Crime/Court
Point, Counterpoint: attorneys debate plea agreement dynamics, impacts in County Fire Truck accident traffic case
Made aware of a peripherally involved party’s attorney’s issue with a plea deal negotiated by the Warren County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office in the traffic court case involving a Warren County Fire & Rescue fire truck, Royal Examiner first contacted that attorney Demetry Pikrallidas. The Fairfax-based Pikrallidas represents Front Royal-based Kevin Velasquez. Velasquez, 24, was badly injured in the November 11, 2021, accident involving that fire truck driven by 25-year-old volunteer firefighter Conor Wright.
On Wednesday, March 16, the Commonwealth, represented by Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Neal Knudsen, entered into a plea agreement with Wright and his counsel in which an original Class 1 Misdemeanor charge of Reckless Driving was reduced to the lesser charge of Improper Driving. Wright was allowed to enter a “not guilty” plea but accept a guilty finding in the case without going to trial. Warren County General District Court Judge W. Dale Houff accepted the agreement over the objection of Velasquez’s attorney.
Wright was fined $500, with $100 suspended, and ordered to pay court costs reduced to $74 by the avoidance of a trial. On the originally issued Reckless Driving misdemeanor charge filed in the wake of a Virginia State Police investigation of the accident, Wright had faced a maximum fine of $2,500 and up to 12 months in jail. But it was not Wright’s reduced penalty on the traffic violation that angered Velasquez’s attorney. Rather, it was what Pikrallidas sees as a lack of interest by the Commonwealth in his client’s interest in the resolution of the traffic case in an accident in which that client was seriously injured.
Contacted by phone Friday, March 18, Pikrallidas estimated his client’s medical costs as approaching $100,000. And while he said his client was insured, fault and insurance liability for the accident is likely to be one primary issue in a pending civil suit Pikrallidas says his client will file because of damages suffered as a result of the accident. In addition to the still-rising medical expenses – Velasquez continues to receive physical therapy for a badly injured leg, his attorney said – his client lost 110 days of wages from work missed as he recovered from his injuries. According to the Va. State Police accident report, the collision occurred when Velasquez’s 2013 Toyota Takoma pickup truck and the 33,700-pound fire engine driven by Wright collided after the fire truck crossed the centerline to avoid rear-ending a vehicle stopped to make a left turn. Pikrallidas noted it took emergency responders a half hour to extricate his client from his vehicle. Velasquez was Medivaced by helicopter from the scene to INOVA Fairfax Hospital for treatment for his injuries, which while deemed non-life-threatening, were serious, his attorney pointed out.
Contacted, Warren County Fire & Rescue reported that the three involved firefighters were transported to the local hospital for examination and/or treatment of minor injuries. All have returned to active duty, Fire Marshal Gerry Maiatico told Royal Examiner. Wright was placed on “restricted driving status” and the leadership of Front Royal Company One and the Warren County Department of Fire & Rescue will review the relevant court findings to determine Wright’s status moving forward.
One primary issue for Pikrallidas is that the plea agreement allowing Wright’s non-guilty plea to the lesser charge could weaken his and his client’s position in the coming civil liability litigation. “I’ve never heard of a plea like this,” Pikrallidas told Royal Examiner. And he noted that when he tried to address the court to explain his objection to the plea agreement, Knudsen objected to his being allowed comment as attorney for a non-involved party in the traffic violation prosecution. Judge Houff ruled for the Commonwealth, the judge citing a desire not to create a precedent of allowing third-parties in Commonwealth-prosecuted traffic cases to testify. Pikrallidas said he noted his client was a potential witness at trial, as well as a victim as an injured party in the accident resulting from the traffic violation case before the court. However, Knudsen countered to the court that “statutorily” Velasquez was not technically a victim in a traffic citation case between the Commonwealth and defendant.
Contacted about that exchange, Knudsen agreed that Velasquez was a “victim in the ordinary sense of the word”. However, referencing Va. Code 19.2-11.01 where “victim” is defined legally, the prosecutor stood by his courtroom assertion. An examination of the lengthy code titled “Crime Victim and Witness Rights” by this non-attorney seemed to indicate that “victim” was viewed in the sense of being victimized by an intentional felony offense act, as opposed to an unintended consequence of a misdemeanor act such as a traffic offense.
From his Fairfax office during our late afternoon March 18th phone conversation, Pikrallidas said that to his mind the lack of interest in his client related to potential testimony at trial or a plea resolution in the case, raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest by the Warren County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. That conflict would stem from the defendant’s position as a volunteer member of a County department, Fire & Rescue, in a case prosecuted by the county’s Commonwealth Attorney’s Office.
Contacted in his office Monday, March 21, Commonwealth Attorney John Bell responded to Pikrallidas’ conflict of interest and other concerns, which the two discussed March 16, prior to the agreement being entered in court. “I will say that protecting the Fire Department was absolutely no consideration in any plea negotiations that went on with this. I asked Knudsen particularly about this when it came up. He said the only time he even talked to anybody from the County was to see about getting a copy of the mechanical evaluation of the fire truck to make sure there wasn’t a mechanical failure that caused this accident; and also to see about the fire chief coming to testify if we needed him to introduce the mechanical evaluation.”
