Dubuque man gets new trial because public barred from his trial

DES MOINES — A Dubuque man accused of raping a 16-year-old girl will get a new trial because a district court judge didn’t allow the public to attend his 2021 trial due to COVID-19 precautions, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in a split decision.

A jury found Ronald James Brimmer, 25, guilty of second-degree sexual abuse in April 2021. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Brimmer was accused of drinking alcohol with the girl and — along with another man who bought the alcohol — having nonconsensual sex with her in a bathroom while she was severely inebriated.

The other man, Agustin Bon Orduno, 40, pleaded guilty to a felony sexual abuse charge and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2021, court records show.

Brimmer’s trial was initially scheduled for March 31, 2020, but it was delayed — along with most other trials — because of COVID-19, which was first confirmed in Iowa earlier that month.

The Iowa Supreme Court allowed trials to resume in 2021 but required 6 feet of distance between people in the courtroom.

Judge’s concerns

Brimmer made repeated requests that his friends and family — especially his mother — be allowed to attend the trial. But District Judge Thomas Bitter worried about their proximity to jurors who would be seated in the courtroom gallery where members of the public typically sit, court records show.

“One of my goals is to make this trial open to the public, but my very first goal is to make sure we have a fair trial for the state, for the defendant, and that it’s fair in every way to all witnesses as well, including any witness who may testify as a victim,” Bitter said before jury selection began, according to a transcript of the proceedings.

“I don’t want people from the public seated really close to the witness stand up front where the jury box is. I don’t want people from the public on either side sitting right next to or right behind the jurors because I want the jurors to feel like it’s safe and that I don’t want them to overhear anything. I don’t want them to feel intimidated in any way.”

Bitter considered broadcasting the proceedings via some sort of livestream but said he didn’t have the capability to do it. He gave prosecutors the option of setting up the broadcast. Brimmer did not request a livestream, court records show.

The judge also said Brimmer could waive his right to a speedy trial and delay it until COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, but Brimmer declined.

Brimmer sought a new trial after the verdict, arguing the judge had deprived him of his right to a public trial under the Iowa and U.S. constitutions.

His attorney, public defender Nichole Watt of Waterloo, wrote in her motion for a new trial that she had taken part in five other jury trials during the pandemic and that members of the public were allowed to attend.

Justices split, 4-3

In a Thursday ruling, a 4-3 majority of the justices decided Brimmer deserved a new trial.

“The importance of the public-trial right is not merely an academic exercise,” Justice Dana Oxley wrote for the majority opinion. “Its importance is precisely why such errors virtually always require reversal.”

The court’s order said the justices found only three other pandemic-related cases across the country with a trial that was fully closed to the public. Many others were partially closed but had rearranged courtrooms for a limited number of attendees or had virtual viewing options for the public, documents state

“We do not doubt the district court judge’s sincere belief that he was doing the best he could under the circumstances, nor do we intend to disparage his efforts, recognizing we have the luxury of unhurried deliberation,” the order states. “But if we, as a branch, failed to protect Brimmer’s rights, then we, as a branch, must own up to that failure.”

“Allowing such errors to go uncorrected simply because correcting them may be difficult or may subject witnesses to the retrial of an unsavory case erodes the fundamental character of the constitution and places our judgment as to the value of its protections in individual cases ahead of the judgment it consecrates.”

Three other justices — David May, Matthew McDermott and Christopher McDonald — concurred.

Chief Justice Susan Christensen and Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman partially dissented, saying the livestream option was available to Brimmer but he didn’t pursue it.

“I see no reason to put someone who was serially raped by two men as a 16-year-old through another trial simply to make an academic point about the importance of the public trial right,” Mansfield wrote.

All of the justices agreed there was sufficient evidence to convict Brimmer.

Brimmer is at the prison in Anamosa, according to state records. It is not yet known how his case will proceed and whether he will be released pending a new trial. The Dubuque County Attorney’s office, which prosecuted Brimmer, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This story first appeared in the Iowa Capital Dispatch.

The Dubuque Telegraph Herald contributed to this story.