Robert Hayes

I am a little disappointed in my research on this case. This was another case that I saw on the television show Fear Thy Neighbor. Even if I did not write a blog this was a case I wanted to know more about. As I have often said I know that everything in these types of television shows are completely true. First of course they are always bias in one form or another. I have also often said that I like appeal papers because this is where I feel I can best find the truth. The problem here is not that I found more than one appeal paper, the problem is that they told different stories as to what happened. This is something I have never seen before although the answer to that may have been that there was a re-trial in this case and one appeal was written after the first trial and the second appeal was written after the second trial.

Robert Hayes had been the chief of police in St. Joseph Missouri for about a decade. He had started at the police department in the 1960's and for a while moved on to apparently security at a University until he went back to the police department and became chief in 1978. He retired in 1989.

The following information was portrayed in the television show so I apologize from the get go if some things are not completely accurate but I think it is important to at least mention these things so we know how things got to the point in which they did. I have mentioned before that in cases such as these I am often unable to learn which of the incidents portrayed on the show happened because most of the information that I find focuses on the ultimate end of a feud.

According to the television show Robert Hayes and his wife lived in a nice little neighborhood and on a street that was a “court.” I know that different areas of the country, even world, may call things something different so when I say “court” I mean a road that has no outlet to another street and the end of the road is basically a large circle with houses along the edge. The show indicated that Robert owned several houses on this road and basically ran the neighborhood. It was said that a family had recently moved from the street and Robert had attempted to get them to sell him their house but instead they turned it into a rental home.

Since Robert owned so many homes on the street he basically had, and thought he deserved to have control. It was also said that he also still attempted to use the fact that he had been the police chief to retain power both in his neighborhood, and at his former place of employment. So, he was less than happy to see a home on the street being turned into a rental home, that he did not own and could not control. Tony Coone and his girlfriend, Georgette Hoyt, along with her two children and a child they shared together moved into the home.

It was said that pretty much right away Tony and Robert butted heads. It was alleged that Robert approached Tony early on and all but gave him the “rules” of the neighborhood. Of course these were Robert's made up rules and what Robert wanted and not real and legitimate. It was said that Tony did not take too kindly to that. In my opinion part of the issue also had to do with the age difference between the two men. Robert was around seventy years old and Tony was in his mid-twenties. Robert liked a nice, quiet neighborhood and Tony was a young man, with young children. Tony's life was anything but quiet.

Most will say that Tony gave as good as he got when it came to Robert. But, we have to keep in mind that most of the stories of things said or done on either side came down to he said/she said situations. Did Tony make a vulgar and obscene gesture to Robert's wife? Did Robert really go to Tony's house and try to set his “rules”? Did Tony purposely drive in Robert's yard and tear it up? Would Robert sit across the street from Tony's home watching him and taunt him? One thing that did show up in court papers was an alleged confrontation between the two in which Robert told Tony he would “blow” him “away” and Tony responded with “you better shoot first.” I can only assume that this particular conversation was witnessed by others in the area.

Then came the events of June 3, 1997. As with everything else there are two versions of what occurred. The first appeal that I read stated that what happened was in dispute but told Robert's side. The next appeal told the story from Tony's side. That being said I am going to do the best I can to relay what may, or may not have happened. Tony had a tendency to work on his vehicle in his yard/driveway. It was said that when he would do so oftentimes he would have part of his legs laying over the curb and in the street. Keep in mind that again, this was portrayed as a court so it was not a main road that had a lot of traffic. Most reports say that Tony was rotating the tires on his vehicle but I question this a bit only because rotating tires does not involve a lot of being under the vehicle which apparently Tony had been. Robert would say that he simply drove down the street and that when he got next to Tony's vehicle he heard something hit the window and side of his truck. He claims that he slammed on the brakes and it “inadvertently killed the engine.” Tony would claim that while Robert was coming down the street he swerved near his legs and he threw a tool at Robert's truck.

