USA v. Harp

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CRIMINAL NO. 1:23-CR-69
(KLEEH)
CHRISTOPHER HARP,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
Pending 	is 	Defendant’s 	renewed 	motion 	to 	vacate 	judgment
and/or 	grant 	a 	new 	trial 	[ECF 	No. 	97]. 	The 	Court 	hereby
incorporates 	its 	Memorandum 	Opinion 	and 	Order 	Denying 	Motion 	for
Judgment of Acquittal Or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial [ECF
No. 	92]. 	For 	the 	reasons 	discussed 	below, 	the 	renewed 	motion 	is
also DENIED.
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 	November 	7, 	2023, 	the 	grand 	jury 	returned 	a 	four-count
indictment 	charging 	Defendant 	Christopher 	Harp 	(“Christopher” 	or
“Defendant”) 	in 	Counts 	One 	through 	Three 	with 	Receipt 	of 	Child
Pornography, 	in 	violation 	of 	18 	U.S.C. 	§§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) 	and
2252A(b)(1), 	and 	in 	Count 	Four 	with 	Possession 	of 	Child
Pornography, 	in 	violation 	of 	18 	U.S.C. 	§§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) 	and
2252A(b)(2). 	Following a three-day trial, the jury found Defendant
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
2
guilty on all four counts. 	The jury rejected Defendant’s strategy
of blaming the crimes on his brother, Jeremy Harp (“Jeremy”). 	On
April 25, 2024, prior to the jury’s deliberations and at the close
of 	the 	Government’s 	case-in-chief, 	Defendant, 	by 	counsel, 	moved
for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. 	The Court denied the motion.
On 	June 	13, 	2024, 	counsel 	for 	Defendant 	filed 	a 	motion 	for
acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial. 	On December 9,
2024, 	the 	Court 	denied 	the 	motion. 	On 	December 	16, 	2024 	(three
days before the scheduled sentencing hearing), Jeremy appeared at
the law office of Defendant’s counsel, Brian Edwards (“Edwards”).
Jeremy 	then 	provided 	a 	recorded 	“confession” 	and 	barricaded
himself in Edwards’s conference room with a firearm, all of which
is 	discussed 	in 	more 	detail 	below. 	Edwards 	filed 	a 	renewed 	Rule
33 	motion 	based 	on 	the 	“confession.” 	See 	ECF 	No. 	97. 	The 	Court
continued the sentencing hearing, ordered briefing on the renewed
motion, 	and 	scheduled 	an 	evidentiary 	hearing 	for 	March 	10, 	2025.
Leading 	up 	to 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing, 	the 	Court 	directed 	the
parties to file witness and exhibit lists, and the Court appointed
counsel 	for 	Jeremy. 	On 	March 	7, 	2025, 	three 	days 	before 	the
evidentiary 	hearing, 	Edwards 	moved 	to 	withdraw 	as 	counsel. 	The
Court then converted the evidentiary hearing into a hearing on the
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
3
motion to withdraw, and the Court granted the motion to withdraw.
On March 11, 2025, the Court appointed Craig Erhard (“Erhard”) to
represent 	Defendant, 	and 	the 	Court 	scheduled 	sentencing 	for 	June
9, 	2025. 	The 	Court 	denied 	Edwards’s 	renewed 	motion 	without
prejudice, with leave to refile. 	The sentencing hearing was then
continued multiple times for a variety of reasons.
On December 11, 2025, Erhard moved to renew Edwards’s renewed
Rule 33 motion. 	Erhard did not submit any additional information
for 	the 	Court 	to 	consider. 	The 	Court 	granted 	him 	leave 	to 	renew
the motion and, after a continuance, held the evidentiary hearing
on January 27, 2026. 	During the evidentiary hearing, the following
individuals 	testified: 	Jeremy 	Harp, 	Detective 	Joshua 	Ward,
Jonathan Suite, and FBI Agent Cory Thigpen.
