PART 1

EVIDENTIARY HEARING JULY 24, 2000
JUDGE JEAN HAMILTON, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF (MOSE YOUNG)
JOE MARGULIES
SEAN O’BRIEN

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT (DEE JOYCE HAYES)
SUE BARESI
MICHAEL SPILLANE
STEVEN HAWKE

At issue in this evidentiary hearing that resulted in a temporary stay of
execution for Mose Young two weeks ago is whether Mose Young’s
Constitutional and statutory rights to due process in the executive clemency
process of the state of Missouri were violated when a critical witness (Jane
Geiler) was threatened with loss of her livelihood by her employer (Dee
Joyce Hayes) if this critical witness testified truthfully and fully to the
Board of Pardons and Parole and to Governor Carnahan in Mose Young’s
clemency petition.

Below is my eyewitness account from the courtroom in yesterday’s hearing.
Other people’s notes, recollections and interpretations may be different.
This hearing was just part one, Dee Joyce Hayes testimony. On August 3,
Jane Geiler will testify. This is not a press or media release. I am
sending this at the request of Jeff Stack, Mid-MO Fellowship of
Reconciliation to be posted at their website. Tom Block

In court yesterday, Judge Jean Hamilton ruled in favor of the defense on a
motion made in limine. The defense motion was to deny the plaintiff access
to about nine witnesses that could have corroborated Jane Geiler’s statement
about working conditions in the Office of Special Public Defender and the
Circuit Attorney’s office at the time of Mose Young’s trial (1983).

This motion also included prohibiting Douglas Pribble, former employee of
Dee Joyce Hayes who was forced to resign in a similar situation. The judge
ruled in favor of this motion, denying Mr. Margulies these witnesses,
because the state argued the hearing is just about what Jane Geiler and Dee
Joyce Hayes said to one another and no one else was present.

Margulies’, attorney for Mose Young, position on Pribble was to demonstrate
that when someone takes a position opposite to Dee Joyce Hayes they can
expect hostile consequences. Also Pribble went to the state of mind of Jane
Geiler who was at the office of Circuit Attorney when Pribble was forced to
resign, Geiler was well aware of adverse consequences if she went against
Ms. Hayes’ directives.

Under examination by Joe Margulies, Dee Joyce Hayes admitted that those who
work at the Circuit Attorney’s office work "at the will" of the Circuit
Attorney and that she has the sole authority to hire and fire.

Ms. Hayes said that Jane Geiler did good work in her office and is very well
qualified with two degrees, one in law and the other in Social work. In
reply to Mr. Margulies, Ms. Hayes said she had no problem with Jane Geiler’s
performance on her job.

Sometime the week before July 4th, Ms. Geiler came to Ms. Hayes’ office to
discuss several topics. This was very routine. They consulted often.

Before this meeting was over, according to Hayes, Ms. Geiler brought up the
topic of Mose Young’s impending execution and that she (Geiler) wanted to
testify on behalf of Mr. Young in a clemency proceeding. Hayes said, "I
thought it was a clemency hearing, meaning "live testimony." Margulies
asserted, "She never told you she was going to make a public statement did
she."

Hayes did not dispute the assertion but went back to describing the meeting,
the discussion of Jack Walsh and that she asked Jane several times, do you
think Mr. Young is innocent? According to Hayes, Ms. Geiler did not think
Mose Young was innocent and Hayes kept pressing Jane, why do you want to do
this then.

Ms. Hayes said that she couldn’t give permission because it would be
inappropriate for Geiler to give testimony on behalf of Mose Young, when
this is the office that convicted and sentenced Young to death.

According to Hayes she asked Geiler if there was any new information that
had not already been litigated by several courts and part of the public
record. Hayes’ understanding of the situation was that Jane Geiler had
nothing "new" to offer.

Hayes questioned Geiler repeatedly like you don’t believe Young is innocent,
you don’t have anything "new" to offer, and your opposition to the death
penalty may be your moral imperative but is it worth acting out of that
moral imperative in this case.

Hayes, while not admitting to threatening Jane Geiler, Hayes does say under
examination by Mr. Margulies, " I told her (Geiler) that it would be
inappropriate to work here and to testify on Young’s behalf." Margulies
further established with Ms. Hayes that Hayes established order in her
office, issued directives she expects her staff to follow, and there would
be consequences for not following those directives. Ms. Hayes said, "She
(Geiler) could not work in my office and do what she wanted to do. The
statement would have been a violation of my directive and there would have
been consequences."

Ms. Hayes said that after speaking to Joe Bednar (July 3), legal counsel to
Governor Carnahan, and finding out that Jane Geiler could file a
confidential affidavit in the clemency process and that Geiler’s testimony
would not go public that Hayes withdrew her objections and told Geiler she
could go ahead and testify if she wanted without any consequences.

In the affidavit Hayes filed in the Hamilton court she told the court she
refused to give Geiler permission to testify and that Geiler then said
something to the effect, " I want to go home and think this over, I may have
to resign, I feel so strongly about this."

