Newsfeed : Federal Judge Upholds 50-Year Sentence for Iowa Man With HIV

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join

Back to home » Newsfeed » April 2012

Most Popular Links
Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle


Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV

20 Years Ago In POZ

More News

Click here for more news

Have news about HIV? Send press releases, news tips and other announcements to


April 13, 2012

Federal Judge Upholds 50-Year Sentence for Iowa Man With HIV

A federal judge upheld a 50-year prison term for an Iowa man convicted of having unprotected sex with women while knowing he was HIV positive, USA Today reports. Adam Musser was convicted on four counts of criminally transmitting HIV for failing to disclose he has HIV to female sexual partners in 2002 and 2003. At the time, Musser had been diagnosed with the virus and was taking HIV medication. After the Iowa Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence, he appealed to federal court. U.S. District Judge James Gritzner said Musser’s 50-year prison term was reasonable, noting that Musser’s rights were not violated and that he repeatedly subjected women to health risks.

To read the USA Today article, click here.

Search: Adam Musser, James Gritzner, Iowa man convicted, criminalization

Scroll down to comment on this story.


(will display; 2-50 characters)


(will NOT display)


(will display; optional)

Comment (500 characters left):

(Note: The POZ team reviews all comments before they are posted. Please do not include either ":" or "@" in your comment. The opinions expressed by people providing comments are theirs alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Smart + Strong, which is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by people providing comments.)

Comments require captcha.
Please enter this number for verification:

| Posting Rules

Hide comments

Previous Comments:

  comments 1 - 15 (of 41 total)     next > >>

justin keene, dubuque, 2012-05-17 15:24:33
This guy adam from iowa is on parole on for quite long time, im happy he can move on with his life now. The 50 years sentence that was given to him was terrible

JH, Washington D.C., 2012-05-16 19:02:03
My friend and I were both infected by the same person about 8 years ago. I took the responsible step of going to get tested with him, but the testing centre wouldn't allow us into each other's "result rooms". He told me he was negative, but it turns out he wasn't and he infected me. Later he infected a friend of mine, I didn't know they were together, and he pulled the same roose on them. My friend actually killed him, was charged, and got off. I am happy he is gone and I applaud my friend.

Jeton Ademaj, Harlem, NYC, 2012-05-11 13:16:36
the part of my profiles Mitch tries to hold over my head calls my highly chemoprophylactic self "low risk" but specifically tells people to google the issue for themselves, in 1 line out of 15. he fails to mention i disclose my status several times in my ads out of respect for my partners, meanwhile Mitch takes a stand even against HIV+ ppl selecting HIV+ partners! he fights HIV-disclosure like Don Quixote...stooping to sad personal attacks while remaining in fear of using his own surname. FAIL.

Mitch, , 2012-05-10 20:07:30
Jeton, as someone whose hookup profile dedicates a fair amount of its body to implying "undetectable" = no real danger, you're on thin ice to make the assertion that that HIV- have some special right to be informed about a status that isnt relevant to their safety. Disclosure laws exist to humiliate and segregate people who test poz. They're part of an ancient bias against the sick, not "a right". If we were concerned about well rounded decisions, we'd run background checks on our tricks.

Jeton Ademaj, Harlem, NYC, 2012-05-10 18:26:31
disclosure laws exist exactly bcuz HIV+ have less interest in disclosure than HIV- do...ESPECIALLY in casual encounters! everyone has the right to accept or reject ANY sexual partner for ANY reason at all, including HIV status. i've recently noticed that is a haven for those who believe condoms r some sort of magic bullet that makes hiv disclosure and new prevention tools like PrEP irrelevant. this blind faith fails to end new infections OR stigma, instead it greatly intensifies both.

Mitch, , 2012-05-09 01:06:15
(cont) The latter instance is economically unsound, as it shifts the burden of prevention from those who have the most to gain from it (HIV-) to those who have the least to gain from it (HIV+). It is destructive to poz people, because it ghettoizes us, and fosters all the accompanying complications of ghettoization. Finally, it probably causes more infections than it prevents, amongst high risk groups, as "undetectables" are probably less infectious than those who presume they are negative.

