Supervisors split in reimbursing Jefferson Sheriff
FAIRFIELD — The county will reimburse the legal expenses incurred by Jefferson Sheriff Bart Richmond, after the sheriff tangled with the Jefferson County Attorney's Office in court over his placement on a list of officers with questionable credibility.
The list is known as the Brady/Giglio list, named after two U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding information prosecutors must provide to defendants in criminal trials. If an officer is on the list, it means prosecutors would need to disclose information about what led to the placement to defense counsel if the officer is listed as a state's witness.
A district court judge in February found Richmond did not lie and thus his placement on the list was not warranted. After the ruling, Richmond asked the county to reimburse his legal fees to date. County Attorney Chauncey Moulding has filed a notice of appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
The issue first came to the board two weeks ago, but was tabled as supervisors looked into the legality of a potential reimbursement and to see if the county's insurer would cover the cost.
On Monday, Jefferson County Board of Supervisors Chairman Lee Dimmitt said the payment couldn't be covered under the county's insurance policy, but he did believe supervisors could approve the expenditure given Iowa Supreme Court opinions regarding public fund expenditures.
The Iowa Constitution requires expenditures to be for a public purpose, but Iowa's top court has held that purpose should be broadly defined. The longstanding precedent cited in multiple cases that finding an expenditure doesn't meet a public purpose must be so "clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind at first blush."
Dimmitt believed that precedent gave the supervisors room to legally reimburse Richmond's legal fees to date.
"I do believe in reading that, we have some flexibility regarding how we define it as a public purpose — or if we define it as a public purpose," Dimmitt said. "I would also add that if public funds were expended ... to remove the ability of the ... sheriff ... to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the office, therego it would seem we could use public funds to restore the ability of the sheriff to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the office. I don't think they are mutually exclusive of each other in those terms."
Supervisor Joe Ledger reiterated his calls for the "hours and dollars spent on this issue' be presented by the county attorney's office, and said he felt it was important to support Richmond.
"At this time, I'm in support of Richmond — we've got to get behind our county employees," Ledger said. "And this is just a place where if we don't support our county employees how many more is gonna wanna pull out because we don't have support."
The vote to approve the reimbursement was 2-1, with Supervisor Susie Drish opposed.
"There's no statute to authorize payment of these fees under current law," Drish said as she voted no.
Dimmitt acknowledged the county's budgetary challenges, and worried what would happen if legal expenses continued to climb. Supervisors have no authority to stop Moulding's appeal as long as he stays within his office's approved budget.
"Evidently, County Attorney Moulding feels strongly enough about this — whether I agree or disagree — to move forward with it," Dimmitt said. "I can't stop it. I wish that I could, but I can't."
Moulding was not at Monday's meeting.
The supervisors had pondered whether to make it a one-time reimbursement, or to cap the amount they will reimburse. The final motion was simply to approve the request before them now.
"This is a very difficult decision for me to make, anyway, because I can see both sides of the equation,' Dimmitt said. "I'm not willing, personally, to look at an unknown quantity. I can't do that. And the reason I can't do that is because we just talked this morning about not filling a position out at the roads department. ...
"What if it goes to $100,000, where am I supposed to get it? Out of [the sheriff's] budget? Does that cost a deputy his job or her job? Those are not hypotheticals here. If we were to have to find $100,000 somewhere, that is a difficult search to have."
Ledger said the taxpayers he's spoken to in recent weeks have indicated broad support for the reimbursement to Richmond.
"Over the past two weeks, I've been in contact with numerous county taxpayers who believe that we should support Sheriff Richmond," Ledger said. "Several comments were that this appears to be a personal attack on the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department."
The Iowa Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear Moulding's appeal, and their timetable for making that decision is unknown. Moulding has previously challenged the constitutionality of the process Richmond used to challenge his placement on the Brady/Giglio list, which used a new law that took effect July 2024 to establish a judicial review process.
Moulding placed Richmond on the list in June 2024 for what he dubbed an obstruction into a use of force investigation. Judge Jeffrey Farrell said that while Richmond could have been more responsive, he was not dishonest and the conduct did not rise to the level necessary to warrant placement on the Brady/Giglio list.
"There is no evidence in this case that Richmond was dishonest or did not tell the truth," Farrell wrote. "The problem is that he was nonresponsive to Moulding's emails and hesitant to provide information to the Keokuk County Attorney during her investigation.
"The court has no doubt this entire case could have been easily avoided if Richmond had simply provided basic and professional responses to Moulding's emails."
Federal and state cases have generally "required a showing of deceit, deception, or dishonesty," Farrell wrote. Additionally, Farrell noted details about Richmond's conduct would not likely change a jury's decision if disclosed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What CFOs should take away from the Ames v. Ohio decision
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. In a landmark decision on June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck down the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, leveling the playing field for Title VII discrimination claims by now allowing all employees — regardless of their majority or minority status — to face the same evidentiary standard. For CFOs, this ruling signals heightened litigation risks and a need to consult with human resource leaders about hiring practices and potentially politically driven narratives being woven into corporate goals and messaging. In this collaboration, it's not just about a need for robust compliance strategies, but also an opportunity to assess the politicization of leadership and the organization's workforce. As companies face potential increases in lawsuits from majority-group employees who may have fallen victim to race, gender or sexual orientation based-discrimination in the name of a corporate DEI policy, financial leaders may have to reassess budgets for legal reserves, audit the contents of DEI programs in risk mitigation efforts and conduct workforce and pay equity audits to safeguard against costly claims and reputational damage. The case goes as follows: Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary and was later promoted to a program administrator. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was denied in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly after, she was demoted to her original secretarial role with a pay cut, and a gay man was hired as program administrator. In response, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The issue at hand with Ames, who is a heterosexual white woman, was whether Title VII plaintiffs who are members of majority groups (e.g., heterosexuals and white people) must meet a heightened evidentiary standard, specifically the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas legal framework. After multiple appeals to decisions requiring Ames to show a higher level of evidentiary standard, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Ames and has now unanimously agreed to repeal this extra burden of proof from what previously was determined as a 'majority' status. Legal experts now say this opens the door to new risk for CFOs. 'In the Ames case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the legal standard for an employee to bring a discrimination lawsuit against their employer is the same, whether or not the employee is a member of a majority group or in the minority,' said Julie Levinson Werner, partner and vice chair of employment at Lowenstein Sandler. 'Previously, many courts around the country held that majority group plaintiffs, such as white men, had to also show 'background circumstances' that the employer was the unusual employer that discriminated against the majority,' Werner continued. 'Now, based upon the Court's decision, there is no longer the concept of a 'reverse discrimination' case, and any employee can sue their employer if they believe they have been subject to discrimination based upon their race, gender, ethnicity, etc.' Jasmine Ahmed, who has held multiple roles in global financial leadership and now provides fractional CFO services, said that, regardless of guidance, finance teams who are unintentionally diverse, in her experience, have always performed better. However, she says the politicization of the issue around DEI has drawn attention away from addressing challenges and into an attack on merit. Having a merit-based professional approach that comes with hard work and grit, she says, are core fundamentals of working and growing careers in corporate finance. 'If you ask any hiring manager, 'If you had complete autonomy, what would you want?' it doesn't matter if it's in finance or not — the answer is always the same,' Ahmed said. 'I've never met anyone who says, 'I want to hire someone underqualified.' What do we hear instead? 'I want the best person for the job' because when the best person does the job, life is easier.' Ahmed said this is a core component of finding talent in finance, and using merit as an indicator of talent shouldn't be a political issue. 'That basic idea isn't political,' she said, 'it's rooted in qualifications, skills, experience and mindset. Those are the components of merit.' Ahmed said finance leaders can take steps to proactively work against ideas of race or sexuality playing a role in growth at their organizations by making sure merit and skill sets are the groundwork for talent evaluation. 