T-R PHOTO BY ROBERT MAHARRY Defense attorney Scott Hunter, center, addresses Judge Mark Fisher as Tama County Attorney Brent Heeren, left, and defendant Bailey Jenkins, right, look on during a sentencing hearing at the Tama County Courthouse in Toledo on Thursday morning. Jenkins, the former Elberon Public Library director, received a five-year suspended prison sentence after being convicted of solicitation to commit a felony and second degree criminal mischief in connection with acts of vandalism at the library committed on May 22, 2024, her final day of employment there.

TOLEDO — Judge Mark Fisher dismissed allegations of prosecutorial and juror misconduct leveled by the defense and proceeded to issue former Elberon Public Library Director Bailey Jenkins a five-year suspended prison sentence during a hearing at the Tama County Courthouse in Toledo on Thursday morning.

Jenkins, 34, and her attorney, public defender Scott Hunter, had argued in court two weeks ago that an undisclosed social media friendship between Tama County Attorney Brent Heeren and one of the jurors in her case, Janice Ledvina — which had included birthday well-wishing posts between the two — warranted a new trial after Jenkins was convicted of solicitation of a felony and second degree criminal mischief, both Class D felonies, for her role in the vandalism of the library committed by a group of seven children on May 22, 2024, her final day of employment there.

Because Heeren was not physically present at the originally scheduled sentencing hearing and could not respond to the allegations, Fisher gave both the defense and the prosecution two weeks to submit written arguments before reconvening on Thursday morning. As the first major order of business, the judge ruled that the juror’s identity was no longer protected and is a matter of public record, and Hunter and Heeren then took turns making their cases verbally.

In his argument, Hunter cited the precedent of a murder case titled State v. Weber when social media activity between a juror and the victim’s stepmother was called into question, and he recounted specifically asking during the selection process whether any of the prospective jurors knew the attorneys on either side. Hunter described the failure to disclose the friendship before it was discovered ahead of sentencing as “a miscarriage of justice” and a violation of the defendant’s Constitutional rights.

In response, Heeren told the judge he has over 1,000 Facebook friends and turned the tables by noting that Ledvina’s sister-in-law, Connie Ledvina, was a former administrative assistant of Hunter’s at the public defender’s office. As a result, the prosecutor felt he was the one taking a chance by allowing Janice Ledvina to serve on the jury.

“That’s kind of the point of all of this. It’s a small county. If we start finding (that) knowing someone as just knowing who they are, obviously I’m not that good at doing birthday greetings or whatever on Facebook because it sounds like I was hitting about every third year or something,” Heeren said. “All that stuff is just generated by Facebook. I couldn’t tell you where Janice Ledvina lives. I don’t know if she knows where I live. We’ve never socialized together (or) anything like that. I think (Assistant Tama County Attorney Geneva) Williams, when she was here last week, had a pretty good line that Facebook’s not real. There are all kinds of friends, everything else that sure, we call them friends, but some of them, we’ve never been with, talked to, whatever, and they’re still a friend on Facebook.”

He reiterated his argument that the generic birthday wishes did not create any issues with the verdict returned. Heeren also attempted to enter a recent article from the Times-Republican into the record during which Jenkins told the newspaper she had recognized Ledvina, who is also a resident of Elberon (a community with a population of under 200), which drew an objection from Hunter on the grounds that it was a “red herring.”

Hunter countered that he had spoken directly to Janice Ledvina about her last name and whether she had a connection to his former administrative assistant during selection, and he remembered her responding that they were stepsisters.

“With respect to people seeing each other, that’s one thing, but I think that there’s a difference with the county attorney asking to be a friend of a person. They have to request a friend on Facebook. It’s not automatic. Then the other person has to grant that request to make them a friend on Facebook, and I have well-wished people happy birthday. And there is a standardized one click response where it generates a happy birthday with four icons, and that is not what we have here. We have separate, individualized personal well-wishings that appear to be hand-typed by Brent to Ms. Ledvina,” Hunter said. “And without anybody mentioning that that relationship existed, whether they forgot that it existed, whether they intentionally hid that it existed, still doesn’t change the fact that it was undisclosed, the juror was selected and then sat on the panel deciding the facts of the case.”

Heeren restated his position that nothing Hunter had presented rose to the level of a mistrial, and Hunter reiterated that he felt an irregularity nonetheless existed.

“If I had known that there was some contact, personal, on Facebook, between the county attorney and Ms. Ledvina, I would’ve struck her for cause. I did not get that opportunity because I did not know,” he said.

Fisher ultimately sided with the prosecution and commented that in his view, the alleged relationship between Heeren and the juror did not have any reasonable probability of influencing the verdict.

