The long-running and contentious legal battle between Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond and County Attorney Chauncey Moulding is now heading to the state’s highest court.
Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Ed Kelly confirmed to the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors on Monday, October 6th, that the Iowa Supreme Court has elected to retain and hear the case. The case centers on Sheriff Richmond’s effort to be removed from the county’s Brady-Giglio list — a registry maintained by prosecutors of law enforcement officers deemed unreliable as witnesses.
Supervisors Consider Budget Leverage
During Monday’s meeting, Supervisor Lee Dimmitt proposed considering a reduction in the county attorney’s budget as potential “leverage” to encourage a resolution between the two elected officials. The suggestion immediately drew a sharp response from Moulding.
Dimmitt said his motivation was not punitive, but rather a last-resort attempt to end what he described as damaging community division.
“I’m looking for some way, some leverage, something that I can do to end this,” Dimmitt said. “I just don’t think we accomplish anything for the benefit of the residents by having a constant arm-wrestling contest going on.”
He suggested that “one of the things that would go a long way” toward resolution would be if the court proceedings were dropped and the original district court order — which removed Richmond from the Brady-Giglio list — was simply followed.
Dimmitt said he felt Moulding “is holding all the cards” in the dispute. Supervisor Susie Drish disagreed, replying that “both sides are holding cards.”
Moulding Pushes Back, Warns of ‘Quid Pro Quo’
County Attorney Moulding appeared briefly at the meeting, stepping away from prosecuting a child sex abuse case being heard upstairs in the courthouse. He immediately addressed the budget reduction proposal with stark warnings.
“It sounds like what you’re saying is if I don’t take a particular action in a court proceeding, as a consequence of that, you would want to negatively impact the budget of my office,” Moulding said.
“My concern is if you’re thinking about trying to lever my office’s decisions in court through monetary means, I really hope that you have an attorney that gave you the OK for that. Because from where I’m sitting, that sounds like a lot of things — but what it really sounds like is quid pro quo corruption. It could be coercion, it could be bribery of a public official.”
“This is certainly unprecedented. I’ve never been here before,” he said. “If that’s the course that the board wants to go down, I would hope that you talk to a lawyer and make sure that it’s legally sound.”
The exchange grew tense when Dimmitt questioned whether Moulding was pursuing the appeal “on his own time” or using county resources.
“I have to assume you are using your office to pursue this case,” Dimmitt said.
“I do all of my work on my own time and on company time. I do this all the time,” Moulding replied. “I was out of town for the last three days working on stuff like this. I don’t take vacations.”
Moulding stressed that the county attorney’s office was sued by Richmond and is therefore the defendant in the case. “We didn’t really initiate this,” he said. “We are the defendant.”
Supervisors Pivot to Mediation
After Moulding left, the supervisors discussed ways to move forward. Drish expressed frustration that the conflict has overshadowed the board’s responsibility to serve county residents.
The board ultimately voted unanimously to arrange a mediated meeting with Moulding and Richmond, with the supervisors acting as facilitators, if they can find free time within all the schedules.
Veteran Attorney Urges Patience
Assistant County Attorney Ed Kelly, who served as Jefferson County Attorney previously and later as a senior assistant U.S. attorney, urged the board to avoid hasty action and allow the judicial process to unfold.
Kelly explained that the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to retain the case — rather than sending it to the Court of Appeals — signals the significance and complexity of the legal questions involved.
“The Iowa Supreme Court decided late last week, ‘We will retain this case ourselves,’” he said. “They are intending to rule on it directly. It hasn’t been scheduled yet, but it’s moving along.”
He added that attorneys have “personal responsibility to the court” and could face liability for failing to follow proper procedures.
“It would bode well for us to have patience, if possible, and let the legal process carry itself out,” Kelly advised. “There are unintended consequences for every act that you take, and it might be wise to postpone for a while and let the dust settle.”
Since the February ruling, the case has drawn intense public attention and deepened rifts between the Sheriff’s Office, the County Attorney’s Office, and the Board of Supervisors. Monday’s contentious discussion reflected the board’s growing desire to find a resolution and restore cooperation among county leaders — even as the legal battle moves to the state’s highest court.
As of October 7th, the Iowa Supreme Court has not yet set a hearing date, though Kelly indicated the case is moving forward on the court’s docket.
