Lindaman trial delayed until April
Former local candidate argues alleged crime was not sexual
By Chris Baldus
The table for the defense in Floyd County’s main courtroom is wide enough for two chairs. Doug Lindaman, who is defending himself against a third-degree sexual abuse charge, used most of the table Tuesday to spread out printouts of court documents, most of which were filed by him.
Tuesday was originally scheduled to be the start of his trial, but instead it was a hearing before Judge Colleen Weiland primarily on Lindaman’s motions. Another will be held before Lindaman’s new trial date of Tuesday, April 5. A pretrial conference is scheduled for Monday, March 21.
Floyd County Attorney Rachel Ginbey has filed a motion in limine to attempt to rein in topics Lindaman has presented that she says are not applicable to the charge. If her motion stands, much of what Lindaman has presented in filings would be out of bounds during the trial.
In his filings, Lindaman does not deny the accusation that he touched a 17-year-old boy’s penis, but he argues that the touch was not sexual so the charge does not apply.
“It is uncontested that the defendant’s finger did touch a penis on one occasion, but for a lawful purpose of refreshing or permitting the individual to discuss a repressed or blocked thought from a psychological disorder,” he wrote in a Feb. 17 filing.
On Monday, Lindaman filed a 14-page declaration of his expertise concerning closeted sexual disorders and his “closeted sexual identity.” He said ‘it can serve as a model to understand closeted behavior and confused sexual thinking.”
Lindaman also has challenges regarding the timing of the charges and the accuracy of the trial information that presents the accusation behind the charge and the state law violated.
The trial date was pushed back because “Insufficient time is set for hearing on the pretrial motions that now pend,” Weiland said in her order.
At the hearing Tuesday, Lindaman, who was a candidate for the Charles City School Board when the charge was filed, argued that the act he is accused of was not sexual, his sexual orientation should be a non-issue, and the county attorney should not have been allowed to amend the trial information for the case.
Lindaman also resisted prosecution’s introduction of an expert witness saying that it was done after he interviewed other witnesses for deposition and “it creates a whole new case on the eve of trial.” He would have conducted his depositions differently had he known about the expert witness, he said.
“It was surprise and she intended it that way,” Lindaman said at the hearing.
One of the reasons he listed to have the trial date pushed back was that he “filed a notice for new depositions due to the state raising and injecting a new psycho-sexual defense for state witnesses.”
Ginbey said that the rules allow a witness to be added up to 10 days before trial and the expert witness was introduced long before the deadline.
Among the topics Ginbey’s motion in limine asks the court to disallow testimony on why and when the charge was filed, allegations that Lindaman is being targeted by the state because of his sexual orientation, and the alleged sexuality, sexual disorder or genital disorder of any state’s witness.
She also asked the court to disallow evidence about the mental health, education, criminal background, and alcohol or drug use by a state’s witness or evidence regarding any of the state’s witnesses reputation.
Social Share