Mitch, , 2012-05-09 01:03:14
We should be asking when mandatory disclosure is appropriate. Instead, we mandate disclosure with ALL sex. This is counterproductive in high risk groups. Expecting someone in a LTR to disclose is common decency. Its insane to presume one's partner is lying. Expecting disclosure with casual partners, is absolutely ludicrous.

nvhorseman, Reno, NV, 2012-05-08 13:01:14
31 years of knowing how HIV is transmitted, that it knows no social, gender, economic or racial boundaries, people insist on NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for their own promiscuity.If you are a woman and pick up a guy you should have a condom in your purse and 30 days supply of PrEP medication to take the next morning until you get the result of your HIV test back.Women can remember to take their birth control pills, they can learn to take PrEP pills or use a condom. Stop being the victim!

nvhorseman, Reno, NV, 2012-05-08 12:48:43
Amazing! Why don't they throw every man or woman into jail that exposes another person to Herpes virus, or Hepatitis virus, both non-curable and cancer causing viruses that result in tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone. If subjecting "women to health risks" is the criteria for guilt, then I would think that death from human papilloma virus causing anal and uterine-cervical cancer would qualify. There is a distinct discriminatory factor working here due to the "boogey man" factor of HIV

Alex, Ireland, 2012-05-08 07:30:19
maybe the guy should have disclosed or maybe the women should have insisted on condom usage

Jase, Detroit, 2012-05-04 22:16:18
Mitch, I was just wondering why you think mandatory disclosure is bad policy. I've been positive since July 9, 2009, and I'm still trying to get my mind around a lot of these issues. Still learning even while teaching others around me the things that I already know. I never considered it bad policy, especially for people who are considering unprotected and those who outright refuse to use protection even when they're positive, but always interested in cogent arguments for other points of view.

Mitch, , 2012-05-02 19:35:29
You assume too much. I don't "blame" HIV- for infection. I sympathize with this man's victims, but maintain that mandatory disclosure is bad policy. I am, by every definition, a "responsible citizen". In real life, I disclose, regardless of what I think of these laws. I will take HIV to the grave. You've no reason to think otherwise. As with many of your arguements, you're building straw men. This has become another fight of last words, where you attack, but never counter. Have fun.

Jeton Ademaj, Harlem, NYC, 2012-05-01 18:29:41
and another thing, Mitch...u and ppl like u don't want to be ur brother's keeper, but u want ur brothers to be ur keeper. what moral standing do u think u have to demand no ADAP waiting lists when u sociopathically choose to blame HIV- ppl for believing the lies that certain HIV+ ppl tell? who made u or the new moral authority to blame a person for daring to trust their spouse or sexual partner? that anyone thinks this reasoning can be sold anywhere in the wider community is astonishing.

Jeton Ademaj, Harlem, NYC, 2012-05-01 10:17:29
how telling that u speak of a fold, Mitch. apparently unlike urself, i never stopped being a responsible citizen when i seroconverted...i never decided that neg partners deserve to be infected bcuz they believed a lie too many poz ppl commonly tell...nor that condoms are the new normal ALL must submit to or deserve infection. this ghettoized consensus u proffer is a forever-stillborn social policy...ur effort to make it the social norm will fail, decimating the rights of poz ppl in the process.

Mitch, , 2012-04-30 22:58:55
Who are you writing this for Jeton? Do you think you'll be held up and let you back into the fold if you sell out enough? Pushing prevention onto the poz partner is counterproductive and unfair. "Take the test, face arrest" is apt. This is true, regardless of the majority consensus, which you conflate with "the real world". I see it manifest with my "neg" friends. Forcing people to be their brother's keeper isn't "equal rights", no matter how much the "clean" say so. It also doesn't work.

comments 1 - 15 (of 41 total)     next > >>

[Go to top]

Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr Instagram
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar
POZ on Twitter

Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Has a pet helped you deal with your HIV?


more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2016 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.