Robert says that he turned around and drove back (apparently he restarted his truck??) and when he did so Tony grabbed his left arm and shoulder and began swinging a claw hammer at him through the window. Robert claimed he got a hold of the hammer, leaned away from him while Tony was allegedly yelling, “I'm going to kill you, you son of a bitch. I'm going to kill you.” He claims that Tony continued to jab him in the face with the hammer but while avoiding his swings he was able to reach inside the driver side door pocket and retrieve his gun, put it in the passenger seat while he unsnapped the holster. He then picked up the gun and shot at Tony who immediately fell to the ground.

Later, at his trial, Robert would claim that he “remembers nothing after the shooting” except being at the tailgate of his truck and seeing his wife come his way. This is kind of important because what Robert did or did not do immediately after shooting Tony also came into question. When Robert's wife arrived he told her that he was fine but that someone else would have to pick their granddaughter up from school that day.

Tony's girlfriend, Georgette, heard a “boom” and immediately went running outside. She saw Tony laying on the ground bleeding and Robert at the back of his truck. She says that she asked Robert what happened and while he looked straight at her, he did not respond. She would claim that she saw no blood or injuries to his face at that time and she ran inside to call 911.

Officers and medical personnel arrived at the scene. Robert told the first officer at the scene that he had shot Tony after he had hit him. He complained of pain in his left arm but later would tell people it was his right arm that was in pain. Tony was still conscious and was able to relay some of his side of the story, but we will get into that in just a bit. The bullet had entered Tony's neck, hitting his spinal cord and leaving him paralyzed. A second ambulance was called for Robert who appeared to have injuries. While Georgette would say she had not seen any blood whatsoever on Robert when she first exited her house, Robert's wife, Pauline would say she came out of the house soon after and Robert was emerging from his truck and his face was covered in blood.

I want to touch on this for a second. While obviously I am unsure what exactly occurred during the argument between the two men I admit I am unsure what to believe. I would assume that Robert did have blood on him, especially his face. But, that does not necessarily mean I believed that he was injured. I cannot imagine that in those close quarters in which the gun was fired that blood would not have blown back onto Robert in some way. It may not have been a lot, but I would expect for them to be some. I also want to point out that in none of my research did I find anything that indicated that Robert had any injuries. He was taken to the hospital to be checked out but again I saw no mention that he had to be treated for any injuries and one would think that would have been mentioned, if no where else, in the appeals that I found. They all only mentioned his version of things.

Tony was telling a slightly different story. He would tell authorities (as well as a nurse at the hospital) that he was working on his car and that Robert had come down the street and swerved toward his legs indicating that he was going to hit him but at the last second swerved again. Tony admitted to throwing a tool at the truck. It is unclear whether this was to the passenger side or the drivers side. I think this is important. One of Robert's version of the story indicated that it was at the passenger side of his vehicle and that he turned around, seemingly to obviously confront Tony. Tony went on to say that he got up off the ground and went to Robert's truck. An argument ensued and Tony did admit that he slapped or punched Robert but said there was nothing in his hand when he did so. Apparently when told that Robert was saying that Tony attacked him with a claw hammer Tony denied this although he did say that he did have one in his tools near his vehicle.

Tony would survive just over two weeks before he would succumb to his injuries. Appeal papers and other things say he died on June 19^th but his tombstone states he died on the 20^th. His death was a direct result of the bullet wound he suffered at the hands of Robert Hayes.

It is unclear whether any charges were filed against Hayes before Tony died. There are times in which that happens and then upon the death of the victim the charges are upgraded. Initially he was charged with 2^nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and two counts of armed criminal action. However, by the time he went to trial the state had dropped all but the charge of 2^nd degree murder and the charge of armed criminal action in regards to the murder charge. Prosecutors did ask that they reserved the right to allow the jury to possibly be instructed on other charges they could find Hayes guilty. This is not necessarily an unusual request. Jury instruction is important. If a prosecutor charges someone for example with first degree murder but does not allow instructions to the jury for other degrees of murder or for things such as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter it ties the hands of the jury. If they do not feel that the crime fell into the first degree murder realm but were not instructed on other possible charges they could acquit someone fully. But, if they are given the instructions of other forms then they are able to look at them and determine if the crime fell into one of those categories.

