VanWeelden Granted New Trial

Willie VanWeelden took the stand in his own defense. (File Photo)

Oskaloosa, Iowa – Mahaska County Supervisor Henry ‘Willie’ VanWeelden will have a new day in court based upon documents by Judge Paul Miller in the case.

Back in April, Judge Paul Miller heard the arguments from both the Defense and the State for and against VanWeelden having a new trial. State Assistant Attorney General Becky Goettsch stated in her rebuttal about the standard set for retrial. “It’s a high standard, and the reason for that is because in our system of justice, we trust the jury’s verdict. We don’t go and second guess them, we don’t get do-overs, we don’t say well I wish I could have done this different.”

Defense Attorney Matt Moore stated, “The last part of the test, is whether or not the new material evidence would have had a change in the result of the trial. In this 9 minute segment [discovered DVD], I represent to the court, I find it completely exculpatory.

In his ruling Judge Miller wrote in outline what the Defense was alleging. “In these Motions, Defendant contends that: (1) the State of Iowa violated the rule excluding witnesses from trial proceedings and, in fact, there was actual witness collusion among State witnesses; (2) newly discovered evidence exists which is material and would likely change the outcome at trial; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct caused prejudice to Defendant and prevented a fair trial. Finally, Defendant alleges that based upon the totality of the circumstances, he was deprived of due process and denied a fair trial.”

Judge Miller then wrote, “I was the trial judge for this week-long trial. I closely observed the witnesses’ testimony and demeanor. State witnesses Rouw and Gordy were constantly evasive and, at times, refused to directly answer simple questions.”

“I do not consider the Defendant’s new evidence claim to be a desperation argument by a disappointed litigant.”

“The fighting issue in this case was whether the board of supervisors agreed to add Bonnie VanWeelden as a dependent to Defendant’s health insurance coverage with the county plan. In this regard, a new employee is allowed to add dependents to their health insurance plan within 30 days of beginning employment without meeting underwriting requirements.”

“Defendant contended that Supervisor Rouw agreed with him that re-elected meant newly elected (new employee) for the purposes of adding dependents to the health insurance plan. Much of the trial testimony centered on the plan documents and interpretation.”

Judge Miller then goes on to say, “I have considered the cases cited by both parties on the due diligence issue. The State contends that Defendant could have discovered this DVD with due diligence. I agree with Defendant that his attempt to locate the DVD and the subsequent circumstances establishing that the DVD was mislabeled satisfies the due diligence requirement.”

Going on, Judge Miller writes, “Supervisor Rouw’s statement at the April 6, 2009, board of supervisors’ meeting that re-elected official would be the same as newly elected official for the purposes of adding dependents to the health care policy directly contradicts the many statements he made at trial to the jury to the opposite effect…. Rouw’s trial testimony was not a one-time, casual comment on this issue but was the focus of his testimony.

“While Gordy’s statements recorded on the DVD may be considered impeaching, those statements and the other information contained on the DVD are clearly material, in that the DVD corroborates Defendant’s defense to these charges.

Judge Miller says that, “The Defendant has satisfied the fourth element of his newly discovered evidence claim. I find that Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial should be granted.”

“The jury’s Verdicts of Guilty in Counts I, II and III are vacated and set aside, and this case will be reset for trial. A telephone pretrial conference will be held on June 1, 2012, at 3:00 p.m.