Natrona County’s elected prosecutor on Thursday disputed Weston County Clerk Becky Hadlock's claims that, in their pursuit of her testimony, state legislators broke the law and violated her rights.
Errors in uncontested legislative and county commission races surfaced in Weston County in the 2024 general election.
After a legislative committee subpoenaed Hadlock to discuss those errors and she did not appear for its September 2025 meeting, the Natrona County District Attorney’s Office charged her on Oct. 24 with failure to appear for a legislative subpoena.
If convicted, she faces up to six months in jail and a $100 fine.
She pleaded not guilty Nov. 14.
Hadlock’s attorney Ryan Semerad argued last month that the state legislators who issued that subpoena exceeded their lawful authority, conducted their investigation outside the confines of state law and violated Hadlock’s rights.
He asked the Casper Circuit Court to dismiss her case.
In part, Semerad asserted that the legislative Management Audit Committee and its subcommittee crafted to investigate Hadlock’s handling of the election sought criminal consequences for Hadlock, not just policy changes.
He called its actions a violation of the Wyoming Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.
Let A Jury Decide
Natrona County District Attorney Dan Itzen countered in a Thursday filing of his own, asking the court to disregard Semerad’s arguments and save some of them for the jury to decide instead.
Secretary of State Chuck Gray had said publicly that the subcommittee’s purpose was to investigate Hadlock’s conduct and the appropriate punishment for that conduct, Itzen acknowledged.
But, said the prosecutor, “Secretary Gray is neither a member of the legislature nor … (the) subcommittee.” He was “merely a witness” called to testify at the Sept. 29 meeting for which Hadlock did not appear, though she was subpoenaed, Itzen’s filing adds.
Itzen asserted the separation of powers argument from a different direction.
For the court to interfere in the Legislature’s actions in the matter would pose the real separation of powers issue, the prosecutor argued.
“This case involves the Legislature issuing a legislative subpoena for a legislative hearing,” wrote Itzen. “The Wyoming Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legislative action should be given wide deference.”
Your Rights
Semerad had also accused lawmakers of violating Hadlock’s rights by seeking to expose her to potentially incriminating questions, via a subpoena for which she was given just six days’ notice — too little time to get an attorney and contest the action, he wrote.
If a legislature could dodge a person’s privilege against self-incrimination, it could also circumvent “virtually all the constitutional protections” of privacy, including those under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Semerad wrote.
Itzen opposed these points as well, saying the Wyoming Legislature has lawful authority to investigate situations to craft policy changes, and that’s what lawmakers were attempting — and ultimately achieved — by advancing election reform bills.
“Defendant’s procedural due process rights, including the right to an attorney, to receive reasonable notice, and to have an opportunity to be heard, did not attach here,” wrote the prosecutor.
He then quoted from an earlier case that says the Constitution’s due-process clause doesn’t require legislative fact-finding to unfold through mini-trials.
“She should have appeared at the hearing and stated that she would not testify until she spoke to an attorney,” wrote Itzen. “Instead, she chose not to show up.”
As for Hadlock’s Fifth Amendment right against incriminating herself, she may have been able to assert that right, Itzen wrote, but she didn’t arrive to do so.
Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.
