Justices reject malicious prosecution claim against Iowa City

The Iowa Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court decision rejecting a lawsuit against a police detective who pursued charges against a man later acquitted of sexual assault.

Joshua Venckus sued the city of Iowa City and police Detective Andrew Rich for their role in his criminal prosecution in a rape case. Venckus alleged the case was pursued against him although he had what he described as an airtight alibi.

Ruling that Venckus’ malicious-prosecution claim could not succeed because the sexual assault charge was supported by probable cause throughout the proceedings, the justices affirmed a district court’s decision to grant the city and the detective summary judgment in their favor.

The rape occurred Feb. 16, 2013, at an Iowa City house rented by Venckus and others. A woman who attended a party there fell asleep on a couch in the main living room, only to be awakened by someone pinning her down and cutting off her breathing. She was eventually able to run out of the house, screaming for help.

Rich, the lead investigator on the case, went to the house where the occupants said Venckus was in Chicago that weekend. Police found evidence that someone had entered the house through a basement apartment window. Nearby, they found the wallet of a man named Ryan Markley.

Initially, police focused their investigation on Markley. But DNA testing of the samples taken from the victim and her clothing eventually revealed two different male DNA profiles: that of Markley and Venckus.

Venckus told police he had been in Chicago that weekend with family, and offered his bank card and cellphone to the detectives to verify his location. Bank records showed food and a movie ticket had been purchased in the Chicago area Feb. 15, 2013, the day before the attack. Venckus was charged with second-degree sexual abuse, though his claim of being in Chicago was supported by his roommates and family, as well as a Chicago-area lawyer who swore under oath that he had met with Venckus in his law office about 2 p.m. the day before the assault.

At trial, a defense expert opined that DNA from Venckus’ blanket — which had been used to cover the victim when she went to sleep in the living room — had been transferred from Markley to the victim during the attack, saying the quantity of Venckus’ DNA on the victim wasn’t consistent with him been the attacker.

The victim’s blood had been found on the inside of Markley’s jeans, her skin cells had been found in the fly of his jeans, and Markley’s skin cells had been found in the victim’s cervix, and Detective Rich testified there was no evidence that more than one person committed the crime. Still, Rich testified the evidence leaned more heavily toward Venckus being the perpetrator.

A plea deal eventually was reached with Markley, who entered a guilty plea to second-degree burglary and an Alford plea to a charge of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse without injury, a misdemeanor offense. Rich was present at the meeting where the plea agreement was discussed and supported it, while the lead prosecutor opposed it and was overruled by her superiors.

Venckus’ case went to trial and a jury returned a verdict of not guilty. After his acquittal, Venckus sued Rich and the city for defamation, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. After the civil case was dismissed, Venckus appealed, and an Iowa Supreme Court ruling allowed part of the case, alleging malicious prosecution, to move forward. But the district court eventually ruled in favor of the city and Rich in approving their request for summary judgment, stating the city and Rich had judicial-process immunity from such claims.

In affirming that decision last week, the justices noted the “ongoing existence of probable cause” in the case against Venckus.

“DNA evidence linked Venckus directly to the crime; indeed, his DNA was found in the victim’s cervix,” the court ruled. “Also, other than an attorney whose visit with Venckus occurred more than twelve hours before the sexual assault, the individuals supporting Venckus’ Chicago-area alibi defense were exclusively friends and family. Venckus could not definitively say how he got to Chicago that weekend. No record of a bus ticket was found, and the friend who purportedly drove Venckus failed a polygraph test. Notably, Venckus replaced his cell phone the day after the attack.”

The court added that “none of this is to question the jury verdict” in the case, but said a malicious-prosecution claim required a lack of probable cause. “Probable cause existed here,” the court stated. “This is not a case where Detective Rich knowingly provided false information to the prosecutors or knowingly withheld material information.”

This article first appeared in the Iowa Capital Dispatch.