Jury gets Lindaman case, begins deliberations

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

The jury began deliberations Tuesday afternoon in the Douglas Lindaman sexual abuse trial, discussing the case for about 2¼ hours before deciding to quit for the evening and resume Wednesday morning.

Lindaman and Floyd County Attorney Rachel Ginbey began the day going over a long list of jury instructions with District Court Judge Gregg Rosenbladt. They spent almost two hours deciding on the precise wording of the orders that would define the law, other technical parts of the case and the duties set out for the jurors.

Lindaman, 62, is charged with one count of sexual abuse in the third degree for allegedly sexually touching the genitals of a 17-year-old boy while he and his brother were working for Lindaman on his farm near Charles City. The charge is a Class C felony.

Ginbey began her closing statement by presenting a list of what she called undisputed facts — including that the teen had told Lindaman that Lindaman could not touch the teen’s penis, that Lindaman had touched the teen, that the teen had never verbally consented to the touch, that Lindaman enjoyed the touch and that Lindaman knew the teen would find the touch uncomfortable.

Part of the case for sexual abuse in the third degree hinges on whether Lindaman’s touching of the alleged victim was a sexual act, or if it was done for a legitimate non-sexual purpose, as Lindaman maintains.

Lindaman had testified previously that he saw signs in the teen of a sexual injury, or “psychological pus pocket,” because the boy would “freeze” when Lindaman asked him questions about sex, and because the boy had strongly emphasized “don’t touch my penis” when Lindaman was applying an acne scar oil to the boy’s legs while they were together in a van.

“There’s no legitimate or non-sexual purpose for the touch that took place,” Ginbey said. “The defendant’s not a therapist, he’s not a medical provider, he’s not a caregiver.”

She argued that if the touch had been legitimate therapy then Lindaman would have told the teen’s parents about it, he wouldn’t have done it in secret and told the alleged victim to keep it “between us and the fencepost.”

Ginbey also argued that the touch was “clearly” against the teen’s will. She described how Lindaman had over the period of several weeks gone from rubbing an oil on the teen’s back to help with acne scars, to rubbing it on his chest, to rubbing it on his thighs.

She also reminded the jury that Lindaman had purchased a washer for the family, and had loaned the brothers money to buy dirt bikes.

She related these actions to the type of “grooming” behavior that an expert witness, a forensic interviewer, had testified a sexual predator uses to get close to an intended victim and his family and to gradually break down barriers.

Ginbey also asked jurors to use their “common sense,” that any 17-year-old boy would be unsure and uncommunicative if an older man asked him sexual questions.

And she said the the alleged victim’s statements have stayed consistent from when the incident was first reported, through an interview with law enforcement, through legal depositions and finally in his testimony at the trial.

Contrast that, she said, with the statements by Lindaman, who at first denied any touch took place and only admitted it and started to come up with reasons to justify it after he had been told that there might be a recording of the event.

After Ginbey concluded her closing argument, Lindaman began his, starting by saying, “It’s apparent that I was in a different trial than the county attorney, because I see a lot of different facts before you.”

Lindaman emphasized again and again that his touch of the alleged victim was not a sex act, but something done to help the teen break through a psychological barrier.

“To be sexual it has to be more than just any contact,” he said.

“I have indicated that at the time I touched the penis it was because of an intervention, number one, and it was a successful intervention,” he said.

He said that even if the jury thought it was a sexual touch, no crime was committed if the teen agreed to the touch that took place in an apartment in an outbuilding on Lindaman’s farm.

“Keep in mind that when he went up in that apartment, how did he go up there?” Lindaman asked the jury. “He went up there voluntarily. He walked up the steps on his own. We talked up in that apartment for a few minutes as to why we were there. He voluntarily lowered his pants. He voluntarily lowered his underwear. He voluntarily was sitting on the bed.”

Lindaman said that at first the teen said no when Lindaman asked him if he was ready for Lindaman to touch him, but that after a moment he nodded his head.

The alleged victim has testified during this trial that he did not give consent and had not nodded.

Lindaman also said here was no “grooming” of the boy to prepare him for a sexual assault.

Lindaman said he gave the family a washer because the boys were getting dirty working on his cattle farm, and the family’s washer wasn’t working right. The gift was a business decision to keep two valuable employees.

He said he loaned the brothers money to buy dirt bikes because they needed transportation and he was tired of having to pick them up and take them home each time they worked for him.

The oil, Lindaman said, started out simply to see if it would help the teen with acne scars, but once Lindaman deduced that the boy had the “PPP” — the “psychological pus pocket,” applying the oil helped the teen get more comfortable so that Lindaman could help him.

Lindaman’s closing statement took a total of about 1½ hours.

In Ginbey’s rebuttal, she emphasized many of the points she had made in her closing, and said Lindaman likes to “take things out of context” and either adds things or leaves out things to benefit him.

She started talking about Lindaman’s qualifications to provide any type of therapy and said that the victim could not provide consent to a therapy that didn’t exist, when Lindaman objected and after a short sidebar with the judge the jury was sent out of the courtroom.

Lindaman said Ginbey was trying to introduce elements that were not in the jury instructions, and referring to violations that he had not been charged with.

Lindaman moved for a mistrial, saying the jury couldn’t un-hear the things Ginbey had said.

“The way it’s being presented is misleading and prejudicial,” he said, regarding that part of Ginbey’s argument.

Judge Rosenbladt said things had not progressed to the point of a mistrial, but he was concerned that Ginbey was getting into an area that was not part of the jury’s instructions, and he cautioned her about introducing elements that could cause problems in an appeal.

When the jury came back, Rosenbladt reminded the members that the jury instructions contain the applicable law and the requirements to convict, and that there are no references in the instructions that talk about doctor/counselor/therapist/patient relationships.

This is the third time Lindaman is being tried on this charge. He was originally convicted in 2016, but that conviction was overturned by the state Supreme Court. His second trial, in February, ended in a mistrial when prosecution witnesses mentioned information that was not supposed to come up in front of the jury.

This trial is being held in Cerro Gordo County District Court in Mason City on a change of venue from Floyd County.

Ginbey ended her rebuttal Tuesday afternoon by saying that the alleged victim had no incentive to lie, and she pointed out how Lindaman’s answers had changed over time. She asked the jury to find him guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree.

Before the jury began deliberations, two jurors who had sat through the almost seven days of trial so far were identified as alternate jurors who were available in case they were needed to replace another juror. Rosenbladt thanked them for their time and said he was going to order that they would not have to report for further jury duty this cycle.

There were originally 11 women and three men listening to the case. One man and one woman were dismissed, leaving a jury of 10 women and two men to decide Lindaman’s fate.

The jury got the case about 3:30 p.m. and deliberated until about 5:45 before stopping for the evening. They will resume their deliberations Wednesday morning.