After a short trial and a day of deliberation, the jury in the case of the State of Iowa v. Mark D. Johnson was unable to reach a unanimous decision, ending in a hung jury with judge Thomas P. Murphy declaring the case a mistrial. Johnson was on trial on the charge of impersonating a public official, an aggravated misdemeanor offense. A hearing to schedule a video status conference is set for May 21 at the Clarke County Courthouse.
Case background
On Sept. 3, 2025, Johnson is alleged to have called the Taylor County Auditor’s Office to request information about former Taylor County Engineer Justin Savage, who currently serves as Decatur County Engineer and is shared with Clarke County.
According to the Taylor County Auditor, Johnson identified himself as Dean, a Clarke County supervisor from Murray; Dean Robins, of Murray, currently serves as District 1 Supervisor. Johnson is alleged to have been provided information during his call with the auditor.
On Jan. 23, Clarke County Attorney Johanna Olson filed an impersonation charge against Johnson, citing Johnson did hold himself out to be an elected official of Clarke County, Iowa, having no authority to do so. A motion for a special prosecutor was filed the same day by Olson, with Warren County Assistant Attorney Alex Crabb approved by the state to prosecute.
During arraignment, Johnson’s attorney filed a plea of not guilty with respect to all charges, and did not waive a speedy trial.
A motion in limine, a pretrial request of a judge to “exclude, limit or include specific evidence or arguments before a trial begins,” was filed by Johnson’s attorney to exclude or limit the following: character evidence/prior bad acts, hearsay testimony and testimony without personal knowledge, outcome of prior litigation between defendant and Clarke County, ultimate fact opinion as to guilt or innocence, sequestration of the State’s witnesses and miscellaneous exclusions.
The state answered the defendant’s motion, stating they would comply with Iowa Rules of Evidence and did not intend to introduce improper character evidence, inadmissible hearsay or opinion testimony towards guilt or innocence. In respect to evidentiary rules, the stat answered it was unnecessary and should be denied as overly broad and premature.