Editor’s Note: Though the named victim in this case has recanted her initial statement to law enforcement, this case is still pending and, therefore, only her initials are used.
Two of the charges against a Statesboro man accused of kidnapping a woman on Father’s Day won’t move forward, but a judge said Thursday that probable cause was established for three others.
The case involves a 20-year-old Statesboro High graduate, a woman with whom he long had a romantic relationship, and an incident on Father’s Day that ended with an arrest.
As previously reported, Jaylin Lee Wadley was arrested by the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office following a domestic dispute of sorts that occurred at the Kiwanis Fairgrounds and Mill Creek Park. Wadley was charged with Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, Battery of a Female Who is Pregnant, Criminal Trespass, and Obstructing or Hindering Persons Making Emergency Telephone Call. He’s been held at the Bulloch County Jail since his arrest.
His attorney, Francys Johnson, filed a motion for a bond hearing on June 20th, which was scheduled for Thursday by Judge Ronald Thompson, along with the preliminary hearing. (A preliminary hearing, otherwise known as a probable cause hearing, is a proceeding in which a judge determines if probable cause exists to bind the charges over to Superior Court for further action. Prosecutors present evidence to support the charges and defense attorneys have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses – usually investigators.)
Also filed in the Clerk of Court’s office on June 20th was a sworn affidavit from the named victim in the case. You can read the full statement here, but essentially, N.G. recanted her statement made to law enforcement on June 15 and stated much of what she reported to police was taken out of context. She asked that no further prosecution of Wadley take place.
Deputy Testimony
On Thursday, Chief ADA Jillian Gibson presented the case by calling Corporal Walter French with the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office to the stand to summarize the incident as told to him on June 15.
French testified that N.G. reported that Wadley came over to her home so the pair could discuss her involvement with another individual that resulted in pregnancy. She left the home with Wadley on her own accord in his Red Ford Ranger truck and they traveled to the Fairgrounds. French testified that he was told a physical altercation occurred there.
“She wanted to leave. He wouldn’t let her. Mr. Wadley then exited the vehicle, [N.G.] then escaped from the driver’s side and ran towards the metal building at the Fairgrounds and Mr. Wadley eventually caught up to her, held her by her hair, grabbed her by her body, dragged her back to the truck. She tried to leave again. Mr. Wadley said ‘No.’”
French said the pair then traveled to Mill Creek Park where N.G. ‘saw an opening’ to get out of the vehicle and escaped the vehicle, ran toward Highway 24, and waved down a vehicle for help. The motorist allowed N.G. to use her phone to call 911 and the Sheriff’s Office directed her to come to the office to make a report.
Gibson submitted five photos one of N.G.’s nightgown, one photo of her neck and face, one photo of her leg, a photo of the phone on the ground with tire tracks, a photo of a nightgown with missing buttons, and a photo taken from Splash in the Boro video which showed the Red Ford Ranger on park property.
French testified that he did interview Wadley who told him he went to the Fairgrounds to talk with N.G. because he knows law enforcement is often there. He reportedly acknowledged that the conversation escalated, that they went to Mill Creek, and once there, she got out of the car and took off.
Gibson had French read the written statement by N.G. on the day of the incident, which detailed that Wadley was upset after learning about the pregnancy and began to cry. She also wrote that Wadley punched her in the head and back, tried to yank her from the passenger seat, pulled her out of the truck, and appeared that he was going to run her over with the vehicle.
Arguments by the Defense
Cross Examination of Corporal French
On cross examination, Johnson asked French about his interview with Wadley the day of the incident.
During questioning, French testified that he based his charges on what N.G. reported to him, marks on her body, the ripped nightgown, photographs of the tiremarks and the cell phone, photographs of Wadley’s truck at the Fairgrounds and at Mill Creek Park, and the fact that Wadley’s truck looked identical to the one in the pictures.
Johnson asked if French inquired about whether or not N.G. stated the nightgown was ripped and missing buttons because of the incident, to which French replied, “Not directly.”
Johnson asked if any interviews beyond Wadley, N.G., and the passing motorist were conducted. French stated he did not conduct other interviews, but did speak to the individuals responsible for the video footage at the Fairgrounds and Mill Creek Park.
“Did you canvass Mill Creek and talk to anybody who may have observed this?” Johnson asked.
“No sir. Just the managers at the Splash in the Boro. I asked them if they had seen a red truck and what not. Nobody did,” French testified.
“And this is in the afternoon? Did you ask if they had heard an adult screaming?” Johnson asked.
“No sir,” French answered.
“You didn’t ask them or they said they didn’t?” Johnson asked.
“I didn’t ask them. But the wording that I would have used is, that I use often is, ‘Have you seen anything suspicious?” French answered. He then clarified that the location of the incident as told to him was by the soccer fields, which is away from large crowds.