'If you look at my track record, go research who's been on my teams, you'll see a pattern,' Ahmed said. 'Not only were they high-performing, they were also diverse. But that wasn't by design. It came from a culture that promotes merit.' She said she rejected traditional hiring tactics she saw in her career as part of this strategy. 'What was different [with my teams] is I didn't allow nepotism,' she said. 'I made talent development a priority for everyone. It wasn't just about performance, it was about developing people and holding managers accountable for doing the same. When you do that, you naturally build a strong, diverse bench.' When asked if she's ever seen a DEI policy in her experience that wasn't about box checking or politics, Ahmed candidly explained that she has not. 'Unfortunately, no,' she said. 'Around the time of COVID and Black Lives Matter, DEI was the hot topic. What did we do? We started filling roles with either African Americans or white women, and at the time, I thought, hold on, DEI isn't about checking a box or meeting quotas.' She went on to explain how the narrative around DEI in the CFO community is now being tackled as a labor issue, a challenge that has been talked about for years. 'I go to conferences and hear the same thing: 'Talent is our big issue.' And I ask, 'What are you doing about it?' We've been talking about the problem for years, but we don't take action.' For those who are building careers around the industry of DEI policies and their incorporation into the workforce, the court's ruling creates a new challenge. However, for Sheryl Daija, CEO of BRIDGE, a DEI and action-oriented, member-driven 501c6 trade group for the global marketing industry, the ruling is a portrayal of 'civil rights protections as preferential treatment.' 'By eliminating the 'background circumstances' standard, the Court has made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims without addressing the ongoing structural barriers that underrepresented communities continue to face,' said Daija. 'The concurrence by Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Neil] Gorsuch reveals the deeper motive: a sustained campaign to discredit DEI.' Daija went on to connect the language used by the justices in the concurring opinion to a political narrative against DEI policies. 'Their language [that is] citing briefs that call DEI an 'obsession' that causes 'overt discrimination' against majority groups signals hostility toward the very initiatives designed to correct long-standing inequities,' she said. Ahmed said organizations will likely follow one of two paths. 'One will ignore these issues, avoid the politics and take no real action, and they'll be blindsided,' she said. 'Their risk profile will go up, their teams will underperform, their innovation will stall.' She said the second group will take a more strategic approach and be much better off. 'They'll focus on solving the root problem, building strong, inclusive and high-performing talent for the future. If you solve for that, many of the risks and challenges will work themselves out over time.' Though she said this is seldom done in organizations she's familiar with, decisions like this — legal catalysts that come with a potential risk to the organizational growth projections — are sometimes what's needed to kick things into gear in a new direction. 'Culture is the hardest thing to change,' she said. 'I always tell clients, transformation is simple if you get the mindset right. With the right culture, people behave well even when no one's watching. You don't need as many rules, and everything becomes easier, but culture is also the one thing most executives don't invest in seriously.' Recommended Reading How CFOs can navigate DEI, its pullback and any legal repercussions in 2025
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK — As President Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Sisak writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scottie Scheffler deletes Venmo account in latest incident of bettors harassing an athlete
Scottie Scheffler signs autographs during a practice round ahead of the U.S. Open golf tournament at Oakmont Country Club. (Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press) That Scottie Scheffler is the prohibitive favorite to win the U.S. Open this week at historic Oakmont Country Club surprises no one. He's the top-ranked golfer in the world, winning three of his last four starts, including the PGA Championship. That Scheffler deleted his Venmo account because bettors continually clicked the pay/request link on the mobile payment app and rudely demanded that he reimburse them when he didn't win probably shouldn't surprise anyone, either. Advertisement "I think everybody hears from fans whether they have a financial benefit or anything in their outcome," Scheffler told reporters at the U.S. Open on Tuesday. "That's why I had to get rid of my Venmo, because I was either getting paid by people or people requesting me a bunch of money when I didn't win. It wasn't a good feeling." Scheffler chuckled nervously when he said it, but athletes getting harassed by folks who lost money betting on their performances isn't a laughing matter. Read more: Scottie Scheffler triumphs in PGA Championship for his third major title Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 