While Tara McGovern has maintained that protesters did nothing wrong, the prosecution going into this week looked straightforward. They were part of a group that occupied an intersection in Iowa City last fall, protesting a speaker who opposes gender-affirming care for minors. And the State charged Tara Dutcher (McGovern was charged under their married name) for blocking traffic and interfering with official acts. But in the end, a jury found the State’s evidence insufficient to convict. The jury acquitted McGovern on both counts.
Seven people were charged for that protest. Six of them took plea deals. McGovern was the only one to take the charges to trial. Early on they told IPR News it was about challenging the 2021 laws that increased penalties for protest-related charges, namely serious misdemeanor disorderly conduct for occupying the street.
Thursday evening, one day after the acquittal was announced, McGovern organized a press conference and left some time for questions. Brandon Dix, a longtime supporter of McGovern asked, “Can you speak to the case law implications moving forward from what happened with, Tara, your case specifically.”
MCGOVERN ACQUITTED - Tara Dutcher, who goes by Tara McGovern, has been acquitted of both charges. Here at the dog park, their attorney just called with the news. pic.twitter.com/iZx7BsBPZd
— Zachary Oren Smith (@ZacharyOS) March 13, 2024
“We won this case yesterday. It was the first time the 2021 Back the Blue law was significantly challenged in the State of Iowa to my understanding,” McGovern said. “I think that means something?”
IPR News shopped this question and others around with area attorneys, all of whom explained that this verdict — while important to the community — is limited in its scope.
Does McGovern’s acquittal have implications for the next time a protester is charged?
Alison Guernsey is a clinical law professor at the University of Iowa. Gurnsey directs the UI College of Law’s Federal Criminal Defense Clinic. She explains that acquittal means after listening to evidence from the prosecution and defense, the jury determined the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge.
“While an acquittal is a really big deal for the person who was charged and ultimately acquitted of the crime, an acquittal by a jury doesn’t carry the force of law change that a lot of people think it does,” Guernsey said.
Put simply, acquittal doesn’t mean the charges used disappear or that they aren’t constitutional. In fact, early in the process broader constitutional questions about state law were limited.
Was McGovern’s acquittal an example of jury nullification?
Jury nullification is an old but still controversial concept that a jury can acquit someone of a crime even if they know the defendant is guilty. Juries decide on questions of fact in a trial. So the notion that a jury would acquit after deciding that the facts support the charges challenges the system.
During the trial, a large crowd of supporters filled the courtroom to watch, some of whom appeared in the body cam footage shown during the trial. At the end of the first day, Judge Jason Burns voiced a concern about the crowd's behavior.
“It came to the court's attention that somebody had written something on the bathroom wall or bathroom mirror or something along the lines, attempting to influence one or more members of the jury,” Burns said.
Burns told IPR News that courthouse custodial staff discovered someone had written “jury nullification” on a surface in the bathroom.
Leading up to the trial, Tara McGovern regularly posted on their social media about what jury nullification is and how it works. While they did not explicitly tell people reporting for jury to nullify the charges in the trial, the message was clear.
All that said, Guernsey said it’s unclear whether this can be called an example of jury nullification.
“One of the great things about our system, but also one of the most difficult things about our system is: you don’t actually know what a jury does back in the jury room. We give jurors a great deal of secrecy,” she said. “The power to nullify really rests with this idea that we allow the jury to return a general verdict: in other words, a verdict without an explanation.
“And when a jury returns the verdict, we’re not allowed to ask, ‘Well why did you do that?’”
Was there any impact?
McGovern’s case will not set precedent for future cases. And it’s unclear whether a jury of Johnson County residents nullified the charges. But that’s not the only way to think about impact.
As law enforcement and prosecutors respond to protests, this experience informs how they approach gathering and presenting evidence and charges they apply in future instances.
Guernsey pointed out that for the community this is impactful in that it might embolden the next person charged. Six of the seven people charged took plea deals rather than go to trial. According to the American Bar Association, 98% of criminal cases in federal courts end with a plea bargain.
“Oftentimes, it feels like even though we have these rights of free speech or rights to assemble ... that there’s a risk of prosecution. So an acquittal can also help embolden people to exercise the rights they do have. And help build more trust in the system,” Guernsey said. “That they may take the case to trial because their community will take the evidence seriously.”
