Court overturns $12 million for ex-ICCSD counselor wrongfully convicted of child sex abuse

[cigaretteman]

Court overturns $12 million for ex-ICCSD counselor wrongfully convicted of child sex abuse​

Ryan Hansen
Iowa City Press-Citizen





SKIP
Editor's Note: This story makes occasional mention of sexual abuse against children.
The Iowa Supreme Court recently overturned a jury verdict that would have awarded $12 million to a former Iowa City school counselor who argued his attorney, a public defender, was negligent in his defense of sexual abuse charges.
A jury found Donald Clark guilty of sexual abuse against a minor in 2010. At trial, the prosecution argued that Clark took advantage of his position at Lemme Elementary in Iowa City during the 2003-04 school year and, on at least two occasions, sexually abused a student.
Clark was sentenced to 25 years in prison and served six years. He was released in 2016 after his conviction was thrown out by the court when the student admitted during a deposition that "he lied under oath at the criminal trial."

The student's "lies were made about the very subject which was the basis for the charges — the nature and frequency of sexual contacts initiated by Mr. Clark," the judge wrote in his ruling.
In 2017, Clark sued the state claiming that he was wrongfully imprisoned and was seeking payment for "emotional distress.

That case finally went to trial in 2022, where a jury awarded Clark $12 million for past and future emotional damages.

Clark's defense attorney in the sexual abuse case, John Robertson passed away in 2013 "before he could explain his trial strategy or defend his representation of Clark," the Iowa Supreme Court wrote in last week's decision.

Immediately, the state appealed the 2022 ruling of Clark's lawsuit, arguing that "emotional distress damages" can only be recovered in legal malpractice cases can prove "illegitimate conduct. The state claimed the testimony of a former judge created a "per se prejudicial" jury.

The Supreme Court partially agreed, finding that the jury was misled about what standard they ought to hold the evidence provided by Clark's legal team in that trial.

In the court's analysis, Justice Thomas Waterman wrote that for Clark to recover emotional distress damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must "prove more than negligence."

The court also ruled that for Clark to receive payment for emotional distress, he must prove “clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that the criminal defense attorney acted with willful and wanton disregard for the client’s rights or safety.”

https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/local/2024/06/12/iowa-supreme-court-sides-with-state-overturns-12-million-jury-award-for-ex-iccsd-counselor/74046111007/

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Man that guy had his life ruined and apparently is still on the sex offender registry list for some reason even though his conviction was quashed and the prosecution declined to re-try him.

And after all that he can't even collect some money so he could live in some extra comfort.

 

[lucas80]

6 years in prison, and still holding the shame of a sexual predator, and he doesn't get any money. That's BS.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

The student's "lies were made about the very subject which was the basis for the charges — the nature and frequency of sexual contacts initiated by Mr. Clark," the judge wrote in his ruling.

Ummm....does the bolded in the above give anyone else pause in how sorry we should feel for him?

 

[NoleinATL]

The student's "lies were made about the very subject which was the basis for the charges — the nature and frequency of sexual contacts initiated by Mr. Clark," the judge wrote in his ruling.

Ummm....does the bolded in the above give anyone else pause in how sorry we should feel for him?

That was my exact thought, that is not a definitive statement that he didn't touch the student in some way, just not the way stated while on the stand

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The student's "lies were made about the very subject which was the basis for the charges — the nature and frequency of sexual contacts initiated by Mr. Clark," the judge wrote in his ruling.

Ummm....does the bolded in the above give anyone else pause in how sorry we should feel for him?

That was my exact thought, that is not a definitive statement that he didn't touch the student in some way, just not the way stated while on the stand

I think you have to read the full article to understand the context.

If you read the full article you find that in a later civil suit against the teacher for the alleged abuse the student significantly changed his story and admitted under oath that he had previously lied in the criminal depositions and trial and was aware he was lying when he made those statements.

The trial came down to the teacher's word against the student's and the student admitted to lying about certain aspects of it in the criminal trial and being aware that those were lies. Thus his word could no longer be trusted.

There is a reason the prosecution decided not to re-try him. They couldn't convict based on the word of a kid who admitted to lying about major aspects of the case in the last criminal trial.

 

[NoleinATL]

I think you have to read the full article to understand the context.

If you read the full article you find that in a later civil suit against the teacher for the alleged abuse the student significantly changed his story and admitted under oath that he had previously lied in the criminal depositions and trial and was aware he was lying when he made those statements.

The trial came down to the teacher's word against the student's and the student admitted to lying about certain aspects of it in the criminal trial and being aware that those were lies. Thus his word could no longer be trusted.

There is a reason the prosecution decided not to re-try him. They couldn't convict based on the word of a kid who admitted to lying about major aspects of the case in the last criminal trial.

I agree, but that doesn't mean nothing happened, just that the kid lied about an aspect or severity of the crime and the guy was released because of the lie and ineffective counsel.

