Crime/Court
Judge finds Williams not guilty on sexual abuse of child charge
After a day and a half of testimony and arguments on defense motions to strike the Commonwealth’s case as not meeting evidentiary standards to proceed, on Tuesday, April 26, Warren County Circuit Court Judge William W. Sharp found Derrick Williams not guilty of Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a child under 13 years of age. Late Monday afternoon, following motions arguments at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case on the trial’s first day, Sharp dismissed an Indecent Liberties charge against the 37-year-old Williams involving the same child. In that ruling Sharp upheld a defense motion to strike the Commonwealth’s case due to the alleged victim’s inability to define its or the adult’s “private parts” as to allegations of sexually-oriented touching.
The defense team of Justin Daniel and Tiffany Welch pointed to conflicting statements on circumstances of the alleged touching in several law enforcement interviews with the alleged victim, as well as answers to questions when called as the prosecution’s second witness in the Circuit Court trial. They also noted an inability of the child to pin down any timeframe whatsoever to when the alleged indecent touching or sexual abuse occurred. The original warrants and indictments handed down by the grand jury cited a timeframe from February 1, 2020, to July 12, 2020.
The defense theory outlined in its opening statement was that the child’s mother had created the notion of sexual abuse by Williams in the child’s mind in order to gain a legal and financial advantage over Williams in pending civil litigation. During cross-examination of prosecution witness FRPD Investigator Zach King, who was one law enforcement officer to interview the alleged victim, a specific exchange was noted. Asked “why she was there” the girl responded, “to help me and my mom.” To the follow-up question “With what?” she answered, “I don’t remember.”
The defense asserted that the mother’s planting of the idea of inappropriate touching led to the child’s confusion on dates and circumstances in various interviews and testimony, rather than any embarrassment in answering questions about the alleged abuse, which defense counsel and their client contend never occurred. During direct examination Williams said he had discussed a pending hostile civil litigation with the victim’s mother in mid-June 2020, about a month prior to her complaint being filed and the child being picked up by law enforcement while at a relative’s home. That relative testified that when she was informed authorities were on their way to pick the child up from her home on July 12, and why, she had asked the girl if she had ever been abused by Derrick Williams to which she had replied “no”. While Commonwealth’s Attorney John Bell objected to the question and answer as hearsay, it was allowed as a counter to the girl’s testimony she had not discussed the “bad touching” issue with the relative.
“She didn’t want to go. She asked, ‘Why do I have to go’,” the relative added of the last time she saw the child.
Called to the stand late Tuesday morning as the defense’s final witness, Derrick Williams was first asked, “Did you ever touch (the victim) for sexual purposes?” – “No sir, absolutely not,” he responded. However, he also agreed the child was a truthful person who would not intentionally lie. In response to prosecution assertions on the implication of all involved parties’ agreement on the basic honesty of the child, defense counsel noted that the mother had full possession, isolating the child from other emotional support group individuals with a different perspective on the interrelationship of the child’s mother, the accused, and the alleged victim, as of the filing of the indecent liberties and sexual abuse complaints on July 12, 2020. During sometimes emotional testimony Williams’ voice cracked during questioning about the charges and his relationship to the child he was accused of sexually-tinged touching and abuse of.
Defense counsel also focused on Williams work schedule with VDOT, month-plus-long battle in May-June 2020 with a severe case of COVID, and support of his mother during a family crisis in late April 2020 when his father survived a cardiac arrest but dealt with ongoing complications, to illustrate what they asserted was a lack of opportunity to have engaged in the alleged behaviors during the February to July 2020 timeframe asserted in the complaint and indictments.
Following Derrick Williams’ testimony Tuesday morning, Commonwealth’s Attorney Bell called one rebuttal witness, another child present to witness a previous interaction between the accused and alleged victim. Bell explained the purpose of the rebuttal testimony was to counter one statement made by the defendant during his testimony. That young witness testified that they had seen the alleged victim and Derrick Williams alone together in a specifically described circumstance, though not a specifically sexual or abusive one at some point in the “summertime” of 2020. Asked by Bell during his cross-examination, “You have never been alone (in the given circumstance)” with the victim? Derrick Williams responded, “No sir.”
It was noted by defense counsel that the circumstance described by the rebuttal witness did not include any inappropriate contact between Williams and the alleged victim. Rather, as noted above, the prosecution explained the rebuttal testimony as countering the defendant’s testimony about having never been in the described social setting with the alleged victim.
