Millionaire's Convictions Upheld Despite Frozen Assets

Iowa Supreme Court justices on Friday questioned the propriety of a Dubuque County court order seizing a millionaire’s assets prior to trial but said Robert Paul Krogmann’s convictions for willful injury and attempted murder should nevertheless stand intact.

Court records say Krogmann, who had a history of depression and bipolar disorder, shot his former girlfriend three times in March 2009 after an unsuccessful attempt to revive the relationship. Three weeks after the shooting, prosecutors applied for and received a court order freezing all $3.4 million of Krogmann’s assets.

According to the court’s opinion, the application for a freeze stated that the former girlfriend “had suffered severe injuries necessitating lengthy hospitalization, that Krogmann would be required to reimburse the victim for out-of-pocket expenses associated with the hospitalization and after-care, that Krogmann would be subject to civil litigation, and that Krogmann ‘has a number of assets that he may attempt to sell or transfer to avoid his financial obligation to the victim of his offenses.’ ”

Krogmann eventually set up a conservatorship in probate court to oversee his holdings. From July 2009 through October 2009, the district court, after hearing objections from the victim and from prosecutors, rejected requests to use farmland as security for Krogman’s bail and refused to let him spend money to hire a jury consultant.

Krogmann’s appeal contends that the asset freeze was illegal and that it violated his rights to due process, to be free from unconstitutional seizures and to counsel. But justices on Friday said his attorney had failed to properly object to those issues at the correct time.

“Our determination that Krogmann has failed to preserve error does not mean we approve of the asset freeze,” justices write. “We are troubled by the state’s effort to tie up a criminal defendant’s personal assets without citing any rule or statute, without making a verified filing and without citing the district court to relevant authority. … We also are troubled by the state’s attempts to use the asset freeze, once it was in place, to object to defense expenditures, not on the ground they would jeopardize restitution or other victim compensation (the alleged reasons for the asset freeze), but simply because the state deemed them unnecessary.”

Full Article and Source:
Millionaire's Convictions Upheld Despite Frozen Assets