Oral Argument- The Right to Know of All Charges
CEDAR FALLS, IOWA–Citizens of Cedar Falls and the surrounding area were given the opportunity to observe an oral argument of the Iowa Supreme Court. This particular argument looked at the State of Iowa vs. Jason Gene Weitzel after Weitzel appealed the decision of court in his previous domestic abuse case for not properly informing him of charges he was taking on after pleading guilty. Weitzel is represented by attorney, David Kuehner, and the attorney for the State of Iowa is Thomas Bakke. All Iowa Supreme Court Justices were present for the argument.
After a local female attorney addressed the audience and reminded us of the prohibited use of cell phones, the justices were brought on stage by the bailiff. Chief Justice Cady welcomed the audience and proceeded to ask Bakke to take his position at the podium. Again, Bakke represents the State of Iowa in this case, so he is defending the court in which the failure to give all the information of the charges should not be proven guilty or remanded back to the district court. Justice Wiggins was the first to interrupt Bakke’s argument. “You want substantial compliance without telling them [defendants] anything,” Wiggins stated. Bakke defends his argument by telling the judges that substantial compliance should not dictate whether or not a defendant pleas guilty (or innocent). The justices try to understand where substantial compliance would be significant, and Bakke replies, “I don’t want to categorize the amount of money insignificant.” This raises the problem of whether or not each case with substantial compliance needs to be looked at individually or if one law can apply to all cases. Based on Bakke’s argument, Cady stated, “We would have to apply this to every case.”
Bakke leaves the podium, and David Kuehner addresses the justices. At the beginning of his argument, Kuehner states, “It is not about the numbers but the fairness of the trial…Not whether or not it followed the plea charge, but the rules of the court.” His main argument being the fairness of the courts that failed to provide his client with all the charges. The justices argued if a 35% percent surcharge was a big deal compared to other consequences (jail time) and that the defendant usually doesn’t know of restitution charges at the time of a plea, so why would they need to know of a insignificant surcharge. Cady questioned, “What’s wrong with the standard to forget a ten dollar surcharge to go all the way back to trail?” Kuehner answered, “If you have A and B, why would you think C was hanging out there.” He really stressed the idea that his defendant lacked all the information before making his plea.
Bakke then takes the podium again after reviewing what the justices questioned. The justices again went back and forth with Bakke about whether or not missed surcharges needed to be looked at case by case and asks how judges would define a missed charge. Wiggins adds, “sort of like the Supreme Court not defining pornography but knowing what it is when they see it.” Justice Mansfield posed the last question that left Bakke a little confused. “What if a judge miscalculated a charge by 35%, would that be the same thing as forgetting a surcharge?” When Bakke failed to answer the directly, the justices called the arguments to a close.
Cady addressed the audience as part of his closing. “It is critically important for all of to be informed.” With how easily misunderstanding and criticism can be spread now-a-days, it is important for all citizens to understand their rights to the truth. Public oral arguments create that opportunity. He thanked everyone for listening and told the crowd to wait for around three months for a written opinion to be finished regarding the case. The justices then proceeded to the reception where the crowd could ask questions that did not regard this case since it is still under proceedings.
Journalism & Law 