Major Conflict of Interest in South Dakota 7th Circuit Court
Photo credit: Kristi Noem DHS airport video
James Bialota | Investigation | Oct 13th
A Lawsuit has been filed against Lara Roetzel and Pennington County, 17 CIV 26-237. Roetzel is the Pennington County State’s Attorney, and is the chief lawyer and her office is party to any case for the State in every prosecution for Pennington County.
With one current lawsuit already filed, are many more on the way?
All this while Lara Roetzel is currently under threat of suit from multiple other parties over false cases, prosecutor vindictiveness, malicious prosecution, and misconduct.
We personally believe she will not be held accountable. Why? Because her husband is a judge in the same circuit and represents the same county. His name is Judge Scott Roetzel.
We ask; are Judges refusing to holding the county’s chief and other prosecutors accountable for crimes because she’s wed to a fellow judge in the same circuit?
Many would assume that that is a conflict of interest. According to SDCL and the Judicial canons (rules for Judges), it is.
Canon 3 E(1) provides: A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge.
The judges of the 7th Circuit have been quite reasonably questioned on their impartiality because of personal bias for the State’s Attorney, due to her spousal relationship to a fellow judge they work with, share staff with, and likely speak to daily.
Standing case law agrees.
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, is a US Supreme Court case concerning the due process of judicial disqualification. It established that due process is violated if a judge is placed in a position where there is a strong temptation;
"not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused."
A judge presiding over a case prosecuted by a close colleague's spouse creates exactly this unconstitutional temptation.
Smith v. Beckman (1984): The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the mere existence of a marriage relationship between a judge and a prosecutor in the same county is sufficient to require disqualification, even if the prosecutor’s spouse is not personally working on that specific case.
In (In re Disqualification of Spon (Ohio)): State Supreme Courts frequently rule on circuit-wide conflicts. Precedents establish that when a prosecutor is married to a local judge, an appearance of impropriety is instantly cast over every other judge in that same building. To preserve public confidence in the administration of justice, an outside, independent judge from a completely different district must be appointed. When a prosecutor is married to a judge working in the exact same circuit or county, the institutional conflict of interest is treated with extreme severity by appellate courts.
Even if the spouse is not the presiding judge on the case, the close professional, financial, and administrative ties among judges in the same district create a structural temptation to favor the prosecution. This violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees an absolute right to a neutral and detached tribunal.
Under these arguments, has every case since July 2024 been tainted? We would argue so.
So, who appointed a judge with a known Conflict of Interest? Kristi Noem, in 2024. In our opinion, drawing from Noem’s past actions, her ethical compass does not exactly point north.
Whether it was Noem’s State funded self-promotion in SD ad campaigns, or State and alleged Federal Contracts with donors, Kristi Noem showed she could be the star of the show for the right amount. Forget the shooting of a puppy if you can (not likely). Her actions are hers and hers alone and serve her interest above others (in our opinion).
But enough about the medically enhanced, aged show pony that someone rode hard and put away wet (our opinion).
Back to the alleged crimes of Pennington County States Attorney Lara Roetzel. In a court filing filed on 10/8/2026, Roetzel is personally accused of forgery and filing a false document with the courts, which are both felonies and career-ending moves. Forgery in particular, per SDCL 22-39-36, is a class 5 felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
The forged document was a special prosecutor appointment letter in the Rhoden case, after an entirely unclear departure by the South Dakota Attorney General’s office from prosecuting Jackley’s political opponent after misconduct was accused. In fact, there is no reason stated on the record; after asking the for a continuance, the state then withdrew the motion and left the case.
In a court document filed late this week, it’s additionally stated that Lara Roetzel lacked legal authority to make the special appointment, and cited the appropriate statutes that were missing from Roetzel’s filing.
From the Filing:
“Lara Roetzel had no legal authority under SDCL § 7-16-2 to self-appoint their own special prosecutor. Nor, did Lara Roetzel not seek commission consent per SDCL 7- 16-3. Which is why the appointment letter failed to cite any legal authority to appoint. Per County Commission, new hires are approved on their agenda, no such approval for Steve Smith has ever taken place, per county commission staff. The Pennington County Auditor claims Smith is not listed as an Employee, and has not been prior.”
The document calls for the case to be overturned and dismissed with prejudice for actual vindictiveness and cites court transcripts where the “cherry picked” prosecutor personally appeared to admit to witness tampering and suborning perjury at the Rhoden case trial.
Steve Smith in the Sentencing hearing, (July 17th Transcripts Page 3 line 8-11):
“And I very much believe he has likely gone to the Rapid City Police force and filed criminal - - tried to file criminal charges against me because I suborned perjury and I went and tampered with witnesses…”
The prosecutor’s apparent admission on the record of the accusation is appalling. Smith didn’t claim he was merely accused, his exact words were “because I”, appearing to clearly admit he did it.
Case records and witness affidavits sworn under oath accuse Smith of the witness tampering during the trial, against a specific order from the judge not to talk to witnesses under oath during trial breaks. Smith’s own response admitted he did talk to at least 1 witness while on such a break.
Witness tampering, as defined by SDCL 22-11-19, is a class 4 felony punishable by up-to 10-years in prison. Why would trespassing at a dollar store, a misdemeanor, be worth the prosecution risking 10 years in prison?
Smith is the same prosecutor that claimed in the case that because Bialota accused Smith and Jackley of crimes, Bialota should be jailed, and not for the alleged crime. It was pure retaliation as written in the transcripts:
“But I started thinking to myself and tried to look for something what would be appropriate as a gage with which to decide what kind of sentence to impose. And I just decide well just count how many times he’s accused me, Marty Jackley, of a crime, who he says is going to spend 24 years to the rest of his life in the penitentiary.”
