THE LIES THEY TOLD: PROSECTORS DISHONESTY EXPOSED. COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE IT.
THE LIES THEY TOLD: PROSECTORS DISHONESTY EXPOSED. COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE IT.
The Story of Two Ex-Police Officers Convicted of 2nd Degree Sexual Assault Illustrates the Need for Justice Reform (This letter was sent to Iowa state legislators and media outlets across Iowa and the U.S.) On March 12, 2009, James Christensen and John Sickels were convicted of 2nd degree sexual assault and sentenced to 25 years in prison with a mandatory minimum of 17.5 years. The families and supporters of Christensen and Sickels have been outraged and deeply disturbed by the many different ways the justice system in Iowa has wronged these men- not just failed them: wronged them. Over the past eight years, countless letters have been sent to Iowa Governors, legislators, and newspaper editors. Official complaints have been filed against the DCI investigator and the state's prosecuting attorney, Becky Goettsch. The case against these two men was based on the fact that Sickels lied to the DCI during the first hours of the initial interview. It's clear now that he was not the only one. If lying was the crime, the state's attorneys are guilty as well. During closing arguments at the end of a nine day trial, Judge Arthur Gamble sustained five objections from the defense and sent the jury out twice. Assistant AG Becky Goettsch misstated the law repeatedly, confusing the jury with her message that they must believe the defendants more than they believe the accuser in order to find them not guilty, clearly shifting the burden of proof in her zeal to capitalize on the only real evidence they had: the tapes of those initial interviews with the DCI. The burden shifting message was displayed on a slide in the power point presentation that Goettsch had prepared for her closing argument. The defense objected and the slide was taken down. But Goettsch repeated the statement again. Defense called for a mistrial based on the prosecution's misconduct. Judge Gamble questioned Goettsch about her INTENT and stated when ruling on the motion for mistrial that there was, in fact, prosecutorial misconduct but it was “unintentional” and the state’s attorney “apologized.” In 2011 the Iowa Court of Appeals also recognized that prosecutorial misconduct was present, but stated that the defendants failed to show that this misconduct affected the jury. The Iowa Supreme Court declined the case for further review, at a time when Judge Gamble was applying for a seat on the state's highest court. If prosecutorial misconduct is present and two men with no prior criminal history are sentenced to 25 years in prison- doesn’t it bear further consideration? And if Judge Gamble had been aware in March of 2009 that that there WAS intent on the part of prosecutors, would he have ruled differently and declared a mistrial? It has been almost nine years now since Christensen and Sickels were incarcerated. Their families, certain of their innocence, have hired attorneys to represent them in the Post Conviction Relief process. The PCR is an opportunity to go back to the court and point out flaws in the original trial, including mistakes made by the lawyers and rulings made by the original trial judge. In post conviction, both attorneys have revisited the matter of prosecutorial misconduct. The primary issue surrounding the misconduct of prosecutor Becky Goettsch was INTENT. In preparing for the PCR hearings, the attorneys interviewed Becky Goettsch in deposition and found that there WAS intent. Furthermore, she disclosed that Andrew Prosser (the lead attorney for the state) was aware of the offending slide before it was presented to the jury. (Goettsch had previously denied intent and Prosser denied any advance knowledge of it.) The basis of her case against Sickels was that he lied to the DCI investigator in the first hours of interview. In fact, this was the foundation of the offensive slide which misstated the law and may have (but was ruled not to have) misled the jury. In addition, Prosser has lied about his knowledge of the slide, which was prepared and reviewed in advance. The two state prosecutors have been caught in a lie. This lie was instrumental in obtaining and upholding a conviction that has unfairly incarcerated two men for nine years. These men and their supporters are hopeful that this will be the issue that finally brings justice to their case. Iowa citizens need to know that when prosecutors run rough shod over the law- it is not acceptable. It is not just. Iowa legislators need to make justice reform a priority. This case is important. It’s important that Iowans who are accused of a crime receive a fair trial. It is important that law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and judges are held to the highest standards and made accountable for their actions. It is within the power of the legislative branch of government to provide these checks and balances. With overcrowded prisons and the tax burden they represent, with Iowans serving years in prison based not so much on their actions as the actions of the court- the time for justice reform is now.
The victim/accuser in this case had several reasons to misrepresent the truth before and during the original trial in March of 2009. According to trial transcripts, she admitted to being a black out drinker, and to having domestic disputes with an abusive boyfriend who was also a blackout drinker. Her former manager testified that she was being monitored at the bar where she was working, for both excessive drinking and inappropriate behavior with men. During her testimony, she used some version of the phrase "I don't remember" at least 50 times. Since the trial, she has sued the city of Creston and received a large, undisclosed settlement. Since the beginning of this case, not one other woman has come forward to claim sexual misconduct on the part of the two former police officers who have been incarcerated for almost nine years, based on the testimony of one woman, whom rape shield laws protected enough to keep out testimony that would have exposed a pattern of false accusations. If you think that a woman would never lie and expose herself to the emotional trauma of a public trial, you might want to review your understanding of human nature,
Until recently, it appeared that both men had exhausted their opportunities for appeal. (Watch for an upcoming story that details the rulings of the Iowa Court of Appeals and the refusal of the Iowa Supreme Court to even review the cases presented to them over the last eight years.) Both John and Jamie went through the regular appeal process and then the Post Conviction Relief process. After much time and expense, it appeared they were out of options and the justice system would continue to deny them a fair RE- trial of the case. Recently, however, new information has come to light that exposes even more layers of dishonesty. Based on this evidence, Jamie has been granted a PCR hearing that will take place in May of 2018. God willing, the truth will set him free and pave the way for John to follow.
Send us your story. Our primary mission is to tell the truth about what happened to John Sickels and James Christensen and continue to advocate for their freedom. We also hope to spread awareness of the rampant abuses of justice in the state of Iowa and beyond. Please share your stories. truth@4justicenow.com
Copyright © 2022 4justicenow - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy