Val Geissler

A judge — and not a jury — will determine whether an 81-year-old Cody man was mentally competent at the time he allegedly tried to persuade a teenage girl to have sex with him.

Kenneth “Val” Geissler is facing a felony count of promoting prostitution, stemming from allegations that he repeatedly tried to convince a 17-year-old to perform sex acts for cash, plus a misdemeanor count of unlawful contact, in connection with allegations that he once kissed the girl without her consent.

Geissler has pleaded not guilty by reason of mental illness in connection with the 2018 allegations. With the plea, Geissler contends he lacked the ability to understand his conduct was wrong or was unable to obey the law because of his mental condition.

Last year, Geissler and his defense attorney asked District Court Judge Bill Simpson to schedule the case for a bench trial rather than a jury trial, in which Simpson alone would determine Geissler’s guilt or innocence. Geissler’s attorney, Tim Blatt, said the case would involve allegations of “sexual conversations and letters that certainly would come off to be extremely embarrassing to Mr. Geissler [and] would come off as somewhat shocking, maybe, to a jury.”

Deputy Park County Attorney Jack Hatfield, who’s prosecuting the case, had agreed to a bench trial as well; Hatfield said it was generally Geissler’s decision to make — and he said the case involves “pretty highly technical arguments” about whether Geissler was competent at the time of the actions.

However, for reasons he has not explained in court, Judge Simpson resisted the idea of a bench trial. Simpson held multiple hearings on the subject and went along with the request only after learning that the teenage girl at the center of the case preferred a bench trial.

“Considering the defendant’s waiver [of a jury trial] and continuing effort to assure the court that he and his counsel believe that a bench trial is the preferable method of determining the case, the state’s agreement that a bench trial is the appropriate form of trial, and the representation by the state that the victim also wishes to proceed in the case with a bench trial rather than a jury trial, the court will find that a bench trial is the appropriate method of determining the outcome in the case,” Simpson wrote in a Feb. 17 ruling.

However, the judge continued to push back on Hatfield’s argument that the decision was generally Geissler’s alone to make.

“It has been argued, in this case and in other courts, that compelling a criminal defendant to undergo a jury trial is a violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial and to due process,” Simpson wrote, but “the United States Supreme Court disagrees.”

The Cody judge pointed to a 1965 decision from the high court. In that case, a man facing mail fraud allegations in Southern California made a last-minute request for a bench trial. The presiding judge agreed to the change in format, but federal prosecutors refused. The case then went before a jury, and the panel ultimately convicted Mortimer Singer on 29 of 30 counts.

Singer appealed, arguing he had a constitutional right to request a bench trial. He asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to void a federal rule that allows prosecutors to insist on a jury trial. However, both courts rejected Singer’s arguments.

Given the emphasis that the Constitution places on jury trials, the Supreme Court found it “difficult to understand” how compelling Singer to be tried by a jury was “contrary to his right to a fair trial or to due process.”

“A defendant’s only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the unanimous court.

The Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure are nearly identical to the federal rule upheld by the Supreme Court, saying that cases generally need to be tried by a jury “unless the defendant waives a jury trial with the approval of the court and the consent of the state.”

The Supreme Court has described the federal rule as saying that a bench trial can only be held after prosecutors agree and judges approve the change “by [their] responsible judgment.”

In the 1965 opinion, Justice Warren suggested there might be a situation where the defendant’s reasons for wanting a bench trial were so compelling that they could override a prosecutor’s objections. However, that was not the case for Singer and the issue was not directly addressed by the court.

Geissler’s defense attorney contended he had a compelling argument for a bench trial, with Blatt saying he believed “that’s the only way [Geissler] will get a fair and impartial trial.”

Judge Simpson has not yet set a date for the bench trial.