Lindaman asks for change of venue, an assistant attorney

CHARLES CITY – The Charles City man whose third-degree sexual abuse conviction was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court because the district court didn’t adequately warn him about representing himself intends to do it again.

This time, however, he wants a court-appointed attorney to assist him at his retrial.

“The defendant asks for  the assistance of counsel in a second chair position until such time as the attorney has shown a mastery of the facts and law implicit in this matter,” Lindaman wrote in his motion.

Former two-time candidate for local elected office and convicted felon Doug Lindaman, 61, filed a motion that included 11 issues on Friday, June 16. In it, he also requested a change of venue and sequestration of the jury.

Floyd County Attorney Rachel Ginbey answered in a motion filed Monday, June 19. She resisted  “all issues raised with the exception of change of venue and appointment of counsel.”

Lindaman’s retrial is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Aug. 1. That could change.

Lindaman is accused of sexually abusing a teenager that he hired as a farmhand. He claims that he was conducting therapy on the boy to release repressed homosexual urges. The boy has no such urges, he and his family have testified.

A Floyd County jury agreed with prosecution that Lindaman sexually abused the boy and convicted him on April 12, 2016, of third-degree sexual abuse. Lindaman was serving a 10-year prison sentence when the Supreme Court ruled he deserved a new trial.

He was returned to Floyd County on June 6 and posted the required 10 percent of his $10,000 bond to be released from jail.

The issues raised in his June 16 motion indicate that he will present the same kind of defense he did in his first trial. Although he admits touching the boy, he said it was non-sexual  so it didn’t violate the law. To that end, he’s pushing for a jury instruction reflecting that “contact of a non-sexual nature does not qualify as a ‘sex act.’”

He also claims there is missing evidence that would benefit his case in the form of recorded statements from him. He claims the recordings were altered while in the state’s possession.

Near the end of presenting his case in 2016, Lindaman asked that the jurors be informed they can ask him questions directly. His motion was denied, and now he is revisiting that issue, requesting the new jury “be informed of its inherent power to question witnesses so that the defendant has an impartial jury…”

Lindaman is also asking that an expert witness from the first trial not be allowed in the second, that the state produce the devices used to record and store his statements from June 28-29 and July 30, 2011, and that he be allowed to depose people involved with the devices.

He’s asked for medical records of the alleged victim and wants to argue in court that Ginbey was vindictive and overreached in bringing the charge.