struck down a federal law that had prohibited most states from allowing sports betting, abuse toward athletes from bettors who blame them for their financial losses has soared. Gambling on sports is now legal in 39 states. Advertisement Houston Astros pitcher Lance McCullers Jr. and Boston Red Sox pitcher Liam Hendriks said recently that their families have received death threats on social media. A man who lost money May 10 when McCullers gave up seven runs while recording only one out in a loss to the Cincinnati Reds threatened to "murder" McCullers' two young daughters. Police traced the threats to an intoxicated man overseas who had lost money betting on the game. "I understand people are very passionate and people love the Astros and love sports, but threatening to find my kids and murder them is a little bit tough to deal with," McCullers said in an understatement. "There have been many, many threats over the years aimed at me mostly ... but I think bringing kids into the equation, threatening to find them or next time they see us in public they're going to stab my kids to death. Things like that are tough to hear as a dad." Hendriks posted on his Instagram story that he has received death threats while struggling to regain his form after missing nearly two years because of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Tommy John surgery. Advertisement 'Threats against my life and my wife's life are horrible and cruel,' Hendriks wrote. 'You need help. Comments telling me to commit suicide and how you wish I died from cancer are disgusting and vile. Maybe you should take a step back and re-evaluate your life's purpose before hiding behind a screen attacking players and their families. Read more: Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson reinstated by Major League Baseball, making Hall of Fame election possible Hendriks later explained to reporters why he responded on social media. 'With the rise of sports gambling, it's gotten a lot worse,' he said. 'Unfortunately, that tends to be what it ends up being — whether it be Venmo requests, whether it be people telling you in their comments, 'Hey, you blew my parlay. Go [f—-] yourself,' kind of stuff." Advertisement Some gamblers believe they can impact the outcomes of competition through harassment. FanDuel banned a man in Philadelphia after he bragged on social media about intimidating three-time Olympic gold medalist Gabby Thomas at a Grand Slam Track meet two weeks ago. 'I made Gabby lose by heckling her. And it made my parlay win,' he wrote on a post that included a screenshot of two bets on FanDuel. Thomas responded by posting, "This grown man followed me around the track as I took pictures and signed autographs for fans (mostly children) shouting personal insults — anybody who enables him online is gross." College athletes are also targets, especially during high-volume betting events such as March Madness and the College Football Playoff. Advertisement The NCAA is lobbying for states to ban proposition bets on the performances of individual college athletes, saying it creates a temptation to compromise game integrity. Read more: Q&A: How are college sports changing in the wake of House settlement? College athletes have long been considered more susceptible to taking money from gamblers than pro athletes because they are amateurs. That will soon change because of the passage last week of the House settlement, a revenue-sharing model that will allow universities to directly pay athletes up to $20.5 million per year. Not to say paying college athletes will insulate them from disgruntled gamblers. The NCAA will continue to press for laws that could ban bettors from state-licensed sportsbooks if they are found guilty of harassment. The sheer volume of betting makes policing the harassment and intimidation of athletes an enormous challenge. This year, it was estimated that $3 billion was legally wagered on the men's and women's NCAA basketball tournaments, according to the American Gaming Association (AGA), an increase of about 10% from 2024. Advertisement In an attempt to be proactive about harassment ahead of March Madness, the NCAA posted a public service announcement video titled "Don't Be a Loser." "There's losing and then there's being a loser. Game time comes with enough pressure," the video said. "Way too often, people are betting on sports, losing, and taking it out on the athletes. Only a loser would harass college athletes after losing a bet, but it happens almost every day. "Root for your team, get crazy when the buzzer sounds, but don't harass anyone because you lost a bet. It's time we draw the line and put an end to the abuse." Scheffler drew the line by deleting his Venmo account, which had become just another means for gamblers to communicate with a prominent athlete. His career earnings exceed $150 million, according to Spotrac, but he said a handful of bettors had paid him 'maybe a couple bucks here or there' via Venmo after he won tournaments and presumably lined their pockets as well. Advertisement 'That didn't happen nearly as much as the requests did,' Scheffler added. Get the best, most interesting and strangest stories of the day from the L.A. sports scene and beyond from our newsletter The Sports Report. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