II. 	FACTS
Summary of Jail Calls
In 	response 	to 	the 	renewed 	Rule 	33 	motion, 	the 	Government
attached 	recorded 	jail 	calls 	as 	an 	exhibit. 	The 	jail 	calls 	are
all 	between 	Christopher 	and 	Jeremy, 	and 	they 	span 	from 	May 	22,
2024 (less than one month after Defendant’s convictions), through
June 30, 2024. 	The theme throughout the calls is that Christopher
is trying to push Jeremy to come to Morgantown, West Virginia, to
meet 	with 	Edwards. 	It 	is 	clear, 	through 	Jeremy’s 	comments, 	that
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
4
the push is to get Jeremy to confess falsely to the charges in the
indictment. 	Jeremy repeatedly comments that he (Jeremy) “did not
do 	this” 	and 	that 	it 	would 	be 	a 	“false 	confession,” 	but 	he 	would
be willing to do it to save his brother from prison. 	Christopher
comments 	about 	how 	hard 	it 	is 	for 	him 	to 	be 	away 	from 	his 	family
and 	how 	much 	Amy 	(Christopher’s 	wife) 	and 	his 	children 	are
struggling. 	Jeremy repeatedly tells Christopher that he (Jeremy)
needs more time (to gather more money to travel, and to straighten
out 	his 	story 	so 	that 	it 	makes 	sense). 	Jeremy 	understands 	that
his “confession” needs details if it is going to be believed. 	At
times, 	Jeremy 	appears 	to 	be 	on 	a 	mission 	to 	find 	the 	real
perpetrator. 	He 	often 	asks 	Christopher 	to 	call 	back 	with 	more
details about certain evidence that was produced at trial.
The calls indicate that Jeremy feels somewhat responsible for
Christopher’s 	situation. 	He 	believes 	that 	Christopher 	has 	been
set up by the people who are trying to “get” Jeremy. 	While Jeremy
vehemently denies downloading child pornography or doing anything
“depraved,” 	he 	believes 	that 	he 	is 	the 	cause 	of 	Christopher’s
problems, and he appears to believe that Christopher is innocent.
While 	Jeremy 	continues 	to 	try 	to 	figure 	out 	the 	true 	perpetrator
or come up with a more detailed plan, Christopher pushes him to go
meet with Edwards and says that everything can be sorted out later.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
5
Christopher 	acts 	as 	if 	he 	has 	a 	secret 	plan 	in 	place 	by 	which
neither of them will go to prison. 	At some point Christopher says
that Amy Harp will give Jeremy their “vest” if he wants it. 	Jeremy
expresses concern that he will face some type of criminal charge,
regardless 	of 	whether 	his 	“confession” 	is 	believed, 	and
Christopher responds that any charge against Jeremy would be more
minor 	than 	what 	he 	(Christopher) 	is 	facing. 	By 	June 	22, 	2024,
Jeremy was in Morgantown. 	After arriving in Morgantown, he became
more emboldened. 	He told Christopher that he had been consulting
with 	lawyers 	whom 	he 	knew, 	and 	he 	had 	decided 	that 	Christopher’s
plan was a bad one.
Private Investigator and Failed “Confessions”
At 	some 	point, 	Christopher’s 	family 	hired 	a 	private
investigator 	to 	find 	Jeremy. 	During 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing,
Christopher’s 	counsel 	represented 	that 	the 	family 	hired 	the
investigator 	in 	June 	2024, 	despite 	the 	fact 	that 	Christopher 	had
been 	talking 	to 	Jeremy 	on 	the 	phone 	as 	early 	as 	May 	2024.
Nonetheless, 	Defendant’s 	motion 	states 	that 	the 	private
investigator 	was 	“able 	to 	locate 	Jeremy,” 	who 	was 	homeless. 	On
August 	6, 	2024, 	the 	private 	investigator 	brought 	Jeremy 	to
Edwards’s office to be interviewed. 	During the interview, Jeremy
denied 	being 	the 	individual 	who 	was 	responsible 	for 	downloading
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
6
child pornography on Defendant’s laptop. 	He did admit that he set
up 	Christopher’s 	laptop 	and 	used 	it 	when 	he 	was 	at 	Christopher’s
home, 	and 	that 	he 	was 	present 	at 	Christopher’s 	home 	on 	different
occasions 	when 	neither 	Christopher 	nor 	Amy 	were 	present. 	Jeremy
also 	admitted 	that 	he 	had 	helped 	Christopher 	and 	Amy 	move 	out 	of
a townhome into Amy’s parents’ home, and then he helped them move
out of Amy’s parents’ home into the home that Christopher and Amy
built.
On 	September 	24, 	2024, 	Jeremy 	reached 	out 	to 	Edwards 	and
stated 	that 	he 	was 	willing 	to 	confess 	to 	being 	the 	individual
responsible 	for 	downloading 	child 	pornography 	on 	Christopher’s
laptop 	and 	that 	he 	would 	provide 	a 	statement 	under 	oath. 	On
October 4, 2024, Jeremy was scheduled to give a recorded statement
under 	oath 	in 	London, 	Kentucky, 	but 	he 	failed 	to 	appear. 	Jeremy
called 	Edwards 	the 	next 	day 	and 	told 	him 	that 	he 	did 	not 	appear
because 	his 	father 	told 	him 	“it 	wouldn’t 	do 	any 	good.” 	Edwards
had no further contact with Jeremy until the incident on December
16, 2024.