As one of the prosecution’s first witnesses on Monday, the alleged victim’s mother said she became aware of the alleged inappropriate touching of her daughter from a disclosure by the child Bell called as the prosecution’s rebuttal witness. She also testified she first heard about the alleged abuse on July 12, 2020, when the complaint was filed with the magistrate.
“Did you inquire or did they come to you?” Bell asked about how the information was obtained from the other child. “I asked,” was the reply.
The defense team also focused some questioning of witnesses and motions arguments on their contention that the lead investigative agency, the Warren County Sheriff’s Office, had an ongoing conflict of interest due to the alleged victim’s mother’s past employment at the county sheriff’s office. It was established during the defense case that there had been no follow-up interviews with Derrick Williams or other individuals familiar with the social interaction between the accused and the victim, as well as Williams’ social interaction with the victim’s mother.
Defense counsel pointed out that the case had gone through three lead investigators. Jeremy Seabright and Emily Young left the Warren County Sheriff’s Department early in the investigation, after which current lead Laura Nelson-Haas spearheaded the investigation. Only Nelson-Haas was called by the prosecution as a witness. She indicated from her interview her belief the child was telling the truth in trying to describe inappropriate sexual contact with Williams.
Nelson-Haas described her leaving the WCSO for a while in 2015, then returning and being assigned to the regional law enforcement academy for recertification as this case was developing in 2020, she acknowledged previous problems with the investigation. She even termed some of its earlier days as “a trainwreck”. However, despite formerly knowing the victim’s mother “as a bailiff in this building” Sgt. Nelson-Haas denied that interfered with her work on the case.
After the defense rested at 11:17 a.m., Judge Sharp recessed the bench trial to allow the sides to prepare closing arguments. When court readjourned at 11:32 a.m., defense counsel Welch reiterated a motion to strike the Commonwealth’s case of aggravated sexual battery against Derrick Williams due to a lack of substantial evidence. She argued that the allegations of sexual abuse in the warrants and indictments were not corroborated by prosecution witness testimony, particularly from the alleged victim. And at 11:49 a.m. the defense again called for the prosecution’s sexual abuse case against Derrick Williams to be dismissed.
After about 2 minutes of reading material before him at the bench, Judge Sharp began by noting he felt the question before the court fell into two categories. The first related to the vagaries in the prosecution case, particularly the lack of a timeframe for the offenses never being established. He reviewed previously submitted case histories in support of both sides of the argument, particularly the prosecution assertion that in cases of sexual abuse of a minor pinning down the precise time of the offense is not a primary concern in consideration of guilt or innocence. Here the judge moved smoothly toward consideration of “weight of evidence” and “reasonable doubt”.
Following a tracing of the evolution of “reasonable doubt” historically in American law, and noting that the alleged victim was “unable to give any description of actions or time” of the allegations against the defendant, Judge Sharp said, “I can’t get to reasonable doubt in this case.” And as the clock on the courtroom wall struck noon the judge concluded that “I must find” the defendant “not guilty”.
That led to a barely suppressed wave of emotion through one side of Circuit Courtroom B where relatives and friends present in support of Derrick Williams took up many of the seats. Leaving the courthouse later Williams declined comment other than to say he was relieved to finally be out from under the cloud of the allegations made against him and was now ready to move on with his life.
That “cloud” included a second charge of Aggravated Sexual Battery against another child that was dismissed on the second day of a two-day trial in February. That dismissal was due to the late surfacing of email/text message evidence in the file of the original lead investigator Emily Young that was not forwarded to other investigators or the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office before Young left the department. That charge was dismissed on a defense motion following the surfacing of the evidence during the second day of the trial. In an NVD story on that trial, Commonwealth’s Attorney Bell observed that the late-discovered evidence contained elements that would have been helpful to both sides in that case. Perhaps ironically, that first alleged victim was the prosecution’s rebuttal witness in these cases.
Williams’ attorneys told the media following the result of these two cases they felt justice had been done and commended Judge Sharp for his thoughtful appraisal of the circumstances at issue in these cases. “Our reaction is we are very happy for Derrick. We think this was absolutely the correct result. I think the judge got it completely right. That’s why we didn’t have to do closing arguments,” defense counsel Justin Daniel said, adding, “We believe a hundred-and-fifty-percent in Derrick’s innocence. We always have. He’s reacted in exactly the way an innocent person would react from the very beginning of this case. And this case has been pending for almost two years.”
