State of Iowa v. Theodore Ray Gathercole II, 877 N.W.2d 421

Background

Victim Frederick Rottmiller was stabbed; he identified Theodore Gathercole as the assailant and selected him from a photo lineup. Gathercole was charged with attempted murder, robbery, and willful injury.
During trial the court repeatedly admonished jurors to avoid media accounts of the case and reiterated that jurors must decide solely from evidence presented in court.
While jurors were deliberating, defense counsel discovered an online Cedar Rapids Gazette article (published Feb. 5) that incorrectly reported a palm print at the scene matched Gathercole and described it as the only physical evidence.
The article was factually incorrect: the only palm print lifted matched Rottmiller (the victim). The article showed minimal social-media interaction; the record lacked information on prominence, page views, or print placement.
Gathercole moved for a mistrial or, alternatively, for the court to poll jurors about exposure to the article. The district court denied both motions (crediting admonitions, lack of evidence of juror exposure, and that the misstatement did not contradict the trial record). Jury convicted Gathercole; he appealed.
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion because the Gazette article did not raise "serious questions of possible prejudice" under Bigley.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether midtrial publicity requiring a jury poll exists when a local news article published inaccurate evidence-related facts	State: Trial court should presume jurors followed admonitions; absent reason to suspect exposure, no poll needed	Gathercole: Inaccurate article misstated core defense issue (lack of physical evidence) and thus raised serious questions of possible prejudice requiring polling or mistrial	Court: Apply Bigley; trial court reviews for abuse of discretion. No abuse here—article did not raise serious questions of possible prejudice
Proper standard of review for denial of jury-polling request	State: Abuse of discretion	Gathercole: (argued) de novo	Court: Abuse of discretion (Bigley’s duty to poll arises only if publicity raises serious questions of possible prejudice)
What factors determine whether a poll is required under Bigley	State: Rely on qualitative analysis only and admonitions	Gathercole: Qualitative suffices or only minimal quantitative showing needed	Court: Both qualitative (relation to record, tone, effect on defenses) and quantitative (likelihood/prominence/exposure) factors apply; consider judge's prior instructions and publisher credibility
Whether district court should have favored issuing a poll when in doubt	—	Gathercole: requested poll; argued caution warranted	Court: Although no abuse here, courts should err on the side of granting polls when probabilities of prejudice are unclear; also recommend updating jury instructions to address electronic media

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bigley, 202 N.W.2d 56 (Iowa 1972) (adopting ABA guideline that midtrial publicity going beyond the record that raises serious questions of possible prejudice may require juror questioning)
State v. Frank, 298 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa 1980) (refused to find abuse of discretion where number and content of articles did not establish substantial likelihood of jury prejudice)
State v. Marr, 316 N.W.2d 176 (Iowa 1982) (court polled jurors and affirmed no abuse where inaccurate article did not amount to pervasive/inflammatory publicity)
State v. Webster, 865 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa 2015) (recognizing jurors’ participation in electronic world and recommending updated admonitions addressing social media)
United States v. Herring, 568 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1978) (articulating qualitative and exposure-related inquiries for midtrial publicity)
Brown v. State, 601 P.2d 221 (Alaska 1979) (noting whether publicity is so prejudicial that inquiry is necessary is within trial court discretion)