After former Davenport alderman Keith Meyer was found not guilty in his assault case Monday, it was his friend, Neal Hallowell, who delivered the news to him at his home.

Because Meyer was charged with a misdemeanor and requested a sealed verdict, he didn’t have to appear in Scott County District Court when the jury returned its decision after last week’s trial. Apparently, Meyer was unaware Hallowell had made arrangements to deliver the news, so he was surprised when Hallowell showed up at his house Monday afternoon.

“They’re coming to take me away?” Meyer asked Hallowell.

Hallowell shouted as Meyer, who has a hearing impairment and stood right in front of his friend, strained to hear the verdict.

Meyer’s only response was to ask his friend, “Why did they tell you?”

Hallowell had invited a Quad-City Times reporter into the house with him, but Meyer ordered the reporter to leave and declined comment on the verdict.

“He was expecting the worst,” Hallowell said about the outcome of the trial. “He’s at a point of total exhaustion and breakdown.”

Meyer represented himself at his assault trial. He spent the past four months since his arrest preparing for it, Hallowell said.

He faced two years in prison if the jury had found him guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon. He was accused of fetching a shotgun from his house and pointing it at his neighbor, John Fahs, on Nov. 11.

In court, Meyer had admitted to getting the gun but said he did so in “self defense.”

Meyer gave his own opening and closing statements. He cross-examined the prosecutor’s witnesses. He tried calling his own witnesses to the stand, but Associate District Judge Cheryl Traum denied 17 and allowed two. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to introduce evidence.

The jurors deliberated a little more than an hour Friday and about four hours Monday before concluding that Meyer wasn’t guilty.

At least half the jurors were escorted from the courthouse by several sheriff’s deputies. The deputies said it is not particularly unusual for them to be asked to see jurors to their vehicles.

Seven of the jurors were seen shaking hands in the parking lot after the verdict. They said they did not wish to be interviewed by a reporter.

Traum declined a request Monday for an interview.

Assistant Scott County Attorney Will Ripley, who prosecuted the case, could not be reached for comment.

Meyer told Hallowell he wanted to be alone, at least for now.

“He prefers solitude,” Hallowell said. “The media has never given him a fair shake, and he won’t give them a second of his time.”

Meyer served two terms on the Davenport City Council and lost his bid for a third. These days, he’s busy growing raspberries and grapes on a hilly estate that surrounds his 113-year-old brick home, with its bracketed eaves, stone window headers, porte cochere and third-floor dormers.

He bottles wine under the Black Lab Crossing label. Camp McClellan Cellars in the Village of East Davenport sells Meyer’s wine. A store manager declined to comment.

Hallowell said he hopes Meyer can patch up his relationship with Fahs.

Fahs testified that Meyer used to baby sit his girlfriend’s children before the two neighbors began feuding over speed bumps Meyer had built on a driveway they share. Fahs could not be reached for comment Monday.

Hallowell said friends prayed for Meyer all weekend.

“They hoped the verse he opened with would not be returned void,” Hallowell said, referring to Psalm 86, Verse 17, with which Meyer began his opening statement at his trial: “And that justice prevails for those who can’t defend themselves.”

(75) comments

Comment deleted.
cd1001
cd1001

I've figured that out. Personally, I'm skipping every comment he posts from now on. They're incendiary, personal attacks and misinformation, completely without merit. I'll not read them at all, in any thread.

MsMatch
MsMatch

First I want to register a complaint (since there's no open comment section). I didn't get a paper (again) today, so called the Times circulation at 8:40 a.m. (Over 1 hour ago). I asked if I could have a temporary password to log onto the online version...was told no, they only do that when there's a missed delivery due to inclimate weather. Really??? What terrible customer service!

