Johnson County looking for way to revive assault case

IOWA CITY - Nearly two years after Ronald J. Williams was accused of forcing himself on a woman inside a portable toilet near Kinnick Stadium, he was headed to trial starting Monday.

But with it just days away, a judge determined the case had lingered too long. She ruled Williams' right to a speedy trial within a year of his arraignment had been violated, and tossed out the charges.

The alleged victim would not get a chance to tell her story to jurors.

'So what happened was the judge said, ‘Mr. Williams, this is a personal decision for you. You tell me whether you are willing to waive the one year or not.' He of course said no, and the judge had to make the decision whether there was good cause for going beyond the one-year and the judge made the decision there was not,” defense attorney Davis Foster said this week.

The dismissal left some in the legal community scratching their heads and wondering how this happened, who is at fault and what - if anything - happens next with the case.

The answers may not be all that simple.

The speedy trial right exists, partly, to help protect defendants from excessive deprivations of liberty and to reduce the possibility that memories and evidence fade over time, bettering the chances for a fair trial.

Iowa Code allows a defendant three waivers of the right - 45 days from arrest, 90 days from indictment and one year from arraignment.

Robert Rigg, professor at Drake University Law School and director of criminal defense program in the Drake Legal Clinic, said most criminal cases in Iowa are settled or reach trial within a year, so the one-year rule can easily be overlooked.

'The one-year stuff is extremely rare, but that rule is out there and it has of course an affect, and if somebody catches it, you have to litigate it,” Rigg said.

Williams, 53, faced charges of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, an aggravated misdemeanor, and a serious misdemeanor for indecent exposure, for the Sept. 7, 2013, incident. He declined comment when reached this week.

During a pretrial hearing a week ago, Sixth District Judge Marsha Bergan ruled that his right to a speedy trial had been violated because a written waiver had not been filed within a year of the Jan. 21, 2014 arraignment.

In the days after, Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness said Foster made verbal indications that the right was being waived, and so the dismissal was a surprise.

Lyness said that although she was not at the hearings - Assistant County Attorney Anne Lahey was managing the case - she understood the defense had waived the right during a pretrial conference, albeit probably not on the official court record.

In an email Friday, Foster said he couldn't comment on if a verbal waiver was made.

'Based on what I have read in the media, the Johnson County Attorney is treating this as an open case. Therefore, I believe that it would be inappropriate to comment further,” he wrote. 'I will state that I would not ever intentionally mislead the prosecutor or any other attorney.”

Guy Cook, a Des Moines trial lawyer and past president of the Iowa State Bar Association, said he agreed with Judge Bergan's ruling.

'The responsibility for having a case go past the speedy trial was a fault of both the lawyers in this case, the fact that it was never waived means the judge did the right thing,” he said.

That said, Cook added that while both Foster and Lahey had responsibilities to their clients, Lahey as prosecutor had the added responsibility of ensuring the process was carried out properly.

'It's a harsh penalty, but it's a penalty that protects the rights of all of us,” he said.

Lyness said she's researching how to go about resurrecting a case against Williams, but her hope is that her office will be able to ask for a reconsideration on the basis that a verbal waiver is adequate.

If the judge does not reconsider, the dismissal could be appealed or, possibly, a different case could be brought.

'The prosecutor could look to file different charges,” Cook said. ' ... If they file these same charges, the judge could look at them as vindictive prosecution.”

Trish Mehaffey from The Gazette contributed to this report.