On August 14, 2025, Mobile County deputies arrested Pastor Robert Michael Wagley of the St. Elmo Seventh-day Adventist Church on three counts of intimidating a witness. According to jail records and witness accounts, several church members who had assisted law enforcement in a separate criminal investigation were subsequently stripped of their church duties and escorted off the property. The sheriff’s office alleges these actions were meant to punish cooperation with authorities.
Pastor Wagley has not been convicted of any crime, and under U.S. law, all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. Details of the case are still emerging, and further developments may clarify or alter the current understanding of events.
The arrest is an uncommon example of witness intimidation charges emerging from a church dispute. Alabama law does not require threats or violence to support such a charge; retaliatory conduct that results in the loss of status or benefits for cooperating with law enforcement can be enough. Investigators believe that is what occurred in St. Elmo, and they now aim to prove that the internal removals were not doctrinal decisions, but calculated retaliation.
The investigation that led to the controversy began weeks earlier, on June 30, when deputies arrested John Penrod, a registered sex offender previously convicted in Michigan for second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a child under 13. Penrod was charged with violating Alabama’s sex offender registration requirements by volunteering at the church in the presence of minors without providing the necessary legal notice. The church denied he had unsupervised access to children and issued a public statement affirming cooperation with law enforcement.
Under Alabama Code § 13A-10-123, a person commits the crime of intimidating a witness if they threaten, coerce, or retaliate against someone for cooperating in a criminal investigation. While often associated with violent or overtly aggressive acts, the law encompasses non-violent actions that result in adverse consequences tied to cooperation. In this case, no reports of physical threats or harm have surfaced. Instead, the allegations revolve around members being demoted, removed from responsibilities, or physically escorted out after working with authorities.
The case also touches on the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment, which requires the state to demonstrate a compelling interest when burdening religious exercise. Pastors and church leaders sometimes invoke this protection in disputes involving membership or discipline. But courts have consistently ruled that neither the Free Exercise Clause nor similar state provisions can shield criminal conduct. The state’s interest in preventing witness retaliation is considered one of the strongest interests in constitutional law.
What makes the Wagley case especially unusual is the setting and the charge. Criminal prosecutions for witness intimidation within churches are exceedingly rare. Church leaders frequently remove individuals from roles for doctrinal or personal reasons, and the law generally defers to those internal decisions. However, when motive shifts from religious governance to retaliation for assisting in a criminal case, the conduct enters a legal category subject to prosecution.
The case now hinges on intent. If the court finds that Wagley acted not out of religious conviction but to penalize members for cooperating with law enforcement, the witness intimidation charges could stand. If the removals were instead rooted in church discipline or unrelated issues, the defense may argue they fall under protected religious governance.
Because the allegations involve church leadership, criminal law, and First Amendment protections, legal experts are watching the case closely. It raises the question: when does internal discipline within a religious body cross the line into unlawful coercion?
Pastor Wagley remains in custody pending a preliminary hearing. No court date has been announced, and prosecutors have not confirmed whether additional charges or witnesses will be added to the case.
This case raises a broader concern that goes beyond legal arguments: situations like this should not arise in the first place. Churches and other religious institutions have the ability—and responsibility—to implement clear, transparent policies governing the treatment of individuals who report suspected criminal activity. When policies explicitly protect whistleblowers and require cooperation with law enforcement, it reduces the likelihood of confusion or retaliation and builds trust within the congregation. Institutional safeguards, such as third-party reporting mechanisms, written procedures for handling allegations, and internal non-retaliation rules, can help prevent misconduct while preserving the church’s autonomy. Without such safeguards, even legitimate actions may be perceived as punitive, creating risk not only for the institution’s legal exposure but also for its moral credibility.
Commentary
This is not your typical criminal case. Prosecuting a pastor for witness intimidation based on internal church actions raises legal and constitutional questions that courts rarely have to confront. At the heart of the matter is whether a pastor’s removal of members from church roles can amount to criminal conduct when those members are also witnesses in a pending criminal investigation.
Legally, the key issue will be intent. The law does not punish churches for reorganizing leadership or disciplining members. But if those decisions are made to punish someone for cooperating with law enforcement, that crosses a line. The state doesn’t need to prove that Pastor Wagley threatened violence. They only need to show that his actions were meant to discourage or punish lawful cooperation with authorities.
From a First Amendment perspective, there is no blanket immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that religious belief is protected, but religiously motivated action is not immune from generally applicable criminal laws. That means the Religious Freedom Amendment in Alabama cannot shield conduct if the prosecution proves it was intended to obstruct justice.
The defense, if it chooses to emphasize religious liberty, will need to show that the removals were doctrinal—not retaliatory. If the removals were consistent with church practice and not linked to cooperation with police, the intimidation charges may not hold. But if the state presents credible evidence of a retaliatory motive, even within a religious setting, that could be enough for a conviction under Alabama law.
This case will likely hinge not on whether Pastor Wagley had the right to discipline church members, but why he did so. If the reason was punishment for cooperating with the law, a jury may be instructed that even pastors are not above criminal accountability when it comes to protecting the justice process.
Argument Outline (Not Legal Advice)
Prosecution (State of Alabama) Must Argue:
-
That Wagley Took Specific Actions Against Witnesses
-
Show that church members who cooperated with law enforcement were removed from responsibilities or escorted off church property.
-
Establish a clear timeline linking cooperation with law enforcement to these internal church actions.
-
-
That the Actions Were Taken with Retaliatory Intent
-
Present evidence (witness statements, communications, policies, or testimony) indicating these removals were not doctrinal or administrative, but in direct response to cooperation with police.
-
Show that the intent was to punish or deter cooperation, satisfying the “intent to retaliate” element of the statute.
-
-
That This Conduct Meets the Statutory Definition of Witness Intimidation
-
Argue that no physical threat is required—only a loss, threat, or adverse consequence tied to cooperation.
-
Emphasize that retaliatory discipline in this context is sufficient under Alabama law.
-
-
That Religious Freedom Does Not Apply as a Defense
-
Argue that Alabama’s Religious Freedom Amendment does not protect criminal conduct, even if religiously motivated.
-
Show that the state’s interest in protecting witnesses and the integrity of investigations is compelling and pursued by the least restrictive means.
-
Defense (Pastor Robert Wagley) Must Argue:
-
That Church Actions Were Doctrinal, Not Retaliatory
-
Argue that the removals were consistent with church discipline policies, not acts of retaliation.
-
Possibly introduce internal documentation, testimony, or church governance norms to support a legitimate religious purpose for the decisions.
-
-
That There Was No Intent to Influence a Criminal Investigation
-
Emphasize that Wagley did not act to deter cooperation or punish testimony.
-
Argue any correlation between witness cooperation and church discipline was coincidental or unrelated.
-
-
That Religious Freedom Shields the Church’s Internal Governance
-
Invoke Alabama’s Religious Freedom Amendment to argue that membership and leadership decisions fall under protected religious activity.
-
Argue that criminal prosecution imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise, and that the state could have used a less intrusive method to achieve its goal.
-
-
That the Evidence Is Insufficient to Support a Criminal Conviction
-
Argue that the prosecution lacks direct proof of retaliatory intent.
-
Challenge witness credibility, the consistency of the timeline, or any inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.
-
Key Question for the Court or Jury:
Did Pastor Wagley take adverse action against church members because they cooperated with law enforcement—and not for valid religious or administrative reasons?