A follow-up story is pending upon acquiring comment from all involved sides, including Commonwealth’s Attorney Bell and lead investigator Nelson-Hass, in addition to additional comment from the defense team.
Crime/Court
Major Online Child Protection Operation Nets Arrest in Warren County
In a crackdown on internet crimes against children, the Warren County Sheriff’s Office, in collaboration with the Northern Virginia/DC Metro Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, has announced the arrest of Steven C. Sherman, a 57-year-old man from Inwood, WV. This arrest is part of a broader effort to combat the online solicitation of minors in the region.
The operation, which began covertly on February 28, 2024, involved undercover officers posing as minors online to identify and apprehend individuals attempting to exploit children. Mr. Sherman reportedly initiated unsolicited contact with an investigator who was posing as a juvenile under the age of 15. Over the course of their communications, he allegedly requested lewd photos and engaged in the transmission of obscene materials, believing he was interacting with a young girl.
On April 16, 2024, following a detailed investigation and with the assistance of the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, Mr. Sherman was arrested without incident and is currently held at the Eastern Regional Jail. Facing serious charges for his actions, he appeared before a magistrate and was ordered to be held without bond, pending extradition to Virginia. His court date is May 9, 2024, at the Warren County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
The Warren County Sheriff’s Office has expressed gratitude towards the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office for their support in the operation and emphasized the importance of inter-agency cooperation in tackling such critical issues. The community is also encouraged to come forward with any information related to soliciting or exploiting minors by contacting Criminal Investigations Sergeant M.R. Ramey at (540) 635-7100 or via email at mramey@warrencountysheriff.org.
This case highlights the ongoing risks and challenges posed by online interactions and the importance of vigilance in protecting vulnerable populations, especially children, from exploitation. The Warren County Sheriff’s Office remains committed to fighting against internet crimes targeting children and urges the public to report any suspicious activities.
As this case progresses, the community hopes for a resolution that reinforces the safety and security of its children and serves as a deterrent to others who might exploit the internet’s anonymity for harmful purposes.
Crime/Court
Warren County Sheriff’s Office Cracks Down on Online Crimes Against Children
In a move to protect children from online predators, the Warren County Sheriff’s Office has made a notable arrest following a proactive undercover operation aimed at the online solicitation of minors. This operation took place in the Warren County and Front Royal areas, showcasing the department’s commitment to safeguarding the community’s vulnerable youth.
The operation came to a head on Wednesday, March 27, 2024, when Samuel Funkhouser, a 33-year-old man from Romney, West Virginia, reached out to an undercover investigator posing as a juvenile under 15. During their communication, Funkhouser requested inappropriate photos and content, believing he was interacting with a young girl. He also sent obscene materials to the investigator, some of which included illegal content involving bestiality. This unsolicited and disturbing interaction was initiated entirely by Funkhouser, leading to swift actions by law enforcement.
The investigative team, part of the Northern Virginia/DC Metro (NOVA/DC) Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, coordinated by the Virginia State Police, worked diligently to identify and locate Funkhouser. On April 10, 2024, they executed their arrest with the support of the Hampshire County Sheriff’s Office. Funkhouser was apprehended without incident and is now held at the Potomac Highlands Regional Jail. He faces a court date on May 15, 2024, with no bond offered due to the severity of the charges.
The Warren County Sheriff’s Office urges the community to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activities concerning the exploitation of minors. Investigator C.J. McDaniel, who can be contacted at (540) 635-7100 or cmcdaniel@warrencountysheriff.org, is leading the call for community support to bring further perpetrators to justice.
This case highlights the critical importance of inter-agency collaboration, as the Hampshire County Sheriff’s Office played a vital role in the successful capture of Funkhouser. The Warren County Sheriff’s Office extends its gratitude to all partners involved in this operation and remains steadfast in its resolve to combat internet crimes against children. The community is encouraged to stay informed and engaged in protecting every child from the dangers of online predators.
Crime/Court
Two Former Warren County Deputies Indicted for Murder in 2022 Death of Elderly Man Following Traffic Stop
Two former deputies of the Warren County Sheriff’s Office, Zachary Fadley, 31, and Tyler Poe, 27, have been indicted on murder charges relating to the April 2022 death of 77-year-old Ralph C. Ennis. This decision comes after an incident following a traffic stop in Front Royal, Virginia, where Ennis, who was reportedly suffering from dementia, was tackled and subsequently died.
