Prosecutor points out possible abuse of public funds 

A man accused of torching his apartment hired a private attorney but then asked the court this week for public funds to hire an arson expert to aid in his defense, which a judge granted.

While it's not a common practice, lawyers and judges say, it does happen and Iowa law allows it if the court determines the defendant cannot afford to pay for a needed expert or some other cost to ensure an adequate defense.

David Grinde, a Linn County assistant public defender, said the issue comes up every once in a while in this district but it's usually when a defendant runs out of money and then asks for a court appointed lawyer.

'I see it more with bigger (more serious) cases,” Mike Lahammer, a Cedar Rapids lawyer, said. 'It's not a common practice. It's usually in those bigger cases when unanticipated expenses comes up. Those (expert fees) can be high.”

Sixth Judicial District Judge Ian Thornhill said the defense must show the person is "indigent" and the judge has discretion.  But a prosecutor contends this could be a broader issue because he sees the potential for abuse in the system.

'I think the defense should have to demonstrate a need for it, in light of the evidence,” First Assistant Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks said Thursday. 'This sets a pattern where private attorneys could raid public funds when they run out of a retainer. Or then they could ask to be court appointed, which then gives the defendant his preference of a court appointed attorney, which isn't how it works.”

Iowa Public Defender Adam Gregg weighed in, saying the legislature has addressed this situation and the Iowa Supreme Court also has ruled on the issue. The court has determined it's a constitutional right of the defendant to have public funds, even if the person hired an attorney, as long as that person is considered 'indigent,” according to case law. Any public money for a defendant would come from Gregg's office budget.

'Often times in these situations, the legal fees are being paid by a third party – usually the defendant's family,” Gregg said.

Which is the situation in this case involving Timothy Sattizahn, 40, who is charged with first-degree arson. His lawyer, Victoria Cole, argued in her motion that Sattizahn is 'barely over” the cutoff for indigency, according to the poverty guideline. She told the court her $5,000 retainer was paid by his parents.

Cole in her motion said Sattizahn faces the 'B” felony with a penalty of up to 25 years in prison if convicted, and hiring a fire expert was necessary to provide him with an adequate defense. She requested $2,500.

Maybanks questioned whether Sattizahn was indeed 'indigent,” because he didn't qualify under the guidelines for a court appointed attorney or public defender and may not qualify for public funding.

Cole said that might not be accurate. It would be up to the judge's discretion on whether he could get a court-appointed attorney.

Maybanks asked the court to verify Sattizahn's financial information and look at the evidence in the case to see if hiring a forensic fire analysis expert is necessary.

He argued that if the prosecution's case 'hinged” on its fire expert, an investigator with the Cedar Rapids Fire Department, then Sattizahn would be entitled to have an expert, according to case law, but that's not the facts. The state's evidence does include experts confirming it's an arson with verifying lab results from two different labs, an accelerant detection canine and also a confession from Sattizahn.

Cole in her motion said an expert witness agreed to lower his hourly rate to $250 in this situation but requested a retainer for $2,500.

Sixth Judicial District Judge Lars Anderson approved the $2,500, saying in the order that without the funds it would 'create a substantial hardship” to the defendant. The expert witness is a reasonable request, he concluded.

Maybanks said the court has 'great discretion” over this issue. He agreed somewhat with Gregg's opinion, saying the 'case law has told our courts that unless the application is totally frivolous, it should be granted.”

Gregg admitted the money claims are audited for legal compliance, and occasionally disputes arise, but the office usually accepts whatever the court decides regarding a person's ability to pay, he said.

Maybanks said he didn't deny Anderson followed the law but added that prosecutors will have to continue to be the 'watchdogs” and make sure questions are being asked when public funds are requested in these cases to avoid any abuse.