From left to right: Donald Teeple, Jim Wagester and Virgil Strickler

Circuit Court Judge Donald Teeple has stiffened reporting requirements and banned his employees and sheriff's officers from hiring inmates on work release. And Sheriff Virgil Strickler has enacted a similar ban in his department and has had sharp words with the investigator, Lt. Jim Wagester.

Teeple said he was "surprised and chagrined" when he heard court testimony that two witnesses for the prosecution had performed private work for Wagester while they were prisoners in the Sanilac County Jail.

Todd Davis and Jim Coburn, whose testimony helped convict Earls last week in the 2004 safe breaking case, built decks and installed siding on Wagester's rental properties in the summer of 2005, the same period they testified at the preliminary exam against Earls and his accomplice, Anthony "JR" Gadmonski.

Gadomski was convicted in the case last month and will be sentenced July 30. Earls was convicted July 17 in a separate trial and will be sentenced Sept. 4.

Teeple, who can include jail work release privileges in criminal sentences, said he was surprised to hear that "people who are on work release from the court were being allowed to work at a deputy's property, especially when he's a witness in a case (and the) deputy is the lead investigator."

Wagester testifed that he hired the men without contacting the judge or a probation officer. He also acknowledged he did not realize, until Coburn took the stand, that Coburn was in jail on a felony conviction when he hired him.

Teeple was sufficiently concerned after hearing Davis' testimony to interrupt the trial and question Davis outside the presence of the jury. Davis told the court he had work release privileges for a Bruce Kincaid, a building contractor in Brown City, during the time he was hired by Wagester. He explained he worked for Wagester on days Kincaid didn't need him.

Teeple met with Sheriff Virgil Strickler last Wednesday, the day after the trial ended. Teeple said he has stiffened work release reporting requirements, and has banned circuit court and sheriff department personnel from hiring inmates for work release.

"My main concern is keep the integrity of the work release program intact," said the judge. "It's important we know they really have a job and they're really going to it.

"We allow work release based upon having a job with a certain person or certain company. I had no idea people were apparently being allowed to change employers without the court every knowing about it."

He continued, "I have directed that all work release orders relating to circuit court people or family court division people directly indicate who they are going to work for, and they can not change employers without an amended order by the court. It also requires they have to provide verification by way of a pay stub or written documentation on the employer's head the actual number of hours worked."

Teeple added, "In no event may a defendant be released on work release for any person or business entity owned or operated by an employee of any court or any law enforcement personnel."

Teeple said the changes are important because, "in this particular situation, it could look to someone like the court was cooperating in releasing someone so they'd be a witness for a police officer. The court is an impartial arbitrator between people and not supposed to be involved in either side."

District Court Judge James Marcus said his court hasn't had a problem with inmates staying within work release guidelines, because he has probation officers who checks up on them. However, Marcus said he will follow Teeple's lead in banning district court and law enforcement personnel from employing work release inmates, so "there's no conflict of interest."

Sheriff Virgil Strickler, who was also surprised by revelations at trial, issued a new policy for the department on July 18 that states:

"The use of any inmate labor of any kind by employees of the Sanilac County Sheriff's Office is prohibited. This applies to any personal or business property in which an employee may have an interest. This also applies to every classification of inmate, including work release. Violation of this policy could be subject to discipline, up to and including termination of employment."

Strickler said he knew sometime before the trial that Wagester had hired Davis and Coburn, and that they were witnesses in the case. He learned about it from Earls.

However, the sheriff said he did not know, until it came out in the trial, that the men were in jail and on work release at the time.

Strickler reviewed work release records for Coburn and Davis and acknowledged there was no written documentation for the days spent at Wagester's property. Instead, the work time was listed on the record sheets for the Brown City contractor who employed both men in the spring and summer of 2005. Davis and Coburn spent a total of 14 non-consecutive days working for the officer, and were paid about $700 each, the sheriff said.

Wagester has explained he employed the men so they could still earn money and pay bills when they weren't needed by the contractor, Strickler said. According to Strickler, the men approached Wagester about the work, because they knew he had the rental properties.

The sheriff said he has been informed that the jail administrator at the time, Lt. Mike Redman, knew the men were working for Wagester.

"When I heard the actual details, I didn't think the intent was to do anything wrong by Lt. Wagester," said the sheriff. "It wasn't a deal if you testify we'll pay you, that wasn't the case." It was neither a "reward situation" for the men's testimony at the preliminary exam, nor "personal gain for the officer," said Strickler.

He added, "I don't think I would have made that call, because of the perception of the public that we're getting some favor (prisoner labor) that's not available to them...(that) something is amiss...they're being paid to testify."

Strickler said he issued the policy because "we don't want any appearance or perception (of wrongdoing)."

Strickler said he gave Wagester a "chewing" out for causing "front page" publicity that "reflects on the whole department."

He would not comment on whether Wagester received additional disciplinary action.