While Hayes continued to blame Geiler’s moral opposition to the death
penalty for wanting to testify on behalf of Mose Young, I believe there is
an equal reason for Geiler’s desire to testify; Jane Geiler knew the truth
of Mose Young’s legal representation at his criminal trial. Geiler was Jack
Walsh’s supervisor at that time.

To remind everyone what that truth is that Jane Geiler could testify to if
not threatened with loss of job, I call attention to the lawsuit filed
against Hayes on Young’s behalf.

In that lawsuit, Margulies recounts what Jane Geiler told him before the
alleged threats by Hayes: "that Walsh did not visit the crime scene, made
no attempt to investigate or prepare for trial, and gave absolutely no
thought or preparation to the most critical phase, the penalty phase" where
Mose Young received his death sentence.

Hayes went on to testify about what she said in her deposition to Joe
Margulies before this hearing. Hayes says, "I didn’t use the words lose
your job." " I told Jane if she felt so strongly about her anti-death
penalty position to resign, she has to do what she has to do but she can not
remain here and do what she intends."

In cross examination by the state attorney, Baresi, Hayes stated her
position as "not wanting one of my attorneys to take a position adverse to
my office, an office that prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced Mose Young, a
few days before his impending execution. The public deserves better. It
would shake public confidence in this office, in system that convicted and
sentenced Young to death. This office should stand behind this decision."

Hayes said that her office seeks justice that was upheld by several courts
and she didn't want to have someone (Geiler) making a spectacle by giving
adverse testimony to this office and igniting a public "moral debate" around
the death penalty and my office.

Under questioning of the state attorney, Baresi, Hayes said, "I never would
have stood in the way of evidence of "innocence". I just perceived Jane
Geiler wanting to do this because of her "moral imperative" in opposition to
the death penalty."

Hayes continued to say that once she understood from Bednar, the Governor’s
legal counsel, that the clemency process would be private she withdrew her
objections and gave Jane permission to testify without any consequences, no
need to worry about her job. Hayes added that Geiler had only talked to her
about Jack Walsh, nothing about peremptory "racial strikes" of jurors in the
Young case.

In rebuttal, Margulies got Hayes to admit that Geiler had personal first
hand information of Jack Walsh, Mose Young’s trial attorney, that she could
offer to the Governor on behalf of Mose Young, implying that rather than
opposition to the death penalty, Jane Geiler was really in the best
position to tell the Governor about Young’s lack of competent representation
at trial. Hayes did agree that Geiler was in position to have first hand
knowledge of Young’s legal representation.
****************************************************
Tom and Jeanette Block
Missourians Against State Killing (MASK)
PO Box 190466
St. Louis, MO 63119-6466
Tel. 314-962-4937
Email: tjblock@gateway.net
****************************************************
PART 2
MOSE YOUNG EVIDENTIARY HEARING PART TWO AUGUST 3, 2000

These are my notes, reflections, and interpretations from yesterday’s Mose
Young hearing. Other people’s recollections and interpretations may be
different. The Defendant, Dee Joyce Hayes, was represented by attorneys
from the State Attorney General’s office, Sue Baresi, Michael Spillane, and
Stephen Hawke. The plaintiff, Mose Young was represented by Joe Margulies
and Sean O’Brien. Key witness for clemency, Jane Geiler, was represented by
Rick Sindel.

Jane Geiler has worked at the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney’s Office since
1985. She is a Senior felony attorney.

Under questioning by Joe Margulies, Jane Geiler went through her telephone
conversation with Mr. Margulies on June 23, 2000. Geiler said she spoke
about the representation Mose Young had at trial and in response to a
question from Margulies about the "practice of jury selection" by the
Circuit Attorney office prior to Batson at the time of Mose Young’s trial.

Geiler confirmed that at the time of their phone conversation she was
willing to give a video-taped statement concerning these matters the next
Tuesday at Rick Sindel’s office for use in the Mose Young clemency.

Geiler went on to say that later on June 23 she went to see her boss, Dee
Joyce Hayes, about a number of things including to alert Hayes that she was
contacted by an attorney for Mose Young and that she (Geiler) intended to
give testimony in the clemency proceeding. According to Geiler, Hayes
immediate reply was, "You can not do that," Geiler told Hayes she had
information about Jack Walsh who represented Young at trial.

Hayes asked Geiler if Nels Moss was the prosecutor. Geiler told her no that
Ed Rogers was the prosecutor in the Young case. Hayes said to Geiler, "You
can not work in this office and testify against this office."

Hayes asked Geiler if she thought Mose Young was innocent and Geiler replied
No. According to Geiler, Hayes did not understand why the moral dilemna
then if Geiler didn’t think Young innocent.

To get a better idea of what Hayes’ position was, Geiler asked Hayes, "Are
you saying I must resign if I do this?" Hayes said, "Yes."

According to Geiler there was a long silence then before Geiler said, "I may
have to do this." Hayes replied, " think about it long and hard."

Margulies asked Geiler, "Was there any doubt about repercussions?" Geiler
said from the stand, "There was no doubt that if I gave a statement to the
Governor, I would lose my job."