“Confession” in December 2024
On 	December 	16, 	2024, 	Jeremy 	appeared 	unannounced 	at
Edwards’s law firm. 	He indicated that he wished to provide a sworn
statement, which Edwards (who was out of town) proceeded to record
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
7
by Zoom, with a court reporter. 	The transcript is attached as an
exhibit 	to 	Christopher’s 	renewed 	motion. 	On 	the 	record, 	Edwards
asked 	Jeremy 	if 	it 	was 	correct 	that 	he 	(Jeremy) 	was 	“the 	one 	who
set 	up 	the 	subject 	Hewlett 	Packard 	computer 	and 	set 	the 	password
for 	Chris.” 	Jeremy 	responded, 	“I 	mean, 	I 	don’t 	remember 	any 	of
that because I’m having a lot of trouble remembering it.” 	Jeremy
stated that he used the laptop at Christopher’s “house and at his
townhouse.” 	Edwards asked him, “Did you download child pornography
and 	view 	it 	on 	that 	computer?” 	Jeremy 	responded, 	“It 	wasn’t 	for
viewing. 	It was to be used as a weapon.” 	Edwards clarified:
Q: 	Okay.
But you were the one who actually
downloaded it; is that correct?
I’m sorry, I didn’t hear an answer.
A: 	I said yes.
Q: 	Okay. I’m sorry.
And you did that on multiple occasions?
A: 	Yep.
Jeremy did not discuss when or how he downloaded or accessed child
pornography, or what type of child pornography was accessed. 	The
entire 	back-and-forth 	lasted 	just 	over 	four 	minutes. 	Jeremy 	was
slow 	to 	respond 	to 	many 	of 	Edwards’s 	questions 	and 	repeatedly
placed his head in his hands.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 7 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
8
After the “confession” was given, Jeremy retrieved a firearm
and 	effectively 	barricaded 	himself 	in 	the 	law 	firm’s 	conference
room. 	During that time, Jeremy communicated with law enforcement,
who 	pleaded 	with 	Jeremy 	to 	put 	the 	gun 	down 	and 	leave 	the 	office
without 	hurting 	himself. 	Much 	of 	the 	interaction 	was 	documented
on body camera. 	During the stand-off, Jeremy was provided a cell
phone 	so 	that 	he 	could 	communicate 	with 	Detective 	Joshua 	Ward
(“Detective 	Ward”) 	from 	the 	Monongalia 	County 	Sheriff’s 	Office.
The 	conversation 	occurred 	on 	speaker 	phone. 	The 	body 	camera
footage is split into three videos.
“Monongalia 1” (Body Camera)
Jeremy 	first 	explained 	that 	he 	believed 	his 	brother
Christopher 	was 	framed 	and 	should 	not 	have 	been 	convicted.
Detective Ward tried to provide Jeremy with a reason to stay alive
and 	told 	Jeremy 	that 	he 	could 	only 	help 	his 	brother 	if 	he 	was
alive, 	to 	which 	Jeremy 	responded, 	“This 	was 	a 	f***ing 	trap.”
Jeremy expressed his concern that “they’re gonna kill [his] entire
family.” 	Detective Ward attempted to talk Jeremy into putting the
gun 	down 	and 	walking 	out, 	and 	Jeremy 	said 	that 	there 	was 	“no 	way
out,” and Christopher would end up in prison or tortured for “shit”
he didn’t do. 	Jeremy said that he needed to talk to his dad “while
[he] 	still 	ha[d] 	the 	option 	to 	kill 	[him]self.” 	Detective 	Ward,
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 8 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
9
trying 	to 	calm 	Jeremy 	down, 	told 	Jeremy 	that 	he 	was 	doing 	a
courageous 	thing, 	and 	Jeremy 	replied, 	“It 	wasn’t
courageous. . . . 	I 	hate 	this 	stupid 	circus, 	it’s 	just 	this
stupid 	sadistic 	circus.” 	He 	said, 	“I 	must 	have 	done 	something
horrible to deserve this.” 	He said that he is not a good person.
He said, “There’s something wrong. 	Ah, . . . no human being could
ever 	hate 	you 	that 	much 	unless 	you 	did 	something 	absolutely
terrible and you weren’t aware of it, and it’s killing me . . . .”
Detective 	Ward 	asked 	who 	hates 	him, 	and 	Jeremy 	said, 	“Whoever
orchestrated 	this.” 	He 	said, 	“Every 	single 	person 	I 	love 	became
this demented mirror image of themselves.”
“Monongalia 2” (Body Camera)
Jeremy stated that he was “far beyond self-preservation” and
that he “want[ed] them to stop hurting [him]” (hurting Jeremy, not
Christopher). 	Jeremy acknowledged that he sounded schizophrenic.