The Virginia State Police announced these indictments this week, noting that the incident began when deputies observed Ennis driving erratically on Route 522. The situation escalated after a short pursuit, ending in a parking lot where the confrontation occurred.
According to police reports, Ennis appeared confused during the encounter. Family members have indicated that he was suffering from dementia at the time. After being tackled and restrained by the deputies, Ennis was hospitalized with a severe head wound and died in hospice two weeks later. While the state medical examiner initially cited natural causes related to Alzheimer’s complications as the cause of death, the actions of the deputies led to further investigation.
Last year, both deputies were also indicted on charges of malicious and unlawful wounding, with those cases still pending. These latest indicators introduce more severe allegations, indicating a shift in the prosecutorial approach to the case. Fadley and Poe were arraigned this Monday and released on bond.
This case highlights ongoing concerns regarding law enforcement interactions with vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly and those with mental health issues. It also raises questions about the use of force and the responsibilities of law enforcement to handle such situations with greater care and understanding. The trials for the original charges have been delayed, and the community is closely watching to see how justice will be served in this tragic incident.
FRPD Dash Cam – Ralph Ennis
FRPD Body Cam – Ralph Ennis
Crime/Court
Mark Egger’s $5,000 Civil Defamation Case Against Stevi and Cameron Hubbard Dismissed – But is That The End?
After counsel Jeremiah Egger rested the plaintiff’s case in his client, and father, Mark Egger’s $5,000 civil defamation suit against Stevi Hubbard and her daughter Cameron Thursday morning in Warren County General District Court, defense counsel Phillip Griffin rose to argue for dismissal of the civil claims action. Griffin told Judge Christopher E. Collins there was not enough substantive evidence presented by the plaintiff to continue the civil, small claims court case.
In addition to a preponderance of personal opinions on what the photo-shopped graphic at the center of the defamation claim presented, as well as the submission of plaintiff exhibits without the presence of the authors of that evidence related to the criminal investigation undertaken at the request of plaintiff Egger or his witnesses, defense counsel zeroed in on his key point. That point was no plaintiff evidence submitted of document-able damages suffered by Mark Egger as a result of the Hubbards’ believed circulation of a photo-shopped graphic of Egger in a light-colored, hooded robe.
Plaintiff Mark Egger and several other plaintiff witnesses described the superimposed garb as a “KKK” robe. Egger’s civil claim for $5,000 in damages was based on the circulation of the graphic on vehicles parked at a Samuels Public Library Board of Directors meeting in 2023 during the CleanUp Samuels Library (CSL) movement to remove LGBTQ-themed books from the library, particularly its children’s section. Both Egger and the Hubbards were involved in that library material dispute on opposing sides, Egger for removal, the Hubbards in support of maintaining the LGBTQ-themed material under guidelines established by library staff and board of directors members.
After hearing both sides argue for or against dismissal, Judge Collins recessed court for what he estimated as a 10-minute break to ponder what he had heard and relevant case law precedents. Fifteen minutes later he returned to court and granted the defense’s dismissal motion, citing a lack of any evidence of financial or personal harm to the plaintiff as a result of the Hubbards alleged actions surrounding circulation of the photo-shopped graphic of Egger.
Referencing plaintiff witness testimony in response to questions about how the flyer placed on Library parking lot car windshields during a Library Board of Directors meeting attended by both Egger and the Hubbards impacted their perception of Egger, Judge Collins observed, “All I heard was ‘If I didn’t know Mr. Egger, maybe’ — I’ve seen no evidence this flyer harmed his reputation.” The judge also noted that “I may have lost some sleep over this” did not meet the case law damages standard.
As previously reported surrounding earlier hearings in the case last year, Mark Egger claimed the circulated graphic he attributed to the Hubbards portrayed him as a KKK-dressed person, implying violent support of anti-black racism. Such a portrayal had negatively impacted his personal credibility and possibly cost him lost piano students due to the racist caricature, Egger asserted.
However, the Hubbards said and presented graphic support that the robed outfit superimposed on an image of Mark Egger, rather than a KKK reference, was of a hooded “Capirote” uniform once more commonly donned by European Catholics, particularly in Spanish areas, as part of an Easter season repentance for one’s sins ritual dating back as far as the Spanish Inquisition era. Egger, like many in the CSL movement, is a self-identified Catholic with background connections to Christendom College and/or St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Front Royal.
In fact, defense cross-examination questions: “You were involved with the Clean Up Samuels effort for some time, weren’t you?” (“Not true” Egger quickly replied) and “You’re a member of the Catholic Church?” both brought objections from plaintiff counsel, as to relevance.
After the judge’s ruling for dismissal while leaving the courtroom, plaintiff Mark Egger, who has declined to speak to this reporter following earlier hearings, handed me a printed note, saying, “This is my comment.” Appearing to address the above-referenced CSL Samuels Library book removal controversy he had appeared to support in public comments to elected bodies, that piece of paper read: “There is no such thing as ‘transgender’. A boy cannot become a girl, and a girl cannot become a boy.”
On the defense side, Stevi and Cameron Hubbard let their attorney, Phillip Griffin, speak for them. “We’re glad that the judge made the proper decision and we’re relieved, the Hubbards have been under a fair amount of stress for the last nine months or so, since this originated,” Griffin observed. Defense counsel also addressed potential follow-up actions in the wake of Judge Collins dismissal of the civil claims against his clients.
“The Virginia Code says that if you are successful in defending a 1st Amendment case, which is a defamation of character, freedom of speech-type case, that you may recover all your attorneys fees. And so we are going to decide when and where the appropriate time to make that request is. It’s clear that the judge did not want to address that issue today. So, we’ll have to come back on another date,” Griffin explained.
It was asked if that implied additional litigation related to this case. “So, the judge made the comment that if you accuse somebody of a crime and it turns out they didn’t do it, then you can get opened up to a defamation case. And as you heard from the evidence, there was a request that a law enforcement investigation be opened up directed towards the Hubbards, both of them,” Griffin noted, adding, “And that’s something we’ll consider when we make the claim for attorney’s fees.”
Crime/Court
Part 1 of 3-Part McDonald Sentencing Hearing Draws Judicial Request for Written Support of Motions Arguments Taken Under Advisement
In the first of what is now forecast to be a three-part sentencing hearing for former Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Director Jennifer McDonald, Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon heard arguments from federal prosecutors and federal court-appointed defense attorneys on several aspects of the evidence to be presented during this sentencing hearing. That evidence included what we counted as 30 “Objections”, largely from the defense side, to the precedence of evidence submitted by the other side in written summaries to the court leading up to Tuesday’s Phase One start of McDonald’s sentencing. Also argued were “Forfeiture” of her assets, “Restitution”, and “Special Conditions” being sought at sentencing from both the prosecution and defense. While Judge Dillon ruled on a number of these objections, she took some under advisement, seeking written support from both sides to their motions. She then estimated a one-week break to review submitted material prior to starting Part Two of the sentencing hearing, and the setting of a date for Part Three when the 47-year-old McDonald is anticipated to find out the court’s ruling on arguments for relative leniency (6 years) by her legal team, versus 22 years near the top end of sentencing guidelines by federal prosecutors.
One correction from our sentencing preview story, the prosecution is seeking a 22-year sentence, not 24 years, still near the upper sentencing ranges, with the 24-months sought for Aggravated Identity Theft by McDonald against Truc “Curt” Tran tacked on to a total of 240 months (20 years) on McDonald’s other 29 convictions on fraud and money laundering counts.
That Judge Dillon has taken a firm hold of the context of this sentencing hearing on McDonald’s 30 criminal convictions related to the unauthorized and/or fraudulent use and movement of EDA assets estimated in the millions of dollars was her opening the hearing at 9 a.m. April 9, with the observation, “We’re here for Part One” of the sentencing hearing. Near the end of the sentencing hearing’s Part One around 3:15 p.m. Tuesday afternoon, the judge noted she was taking arguments on the Restitution aspect “under advisement”.
In addition to the prosecution and defense counsels arguments upholding their side of the case law on their motions for lesser or harsher sentencing of McDonald, three witnesses were heard from on April 9. They were recently retired Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Board of Directors Chairman Scott Jenkins, Cherry Bekaert financial investigator Scott McKay, and former FR-WC EDA Administrative Assistant to Jennifer McDonald, Michelle “Missy” Henry. All three were called by the prosecution. In turn they illustrated various economic, financial, and personal impacts of McDonald’s now-convicted-of financial crimes.