“This is a small county. Facebook friends are real. The court does take that point… However, they do exist in a different framework than traditional friends. You can be friends on Facebook and not have the type of relationship that people traditionally have as friends,” Fisher said.

Thus, the judge declined to grant the request for a new trial and proceeded to sentencing on both counts, but he did sustain Hunter’s objection to entering the news article into the record. Heeren asked the court not to follow the recommendation of a deferred judgment in the presentence investigation because he felt the crime, which resulted in about $18,000 worth of damage to the library, was not only a property crime but a crime against the children who were at the library on that day.

“I cannot imagine being those kids in the situation they were in, finding themselves in front of police officers, testifying in court, the whole thing, and it was all orchestrated by the defendant. She’s the one that somehow got those kids in the situation where she was able to do what she did. She wanted to tear up the library herself, but she knew she couldn’t do that. And so she had the kids do it in her place,” Heeren said. “I’m not sure what happened that the defendant was able to get herself into a position of trust and authority that she was able to orchestrate the destruction of the Elberon Library and have those children do it for her… The defendant basically used these children, and she used them for her own purposes. She wanted to get back at the library board and the city of Elberon for whatever reason, and she did it using the children. That is something that is very serious. I’m not sure what the lasting repercussions are gonna be for these kids.”

He commended the children for coming forward and taking responsibility for their actions, but he believed they would suffer from a long-term stigma as they grow up in the small community. Heeren asked the court for a five-year prison sentence on each count running concurrently and a minimum fine, though he wasn’t sure what facility Jenkins, who is transgender, should be required to report to.

Conversely, Hunter argued that it was indeed only a property crime and the result of emotions running high for both Jenkins and the children, and he described the defendant as “a good person who made a bad decision.”

“She did not stop them from doing anything. She may have opened the door and (it) looks like that they went in and were able to get things. We maintain that she was not trying to assist them or solicit them to do that, but the jury found otherwise,” he said.

He called Jenkins a perfect candidate for a deferred judgment, and Hunted also characterized the children as “good kids who made a bad decision.” He urged the court to ignore suggestions of uncharged crimes and to instead focus on rehabilitation and the future with further counseling as opposed to a maximum sentence for a first offense as an adult.

The defendant was then allowed to address the court herself and took responsibility for “letting (her) emotions control (her) response to the situation.”

“In a moment where I should have risen to meet the challenge, I instead shut down. That failure of judgment weighs on me still, and my memories of that day play on repeat because of the role I played; not because I intended harm, but because I let myself stop leading when the situation demanded it most,” Jenkins said. “That said, I have not and I will not let that moment define me. I’ve taken steps to correct the harm done, including reaching out to the insurance company to ensure restitution. I want to repair the damages, not just to a building, but to my integrity. Those around me should feel safe to trust me, and I know I’ve damaged that faith. But I also believe no one is beyond redemption.”

She went on to share her mental health struggles and her journey of self-improvement since last May, along with charitable efforts to raise money through video game streams.

“I’m not asking you for leniency. I’m asking for a chance to be seen for my actions going forward, rather than just through words. I’m asking for the chance to show that one moment of weakness doesn’t define my life, and I’m someone worth believing in again. I’m asking for a chance to prove my deeds will not betray, but rather enforce what has been said,” Jenkins said.

Heeren invited four individuals to provide victim impact statements: library board member Lorie Kesl along with three parents of the children. Hunter objected as he did not believe any of them were victims who had suffered physical, emotional or financial harm, and he did not feel that the board constituted a person.

After Heeren and Hunter countered, Fisher allowed the state to present the statements with the caveat that only information relevant to the crimes at hand would be considered in sentencing. Kesl, who was the board president at the time of the offenses, read a prepared statement on behalf of the governing body and spoke of the lasting impact they have had on the community She said Jenkins had been provided “multiple opportunities” to improve her job performance during her tenure at the library, which Kesl called a safe place for local children to gather and learn.

“Since the event, that sense of safety was immediately shattered. The walls were defaced, shelves damaged, books ruined, and everything turned to chaos — years of effort and care reduced to chaos and destruction,” she said. “What hurts most is knowing that the perpetrators were these children. These were kids, children we see every day, children who should be playing, learning and thriving. Instead, they were led astray, manipulated by someone who preyed on their innocence, abused their trust and guided them towards this destructive act. We can’t express how much this has shaken us. We are deeply disappointed that someone we trusted with this treasured space and the children of our community betrayed us all, not just through destruction but through manipulation.”