Information accumulated from the State Police accident investigation indicated that volunteer firefighter Wright was driving eastbound on Strasburg Road (Rt. 55 West) with two paid firefighters aboard as the trio returned from a fire call. Velasquez was traveling westbound, returning borrowed furniture to a friend according to his attorney. According to the original Va. State Police press release on the accident the fire engine “swerved to avoid hitting a stopped eastbound vehicle that was attempting a left turn.” That swerve took the fire truck across the center line of the two-lane road where the collision with Velasquez’s westbound 2013 Toyota Tacoma pickup truck occurred. The DMV crash report had the fire truck traveling at 55 mph in a 45 mph zone, VSP noted.
But Pikrallidas asserts he had expert witness testimony that would have been available in the traffic case had it gone to trial that would indicate the fire truck was traveling at 70 mph prior to recorded hard braking as the accident occurred. We asked both Commonwealth Attorney Bell and Assistant C.A. Knudsen about this proposed evidence indicative of perhaps reckless, as opposed to improper, driving.
“Well, Mr. Pikrallidas sent what appeared to be an analysis of the “black box” of the fire truck, which we got the day of the trial that was not available to us via the state police,” Bell began, adding, “The state police is our chief investigative agency. And the state police officer did a thorough job on the scene, reviewing the crash, taking appropriate photographs, and doing interviews. But what we did not have was any further expert (evidence). And I will say that we are limited in the criminal (traffic) case in terms of introducing accident reconstruction evidence. It’s not banned, but it’s a line you’ve got to walk very carefully,” Bell observed.
As to the reduced charge offered in the plea agreement, the commonwealth attorney explained that “a reckless driving charge is technically a misdemeanor. An officer cannot charge improper driving. It’s a lesser included offense that a court or prosecutor can reduce the charge to … As I said, Knudsen was the one that made the call between a plea to reckless or a plea to improper on this one. And he was the one who had all the information on the case. He made an offer to the defense, which the defense accepted, and I’m not going to second guess that.”
As to Pikrallidas’ concerns about the plea agreement potentially making his client’s position weaker in a civil liability case, Bell said rather than favoring either side in a potential civil trial, he views the plea agreement as neutral to both parties. All of the evidence that could have been introduced in the traffic case, including Pikrallidas’ late-arriving expert evidence on speed, will be available to be introduced in a civil case to argue liability, Bell pointed out.
Asked for additional detail on the timing of the plea offer, Bell referred us to his assistant prosecutor Knudsen, who was not available mid-afternoon that Monday. Contacted by email Tuesday, March 22, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Neal Knudsen responded to our inquiry into the dynamics of the traffic case and plea agreement.
Knudsen told us he received the “expert witness” speed analysis from Pikrallidas at 12:25 p.m. on March 16, the day the trial/plea offer was scheduled at 2:45 p.m. He said the plea agreement was offered late the previous morning and accepted by Wright’s counsel Margarita Wood that day after a confirmation call with her client. Discussing the case’s resolution with us the previous day, Commonwealth Attorney Bell noted that plea agreements once offered and accepted are generally viewed almost at the level of contracts between parties, and not easily rescinded.
Knudsen also noted that the “expert” speed analysis report from a Powhatan-based “forensic collision reconstruction” firm Accident Technology Inc. (ATI) sent to Pikrallidas was dated March 16, indicating Velasquez’s attorney also received it the day the trial had been scheduled.
As to the lesser charge being offered in the plea agreement, Knudsen told Royal Examiner: “The reckless driving charge was entirely appropriate at the time it was brought, based upon the information available at the time of the accident. As we gathered evidence, I had a question in my mind about whether the Commonwealth would be able to prove all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In the absence of a typical reckless driving cause such as texting while driving, erratic driving in and out of traffic, a positive alcohol or drug test on the driver, or excessively high speed – at the time the plea was offered the prosecution had only VDOT’s estimate of a 55 mph involved speed – Knudsen chose caution in offering the plea.
“Having reviewed the available evidence, I had different theories as to what might have caused the vehicle to swerve into the other lane. The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled that ‘when the Commonwealth’s evidence leaves much to speculation and conjecture as to what caused defendant to lose control of the car’ the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of reckless driving within the meaning of the statute,” Knudsen observed, adding, “In the same opinion the Court ruled that the happening of an accident ‘does not give rise to an inference’ of reckless driving …”
Pikrallidas noted the Commonwealth negotiated the plea agreement without any communication with him or his client. In fact, Pikrallidas said he was notified by an involved third party about the plea deal at 4:06 p.m. the day before the trial was scheduled for 2:45 p.m. Wednesday, March 16. And with plea agreements often being heard prior to scheduled trial times, Pikrallidas said it was very possible he could have missed the entering of the plea deal the next day.
Commonwealth Attorney Bell said that in the wake of his communication with Pikrallidas the morning of the traffic case plea submission, he said he would see that the case and plea agreement offer was called at the 2:45 p.m. scheduled time the trial would have begun to facilitate Velasquez’s attorney’s attendance. Bell did offer that perhaps one constructive lesson learned from Pikrallidas’ concerns in this case, is for his department to reach out more to peripherally involved parties in similar cases, particularly ones who could be prosecution witnesses, as movement towards a trial or plea agreement proceed.
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.