Judge will decide on venue in Lindaman tampering trial

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com 

A Floyd County District Court judge said Tuesday afternoon that he will issue a written ruling regarding a motion for a change of venue and a dismissal on a charge of witness tampering against Douglas Lindaman.

Judge Peter Newell ruled on a couple of other motions filed by Lindaman during the hearing Tuesday, regarding an upcoming trial on the tampering charge. Tampering with a witness is an aggravated misdemeanor.

Newell denied Lindaman’s request to submit a written questionnaire containing 52 “psycho-sexual” questions to potential jurors for the trial before the jury is selected.

The questions would ask the potential jurors’ opinions and experiences with sexual injury and sexual abuse, same-sex marriage, sexual orientation, gays and transgender persons, various sexual activities, non-sexual contact with a person’s genitals and other related topics.

Newell also ruled against a motion to advise the jurors that they could ask questions during the trial.

Lindaman was charged by Floyd County Attorney Rachel Ginbey in March with tampering with a witness, after a mistrial for Lindaman in February on a charge of sexual abuse in the third degree.

Lindaman had been charged with touching the genitals of a 17-year-old boy who was working on Lindaman’s farm. Lindaman admitted to the touch in his trials on the charge, but maintained it was non-sexual and legitimate because it was done therapeutically to help the teen get through a “blocked physiological disorder.”

After the touch took place, Lindaman presented the family of the alleged victim with an agreement that paid them $3,000 in turn for stipulating in part that nothing sexual or criminal had taken place, and that the $3,000 represented the net damages between them.

The alleged victim in the family and his brother testified at Lindaman’s sexual abuse trial that they did not understand the legal terms in the agreement, and the parents testified that when they signed the agreement they had not known that their son alleged Lindaman touched his genitals.

Lindaman filed a small claims suit against the family, arguing that they did not follow the terms of the agreement they had signed.

Ginbey filed the tampering charge against Lindaman, saying that Lindaman offered to dismiss the suit if the family acknowledges the validity of the agreement, thereby tampering with witnesses in a judicial proceeding “by offering a bribe or making threats, with the intent to improperly influence them, or to prevent such person from testifying in such case, or who, in retaliation for anything lawfully done by any witness, in any case harasses such witness.”

The jury in the sexual abuse retrial of Lindaman returned a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge, assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, an aggravated misdemeanor.

Lindaman is scheduled to be sentenced on that charge on Friday. The possible sentence is up to one year in jail or up to two years in prison, but Lindaman has already served almost 14 months in prison on his first conviction of sexual abuse in the third degree, which was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court.

During the tampering hearing Tuesday, Lindaman, who has identified himself as gay, argued that he needed to use the written questionnaire on the potential jurors as a way to identify potential biases, but Judge Newell ruled against allowing a questionnaire to be distributed to potential jurors in advance.

Lindaman also argued that the trial should not be held in Floyd County because of pervasive and prejudicial publicity about the various court proceedings he has been part of in the last two years.

Ginbey argued that the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that extensive publicity on a case is not necessarily prejudicial if it is factual in nature and does not indicate an opinion on the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Newell said he would issue a ruling on the motion for change of venue.

Lindaman also argued that the charge should be dismissed, because the language of his small claims suit was typical of such filings, and the offer to drop the suit was typical of normal settlement language used to expedite such a matter.

“This case is another example of litigating while gay in Floyd County as a criminal event,” Lindaman states in his motion. “If anyone else had filed such a petition, they would not have been subject to criminal prosecution.”

Newell said he will also issue a ruling on that motion as well.

The trial on the tampering charge is scheduled for July 19, but could be postponed.

Newell said such trials are typically scheduled for one day, and he asked Ginbey and Lindaman if they think they will be able to get through the case in a day.

Ginbey said it is likely she would be able to, but Lindaman said his own testimony in the case could take up to a day.

“If I have to show why I filed this small claim I’ve got to go into a number of sexual matters, I have to explain what went on,” he said.