First called, Scott Jenkins, not only described the current financial insolvency of the FR-WC EDA in the wake of the estimated $26-million “financial scandal” during McDonald’s leadership during which she is believed to have diverted $6.5 million to her personal benefit, but also a rise in mistrust between the involved municipal entities, the Town of Front Royal and Warren County’s elected, decision-making bodies, and both municipalities’ co-founded over half a century ago quasi-governmental institution, the FR-WC EDA. That distrust arose in great part, Jenkins described, from the Town of Front Royal pulling out from its 34% share of the cost of the EDA-overseen construction of Leach Run Parkway within the town limits, as well as other arguments against shared liability for EDA “financial scandal” losses.
One might note that those lack of shared liability arguments came despite the Town’s proactive involvement in enabling EDA financial scandal era projects, most notably the ITFederal $10-million loan now believed to have been acquired under false pretenses orchestrated by McDonald, and some believe then-Sixth District of Virginia U.S. Congressman Bob Goodlatte. Goodlatte, who in 2017 pushed an initiative to remove third-party ethical oversight of the U.S. Congress, trumpeted ITFederal as a great economic development partner for this community. It appeared that partnership would be built on myriad federal contracts totaling $140-million, that it turned out ITFederal only had the opportunity to bid on.
Michelle Henry described her friendship and long-time co-worker status with McDonald dating to 2012, and the impact of being associated with the financial improprieties from that administrative assistant’s relationship to McDonald. She described being called to her home where she was arrested in 2019 and shackled in front of a young grandchild, and then spending 30 days in jail after losing her job on the presumption of being involved in McDonald’s now convicted-of crimes. Asked if it affected her, Henry replied, “It changed everything about me … Everything about me is different. Everything I viewed about people,” she said, adding that for a time she couldn’t hold a job — “I couldn’t think straight,” she said. She noted a community-wide assumption of guilt and hostility directed, not only toward McDonald, but her way as well after she was arrested. The charges against Henry were eventually dropped, as they were against most, if not all, locally charged believed co-conspirators due to local prosecutors running up against speedy trial statutes and then change of venue moves.
Henry and defense counsel sparred over Henry’s description of being “found innocent” criminally and civilly versus having the charges dropped and not refiled. In opening its cross examination of Henry defense counsel posed these questions: “Jennifer McDonald didn’t arrest you? Jennifer McDonald didn’t file charges against you?” to make the point that Henry’s negative experience was not generated by their client, but rather by the legal and law enforcement systems reaction to the EDA “financial scandal” investigation.
Perhaps Henry’s most tellingly emotional comment began about an unnamed friend: “I spoke at my best friend’s funeral. This isn’t far from that,” she said of her testimony at Part One of the now three-phased McDonald sentencing hearing.
Cherry Bekaert financial investigator Scott McKay sparred with lead defense counsel Andrea Harris on a dizzying array of financial transactions uncovered by his company’s review of several years of EDA financial transactions and annual audits once suspicions began to surface. This line of cross examination helped reveal part of the defense’s strategy in seeking a lesser sentence, as McDonald’s attorneys noted a lack of due diligence oversight of McDonald’s EDA transactions from all levels of involved entities. That included the appointed EDA board of directors and the two municipal elected bodies that appointed that EDA board. It may be noted that the Town voluntarily gave up EDA board appointment authority in 2012 after being relieved of operational funding responsibility of the EDA as part of another effort not to double tax town citizens for services provided county-wide, as they are citizens of both the town and county.
But that was then, this is now. Stay tuned as Parts Two and Three of the latest chapter of what has evolved into this community’s own soap opera, crime drama, continue to play out in the federal courthouse in Harrisonburg, Virginia, in the coming week or weeks.
Crime/Court
47-Year-Old Jennifer McDonald Will Hear 6 to 24 Years in Prison Argued at Her Sentencing Hearing
According to court documents filed in the run up to the April 9 sentencing hearing of former Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority Executive Director Jennifer McDonald a sentencing range of from 6 years to 24 years will be argued between defense and prosecution counsels in Harrisonburg’s 10th Western District of Virginia courthouse this Tuesday. Both sides will present witnesses to bolster their sentencing requests. It might be noted that McDonald is 47 years old.
