Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Barber Motion For New Trial
Barber Motion For New Trial
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR NEW
DRESEAN BARBER, TRIAL PURSUANT TO IOWA RULES
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 2.24(2)(b)
Defendant. or FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
COMES NOW the Defendant, DreSean Barber, and for his Motion for New Trial
1. The State charged Mr. Barber with Murder in the First Degree, a Class A
Felony, in violation of Iowa Code 702.2(1) (Count I), and Attempted Murder, a Class B
Felony, in violation of Iowa Code 707.11(1) (Count II), based on actions alleged to
2. On October 2, 2017, the jury returned a verdict finding Mr. Barber guilty of
Murder in the Second Degree on Count I and Assault with Intent to Inflict Serious Injury
on Count II.
4. The Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure require the filing of a Motion for
New Trial no later than 45 days after verdict of guilty, nor later than five days prior to the
5. In ruling upon motions for new trial, the district court has broad, but not
between the parties. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(c). When a motion for new trial presents
a question of law, the district court is not vested with discretion. See Ladeburg v. Ray,
1
E-FILED 2017 OCT 12 10:30 AM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
508 N.W.2d 694, 696-97 (Iowa 1993) (decision on motion for new trial presenting issue
of law stands or falls on the correctness of its ruling on the legal question.). A
defendants right to a fair trial that a new trial is required, even if the errors considered
individually are non-reversible. State v. Carey, 165 N.W.2d 27, 36 (Iowa 1969); State v.
6. The Court must grant Mr. Barber a new trial for the following reasons:
c. The Court erred in overruling Mr. Barbers request for a mistrial based
on the States attempt to elicit hearsay testimony from Andrew Hurley
Boyd. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(5).
e. The State failed to provide Mr. Barber with Brady material regarding
the fact Andrew Hurley Boyd had changed his testimony and his story
no longer conformed to the statement he gave law enforcement. This
misconduct prejudiced Mr. Barbers right to a fair trial. Iowa R. Crim. P.
2.24(2)(b)(5), (8).
f. The Court erred in overruling Mr. Barbers request for a mistrial based
on the States failure to provide Mr. Barber with Brady material
regarding the fact Andrew Hurley Boyd had changed his testimony.
Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(5).
2
E-FILED 2017 OCT 12 10:30 AM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
h. The Court erred in overruling Mr. Barbers request for a mistrial based
on the States questioning of Detective Youngblut regarding Mr.
Parrishs and Mr. Dunns comfort during the interview of Mr. Barber.
j. The Court erred by overruling Mr. Barbers request for remedial actions
to counteract the States improper insinuation that the knife may have
been Mr. Barbers. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(5), (8).
k. The erred by overruling Mr. Barbers request for a mistrial based on the
States improper insinuation that the knife may have been Mr. Barbers.
Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(5), (8).
m. The Court erred by overruling Mr. Barbers request for a mistrial based
on the Las Vegas mass shooting that occurred the evening before the
jury was to deliberate. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(5).
n. The Court erred by overruling Mr. Barbers request to voir dire the jury
regarding their knowledge of the Las Vegas mass shooting. Iowa R.
Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(5).
3
E-FILED 2017 OCT 12 10:30 AM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
w. The Court erred in overruling Mr. Barbers request to list not guilty as
the first form of verdict. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(7).
z. The errors detailed above deprived Mr. Barber of a fair and impartial
trial. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(8).
reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. In re Winship,
397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). This protection arises from the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, and then independently from Article I,
Barbers guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to any Count on which he was tried, this
court must order him acquitted on each charge. State v. Schories, 827 N.W.2d 659, 668
(Iowa 2013).
4
E-FILED 2017 OCT 12 10:30 AM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
8. Even if these individual errors did not deprive Mr. Barber of a fair trial, the
cumulative and synergistic nature of the errors did so in combination. Iowa Const., Art. I,
9; U.S. Const. Amend. V; U.S. Const. Amend. XIV. See also State v. Carey, 165
N.W.2d 27, 36 (Iowa 1969) (We find some merit in each of defendant's assigned errors.
Perhaps none alone is sufficient to require a new trial but upon a careful consideration
of the whole record, we are convinced the cumulative effect has been to deprive
defendant of a fair trial.); United States v. Chase, 451 F.3d 474, 480 (8th Cir. 2006)
trial).
WHEREFORE, Mr. Barber prays the Court grant his Motion for New Trial or For
evidence of guilt was submitted, and to set any remaining count for a new trial, and
grant him any other relief that is just and equitable under the circumstances.
5
E-FILED 2017 OCT 12 10:30 AM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to the above cause by:
() personal service () first class mail
() certified mail, return receipt requested () facsimile
() Airborne Express (overnight) (X) electronic filing
() e-mail
on October 12, 2017.
I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.
Copies to:
Nan Horvat
Polk County Attorneys Office
222 5th Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
515-286-3737
515-286-3428 Fax
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Justin Allen
Polk County Attorneys Office
222 5th Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
515-286-3737
515-286-3428 Fax
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF