Alfredo Parrish is founder and senior partner of Parrish Kruidenier, where he practices in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, criminal defense, civil rights, employment and labor law, and appellate law. A distinguished litigator, Mr. Parrish has represented clients in over 200 jury trials, including a broad range of civil trials and more than 30 first-degree murder cases. He has litigated several high-profile and ground-breaking cases, including arguing before the United States Supreme Court; trying the nation’s first federal “three strikes” case; and, recently, handling Iowa’s first death-penalty case in 40 years. Mr. Parrish is also an established appellate lawyer, having argued nearly 200 appeals in his professional career.
Mr. Parrish has repeatedly been honored and recognized by his peers and has been selected ten years in a row for inclusion to Best Lawyers in America (see other honors and awards below). In addition to serving on numerous boards, commissions, and task forces (see below), Mr. Parrish contributes to his community through extensive pro-bono work.
Mr. Parrish was formerly a Senior Staff Attorney at Polk County Legal Aid Society as well as a Criminal and Business Law Instructor at Des Moines Area Community College. He has also served as Student Advisor at Drake University Law School.
Mr. Parrish is the author of “History of African American Lawyers in Iowa” (Chapter 11 of Inside Out, A History of African Americans in Iowa (2002)), Know Your Rights, A Guide Through Iowa’s Criminal Justice System (1995), A Legal Guide for Family Farmers in Iowa (1985), and Only in Looking (1971), a book of poetry. A notable speaker, Mr. Parrish routinely conducts seminars before professional associations on trial tactics and techniques and related topics.
- State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 2017). For the second time, Mr. Parrish and Mr. Dunn obtained a new trial for Vernon Huser on his charges of First Degree Murder. This time, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed Mr. Huser’s conviction because the district court wrongfully prevented Mr. Parrish and Mr. Dunn from presenting evidence to the jury that Mr. Huser was not involved with the murder. This win came six years after Mr. Parrish and Mr. Dunn won a reversal of Mr. Huser’s first trial because the State had presented improper evidence to the jury.
- Adams v. State, 2015 Iowa App. LEXIS 397. Mr. Parrish represented Mr. Adams through direct appeal and post-conviction relief and successfully argued Mr. Adams’ trial counsel rendered prejudicially ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the proximate cause of the death in the underlying homicide by vehicle offense.
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 1229 (2011). The United States Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that when a criminal defendant’s sentence has been set aside on appeal, a district court may consider evidence of the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct at resentencing, including rehabilitation, and may rely on such evidence to support a downward departure from advisory sentencing guidelines.
- Posters ‘N’ Things v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1747 (1994). Mr. Parrish’s first case before the United States Supreme Court, challenging the applicability of the Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Act.
- United State v. Tyerman, 641 F.3d (8th Cir. 2011). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that client had a right to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(1) and reversed the district court’s denial of the request.
- United States v. Thurmon, 278 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2002). Client’s sentence was reversed in a federal drug conspiracy offense and remanded for a new sentencing to allow for an acceptance of responsibility reduction.
- United States v. Beeks, 224 F.3d 741 (8th 2000). Client’s conviction and sentence reversed and remanded because the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant defendant a new trial after the prosecutor pursued a line of inquiry that was improper, depriving defendant of a fair trial.
- Winegar v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 20 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 1994). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding client had a property interest in his employment and allegations of unjustified child abuse were sufficiently stigmatizing to implicate liberty interests.
- Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 160 F.Supp. 1038 (S.D. Iowa 2001). Defendant officers’ motions for summary judgment were denied and client was allowed to pursue claims for violations of civil rights.
- State v. Adams, 810 N.W.2d 365 (Iowa 2012). Iowa Supreme Court vacated homicide by vehicle conviction, holding that an issue existed regarding whether a causation defense was properly considered given that a rational fact finder could have found that defendant’s alleged intoxicated driving was not the factual cause of the victim’s death because a driver who had not ingested alcohol before the crash would have struck the victim.
- Anfinson v. State, 758 N.W.2d 496 (Iowa 2008). Iowa Supreme Court held that client was entitled to a new murder trial due to ineffective assistance of previous counsel.
- State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734 (Iowa 2004). Client received a new murder trial following the introduction of inadmissible evidence and improper argument at trial.
- City of Des Moines v. Civil Service Commission and White, 513 N.W.2d 746 (Iowa 1994). Client, who was a police officer, was properly reinstated to the city’s police force.
- State v. Robinson, 389 N.W.2d 401 (Iowa 1986). When trial was heavily publicized in small community, trial court abused its discretion when it denied motion for change of venue because publicity surrounding the case was so pervasive and inflammatory that prejudice was required to be presumed and the Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case.
- State v. Huser, 810 N.W.2d 24 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). Murder conviction reversed on grounds that inadmissible testimony was presented to the jury.
- State v. Paulsen, 807 N.W.2d 157 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). Sexual abuse convictions reversed on grounds that trial counsel failed to raise necessary objections at trial and allowed impermissible opinion evidence.