Rant over, now to Keith Meyer. I am glad he won his case. He may be eccentric, but I believe he better represents the everyday person than most of the city representatives who seem to be in the good ol' boys' club. Shame on the policeman who didn't respond to Meyer's call properly. A personal note to Mr. Meyer: PLEASE DO NOT let these homeless people stay at your home. There are shelters for them, and if they don't go there, it's probably because they have violated the rules (usually involving violence). I admire your goodheartedness, but a lot of these people can get very violent, depending on what substance(se) they may be abusing at any given time. I speak from experience because my brother is one of them. Congratulations on your verdict, and be safe.

checkthefacts
checkthefacts

Totally agree cd1001. Too bad the Times doesn't have an ignorance test for people like troyw and Jeffery Smith to pass before posting is allowed lol!

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

They have a test - it was the only way you got your account, check.....

I was at the trial. You were not. Troy apparently was there as well - again, you and cd were not. Who do we believe - a subject matter expert, and two people that attended, or two people, check and cd, who not only didn't attend the trial, but also lack the reading skills necessary to glean information from the 5 articles.

cd tried to discredit me, and ended up proving that everything I said was the truth. He quoted my words, and then lied about the definition of words .

Crawl back under the bridge, checkthefacts. Before you get reported again for your juvenile behavior and blatant lies and attacks.

troyw
troyw

I have been reading all the comments made by people who dont have a clue what went on in the Jury room, unless you was there and or in the court room to have witnessed what took place!
Mr. Meyers constitutional rights as a tax payer of this county and his Service of Duty being former Alderman of Davenport have been totally stomped on by the City Of Davenports Police Department for there lack of helping Mr. Meyer in his time of need with his unruly neighbor, who has hurt him in the past. Mr. Meyer' s asked the Police numerous times for assistance with his neighbor but was met by laughing police officers, and even one Officer who just knocks softly on his door, so he didnt have to deal with him at that time, and who thought he was a joke and his property rights didnt matter. Officer Guard stated that he wished Mr Meyer no harm and truely liked him but in the next breath he arrested him not even taking into consideration the Long Service of being an Alderman and that his Sargent couldnt even make the call if the arrest was even legal or not, so he said: Its your call! Shouldnt the Police know what the Law is, since they are the Law?? His arrest should not have been taken place in the first place, as the pictures of evidence that they arrested him on, that if they had really looked at the pics NO Arrest would have occurred if they would have just investigated it a little more instead of passing Judgement on Mr. Meyer.
As to the court not allowing his evidence of his witnesses, was surpressing his evidence as Mr. Meyer was establishing that the Police Dept., was doing nothing about his situation and he had to take that drastic of an action, to get the Police and Community to hear about his unruly neighbor!!
There was ALOT of eye rolling and snears against Mr. Meyers cause he was taking to much time to present his case, and I thought it appauling by the Court and CA! The Judge however was being patient most of the time, but overruled him way to much, and the CA needed to lay off as well. His rights not to have his laptop when the CA could have one is at question also.
Now as to the Jury, they took a Great Deal of Time making sure that they were looking at all evidence and witnesses, and the instructions given by the Judge, especially the instructions of evidence and reasonable doubt. No Jury Nullification took place! The first vote taken there was a 10-2 vote of Not Guilty. The people who served on the Jury were Awesome in there findings and hearing of the evidence and did there jobs as a Jury should, WELL DONE Jury!
Now to these posting comments,: cd1001, your a horrible person convicting Mr Meyer with your verbal abuse and comments on here everyday the trial went on. You must really hate him and you sound like you could be the neighbor, who is a horrible liar. Jeffery Smith however has been way more Correct in his Postings.
Mr Meyer: I Commend you on your right to represent yourself as a Tax Paying Citizen of this County and State, and agree with another comment made that if more people did represent themselves these frivolous arrests would not be taking place. Your Courage during this fight for your Freedom and Rights, was honorable. Your opening prayer was answered, Well Done Mr. Meyer, and Peace be with You!

cd1001
cd1001

You didn't indicate you know anything about Keith's mental state?
"...He may be excentric, but he is not "nuts" as you claim..."