Margulies asked Geiler about a letter she received from Dee Joyce Hayes.
Geiler was called by Hayes secretary on July 5 to come to Hayes office to
pick up a letter. This letter was not in a sealed envelope so anyone might
have had access to the contents.

In that letter according to Geiler, Hayes explained she had a better
understanding of the clemency procedure now and that Geiler was free to make
a statement if she wished but "not to do anything that was likely to
embarrass this office."

Margulies asked Geiler after receiving this letter if she "felt free and
unrestrained to say anything she wanted in the clemency." Geiler replied,
"No."

Marguilies asked, "Did it remove any fear you might have?" Geiler replied,
"No."

Margulies asked Geiler if there were any areas she didn’t want to discuss in
a clemency after receiving this letter. Geiler said she didn’t want to
discuss anything about "jury selection process" in the Circuit Attorney
office at the time of Mose Young'’ trial. "I had to "measure my words
carefully."

Geiler talked about going to Hayes with the Young matter to "feel safe."
But after her conversation with Dee Joyce Hayes her willingness to talk to
Margulies vanished.

Entered into exhibit was Jane Geiler’s first affidavit sent to the Governor
on July 7, 2000. This affidavit was filed after receiving the Hayes letter
saying Geiler was free to testify but admonishing her not to embarrass this
office.

Omitted from this affidavit was any mention of the "jury selection process"
(striking any black juror for no other reason than they were black) in a
criminal trial at the time of the Mose Young trial.

Ms. Geiler confirmed on the stand again her willingness, prior to
conversation with Dee Joyce Hayes, to testify on video tape to such matters
but the conversation with Hayes ended any cooperation with Margulies and
willingness to testify freely and openly.

Geiler admitted under questioning that this first affidavit did not equal in
weight or content what she had told Margulies on the phone prior to her
conversation with Dee Joyce Hayes.

On July 11, Ms. Geiler supplied another affidavit at the request of the
Attorney General’s office. (Mose Young was scheduled to be executed July 12
12:01 a.m.)

This affidavit primarily talked about how Jane Geiler did not fear any
reprisals and was not in fear of losing her job from Dee Joyce Hayes.

Under questioning by Margulies Geiler admitted there was no mention in this
affidavit of "jury selection process" of Circuit Attorney’s office at the
time of the Mose Young trial.

Ms. Geiler talked about how frightened and rushed she was as she drafted
this affidavit. By now the story was in the newspaper and the media.
Geiler said, "Everything was frightening to me and remains so."

Margulies tried to get Geiler to talk about the office of Circuit Attorney
and conditions that might contribute to that fear. Geiler asked often to
consult with her attorney, Rick Sindel, during this line of questioning.

Geiler was reluctant to state any specifics about the "culture of the world
of prosecutors" She did not want to name any names of supporters or people
who may have made negative remarks to her in the office of Circuit Attorney.

Geiler said, "the culture of my office is very tense" and that she didn’t
want to discuss it any further.

Margulies: Do you feel free now to say anything you want about the Young
case?
Geiler: No.

When Geiler was asked about Shirley Rogers who works in the Circuit Attorney
’s office with Jane Geiler, Geiler replied, "There is no answer that will
not be detrimental to me in the office. I am not going to answer any more
questions." (Shirley Rogers is currently the wife of Ed Rogers who
prosecuted the Mose Young case.)

It was the state’s turn now. Sue Baresi cross-examined Jane Geiler for the
state. Ms. Geiler told Baresi that she no longer felt any fear of reprisals
from Dee Joyce Hayes but was very clear in limiting her "no fear statement"
to only her friend of 20 years, Dee Joyce Hayes. (Dee Joyce Hayes leaves
office at the end of this year and is not running for re-election.)

Even though Baresi tried to elicit responses that would have corroborated
Hayes testimony about their discussion when Hayes testified July 24, Geiger
denied that she had talked about any details of what she might testify to in
a clemency proceeding, or that Hayes ever told her on June 23 that providing
a statement would be an embarassment, or that they talked anything about
Geiler’s personal opposition to the death penalty.

Geiler did admit that Hayes herself, as well, is opposed to the death
penalty and they had talked about capital punishment during the course of
the long friedship.

Geiler did admit to Baresi that she did tell Hayes that she thought Mose
Young was guilty.

In conclusion Geiler reinterated to Baresi that she (Geiler) had "no fear
from Dee Joyce Hayes of any reprisals". Geiler said, "I"am positive Ms.
Hayes would do nothing negative to me."

Margulies finished up quickly with whether Ms. Geiler felt that the
"assurances of no reprisals were finite and that Dee Joyce Hayes will not
always be there to protect you." Geiler agreed.

Judge Jean Hamilton concluded by taking the case and will render a decision
on whether to grant relief or not, some time in the future.
*************************************************
Tom and Jeanette Block
Missourians Against State Killing (MASK)
PO Box 190466
St. Louis, MO 63119-6466
Tel. 314-962-4937
Email: tjblock@gateway.net