situation.

During the original trial last summer, Lindaman questioned Ginbey’s motives in filing charges against him.

Lindaman is a former attorney and Floyd County magistrate who lost his law license and served two years in prison after convictions in 1988 on two counts of lascivious acts with a child.

He had his voting rights restored as part of a blanket policy by Gov. Tom Vilsack to restore rights to felons who had satisfied all the conditions of their sentences. That meant Lindaman could also run for public office.

Lindaman unsuccessfully ran for the Floyd County Board of Supervisors in 2010 and he was a candidate for the Sept. 8, 2015, Charles City Board of Education election when Ginbey filed charges against him.

Lindaman was arrested and charged with third-degree sexual abuse on Aug. 27, 2015, less than two weeks before the school board election.

As a candidate, Lindaman had complained about media attention given to his previous felony conviction.

In a Letter to the Editor to the Press, he wrote, “My legal infraction is 28 years old and is ancient history. I paid my debt to society. … I would appreciate an end to the character assassination.”

After he was arrested, Lindaman accused Ginbey of filing the charges to thwart his election to the school board.

Lindaman said Ginbey hoped to create “a negative impression of the defendant before the voters in a highly volatile election.”

Ginbey, who was elected county attorney and took office in November 2014, refuted that claim, saying she decided to press charges after finding information on the case while going through old files.

“I was still going through that filing cabinet and happened to come across this, which was still an open investigation file,” she said at the time. “I was actually shocked by some of the facts I was reading that nothing had been done with the case.”

Lindaman received 335 votes in the school board election. His opponent received 1,996 votes.