You didn't indicate the judge was ignorant of and violated the law?
"...the CA and judge were not knowledgeable in the laws governing both pro se and the ADA..."
"...[Myers would] more than likely would win if he decides to follow up with action against the CA, judge..."
"...the court attempted, but did not completely satisfy the requirements of the act. No interpreter was provided..."

You didn't indicate there were violations of the Civil Rights Act? Well, unless you brought up the act for absolutely no reason at all, knowing it was irrelevant, you seemed to indicate it was relevant to this case.

I'm done talking to you now, and I'm done even reading your posts. You lie, and you accuse others of lying. You don't even know what you have written or understand what others have written. You pretend to be an expert, when you can't evaluate this case AT ALL. I'm guessing the rest of us have all figured that out, and no one will care much about your future rambling.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

Wow - I'm not uneducated as you must be. Spell correctly, first of all.

I said he was not "nuts" - your diagnosis, not mine, cd. Educated persons know that mentally incompetent people cannot stand trial.

That is your first lie proven wrong by your own quoatation.

Nope, didn't state the judge was ignorant of and violated the law. Not knowledgeable of is not the same as violating the law, which you falsely claimed I sated.

That is your second lie proven wrong, by your own quotations.

Please learn the difference between MAY, SHALL and CAN. MAY and SHALL mean required - CAN does not hold to the same standard. So that is the third lie of yours.

I indicated there COULD, HAVE BEEN, not there definietely were violations. Another lie of yours. Finally, foolish one, are you now claiming to know for a fact that Meyers was not going to appeal if he lost this case? That would be yet another lie of yours.

Now, put your listening ears, cd1001 - Keith WON his case, the county attorney LOST. The CA gets one bite at the apple. As even children know, since Keith was found NOT GUILTY, he would have no reason to pursue possible ADA and Civil Rights violations.

Please take the time to google the definition of possible, before you embarrass yourself a sixth time. The good thing that comes out of this, is that the CA will be on better behavior the next time, as well as the police.

cd1001
cd1001

"...Sections 504 and 508 also play here, since the court attempted, but did not completely satisfy the requirements of the act. No interpreter was provided..." Um, you sort of said here that the Court didn't comply with the ADA.

"...You may also want to research the Civil Rights laws passed in the 60's. They further buttress comments by those of us with knowledge. Hint. Look up discrimination based on mental or physical impairment...." You brought up the Civil Rights Act in a thread about this trial. Unless you just threw this in for absolutely no reason, you indicate it has something to do with this case, which it does not.

"...He may be excentric, but he is not "nuts" as you claim." You indicate that you have some knowledge about Keith Meyer's mental status.

"...[Keith would] more than likely would win if he decides to follow up with action against the CA, judge..." If this isn't saying the judge did something against the law, I don't know what does.

So, you can explain or not explain. I'm done talking to you. I believe that you are a little bit nuts, yourself, to be honest. You lie, you accuse others of lying when it is clear that you are the only one doing so, and you don't even know what you have said or what others have said. No one will listen to you further, and I will not even read what you post.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

Wow - three attempts for you to lie - and each time you are discredited.

Thanks for telling me I'm nuts, now put your name down, so Ican see you in court.

I did not lie - I stated facts, and ifyou read above, I pointed out you proved yourself to be a liar by quoting me.

Fortunately, we can all be assured you are not in a position of responsibility at any jobs - you refuse to accept facts, and the only time you lie is when you talk or write.

aequitas
aequitas

Being called "nuts" does not a court case make.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

No, it does not. The several times he called him mentally ill, and didn't have the right to call the police when he fears for his life, combined with the police admitting that their representative (one article stated police officer, and quoted him, the latest from the DPD states he was only a civilian) treated him differently because of his impairment, does make a court case.

