Iowa Judicial Branch

The session concerned arguments for three scheduled cases: In re 2018 Grand Jury of Dallas County, State of Iowa versus Tony Doolin, and State of Iowa versus Jeffrey Maier (submitted without oral argument). A key focus of the arguments involved a motion concerning the scope of discovery rules, specifically regarding expert witness testimony, work product privilege, and statements made during plea negotiations in a grand jury context. One central issue was whether disclosing statements during plea discussions, particularly concerning expert opinions that contradicted initial injury assumptions, constitutes a waiver of privilege that allows the state to subpoena defense-retained experts. Arguments addressed the applicability of civil discovery rules to criminal grand jury proceedings, the definition of exculpatory evidence known personally to the prosecutor, and whether the state's actions complied with good faith principles when seeking to introduce evidence derived from preliminary discussions.

This document, an Amended Memorandum of Operation, details the structure and procedures for the Iowa Business Specialty Court, an ongoing component of the Iowa court system adopted in 2016. Its primary purpose is to expedite complex commercial litigation, enhance judicial expertise, reduce costs for litigants, and improve the environment for business dispute resolution in Iowa. Key areas include the scope of its statewide docket, the selection process for presiding judges, eligibility criteria for cases (such as those involving compensatory damages of $200,000 or more or specific business dispute types), procedures for transferring cases to or from the business court, and the application of existing Iowa Court Rules with provisions for streamlined pretrial procedures. The document also mandates a biannual review of the court's effectiveness, with findings to be reported starting January 1, 2023.

The session addressed oral arguments for three submitted cases: State of Iowa versus Bradley Wickes, Westco Agronomy Company versus William Wolenson and others (including a cross-claim by Iowa Plains Farm versus West Central Cooperative), and Alexander Scharnsky versus Tatiana Scharnsky versus Vadim Shapiro and others. The final case was submitted without oral argument. The primary discussion focused on the State v. Wickes case, concerning whether the conduct—specifically hugs between an employee and a student—constituted sexual conduct under Iowa Code section 709.0.15 sub 3 sub a and b, which requires sexual conduct to be for the purpose of arousing or satisfying sexual desires. Counsel debated whether the hugs, even in the context of sexually charged text messages, met the definition of sexual conduct without a physical sexual act or overt sexual component during the hug itself.

The proceedings involved an opening address by David Ranscht discussing his commitment to government service and his dedication to proving that the best minds can serve in government, contrasting a quote he keeps. Commissioners questioned the applicant extensively regarding his qualifications for an appellate position, focusing on his extensive appellate experience, his work with Justice Hecht, and the importance of temperament, clear writing style, and having a sense of humor in judicial opinions. Discussions also covered the value of appellate experience, learning from losses, and the importance of clear communication when explaining adverse rulings to agencies and individuals. The applicant's experience in administrative law, comprising 70% of his litigation work, was highlighted as crucial for handling disputes involving agency authority and administrative processes like those seen during the pandemic or regarding pipeline issues. The applicant also discussed the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and the characteristics of ideal Court of Appeals judges, emphasizing temperament, clear writing, and perspective gained from experience, including his relative youth in contrast to other applicants. Finally, the applicant explained his selection of writing samples, which demonstrated both an academic, niche writing style and detailed, step-by-step constitutional analysis in briefs.

The document records the opening of a session for the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa and outlines the day's case schedule, noting one case was submitted without oral argument while the subsequent three cases would involve oral arguments with a break scheduled between the second and third. The court engaged in an introductory segment welcoming middle school students observing the public event, where justices shared details about their middle schools. The main legal discussion revolved around the case State v. Middlekauff, specifically focusing on the interpretation of Iowa statutes regarding marijuana, cannabidiol, and whether an out-of-state medical marijuana card constitutes a valid prescription under Iowa law, particularly concerning reciprocity provisions and definitions of 'order of a practitioner' versus 'prescription.' Arguments addressed potential conflicts between the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act (enacted in 2017) and older statutes from 1987 concerning prescription requirements for controlled substances.