Lindaman retrial will remain in Cerro Gordo County

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

The retrial of Douglas Lindaman of Charles City will remain in Cerro Gordo County beginning this week after a district court judge ruled Friday against moving it again.

The trial, on third-degree sexual abuse charges, was originally held in Floyd County District Court in 2016, but the guilty verdict from that trial was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court.

A retrial that started in February was moved to Franklin County District Court in Hampton on a change of venue because of pretrial publicity, but that trial ended in a mistrial.

District Court Judge Gregg Rosenbladt moved the trial that is to start today (Monday) to Cerro Gordo County District Court in Mason City, but Lindaman filed a motion asking that it instead be held in Clarion, in Wright County.

At a hearing held Friday in Mason City, Lindaman argued that Mason City was still too close to Charles City and that publicity was extensive in Mason City as well.

County Attorney Rachel Ginbey, who is prosecuting the case, said that Lindaman had been able to point to only two brief articles about the case since the mistrial from publications that circulate in Mason City, and that coverage had not been inflammatory.

But Lindaman said articles and television coverage have mentioned what he called “the forbidden fruit” — the fact that he pleaded guilty in 1988 to two counts of lascivious acts with a child and served two years in prison.

The judge had previously ruled that Lindaman’s criminal history could not be discussed in front of the jury, and the mention of Lindaman having previously been in prison by witnesses for the prosecution in the last trial is what led to the mistrial ruling.

“The state seems to rely on ‘inflammatory’ to center its argument,” Lindaman said. “We’re looking at forbidden fruit that shouldn’t even be known, and once it’s known it doesn’t have to be inflamed in the paper, it’s just known to the public and it’s going to be very difficult to pick jurors who don’t know about certain information.”

He said it’s always difficult for the defendant or the state to quiz jurors on what they don’t know.

“We would avoid that by going farther west,” Lindaman said.

But Rosenbladt said one of the advantages of holding a trial in Cerro Gordo County is the much larger jury pool that is available, and he ruled the trial will be held in that county.

Two jury pools with a total of 95 potential jurors will be called for jury selection to begin Monday, he said, and he intends to do a lot more individual juror examination.

“Just based on my experience,” Rosenbladt said, “it seems like when you try cases in Cerro Gordo you do get a little wider diversity in the jury pool when it comes to age of jurors and just a variety of occupations and different juror characteristics. … I think and hope that we’ll be able to get a jury selected in Cerro Gordo.”

The judge also heard arguments Friday about Lindaman’s motion that the case should not be able to be retried again because “the malfeasance by the state has been repetitive and it’s been outrageous” and constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy should attach.

Lindaman argued that the parents of the alleged victim in the case purposefully brought up Lindaman’s criminal history during testimony to force a mistrial, because the alleged victim had said during testimony that Lindaman touching the teen’s genitals had been consensual.

He also pointed to several other examples of what he said were prosecution misconduct, and said, “I would ask that we look at the totality of the matter and attach double jeopardy.”

Some of the examples that he cited had previously been ruled on by the judge as not being misconduct.

Ginbey said it was Lindaman who requested the mistrial, and when she and Lindaman had talked to jurors after the mistrial they said they didn’t know what the reference to prison had been about and didn’t place any weight on it, and they wondered why they had not been allowed to continue the trial.

Also, she said, the parents of the alleged victim did not know what their son had said during his testimony when it was their turn to testify.

“There isn’t any type of conduct that was engaged in that was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial,” she said.

The judge said he would consider this question over the weekend and make a ruling Monday morning before jury selection begins, but he also said he had concerns that information came out during the previous trial that should not have.

“I’m taking every effort that I can to be evenhanded to the state and the defendant and not have any errors of law come into the record of the trial that would cause a problem on appeal,” he said.

“When this comes back to trial here that ruling is going to be in effect that the prior record of the defendant or incarceration, this should not come in. And I’m sure, Ms. Ginbey, that you’ve covered that now, that it shouldn’t be a problem coming into the next trial?”

“That is correct, your honor,” Ginbey said.

The hearing Friday also discussed other questions involving jurors being advised of their right to ask questions of the witnesses and what form that would take, whether certain witnesses should be able to testify, and jury instructions regarding “legitimate non-sexual touch.”

Rosenbladt said he would provide the two parties more information on the jury instructions and make other rulings Monday morning before jury selection begins.

Lindaman was charged in 2015 with third-degree sexual abuse for allegedly sexually touching a 17-year-old boy in 2011, after hiring the boy as a farmhand. The charge is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Lindaman argued at his first trial that he touched the boy “therapeutically” to help him get over a “blocked physiological disorder” and that the touch was not sexual and therefore not criminal.