As an attorney, you should acknowledge that while there are cases that don't have standing, it doesn't mean people can't file court cases, at the cost of the prosecution, judge, and defense.

cd1001
cd1001

Honestly, Jeffrey Smith, I don't know whether you know what the laws say, or not. I do know that you have no idea in the world how to apply the law to the case. You scream that the Court had to provide an interpreter, when the defendant doesn't sign. You claim someone has violated the Civil Rights Act, when there is not even a hint that anyone has discriminated against anyone because of a disability.

You answer comments as if you haven't been able to understand a word.

You claim not to be a friend of Meyer's, but claim to know his mental status. You'll have to excuse me for simply not believing anything you say.

You are making up criticism of the judge, even when EVERYONE says the judge did a remarkably good job of handling the case.

You have zero credibility. You should stop making these accusations that have no basis in fact at all. You sound like a buffoon.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

cd, sorry to further embarrass you, but no one stated that 1) the court HAD to provide an interpreter. Please learn the difference in the terms should and shall. Your ignorance is showing. 2) No one said he couldn't sign. I simply stated that I didn't know if he did or not. Again, your ignorance is showing.

I said may have, you are lying now and stating that I said as an absolute fact that there was a violation. You may also want to learn the definition of appeal. That's a third time your ignorfance shows.

Your fourth flat out lie is that I claim to know his mental status. At no time did I state that, because unlike you, I would not libel or slander a person.

I did not make up criticism, I quoted from the four articles I read, and from personal observation when I attended the trial. You were not there. I was.

I have no credibilithy? I have identified 5 flat out lies you just stated, and proved them. I guess facts don't concern you, as you make up your own, apparently.

The Civil RIghts Act gives minority status to hearing impaired (among other impairments and other reasons as well). Perhaps you should read the act before you claim you know anything about it. Secondly, you know absolutely nothing about the ADA. First founded occurrence is 50K, my ignorant friend, and has been since it was passed. The ADA was what I stated was more than likely violated, although equal access requirements, IAW both the ADA and Civil Rights Act of 1964 also may come into play.

It is very apparent you are here to argue, and to illustrate your complete ignorance of the facts.

Instead of your rampant name calling (seriously, buffoon??? You don't even know what that means), share with us when 29 U.S.C. § 794d was put in effect, who authored it, I've worked with it since the 80's, you had to google ADA to know what was being referred to. Please go back to your video games. It's time for your parents to take your computer privileges away, if all you can do is continually lie.

How many years did you say you worked with 504, 508, or the entire ADA? Hmmm?

cd1001
cd1001

I'm sorry, Jeff, but I honestly think you're a little delusional about what you think you have read. People can read your prior comments on this thread and a couple of others. They can come to their own conclusions.

You have at least stopped claiming the Court violated the ADA and backed off your crazy claim that someone violated the Civil Rights Act. It's what you've been saying for days, and I'm glad you have now completely recanted those accusations. Anything else you want to spout off about is fine with me, as long as you're no longer making those baseless factual and legal claims.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

You are about to be reported for your blatant lying. I've been to numerous cases regarding Section 508, 504 and 505, dear, and I most certainly know how the law applies.

I did not scream that the court had to provide an interpreter, you are lying AGAIN.

Please post the time and date (for uneducated persons such as yourself, that means post the approximate number of hours ago, if 24 hours have not yet passed). You see, cd, there are 24 hours in a day. Please try and show how that is either a shrill scream or criticism of the judge, neither of which I claimed. Making you a liar again.


At what time did I state the court has to provide an interpreter? What's that? You lied, again?

There is no hint that anyone has discriminated? Were you there? Nope. Was I there? Yes. Am I a known champion in this area of discrimination laws? Yes ma'am, I most certainly am. Are you? no, you can't even spell the word. To wit, you are lying a tghird time.

You claim I am a friend of Meyers (note spelling, taken from the article). Another lie of yours. That makes four lies.

Please indicate the date and time I claimed to know Mr Meyers' mental status. What's that? Oh yes, your fifth lie in a single post of yours.