According to the prosecution’s filing of its Sentencing Memorandum to the court: “The Government recommends a total sentence of 22 years, or 240 months (20 years) for the fraud and money laundering counts, to be followed by 24 months (2 years) for aggravated identity theft, to satisfy the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Government further requests the Court order restitution to the EDA in the amount of $3,544,268.60 and enter a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $5,201,329. The Government further recommends a period of supervised release of three years and that no fine be imposed.”
As to their prison time recommendation federal prosecutors note that: “The United States Sentencing Guidelines, as calculated in McDonald’s Pre-sentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), ECF No. 248, call for a range of imprisonment of 235 (19.7 years) to 293 months (24.5 years), to be followed by a consecutive 24-month (2 year) term of imprisonment for Count 18, Aggravated Identify Theft.”
The additional two years on the aggravated identity theft charge involves another EDA “financial scandal” figure, ITFederal principal Truc “Curt” Tran. Tran is on the prosecution’s list of sentencing witnesses to testify to damage done to his reputation locally by McDonald’s, citing him as an interested party in a real estate transaction he said he had no knowledge of. It was one of the transactions cited by the prosecution as ways McDonald used, or attempted to use, to move money to her own, or other alleged co-conspirator’s, benefit.
Prosecution Point
In seeking a harsh sentence at the upper end of sentencing guideline recommendations the prosecution writes to the court: “For more than four years, Jennifer McDonald used the bank accounts and credit facilities of the Warren County Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) as her personal piggy bank, diverting public funds to purchase real estate and to pay her personal expenses. She falsified documents to fool the EDA’s Board of Directors, external auditors, and Warren County (“County”) and Front Royal (“Town”) government officials so she could continue and grow her scheme, reaping ever-growing payoffs. She employed elaborate ruses, including pretending to act as Truc Tran, to obscure her blatant theft of taxpayer dollars. Instead of acting for the general good of Warren County, McDonald pilfered the EDA’s bank accounts. In the end, her actions crippled the EDA. Due to Jennifer McDonald, a public agency designed to improve Warren County is now saddled with debt, and it is the taxpayers of Warren County who are now directly paying for her crimes.”
Defense Counterpoint
On the defense side, they question the cited guidelines origins and point to a lifetime of personal, financial, and professional consequences McDonald faces as a result of the 30 specific actions she was convicted of related to the FR-WC EDA financial scandal: “Jennifer McDonald submits this sentencing memorandum in support of her request for a total sentence of 72 months (48 months on Counts 1-13 and 19-34 plus 24 months on Count 18) followed by four years of supervised release. The sentence requested is sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
“The current guideline range provides no useful advice to the court, as it was not developed based on empirical data or national experience and it fails to satisfy any purpose of sentencing. It recommends a sentencing range that is far greater than necessary to punish Ms. McDonald because she poses an extraordinarily low risk of recidivism and has been destroyed personally, financially, and professionally because of her convictions. The collateral consequences already felt by Ms. McDonald vastly exceed that of an ordinary case and weigh in favor of a sentence of 72 months (6 years).”
Defense counsel, on behalf of their client, further describe McDonald’s roots here and the lifetime consequences of the actions she has been convicted of: “Front Royal is Jennifer McDonald’s hometown. She has lived in Front Royal for her entire life, except for the four years she went to college in North Carolina. Her family’s roots in Front Royal go back generations, and Jennifer has devoted her adult career to working for and on behalf of the people of Front Royal and Warren County. But now she is a pariah in the town she loves because of her offenses.”
Also submitted on McDonald’s behalf is a letter to Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon from a woman describing a 30-year friendship with McDonald that began when the woman moved to the area with her family when a high school junior. “I know that Jennifer is charged with a serious offense, but I would like to give you additional information about her for your consideration,” she begins.
She then traces the personal difficulty of making friends in a tightly knit, small-town community environment at that age, continuing, “However, Jennifer went out of her way to make me feel welcome and that I wasn’t going to spend my last two years as a high schooler friendless. Jennifer has been my friend since then,” she observes, adding, “When my father passed away suddenly, she was the first person I called and she came immediately to help me as I dealt with the sadness and grief. Jennifer is my best friend. Thank you for your consideration,” the woman says in conclusion of another side of defendant Jennifer McDonald not presented as evidence in her criminal trial.
How may Judge Dillon balance what she hears in support of prosecution and defense arguments and witness testimony about community and personal repercussions of the acts Jennifer McDonald was convicted of by a federal court jury on November 1st? Will we find out this Tuesday, April 9. Stay tuned.