This article is Part Three of the Iowa's Dark History series. 

Firsthand testimony by Sondra Wilson. Updated 7/20/2024.

_____________________________________

Three years after the license discrepancy arrest and the restroom incident, I returned to Iowa to visit friends and family.

At that time in my life, I regularly street-performed with my guitar and gathered petition signatures for causes I believed in. During this visit, I was promoting a petition modeled after California's Prop 2, which had passed the year before. The goal was to improve conditions for animals kept in confinement by requiring enough space for them to turn around.

I was young, idealistic, and believed this was common sense. After all, who doesn’t care about animals?

But the petition received a much angrier response than I expected. Some people were dismissive, condescending, or openly hostile. That is the background for what happened at the Culver’s restaurant in Ames, where I was falsely accused of assault.

This story also involves (now retired) Judge Steven Van Marel — the same judge who, three years earlier, had ordered Officer Marshall to arrest me during the restroom incident. At the time of the 2009 trial, I did not know Judge Van Marel had been involved in the earlier case. If I had known, I would have asked him to recuse himself.

The Culver’s Incident

While passing by the Culver's parking lot, I spoke with a couple about my petition. The woman seemed interested, so we walked and talked about it on our way into the restaurant.

Shortly afterward, the older gentleman that was with her turned around and began yelling at me, “Plants die all the time!” I told him we were not talking about plants, but he raised his voice louder and proceeded shouting at me.

Feeling disrespected, and being in my early 20s (not something I would do today), I sat on a table and began playing a protest song. I understand now that a restaurant was not the best place to do that. But I was young, and saw it as nonviolent activism.

Soon after, a manager approached me, grabbed the neck of my guitar, pulled on it, and told me to leave.

I pulled away and said, “The animals have no voice in this society. I’m going to give them three minutes, then I’ll leave.”

I strummed the next chord, and she grabbed the neck of the guitar again. I pulled away again, stood up, yelled about how messed up society was, and left.

About a block away, Officer Morton arrested me. I assumed I was being arrested for trespassing. Instead, he told me I was being arrested for assault!

He said the Culver’s manager had reported that I began “pushing and kicking her” after she asked me to leave.

That was false. 

I filled out this voluntary statement explaining what actually happened, and then pleaded not guilty at the arraignment. I was unable to find legal assistance before trial, so I represented myself.

The Trial

The same judge who had directed Officer Marshall to arrest me during the 2006 restroom incident, Judge Steven Van Marel, also presided over this assault case three years later.

At the time, I did not know he had been involved in the earlier case. If I had known, I would have asked him to recuse himself. §52:2:11 of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, and Iowa Code §602.1606 both list several reasons that a judge must disqualify (or recuse) themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Had I known is role in the earlier case, I would have filed a motion to recuse. Regardless, he was required to recuse himself. Unbeknownst to me, the attorney who misrepresented after the restroom incident actually  should not have presided over the 2009 case.

Four witnesses testified at trial. The Culver’s manager brought two witnesses. Officer Morton testified. A character witness testified on my behalf.

Everyone testified separately, and I was allowed to cross-examine them.

The manager and her two witnesses gave conflicting accounts.

One witness said I kicked the manager three times, hard.

The manager said I kicked her once, but not very hard.

Another witness — one of the manager’s own witnesses — testified and told the truth: that I never touched her.

Officer Morton testified that I was calm and compliant, and that I did not appear to know I was being arrested for assault.

My character witness had hitchhiked and street-performed with me on several occasions. She testified that people sometimes became upset about what I stood for and lashed out at me, but that I would not resort to violence.

That was true. I was a hippie, a street performer, a petitioner, and a nonviolent activist. I was not someone who would kick a restaurant manager. Here is a photo of me from around that time:

An Unjust Ruling

In a criminal case, the burden of proof is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

But despite the conflicting testimony — including testimony from one of the manager’s own witnesses that I never touched her — Judge Van Marel ruled against me.

His ruling did not align with the testimony as I heard it.

One witness claimed I kicked the manager three times. The manager herself said I kicked her once, and not very hard. Another witness said that he saw the whole thing and I did not touch her.

In my view, that should have created reasonable doubt.

Instead, the court accepted the version that harmed me most and left me with a politically and personally damaging assault conviction attached to my record.

I maintain that I was falsely accused and wrongly convicted by a bias Judge who was required, by law, to recuse himself: Steven Van Marel. 

Knowledge of the Judge's Personal Bias in the Matter was Withheld from Me

At the time of the trial, I did not understand the full connection between this case and the earlier restroom arrest.

Years later, in 2022, I obtained copies of the dockets and police reports from the earlier cases. That is when I learned more about Judge Van Marel’s involvement in both matters.

Had I known at the 2009 trial that Judge Van Marel was connected to the earlier restroom case, I would have raised the issue and filed a motion for his recusal.

I believe his decision against me was an abuse of discretion, with animus due to his personal bias, and the ruling severely harmed me for years.

An Officer Warned Me to Leave Ames for My Safety

After the trial, an officer approached me in the hallway downstairs. He spoke to me “off the record” and told me he was concerned for my safety based on what he was hearing "behind the scenes".

He warned me to leave the state for my safety. 

My Appeal was Denied Because I Didn't Have Enough Money

My appeal to overturn the assault charges

Lawrence Jahn denied my appeal: he appears to have not possessed compassion or wisdom

Many Years of Homelessness, and Fear of Returning to Iowa, Ensued

I took that warning seriously.

I left Iowa. What followed was a long period of instability and homelessness. The harm from these cases did not end in the courtroom. The records followed me, affected my reputation, and shaped the course of my life.

Years of homelessness, as a transgender women, resulted in being attacked, sexually harassed regularly while homeless, and robbed many times over. As time moves forward, I will continue sharing my story on this website, so that every Iowan understands why peoples' political opinions and personal religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse to harm others. 

Why This Matters

This case is not just about one restaurant incident from 2009.

It is part of a larger pattern of what Iowa’s systems puts people through, and how our political culture, wherein discrimination against transgender people is widely accepted, and political opinions are raised above rights, respect, and equal opportunity. For too long this state has quietly swept its abuses under the rug when no one is looking, and good people end up with criminal records for crimes they didn't commit, severe trauma caused by government abuse, and years of suffering and PTSD as a result. 

Back then, I did not know how to obtain dockets. I did not know how to report a judge. I did not know how to challenge what had happened in any meaningful way. I did not even understand many of the legal tools that would have been necessary to protect myself.

Now I do.

I am seeking to correct the record and pursue justice for the charges that arose from these related incidents. These records should not continue to define my life, my credibility, or my future.