Johnson also inquired about whether or not any of the incident was captured on cameras at the Fairgrounds or Mill Creek Park. French testified that the footage showed the red Ford Ranger was at both locations, but in the fifty camera angles, no footage showed the reported tussles or dragging of N.G. by her hair. He said the incident was ‘roughly a quarter mile away behind a bunch of trees.’
Johnson then pivoted to questioning about the incident itself. He asked French if N.G. disclosed that both parties had each other’s phones and were looking through texts. French testified that she did not.
He also asked if Wadley had any injuries. French read from his report in which he documented that Wadley told him that they were arguing over the phones, that N.G. got in his face, and they both tripped and fell, resulting in scrapes on Wadley’s leg.
N.G. declined to seek medical attention after the incident, but Wadley did. French testified that when he went to arrest Wadley at the hospital, he did not inquire about why Wadley was seeking medical treatment.
Johnson then had a back and forth with French about what evidence he had that Wadley knew N.G. was pregnant at the time of the incident, if there were any attempts made to call 911 that Wadley would have blocked, or if French was aware N.G. had since submitted an affidavit retracting her statement to police.
He stated he read the statement online in a news article, but when pressed by Johnson about why he hadn’t followed up on the affidavit, French said he had not worked since he read the statement online. During questioning, French also said he consulted with his superiors before filing arrest warrants.
“Is there any evidence or anything that would say he [Wadley] is an additional threat to [N.G.] beyond the allegations?”
“I think the allegations are enough,” French answered.
Testimony of N.G.
Johnson then called N.G. to the stand and asked her the differences between her statement on June 15 and her written affidavit on June 20.
N.G. testified that on the day of the incident, her writing was out of anger and that she was distraught about the situation and what had transpired.
“In that moment, I was just doing anything I was told to do because I did call the police so I was just doing whatever they told me to do, but the difference between this one and that one is that I was in a very messed up head space at the time and wasn’t able to think clearly because everything had transpired so fast.”
Johnson shared the importance of the process because domestic violence victims are often asked to recant their statements when, in fact, they need protection. N.G. replied that once she learned of the charges, she was shocked because “the initial thing was not for the reasons that were given.” She then said she was not contacted by anyone or asked to provide the affidavit.
N.G. went on to testify that:
- She was not held against her will
- When Wadley grabbed her arm in the truck to prevent her from getting out, it was because the car was moving
- They both took each other’s phones
- She was not kidnapped
- She did not go to the hospital or seek medical attention
- She was pregnant at the time of the incident
- She was motivated by anger and the shame from getting pregnant by someone else
She testified that she wanted to set the record straight and she did not need any further protection from the court.
Request for Bond
Gibson said the state would agree to bond and suggested $20,000, no contact between the parties, and a recommendation that Wadley create a Family Violence Intervention Program.
Johnson opposed the program due to the fact that Wadley has not been convicted of anything, with which Judge Thompson agreed. He also asked the court to limit the ‘no contact’ order to ‘No violent contact’ because the parties have been involved in a 4-5 year relationship and wish to reconcile.
Ultimately, Judge Thompson set the bond at $10,000 with ‘no violent contact’ between the two parties. Wadley is also barred from consuming drugs or alcohol while out on bond.
Charges Bound Over
Johnson asked Judge Thompson to dismiss all five of the charges. He argued against each of the five charges, contending that many of the charges did not meet the legal standard for the elements. He instead asked Thompson to charge the case as Disorderly Conduct, a misdemeanor.
“This is the safeguard in the Constitution so that Mr. Wadley doesn’t have to deal with a very violent felony accusation hanging over his head while trying to work, while he’s trying to sustain a living, especially since [N.G.] doesn’t even ask for the court’s protection,” Johnson said.
ADA Jillian Gibson rebutted by noting that the case is a domestic dispute and it is not uncommon for people to change their statements after the incident.
Thompson said the court had to consider the fact that there were two conflicting accounts.
“The first account is contemporaneous to the events. The second was afterwards. It could be subject to remorse or it might be being transparent. There’s no telling. The second thing is, she says they told her to do it. I don’t think they told her to leave the truck. I don’t know if she jumped out…but I don’t think they told her to run across Highway 24, and reach out to a total stranger to take her to the Sheriff’s Office. So, for me, that’s probable cause.”
Thompson implored those present to remember that the determination is not one of guilt and much of the case still remains to be adjudicated. “Probable cause is not guilt. He’s not being convicted of anything today.”
Ultimately, Judge Thompson bound over three of the five charges to superior court – False Imprisonment, Battery Against a Female Who is Pregnant, and Obstructing/Hindering of a 911 Call. The Kidnapping charge and the Criminal Trespass charge were not bound over, but the District Attorney’s Office can move forward with different or additional charges when it is presented to a grand jury.
Records show Wadley bonded out of jail on June 27.
