Ex-Caldwell officer’s motion for acquittal, retrial denied; sentencing set for 2023
Fired Caldwell Police Lt. Joey Hoadley — who was convicted of three federal crimes after an FBI investigation — won’t be getting an acquittal or a retrial.
A 20-page order written by U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl — a Wyoming judge presiding over the case — denied an October motion filed by Hoadley’s lawyer asking for the charges against Hoadley to be acquitted or for a retrial.
After a six-day trial Hoadley was convicted of destruction, alteration or falsification of records in a federal investigation; tampering with a witness by harassment; and tampering with documents. Hoadley, who served for more than 20 years with the Caldwell Police Department, was fired in May.
The 12-person jury acquitted Hoadley of one charge — willfully depriving another person of their rights under color of law — that involved an allegation that he struck a Caldwell man, identified as B.H., while arresting him in 2017.
Hoadley’s sentencing was initially scheduled for December but has now been rescheduled for 9 a.m. Feb. 6 at the James A. McClure Federal Building in Boise.
Judge denied motion for acquittal
In October, Hoadley attorney Charles Peterson argued in an 18-page motion that there was “insufficient evidence” to convict Hoadley. Peterson took issue against count two — falsification of a 2017 police report — because Hoadley was acquitted on the first charge, which alleged he used excessive force during the 2017 arrest.
“If Mr. Hoadley did not intend to use excessive force during his encounter with B.H., no reasonable juror could believe Mr. Hoadley intentionally falsified a report of this incident with the intent to impede a future investigation into his non-criminal use of force,” Peterson said in the motion.
But Skavdahl disagreed. In the November order, he wrote that the jury could have “rationally concluded” that Hoadley didn’t use excessive force against B.H. but that Hoadley feared he used excessive force and falsified the police report to “soften the description of force and influence any potential investigation.”
In regard to the third count, Hoadley was convicted of harassing then-Officer Chad Hessman during a June 2021 meeting. Hessman testified during the trial that Hoadley, along with a now-resigned sergeant under FBI investigation, “ambushed” him.
Peterson in the October motion wrote that “no reasonable juror” could find Hoadley “intentionally harassed” Hessman. But Skavdahl wrote in the order that the jury could conclude Hoadley “knew he was being considered for criminal charges based on the FBI’s investigation” during his meeting with Hessman.
The day before Hoadley met with Hessman, an FBI agent informed then-Caldwell Police Chief Frank Wyant that the FBI’s probe into Hoadley, along with the sergeant, was still ongoing, but that materials were being sent to prosecutors to decide whether criminal charges were going to be filed. Wyant was allowed to tell Hoadley about the investigation, according to the order.
“A rational jury could conclude that during the June 29, 2021, meeting Mr. Hoadley intentionally harassed (Hessman) with veiled threats that (Hessman) needed to remain loyal to Mr. Hoadley in terms of the FBI investigation,” Skavdahl wrote.
Hoadley was also convicted of wiping his laptop and cellphone before turning them back over to the police department. Peterson argued that he was never told he couldn’t delete the data, but Skavdahl argued that is not a defense.
“The jury could reasonably conclude Mr. Hoadley’s true motive for resetting the electronic devices was to delete certain data so it could not be used against him in this case,” Skavdhal wrote.
Judge also denies motion for retrial
Skavdahl also denied Hoadley’s motion for a new trial.
In October, Peterson wrote in the motion that a week before the September trial started, the prosecution dropped roughly 340,000 new documents for the defense to review.
“The government had all these documents a month or more prior to the trial but simply chose to place Mr. Hoadley at the disadvantage of going forward without fully knowing whether there was favorable or unfavorable evidence within the disclosure,” Peterson argued in the motion.
While Skavdahl agreed that the dump of documents was “understandably problematic,” it was Hoadley’s choice to proceed with the scheduled trial date.
Peterson filed a motion to continue the trial — which Skavdahl wrote he would have granted — but the next day the motion was withdrawn, and during a hearing, Hoadley was “adamant” that the trial began in September.
This story was originally published November 24, 2022 at 4:17 PM.