In the end Robert Hayes was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action related to involuntary manslaughter in 1998. He was “sentenced to consecutive terms of seven years.” In 2000 he appealed his case. While the appeal argued thirteen points in which they argued mistakes were made the court only addressed one as it was the one in which they determined warranted them to reverse his conviction and remand it back to the courts. That point revolved around the fact that while the jury had been allowed to be given instructions of other things Hayes could be found guilty, they had not included Hayes' argument of self defense. The courts found that they believed that the jury should have been allowed to discuss this option saying “the jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter should have included a cross reference to the self-defense instruction. Keep in mind as I stated earlier, this appeal told the story of what occurred almost exclusively from Robert's point of view.

In March of 2001 Robert Hayes went on trial again. He was once again convicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. In May of 2001 he was sentenced to “consecutive terms of two years for manslaughter and four for armed criminal action.” He once again appealed his conviction but this time not only did the courts disagree, this time they told the story of events from Tony's point of view, one that did not include the use of a hammer. Robert appealed this decision but the courts refused to look at the case.

The television show that I watched stated at the end that Robert Hayes ended up spending a total of only two years in prison and this has upset Tony's friends and family. I am uncertain that this was correct. Hayes was first convicted in 1998. His conviction was reversed in 2000. He was retried in 2001 and subsequent appeals failed. My research indicated at the time of Robert Hayes' death in 2012 that he had remained incarcerated until the year of 2006, but again I cannot be certain. Missouri does not seem to be a state that only shows currently incarcerated individuals on the site so I am unable to confirm just how much time Robert Hayes may have spent.

As is often the case in these sorts of crimes, both Robert Hayes and Tony Coone seemed to give as much as they took, until the end when Robert Hayes took a life. Both men seem to be headstrong and stubborn. It seems as if Robert Hayes not only thought he had more power over people, including the police department, than he had and missed the power he once had. For his part Tony Coone was not going to allow someone who had no standing tell him what to do in or around his home. Neither man was apparently intimidated by the other.

For my part I do not believe that Tony Coone beat Robert Hayes with a hammer of any kind. I do believe Tony in the fact that he slapped Robert but I do not believe that Robert was in any real danger that required he defend himself in the way and manner in which he did. Tony fully admitted throwing something at Robert's vehicle and he admitted slapping him. For Roberts part things just do not add up a lot of for me. He said that after he heard the noise hit his vehicle that he slammed on his brakes so hard that his engine died. He also then said that he turned his truck around so if it died he started it back up and went back to Tony. He stated that he was leaning into the passenger seat while Tony was swinging the claw hammer at him and hitting him. He also claimed that he was able to get a hold of the hammer at some point, or at least Tony's hand that held the hammer. And then yet somehow, through this struggle he was able to lean back towards the drivers door and with his other hand grabbed his gun out of the door. Still, while allegedly fighting off Tony he was able to get the gun into the passenger seat where he was able to unsnap the holster, pull out the gun and fire it. At his trial Robert alleged that he had no memory of what happened immediately after the shooting. I think this is very important because Georgette claimed that when she came out of the house Robert did not have blood on him, nor was he injured. Tony told authorities that he did have a claw hammer near his vehicle. While I still do not believe that Robert was hit with the claw hammer, it is my belief that while waiting for the authorities to arrive he saw the claw hammer and decided to use that in his story. Robert could not have risked having anyone see him self inflict wounds with the claw hammer, but I also do not think he would have been willing to harm himself anyway. As I stated earlier I can find nothing that indicates that he actually suffered any injuries. It is my belief that Robert concocted his story about what happened and had absolute belief that the authorities would believe him regardless of what the evidence may show.

I saw reports from those who had worked under Robert when he was the police chief who praised his leadership but I would have liked to have heard more from others. I am curious as to what kind of police chief he was. I would like to know if he had so much of the superior attitude then and if he was a his way or no way sort of chief. Did he do what he wanted and how he wanted and no one stood up to him? I feel as if the answer to these things could give us even more insight into Robert and his personality and how he treated his neighbors.