Former Jefferson County ambulance director Judy Heisel found not guilty

FAIRFIELD – A jury of 12 Jefferson County residents has returned a not guilty verdict in a trial where former interim ambulance director Judy Heisel was charged with secretly recording a meeting of county officials.

The three-day trial concluded Friday in the Jefferson County Courthouse, where the two sides made closing arguments. The case revolved around an incident at the Jefferson County Ambulance Base on Aug. 5, 2024, the day current ambulance director Joshua Hemminger took on his duties as director.

At the time, Heisel was the county’s interim ambulance director, having taken on the role after the resignation of Brian Thomas that April. Three county officials met at the ambulance base on Aug. 5 to discuss Heisel’s employment, and those officials were Jefferson County Supervisor Susie Drish, Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding and Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Elizabeth Estey.

The two sides agreed on those basic facts, but that’s where the agreement ends. Moulding testified in court that, after he closed the door to have a meeting with Drish and Estey in the ambulance director’s office, he observed an iPhone face-up with the voice mail app open and recording, and that he knew this because he could see the sound waves move on the screen. Moulding said that he then indicated to Drish and Estey that they were being recorded.

About a month later on Sept. 3, 2024, Moulding drafted an investigative affidavit on the incident, and on Sept. 23, Fairfield Police Officer Rylee Nuno filed a police report on it.

Since Moulding was a witness to the case, he referred prosecution to the Washington County Attorney’s Office. On Jan. 21, 2025, Assistant Washington County Attorney Shane McChurch filed two charges against Heisel for eavesdropping (serious misdemeanor) and interception of communication (Class D felony).

  Buy Photo

PROSECUTION’S ARGUMENTS

During his closing arguments, McChurch said there were three “simple facts” that proved Heisel’s guilt, namely that the three people in the room expected privacy for their conversation, that Heisel was not in the room with them, and that Heisel recorded the conversation. McChurch said that, as Moulding testified, the use of the voice mail app on the phone showed that the recording of the meeting was “deliberate and willful.”

The prosecution called Hemminger to testify, who said that Heisel gave him a tour of the ambulance base that lasted about 15 minutes. McChurch said that it was during this time that he believes Heisel placed her phone on the desk in the ambulance director’s office and began the recording.

McChurch acknowledged that Moulding’s testimony was the only proof of the voice memo’s existence, but he said that when Officer Nuno testified, she remarked that it’s common to only have the victim’s statement against an offender. McChurch said that the testimony of a single witness is considered proof under the law.

DEFENSE’S ARGUMENTS

Heisel’s attorney was Danielle Dunne of Carney & Appleby Law of Des Moines. Dunne told the jury to focus on three main shortcomings of the state’s case, which she put in bullet points as: No recording; No privacy; No investigation. Dunne said the state produced no evidence of a voice memo recording apart from Moulding’s testimony.

“Only one person claimed to see anything,” Dunne said.

Dunne raised doubt about whether the three people in the ambulance director’s room reasonably expected privacy, and relied on testimony from defense witnesses and former ambulance service employees Bob Jones and Brandi George, who spoke about how the walls at the ambulance base are thin and that conversations can be heard through them. Dunne also questioned why the three county officials in the room would expect privacy in a public building with at least 7-8 people present nearby.

Heisel’s phone was not a piece of evidence in the case, though attempts to obtain it were a source of debate. During Dunne’s closing, she referred to an email that Moulding sent to Officer Nuno in January 2025 asking that Heisel’s phone be seized upon her arrest. Dunne raised concerns about why Moulding was attempting to direct law enforcement when he was not involved in prosecuting the case.

The Union asked Moulding about this contact with Officer Nuno, and he replied, “I had concerns that this active arrest warrant was out and not being executed, so I was trying to effectuate the arrest warrant for Ms. Heisel.”

Dunne said the entire investigation was suspicious, including the month-long delay from the time of the alleged incident until Moulding’s affidavit, and the police report that Officer Nuno filed on Sept. 23. Dunne said Officer Nuno relied solely on Moulding’s affidavit in creating her police report.

“She talked to one person and one person only,” Dunne said, arguing that the investigation was “clearly biased” and that Nuno did not gather any information on her own.

The Union asked Moulding about the delay between the alleged incident on Aug. 5 and his affidavit on Sept. 3. Moulding said that he decided to make an affidavit only after receiving “additional surreptitious recordings” of conversations conducted by Heisel.

REBUTTAL

McChurch gave his closing argument first, followed by Dunne’s response, and then McChurch was given the last word in his rebuttal. He addressed the controversy surrounding the alleged voice memo recording.

“I’ll tell you where the recording was, on the defendant’s phone,” said McChurch, adding that the phone was returned to the county with a factory reset.

McChurch said the defense attempted to move attention away from the events of Aug. 5 by focusing on the investigation, but McChurch said those facts were not material to the case. McChurch also argued that the state’s witnesses were more reliable because they had no reason to be biased against Heisel and their jobs would be unaffected by this case. He claimed defense witnesses Bob Jones and Brandi George were biased in favor of Heisel, and that both quit their jobs after Heisel was let go.

  Buy Photo

REACTION

When reached for comment on the verdict, Heisel submitted the following statement:

"I am deeply grateful to the jury for their careful consideration and for delivering a just verdict,” Heisel wrote. “Their decision to consider all the testimony and evidence and not just believe people who hold positions of power in this community affirms that no one is above accountability.

“Being found not guilty by a jury of my peers has restored my faith in the truth and in our legal system. I especially want to thank my attorney, Danielle Dunne, for her tireless work, unwavering support, and belief in my integrity from the beginning.

“This has been an incredibly difficult chapter in my life, but today’s verdict allows me to move forward with dignity, peace, and hope for the future."

The Union asked McChurch to comment, and he supplied the following statement:

“This was a good case supported by probable cause, but the admissible evidence at trial proved insufficient to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and I respect the jury’s verdict,” he wrote. “Of course, in a case like this, the best evidence supporting the charges would have been the recording itself, but the Defendant’s cell phone was unable to be obtained despite directives to do so. Ultimately, there is only one person who knows the fate of the recording in this case, and that would be the Defendant. It does appear that the Defendant acquired certain documents that were not provided to her through the criminal discovery process, but I have no information as to the source of those documents and won’t speculate.”

Call Andy Hallman at 641-575-0135 or email him at andy.hallman@southeastiowaunion.com