District Court Judge Dave Staudt's Presentation

It could not have been 10 seconds into District Court Judge Dave Staudt’s presentation to realize he was in fact, what he claimed to be. A forthright yet tactful man, picking and choosing wisely what he wanted share with us. I have no experience with ever meeting a judge and have definitely never had the opportunity of sitting down with one, accessing information the normal citizen cannot. Staudt’s informative appearance gave our class the opportunity to learn the hierarchy of our states justice system, his background and how he decided to become a judge, along with a long list of criteria and regulation that the typical citizen is uninformed or apathetic to.

He began his appearance by explaining his position in the Iowa justice system. Dave Staudt is 1 of 110 District Court Judge’s statewide, and just a few levels below the Iowa Supreme Court. To be elected to serve this honor, one must first be a lawyer admitted to practice law in the state of Iowa. You must then send an application to the nonpartisan commission along with extensive information about one’s education, professional career, and qualifications. The commission will then conduct interviews selecting just two of the applicants to then be brought forth before the Governor for selection. Staudt was a district attorney for ten years before applying for this position, which adequately qualified him for such a role.

A district attorney is an elected or appointed official who represents the government in the prosecution of criminal offences. They are paid by the state, for the state and do their best to deliver a fair and effective prosecution. The District Attorney’s office is responsible for any cases besides civil suits. Under this position, Staudt had seen “Just about every type of case.” Murders, theft, rape, and the list goes on.

Judge Staudt’s level of positioning in our states justice system sees felony’s ranging from drug trafficking all the way to murder. Depending on the severity or uniqueness of the situation, the Supreme Court of Iowa can step in and take the case at any point in time. An example he gave us of the Iowa Supreme Court stepping in was an issue between two women who wished to be married. At that point in time, gay marriage was illegal under Iowa law. They went to the county clerk to attain their marriage license with the thought of being denied the right of marriage would be unconstitutional. They were inevitably denied a license and chose to sue the state of Iowa. The Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs granting them the right to get married. The case was appealed in the Iowa Supreme Court, gaining national coverage and attracting an enormous amount of criticism via supporters of both sides. In April of 2009, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ruling finding it was contrary with the equal protection clause of a state constitution such as Iowa’s.

Staudt was asked many interesting questions about his own court experiences and accounts. Some along the lines of ruling in favor of the law when maybe his personal beliefs go against what he is ruling. Others asking what his most covered or interesting case has been in his long line of duty. As a District Court Judge, the judicial system is requiring them to interpret the law as stated and then to proceed to making a decision on that case according to law. It is not in their job description to rule in favor of something because they feel it is not unethical or unjust nor can a judge at Staudt’s level interpret the law in hope of a bill for revision. From the sentences above I concluded I could never be a judge. If a case was brought to me and it went against my personal beliefs to rule in favor of the written law, I could not do so. Luckily Judge Staudt said he has never encountered such a case… Yet.