Federal Judge Elizabeth Dillon Takes McDonald New Trial Motion’s Arguments Under Consideration After Friday Hearing

Arguments were heard in Harrisonburg Federal Court Friday morning on former Front Royal/Warren County Economic Development Authority Executive Director Jennifer McDonald’s motion requesting a new trial. Judge Elizabeth Dillon took the testimony from both sides under advisement after the hearing adjourned.

It was estimated that Judge Dillon could take a week or longer to reach her ruling on the defense’s retrial request. So, stay tuned, legal drama fans, to see how the October 30, 2026 chapter of the Front Royal/Warren County EDA financial scandal plays out.

The Federal Courthouse in Harrisonburg. Below, Jennifer McDonald after one of her initial arrests and booking at RSW Regional Jail. Royal Examiner File Photos.

The last we heard, McDonald was imprisoned in a Texas criminal facility with immediate medical access for existing or emerging health symptoms, some of which emerged during her 2023 trial. If we remember correctly, her sentence for diverting EDA funds to her personal benefit was about 14 to 17 years.

Judge Dillon presided over the often-delayed trial, from August to October 2023, due to health issues among the involved parties, particularly McDonald. She upheld 30 of 34 criminal convictions delivered by the jury. This Friday, October 30, 2026, Judge Dillon heard arguments for and against McDonald’s request for a new trial. As previously reported, that request is based on a lack of information in the 2023 trial about one prosecution witness. That witness was Ron Llewellyn.

Background

As noted in this reporter’s Examiner story on the forwarding of McDonald’s motion for a retrial several weeks ago, “The McDonald retrial request was filed by her legal counsel from the Assistant Federal Public Defender’s office on March 19, 2025, apparently to assure it was filed within a three-year timeline mandated by the federal court system.”

Of that finally forwarded request, we noted that, “It is 17 pages of legal background that centers on financial issues regarding prosecution witness Ron Llewellyn. Llewellyn was a Warren County EDA Board member during the timeframe in which McDonald’s alleged financial crimes were primarily occurring between 2014 and 2018. What was apparently not known by the prosecution, and consequently the defense and the jury, was that during that timeframe Llewellyn had his own financial issues leading to criminal investigations.

As stated in the retrial filing, “Specifically, the undisclosed evidence relates to the fact that at the time of his testimony at Ms. McDonald’s trial in 2023, Ronald Llewellyn, a former Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority board member, was under investigation by the Virginia State Police for forgery and embezzling property during the period between December 21, 2011, and January 18, 2018. As outlined below, this evidence undermines confidence in the jury’s verdicts here and the interests of justice require that this Court grant Ms. McDonald a new trial.”

Ron Llewellyn, left, being interviewed by FRPD in 2017. It may be noted that the financial charges pending against Llewellyn appear to relate to civil case accusations brought by his wife’s siblings after their and Corinne Llewellyn’s mother’s death. Our understanding is that none of those civil cases against Llewellyn in Frederick County were upheld. However, he faces two related criminal charges in Warren County.

At the upcoming motions hearing, which Judge Dillon set a three-hour time limit on and that ran from 8 a.m. Friday morning to shortly after 11 a.m., we guessed at the legal arguments that were on the horizon: “The prosecution is likely to counter the defense arguments to the court by pointing out that the alleged Llewellyn financial actions leading to criminal investigations and pending local charges were unrelated and irrelevant to the McDonald charges. And most importantly, it would not have impacted the jury, as defense counsel asserts it would have.

“But defense counsel will likely focus on the unknown ‘what ifs, ‘ leading to its page 17, final ‘Conclusion’ on its retrial submission: ‘For these reasons, Ms. McDonald respectfully requests that the Court grant her a new trial.”