The Dubuque County Attorney’s Office consists of nine assistant county attorneys and eleven support staff. The office serves the community by prosecuting criminal violations of the Iowa Code. The office also provides legal assistance to residents and supports the local government. Through the IowaVINE website, victims of crimes can access information and status updates. They can also find information and contact information about prosecutors and court dates. Interested in learning more about the office? Visit the Dubuque County Attorney’s Office today.
Scott Nelson
Dubuque County Attorney Scott Nelson has a background in criminal law, public service, and the military. He will provide guidance and mentorship to younger attorneys in the Dubuque County Attorney’s Office. He will also bring needed changes to office operations. As a fiscal hawk, Scott will get more bang for taxpayers’ buck. Nelson is a man of integrity and principle. He will serve the public with the highest ethical standards.
Mr. Nelson has extensive experience in labor and public employee negotiations and has completed formal training in Interest-Based Negotiation and traditional positional negotiating. His experience in both types of negotiations provides a strong foundation for his work. Additionally, he has managed a regional financial institution. This gives him a unique insight into labor and employee relations. He also has extensive training in SWAT. His background in law enforcement and his legal training are valuable to his clients.
Kirkendall accuses May of politicizing workplace issues
A new Facebook video alleges that May has politicized a workplace issue, accusing her of ignoring an order from May and disparaging a staff member. Kirkendall argues that the staffer did not possess the natural aptitude and that May had a personal relationship with him, which is not consistent with her public persona. But May said there was no political overtone in this case.
Dubuque County’s District Attorney’s Office is embroiled in a public feud, with Assistant District Attorney Richard Kirkendall posting a redacted letter and agreement. Kirkendall says the matter reflects mismanagement of the office since May became county attorney. He alleges that his terms of employment included coerced confessions and a gulag. KCRG-TV9 contacted the Dubuque County Human Resources department but did not get confirmation on Kirkendall’s employment status.
Barnes moved to revoke Erickson’s bond regardless of the person against whom the threat was made
In the Erickson case, the court noted that a judge’s decision is not based on his or her personal feelings. That said, Barnes’ comments were a concern. Erickson had acted to intimidate the county attorney, a person with whom he has a long-standing feud. Barnes was upset that his client was intimidated, and she moved to revoke his bond regardless of who he or she was threatening.
During the hearing, the judge found that Erickson was not guilty of the charges. Barnes did not offer any evidence that Erickson had personal beliefs or ideologies or political beliefs. The court noted that there was no proof that the conversation had caused a conflict of interest between the government and the defendant. Ultimately, the court upheld Erickson’s release on an unsecured appearance bond.
Erickson was not competent to stand trial
The State of Wisconsin argues that the circuit court erred by failing to strike prospective juror L for cause, and Erickson’s appeal fails because the circuit court did not err in denying him a peremptory challenge. A review of the record shows that the circuit court did not err in refusing to strike Juror L for the cause. Thus, the district court erred when it failed to provide Erickson with adequate pre-trial counsel.
The State contends that the trial attorney was not deficient in preparing the case, and notes that six other Wisconsin cases involve the waived peremptory strike error. The court posits that this suggests widespread confusion in the area of this law and the trial counsel failed to provide outside professional competence for the case. In light of the record, the trial court should dismiss the defendant’s appeal. And while Erickson argues that Juror L was not competent to stand trial, the Circuit Court’s holding makes a great deal of sense.