The kids, she added, were used as pawns in Jenkins’s plot, and she criticized the defendant for showing a lack of remorse up to that point. The following speaker, Stacy Fisher, is the grandmother of one of the children involved, and she read a statement prepared by her daughter — the child’s mother.

Stacy Fisher described the events of May 22, 2024 as “a calculated act” stemming from the defendant’s frustrations with the library board and a result of deliberate actions Jenkins had taken. She also criticized Jenkins for behaviors she allowed at the library.

“My only child has been deeply affected. To this day, he cannot hear the name Bailey or the word court or library without becoming visibly distressed. He shakes, cries and is often inconsolable,” Fisher said. “This is not simply theater. It’s trauma. He is not alone. These children all bear emotional scars from what happened.”

She also criticized Jenkins for what she saw as a lack of remorse and repeated attempts to shirk accountability. Stacy Fisher called on Judge Fisher to impose prison time and reiterated that the children continue to live in fear and trauma as a result of what transpired that day. Lisa Heitman then read a statement on behalf of Rhonda Toney, another parent of a child involved in the incident, which echoed similar themes of the previous speakers and reinforced the idea that Jenkins had masterminded the vandalism and subsequently refused to take responsibility, even blaming the children and their parents at a city council meeting in June of 2024. Toney also felt prison time was the only acceptable punishment.

The final speaker, Dana Struve, started with a comment that her remarks had nothing to do with “who you identify as or your sexual orientation,” but rather the crime committed and the grooming of the children who ultimately carried out the acts of vandalism. Struve noted that when Jenkins entered the library on the day of the incident, the children gathered around her and consoled her.

“I don’t know about you, but if I cried in front of those kids, they would look at me like I was crazy. None of them would comfort me like they did her,” Struve said. “The defendant groomed our children to believe her lies… all lies fed to the children. Ultimately, she groomed the children to do the dirty work of a coward that is sitting before you. Instead of handling the situation like an adult, the defendant manipulated the children to do what she wanted to do.”

She alleged that Jenkins had made inappropriate comments to the children about women not wearing underwear and had been allowed to keep her position afterward because of her gender identity and sexual orientation. Struve also took issue with the defendant’s explanation of her transition to the children and did not feel it was her place to do so as a librarian.

“Our children learned a very tough lesson that day, and it’s to not always trust an adult, and there are bad people in the world that will take advantage of you. Our children got punished for their actions. They all had to clean the mess they made. They got grounded. It’s now time for the defendant to be punished,” Struve said. “I believe the defendant deserves the fullest punishment. I also believe the defendant should never be able to work around children again.”

Before deciding on the sentence, Mark Fisher clarified that the court was disregarding any statements related to the defendant’s sexual orientation or previous alleged misconduct at the library. He took issue with the lack of accountability from Jenkins prior to sentencing, and he did rule out the possibility of a deferred judgment.

Fisher then imposed a five-year suspended prison sentence on each count running concurrently with a probation period of three years and a suspended fine of $1,025 on each count. A restitution hearing will be held at a later date, and Heeren asked that a no-contact order be established between Jenkins and the children. Judge Fisher advised that a written request would need to be filed before it could be considered.

After the court had adjourned, Jenkins told the newspaper that although she had hoped for a deferred judgment, she felt the ruling was a fair compromise.

“I am going to continue to dedicate myself to the charitable work I’ve spent my life doing, from being a free college tutor to raising money for charities and working for nonprofits. And I will continue to do so, and I will continue to prove, just like I always have, that I’m a good member of this community, and I’m here to make a difference in a good way,” she said. “It’s a fair judgment, in my opinion, to be on probation. It allows the victims to know that — and there are victims here, nobody’s arguing that there aren’t — but it allows the victims at least a modicum of relief that I am being punished for my actions. So yes, I think that’s a fair treatment, and in court, you heard the prosecutor argue for no contact. I agree. I agree there should be no contact between myself and the kids, and there should be no contact between the kids and myself. So if we both take that on, I think it’s appropriate. Everybody should be in no contact with one another.”

Heeren issued a statement to the T-R about the ruling on Thursday evening.

“The final sentencing decision rested with Judge Fisher. The nature and severity of the crimes involving the abuse of children warranted a prison sentence as urged by the prosecution and several representatives of the victims. The court declined to grant the defendant’s request for a deferred judgment. While granting the defendant probation, the court entered judgment of conviction for the felony offenses committed by the defendant,” he said. “Despite dissatisfaction with the sentencing decision, the victims understand the court made an informed decision which included input describing the ongoing impact of the defendant’s criminal behavior on the children as described by parents of the children involved and representatives of the Elberon City Library.”