This is clearly defined as prosecutor retaliation and vindictiveness. Case law dictates the case be overturned, likely to never be charged again.
Other documents & cases show a history and practice by the PCSAO (Pennington County State’s Attorney’s Office) of hiding evidence from defense teams, which is unconstitutional and violates US Supreme Court case law rules like Brady & Giglio. Reitzel’s office has been busted violating these before, resulting in serious consequences.
While Lara Roetzel was chief criminal deputy State’s Attorney in the murder trial State v Barry Allman, a mistrial was declared by Judge Brown in December of 2021. The defense motioned for the mistrial after it was discovered that State witnesses were given plea deals to testify at trial, but the PCSAO hid that information and motive to testify from the defense. The trial had already begun, and testimony was given. The State faced serious misconduct allegations of its own and then took a plea deal for aggravated assault in the case. Allman received a 15-year sentence and is eligible for parole in 2030. Allman may only serve 8 years for murder, because the prosecutor was caught cheating justice. Citizens have paid the price for the misconduct, and it should have been the prosecutor.
The major question is whether Lara Roetzel or any from her office has faced any consequences for similar actions since her husband was appointed to the bench in July 2024.
We aren’t seeing it. In fact, it looks like Roetzel and her staff have carte blanche to do any crime she wants.
What’s worse is the number of South Dakota 7th Circuit Judges that have personally worked with Lara Roetzel for years, and some appear to have been subordinate to Lara Roetzel when they themselves were prosecutors with the PCSAO.
1. Judge Stacy L. Wickre (Circuit Judge): previously served as a deputy state's attorney in Pennington County for 4 years starting in 2017.
2. Judge Scott A. Roetzel (Circuit Judge): previously worked as a Pennington County deputy state's attorney for over a decade on two separate occasions.
3. Judge Matthew M. Brown (Circuit Judge): previously began his legal career with Black Hills Legal Services before working as a prosecutor for Pennington County (and later Custer County). The exact years are unknown as he split time between these positions.
4. Judge Sarah E. Morrison: spent 13 years serving as a line prosecutor in the Pennington County State's Attorney's Office.
5. Judge Todd J. Hyronimus: served as a prosecutor in the Pennington County State's Attorney's Office for roughly 11 years.
6. Judge Joshua Hendrickson: served as a prosecutor for Pennington County for 16 years.
This amounts to half of all Judges in the South Dakota 7th Circuit that worked directly in the same office as Lara Roetzel, many for over 10 years. Besides that, fellow Judge Scott Roetzel is the State’s Attorney’s husband.
How much bias appearance does anyone need?
Several Rapid City area lawyers we reached out to (on the condition of anonymity) specifically said if they were to allege or pursue known prosecutor misconduct, it would have to be the last case they ever had, as it would allude to the apparent judicial misconduct of not reporting. Another said you won’t find a local attorney to go after another local attorney as they would no longer be able to work comfortably in the area. So, they wouldn’t do it.
Judges, like lawyers, are required by law to report other judges’ or lawyers’ misconduct. All are required to not only report criminal actions, but unethical actions as well (SDCL Chapter 16-2, Appendix A).
We have not only not seen the crimes and the reports to judges and the bar from numerous cases and individuals, but we have seen what appears to be a conscious effort to cover it up and fail to report. In some cases, this itself is a criminal offense under the new state employee reporting law.
SDCL 3-6C-28, supervisors who knowingly fail to report or intentionally fail to submit required records face criminal liability and can be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor.
SDCL 22-11-12 (misprision of a felony), any person who, having knowledge, which is not privileged, of the commission of a felony, conceals the felony, or does not immediately disclose the felony, including the name of the perpetrator, if known, and all of the other relevant known facts, to the proper authorities, is guilty of misprision of a felony. Misprision of a felony is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
There is no exemption for judges and lawyers to not report these crimes. This means they know that there is a current bias. One that appears to affect every case in Pennington County.
Now, why should the 4th Circuit be subject to the massive failings of the 7th Circuit?
What does that mean for defense lawyers? Are they being pushed to force their clients to take plea deals for crimes they did not commit?
We found a serious felony case that shows just that, where the attorney has instructed his client not to go to the press for fear of judicial and prosecutorial retaliation. A previous conviction was not possible on at least some of the accused charges, as the client was not there in the years in question. The prior defense attorney made innuendos of other fallouts if the client did not take a plea to crimes the client didn’t commit (as it was specifically not possible to have committed it), and the client was promised leniency in sentencing.
Does that mean some public defenders are helping Roetzel pad the books on convictions?
On our reviewing of the case, it became clear the defendant that remains anonymous took a plea for a crime that the individual could not have possibly committed, and the clients previous lawyer urged him to do it anyway.
Public Defense Attorneys are routinely called Public Pretenders for a reason that seems apparently clear. Many are accused of having no interest in their client, their rights, or the truth. We have seen the billing - they get paid by the state, which the defendants must pay back, regardless of if a lawyer truly represents the defendant’s best interest. We have witnessed public defenders request removal from cases, due to the defendants wish to seek not guilty verdicts and go to trial. They openly admit at times that it takes too much time to go to trial and actually prepare and learn the defendant’s side of the case.
As a paralegal, I have firsthand knowledge of this. It’s a scary fact.
This is a disgusting travesty of justice. The separation of judges from prosecutors must be clear, with no conflict of interest. Pennington County, South Dakota is clearly violating this.
Why would anyone in the 4th Judicial Circuit of South want any judge that may be involved in this to rule over them? They wouldn’t.
I have a solution for this issue. A plan to restore justice and accountability statewide, across all levels or government. We will announce this plan before the November election, and it may relate to some of the ballot issues. Stay tuned.