The DA at least considered charging the guy again

Assistant Johnson County Attorney Anne Lahey said a lot went into the decision not to take the case to court again; she said prosecutors wanted to be respectful of the former Lemme student who reported sexual abuse.

"We usually have a lot of victim input into decisions about cases, especially since obviously they’re the ones that suffered, and he chose not to go through it again," she said.

DeMoines Register

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I think you have to read the full article to understand the context.

If you read the full article you find that in a later civil suit against the teacher for the alleged abuse the student significantly changed his story and admitted under oath that he had previously lied in the criminal depositions and trial and was aware he was lying when he made those statements.

The trial came down to the teacher's word against the student's and the student admitted to lying about certain aspects of it in the criminal trial and being aware that those were lies. Thus his word could no longer be trusted.

There is a reason the prosecution decided not to re-try him. They couldn't convict based on the word of a kid who admitted to lying about major aspects of the case in the last criminal trial.

I get that...but it doesn't mean the guy was totally innocent. It means the "victim" lied about some things and it made his/her testimony unreliable.

What did the kid say in the civil suit?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I get that...but it doesn't mean the guy was totally innocent. It means the "victim" lied about some things and it made his/her testimony unreliable.

What did the kid say in the civil suit?

I'm not sure what the kid said in the civil suit. But if the trial was heavily based on the kid's word and the kid later admitted that he knowingly lied in the criminal trial. . . How could anyone trust his word enough now to keep a guy locked up in prison?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I agree, but that doesn't mean nothing happened, just that the kid lied about an aspect or severity of the crime and the guy was released because of the lie and ineffective counsel.

The DA at least considered charging the guy again

Assistant Johnson County Attorney Anne Lahey said a lot went into the decision not to take the case to court again; she said prosecutors wanted to be respectful of the former Lemme student who reported sexual abuse.

"We usually have a lot of victim input into decisions about cases, especially since obviously they’re the ones that suffered, and he chose not to go through it again," she said.

DeMoines Register

No it doesn't mean he didn't do it but when your primary witness admits to changing his story and knowing he lied in the previous trial. Are you still feeling like he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

And personally I'm guessing the kid doesn't want to get badgered on the witness stand and embarrassed about his previous lies.

Can't prove he didn't do it but the point is that the defense isn't suppose to prove he didn't do it the prosecution is suppose to prove he did. And their alleged victim lied and admitted that he knew they were lies when he made them.

Are you locking him up based on that? Because I'm not.

 

[NoleinATL]

Are you locking him up based on that? Because I'm not.

@binsfeldcyhawk2 original question was , does the bolded in the above give anyone else pause in how sorry we should feel for him?

Knowing the kid may have been molested, but it could not be proven in court, certainly gives me pause in feeling sorry for the guy spending six years in jail and not getting 12 million dollars.

I have no clue what the kid lied about. Still, I believe it is plausible that the teacher messed with the kid and, at the behest of a parent, officer, or prosecutor, embellished the story during the trial to ensure a conviction.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

@binsfeldcyhawk2 original question was , does the bolded in the above give anyone else pause in how sorry we should feel for him?

Knowing the kid may have been molested, but it could not be proven in court, certainly gives me pause in feeling sorry for the guy spending six years in jail and not getting 12 million dollars.

I have no clue what the kid lied about. Still, I believe it is plausible that the teacher messed with the kid and, at the behest of a parent, officer, or prosecutor, embellished the story during the trial to ensure a conviction.

If you couldn't prove him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned he's functionally not guilty and should never have had to serve time in prison.

If the original jury knew that the kid was lying they probably wouldn't have convicted him.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I'm not sure what the kid said in the civil suit. But if the trial was heavily based on the kid's word and the kid later admitted that he knowingly lied in the criminal trial. . . How could anyone trust his word enough now to keep a guy locked up in prison?

True. I don't think he should have remained in jail...my point was I'm not sure how sorry to feel for the guy if he still molested the kid. Just not to the extent the kid testified to.

 

[gohawks50]

True. I don't think he should have remained in jail...my point was I'm not sure how sorry to feel for the guy if he still molested the kid. Just not to the extent the kid testified to.

I read some earlier articles and found this interesting:

McPartland's ruling also said that Clark's attorney at the time, John Robertson, provided ineffective counsel. Robertson, who died in 2013, failed to visit or take pictures of Clark's office in Lemme where the assaults were alleged to have occurred. The images could have allowed his defense to offer a different perspective to the jury than the prosecution's photographs, showing the busy hallway outside Clark's office or how easy it could have been to see through the office window.
I'm thinking if there were any "sexual abuse" it was something innocent that was exaggerated to become sexual. (i.e. a hug, or a pat) My principal's office was similar to the one described in the article. Large windows where anyone walking in the hallway or to the secretary could see what was happening inside.

School counselor freed after sex conviction is tossed

A former Lemme Elementary School counselor who spent over six years in prison on a sexual abuse charge is now free after his conviction was thrown out.

www.press-citizen.com