Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STATE OF IOWA,
CASE NO. FECR010822
Plaintiff,
v.
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S
CRISTHIAN BAHENA RIVERA, MOTION FOR MISTRIAL
Defendant.
707.2. Trial in this case began on May 17, 2021, in Davenport, Iowa. The State was represented
by Assistant Attorney General Scott Brown and Poweshiek County Attorney Bart Klaver. The
Defendant appeared personally with attorneys of record, Chad and Jennifer Frese. Interpreters
Steven Rhodes and Ana Pottebaum were sworn-in on May 17 prior to the commencement of
proceedings.
1. On May 20, 2021, the Court was informed that a State’s witness had viewed the live-
streamed coverage of the trial from a room outside the courtroom. The Court disclosed this
information to the attorneys of record outside the presence of the jury. After an opportunity
to confer with his counsel, the Defendant, on the record, moved for a mistrial based upon
2. The Court issued an oral ruling denying the motion. Specifically, the Court found that no
party had sought a sequestration order from the Court and no prejudice had resulted. The
“At a party’s request the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other
2. A sequestration order pursuant to Rule 5.615 is “to lessen the danger of perjury, or at least
that previously given; to put each witness on his own knowledge of the facts to which he
testifies rather than to have his memory refreshed, even guided, and his testimony colored
by what has gone before.” State v. Pierce, 287 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 1980) (quoting In
re Will of Smith, 245 Iowa 38, 42, 60 N.W.2d 866, 869 (1953)).
3. Under Iowa law, “a party is not entitled as a matter of right to exclusion of witnesses from
4. Mistrial “may be granted only when the matter forbidden is so prejudicial that its effect
upon the jury could not be erased by the trial court’s admonition. State v. Huser, 894
N.W.2d 472, 498 (Iowa 2017) (citing State v. Jackson, 587 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Iowa 1998);
IV. ANALYSIS
The starting point in the Court’s analysis, of which the parties agree, is that no formal
sequestration of witness was ever requested order, or issued by the Court. Under Iowa law,
exclusion of witnesses is not a right and only obligated upon court order. Without such an order,
the State witnesses who viewed the livestream did not violate any court mandate.
E-FILED FECR010822 - 2021 JUN 04 04:13 PM POWESHIEK
CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Page 3 of 4
The remaining aspect of the Court’s oral ruling on the Defendant’s Motion was the lack
prejudice shown. When the Defendant argued the Motion, he provided no example of prejudice
occurring from the livestream viewing. A mistrial is a drastic measure taken as a response to
something so highly prejudicial no curative action could be taken by court. The Defendant’s lack
V. ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial is overruled and denied.
E-FILED FECR010822 - 2021 JUN 04 04:13 PM POWESHIEK
CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Page 4 of 4