Odd that you seem to be illiterate to the point you are unable to comprehend simple newspaper articles that you pretend to comment on......please indicate where I made up criticism, and explain to intelligent people how you make up criticism. Persons that know the meaning of the word criticism know you don't make up criticism. That is your sixth, yes sixth lie.

Believe it or not, this is the United States of America, not the United States of CD. My first amendment rights guarantee me the wrote to voice my criticism (opinion) of the judge. How can I do this, cd asks? Well, as I've told you on multiple occasions, as well as quoted from the four or five articles, the judge indicated through her comments and facial expressions she was greatly exasperated at times.

Thank you for indicating you don't know the duties of a judge. "the judge did a remarkably good job of handling the case" is what you state. Perhaps you should look up the duties, and what the proper decorum (crack open a dictionary, cd) is for a judge. She's not supposed to try and hold it together, and she's not supposed to show her frustration. If you'd read the articles, CD, you'd know this. As one juror stated, they left several times because she was so exasperated she had to repeatedly make similar statements on what can and cannot be said by Mr Meyers.

Let's see. I was there, you were not.

You have been caught in six lies, I told only the truth, all verified by the 4-5 articles in the times.

My accusations are based in fact.

here's some advise for you - it's better you keep your mouth shut on this subject, and be thought a fool, than to comment further and remove all doubt. You've been discredited on literally every comment, cd, and offered nothing that proves me wrong - seeing that you weren't there, you repeatedly demonstrated you don't know the purpose, definition or intent of the multiple laws quoted, and deliberately lied at least six times on this thread alone. If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person on earth.

Randogg420
Randogg420

Just the armpit of the United States wasteing more of your tax dollars on dead ends. Thats some court system you got.

Herky
Herky

I love all the comments... he was innocent, he should have gotten off. Or he is nuts, he should have been charged. Unless you were there every day and heard the entire case, you don't have a clue. Is he eccentric, yes. Is he nuts, debatable. Do the majority of the people in the QC commenting here think they know it all, definitely. Thank God this was tried in a court of law and not public opinion.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

Yes, Herky, I was there.

He may be excentric, but he is not "nuts" as you claim. Still hiding behind that herky label, rather than posting your real name, so that Keith can come after you next.

What's so pathetic about you, is that the comments ran along with the outcome of the jury, for the most part. I guess you weight your own comments and the few people that agree with you

You talk about public opinion, yet you failed to understand how the ADA applies in this case. I guess if you are willing to pay 50K per first occurence, and incremental increases for subsequent infringements. You must not care if your taxes go up.

As has been stated numerous times - ignorance of the ADA is no excuse, and does not prevent these fines.

Sorry Herky, he's not guilty. One has to wonder if the acts of the police will cause the officer to be disciplined, fined, or fired out right. That man was certainly not Davenport's finest, by the officer's own words.

cd1001
cd1001

Jeff, your understanding of the ADA is simply wrong. The court met all requirements of the law. Your buddy Keith probably told you all about it, but he is clueless.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

Actually, cd1001, I worked for the federal government for years, and assisted with it's implementation at all federal offices within a 100 mile radius. I've also worked on investigations involving allegations of violations of the ADA. I attended training on the ADA with the DoD, Treasury Department, and the DoJ.

What would your credentials be, cd1001?

To tell you a secondor third time - I don't know Keith. I do know the law. Apparently, much more than you ever will.

Good God, you are another armchair attorney, thinking they know everything. You don't. You may also want to research the Civil Rights laws passed in the 60's. They further buttress comments by those of us with knowledge. Hint. Look up discrimination based on mental or physical impairment.

The more you boys write, the more you demonstrate your complete and total lack of knowledge of these laws.

The next time you choose to argue, provide both your credentials and what is wrong.

aequitas
aequitas

He had real time interpretation. It was in the form of a real time digital readout of the court reporter's transcript on a monitor available to the defendant. It's no different than if a sign language interpreter had been in the room.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

I respectfully disagree. There is a well known communication barrier formed when one is distracted with looking at the screen, rather than looking at the nuances in facial expressions, and hearing subtleties (and not so subtle) tones of the judge and CA when Keith was reading rather than having it interpreted. The judge, jury and CA were obviously frustrated, as was Keith.

A raised eyebrow can speak volumes, yet it is not picked up by any text to speech software. An angry tone in one's voice is not picked up, either. The same applies for exaggeration and sarcasm. All are conveyed by a good interpreter.

Note that I'm referring to hearing impaired persons in general, who are normally qualified to have interpreters. Since I am unaware of Keith's degree of hearing loss, I cannot confirm nor deny that he required the T2S, only basing it on the facts - it was provided by the Scott County court system.

cd1001
cd1001

Keith. doesn't. sign.

Keith. doesn't. sign.

Keith. doesn't. sign.

So, everything you have said about needing an interpreter is. not. relevant.

Do you get that now? The Scott County courts provide sign language interpreters. But: Keith. doesn't. sign.

cd1001
cd1001

I'll ask again -- if you don't know Keith, how do you know he's not nuts?

cd1001
cd1001

Suing someone doesn't make you a legal expert, Jeff.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

What does suing have to do with my comments? I said I was an investigator of complaints of violation of the ADA.

Having worked with the law since it's inception most certainly makes me more of an expert than you, who had to google the law, and aren't even aware of the nuances.

HA HA
HA HA

Congrats Meyer!! The "little guy" prevailed against the good ol' boys of Scott County. Love to see the underdog win. twiggy hit the nail on the head with jury nullification. Bet Meyer feels like a million bucks. BRAVO Sir!!

Terry W
Terry W

Amen on to that HA HA!

checkthefacts
checkthefacts

Looks like the sympathy card ruled the day for sure.

Terry W
Terry W

YAY or Keith..........he DESERVED to win.........he was SHAFTED........by the police and city and they got what they deserved. They stick it to the citizens quite frequently and I am glad for Keith.

cd1001
cd1001

I do hope that police officer is fired. He is a sorry excuse for a cop.

iowalittledog
iowalittledog

CD1001 who was the cop?

cd1001
cd1001

I don't know. I don't think I've read his name anywhere.

Watchfulmom
Watchfulmom

Finally!! Bless his heart now maybe he can get some rest.

CGE
CGE

Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean he isn't still a fool and should have represented himself.
Okay not a fool but he is a quack!

outdoorsgirl
outdoorsgirl

I agree with the Jury's verdict,but I also feel Mr. Meyer is guilty of displaying a lack of reasonable logic and judgement.He houses strangers,but then is amazed,and afraid for his life when his home is broken into.He displayed extreme difficulty in communicating in the courtroom and what Ms. Ickes describes as stubborness I would interpret as a lack of social skills bordering on or perhaps including a mental disability which needs addressing.Given his history of erratic behavior,I fear for Mr. Meyer's safety,and hope the next time the police are called to his home,it isn't because he has been assaulted,or worse, by one of these strangers he takes into his home out of the goodness of his heart.

Devin H
Devin H

Kudos to the Times photog on this story. A picture really does speak a thousand words. Perfect photo. Nice work.

RIC
RIC

What is the davenport police dept going to do about the officer who testified, under oath, that he purposely knocked lightly on Meyers door so he would not be heard and then the officer could shirk his duty and not talk to the citizen....sounds like neglect of duty

iowalittledog
iowalittledog

RIC: Great point!

Contemptio
Contemptio

Now he can run for Mayor!

JS824
JS824

I would actually vote for him over Gluba.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

Yes, send us your check, I'll start the campaign when I receive it.

You boys do realize he was in office before, and was voted out........

JS824
JS824

I will do my best to make sure Gluba joins him in getting voted out.

Contemptio
Contemptio

I can see you as his campaign manager. You can hire Jessie Jackson Jr. as campaign treasurer. LOL

Give me your address, let's get it going.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

1 main street
anytown, USA

Psst - it's Jesse, not Jessie. Is Jessie Jackson your wife, perhaps? Why the hate, contemptio? Why you gotta hate? After all, I guess there never were any criminal republicans - Richard Nixon, Roy Blunt, Charlie Crist, Jeff Denham, Alvin Greene, Timothy Griffin, J.D. Hayworth, Ed Martin, * Kendrick Meek, Dino Rossi, Marco Rubio, * Allen West. The list goes on and on - on both sides of the aisle - just that the party of no gets caught more often with their pants down in the bathroom.......or hands in the cookie jar.

PAB street
PAB street

way to go, Davenport Gestapo at its best. this makes me mad as a tax payer since we are footing the bill. I look forward to the day I move out of this county because of the ridiculous politics and the incompetent and discriminating judicial system. Maybe Davenport will train their cops better. Congratulations Mr. Meyer.

twiggy
twiggy

Exactly as I predicted. I've seen this scenario a bunch of times. Jury nullification at it's finest.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

I see where you are coming from, twiggy, but based on the statements by the police, where one officer apparently was proud of the fact that he knew Keith was hearing impaired, and purposely didn't knock loud enough to get his attention on several occasions.

Sections 504 and 508 also play here, since the court attempted, but did not completely satisfy the requirements of the act. No interpreter was provided - which would have provided Keith with information he needed as a hearing impaired person that a hearing person would have been able to discern from the CA, who apparently looked away from Keith whenever he was objecting. As stated by others - if he would have simply stood in front of the courtroom, and was visible to both the judge and Mr Meyers, the outcome may have been completely different.

cd1001
cd1001

Keith doesn't sign, or they would have had an interpreter. Interpreters are a lot easier on everyone than the personnel and equipment they had to use for Keith. You make a lot of ridiculous claims, but you are pretty clueless. And you completely made up this thing about the CA looking away -- just made it up. Lied, in other words.

qcbonita
qcbonita

I want to hire him to represent me!

saywhat
saywhat

Really surprised on this one! dendroid, I am with you, hope the City of Davenport will leave this man alone, seems they definitely have a big problem with Mr. Meyers. Hope the neighbors can work out their differences and move on. Davenport city tries to make everyone turn against Mr. Meyers and the article in the Sunday's QC Times by Barb Ickes made me SICK!! She acts like she is better than everyone else. I think Mr. Meyers is really rather special if he is taking in homeless people and trying to help them, not many people would do that. How many homeless people are Vets? It's so easy for people to turn their backs on people that are down on their luck. I also commend foster parents for helping out the youth. Congratulations Mr. Meyers, hopefully things will get better for you. Not everyone thinks your a terrible person.

iowalittledog
iowalittledog

Great job to the jury. Often media pressure will force you to vote guilty. To all the people who said Meyer's had a fool for a client, where you at now? I was thinking a guilty verdict would give Meyer's a chance on appeal since I believe the computer issue was a reverable error, but we will never know. Meyer's held his head up high and presented his case. To the attorney who lost the case what does that tell you when an experience attorney like yourself couldn't even get a conviction? Maybe this case would not have even went to trial had it not been Meyer's himself. If there was such a thing as real justic, then Scott County and the State of Iowa should have to pay Meyer's for his cost. This would stop these political charge charges being filed by the state. Heck the State had nothing to lose. This has been agreat case to follow. I just hope someone is not sitting at home thinking they can generally go into a Scott County Courtroom and represent themself. Meyer's you are a better man than me, because I would be talking so much you know what right now. Again thanks to the jury who kept an open mind. You restored some of my lost faith in our system.

cd1001
cd1001

I said Meyer had a fool for a client. I'm here to say, good job, jury. If you thought the victim was not in fear (because he took a picture rather than running away), then you did a good job of overlooking the defendant's horrific actions and personality and applied the facts to the law.

I assume this is the reason for the verdict. The jury system shakes things out well.

aequitas
aequitas

The verdict does not change the fact that he had a fool for a client. The state has the burden of proof, and it didn't meet that burden. Keith could have stood up and quacked like a duck, and the state still might not have been able to meet the high threshold of proof beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt on every element of the crime charged.

billy hoyle
billy hoyle

settle down there dendroid. somebody buy the losing attorney a drink - no one will ever let him live this one down....Hey aren't you the guy....

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

The only attorneys in the room were the judge and the CA's. Keith was pro se. It's especially hilarious that Keith won this when the judge didn't allow the majority of Keith's witnesses, the numerous objections of the CA, and the police were proudly admitting that they ignored Keith's past complaints!

aequitas
aequitas

You really have a difficult time comprehending the comments of others. Billy hoyle was talking about the assistant county attorney on the case. Duh. And everybody already knows that Keith was representing himself.

Over taxed
Over taxed

Good lawyer, dendroid? Isn't than an oxymoron?

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

No, take the time to look up the definition of an oxymoron.

Sounds like your jealousy is kicking in. Keith did an outstanding job pro se, and more than likely would win if he decides to follow up with action against the CA, judge and police.

cd1001
cd1001

Dude, Keith did not do a good job pro se. The jury decided the victim wasn't frightened for his life because he took a picture rather than running away. This isn't a verdict about Keith. It's a jury that overlooked the fact that Keith is crazy and applied the law to the facts.

dendroid
dendroid

I hope Mr Meyer can make a mint with harrassment and predjudice suit with a good lawyer taking over and with help from ADA....HE IS NOT GUILTY...HE BEAT YOU.....I HOPE THIS STORY GOES VIRAL AND SHOWS THE CITY GOVERNMENT AND POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE MALICIOUS IDIOTS THAT THEY ARE

gcgphoto
gcgphoto

AMEN!

gcgphoto
gcgphoto

Congratulations Keith. It sounds like the right person won. Maybe the police department and county attorney's office will lesson their harassment now.

gcgphoto
gcgphoto

Maybe if Keith sues and wins a huge amount, he can buy the boat so the city won't have too???

cd1001
cd1001

Oh, Keith will sue. He lives to sue, haha. And Davenport will pay. Davenport lives to pay.

cd1001
cd1001

My prediction: Keith will sue the taxpayers of Davenport. Keith says he is interested in the taxpayers of Davenport, but Keith is interested in Keith.

senor citizen
senor citizen

The story ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. Interesting as it should lower property values even more in that 'hood.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

Seems you need to skope out the neighborhood a bit more, with Jefferson across the street and property values increasing, not decreasing. I thought you were just back here visiting, Senor. Next time you come back, check out real estate prices. They are up in the QCA as a whole.

cd1001
cd1001

I wondered if they would decide the victim wasn't in fear, since he took Meyer's picture rather than running away. My guess is that's the explanation.

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

Seriously? He was found not guilty because it was a bogus charge to begin with, and the evidence produced by Keith and comments by Davenport's finest sealed the deal.

You seriously should look at taking an intro law course. The jury rules on evidence, not their personal feelings.

Congratulations to Keith.

aequitas
aequitas

Umm...cd1001 was pointing out a possible evidentiary reason for the jury's decision. You're actually the one who has suggested that the jury based it on their feelings (i.e. that the court, police, and media were out to get him).

CGE
CGE

Hard to believe. Sympathy ruling?

Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith

Nope - knowledge of law. It's better to be found not guilty, and show the CA and judge were not knowledgeable in the laws governing both pro se and the ADA, than find him guilty and have it overturned on appeal and a possible lawsuit down the road.

Hereandhere
Hereandhere

I wonder how long it took them to decide to wait til after lunch and then say they had a verdict.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.