He indicated that maybe if he were dead, “they” would stop hurting
“them.” 	He 	said 	that 	he 	“received 	an 	improper 	and 	incorrect 	set
of signals that caused [him] to do increasingly depraved and insane
things 	out 	of 	fear 	that 	they’re 	going 	to 	continue 	hurting 	[his]
loved ones.” 	He indicated that “they” kept the information to use
against 	him 	later. 	He 	said, 	“Imagine 	a 	scenario 	where 	someone
wants 	to 	destroy 	you 	so 	they 	abuse 	your 	trust 	of 	them 	to 	get 	you
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 9 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
10
to 	do 	something 	depraved 	or 	insane 	that 	they 	can 	then 	use 	as 	a
bargaining token to get somebody else to kill you.” 	Jeremy stated
that 	he 	was 	being 	used 	as 	a 	“human 	weapon,” 	speaking 	about
interpretation 	of 	signals, 	and 	told 	Detective 	Ward 	that 	his
“perception 	of 	reality 	[was] 	breaking 	down.” 	He 	said, 	“They
f***ing 	raped 	my 	mind 	and 	used 	me 	as 	a 	weapon.” 	Jeremy 	stated
that 	he 	was 	“truly 	afraid.” 	He 	said 	that 	he 	did 	not 	know 	who 	to
blame 	and 	that 	there 	was 	“definitely 	somebody 	to 	f***ing 	blame.”
Jeremy stated, “I don’t care if I’m safe. 	I want Chris to be safe.
Like the goal is to kill my f***ing family.” 	He acknowledged that
he 	sounded 	“insane” 	but 	continued, 	“They’re 	going 	to 	kill 	my
brother. 	They’re going to ruin his life. 	They’re going to destroy
his relationships. 	They’re going to keep going.” 	Jeremy expressed
the concerns that “they” were going to drive his father to suicide.
Jeremy wanted Detective Ward to help him find out if somebody “used
[him] to cause the suicide of a child” so that Jeremy could decide
whether to “off himself.”
Detective 	Ward 	told 	Jeremy 	that 	the 	only 	way 	to 	help 	his
brother was to testify before the grand jury, to which Jeremy said,
“I did a stupid boneheaded move. 	Look, you have a confession, so
the 	State 	has 	no 	burden 	of 	proof, 	right? 	Go 	ahead 	and 	hurt 	me.
Hurt 	me 	instead. . . . 	But, 	oh, 	man, 	I 	didn’t 	I, 	oh 	God. 	I, 	I
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 10 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
11
did 	not 	do 	what 	I 	just 	said 	I 	did. 	The 	only 	reason 	I, 	the 	only
reason I did that, ok is cause I thought it would stop. 	I thought
it 	would 	make 	everything 	stop.” 	Then 	he 	said, 	“I 	can’t 	be 	sure
that this is just another layer to this intimately complex plot to
maneuver me into position, to dispose of me. . . . 	I did not. 	I
did not frame my brother. 	I did not download this shit.” 	Jeremy
then told Detective Ward, “You understand how, how f***ed I am. 	I
couldn’t 	trust 	my 	own 	father.” 	He 	said 	that 	he 	exists 	every 	day
in 	“perpetual 	grief.” 	Jeremy 	told 	Detective 	Ward 	that 	the
“pressure, 	the 	release 	valve” 	got 	hit 	two 	or 	three 	days 	before.
He 	said, 	“I 	have 	regressed 	into 	a 	mental 	state 	I 	can’t 	even
describe.” 	Jeremy indicated that he wanted to speak to his father,
but Detective Ward refused to provide the phone number, and Jeremy
hung up on him.
“Monongalia 3” (Body Camera)
When 	Jeremy 	answered 	the 	phone 	again, 	he 	discussed 	concerns
that 	his 	mother’s 	death 	was 	a 	homicide 	and 	wondered 	if 	she 	tried
to 	cut 	off 	her 	own 	oxygen 	supply. 	She 	was 	sick 	with 	cancer, 	and
near the end, she was on an oxygen concentrator. 	One day or night,
both Jeremy and his dad caught her pinching her tube with one hand
to block off her own supply of oxygen. 	He said, “If my perception
of 	time 	is 	correct, 	she 	died 	last 	winter.” 	Then 	he 	said,
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 11 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
12
“Obliterating 	the 	victim’s 	memory 	prevents 	them 	from 	relaying
information to anyone who can help them, which is another part of
this absolutely perfect plan.”
Jeremy 	discussed 	the 	concept 	of 	a 	“slow 	kill,” 	such 	as, 	for
instance, 	feeding 	someone 	small 	amounts 	of 	poison 	over 	time. 	He
stated that another type of slow kill is driving a person to commit
suicide. 	He 	wanted 	to 	determine 	why 	there 	was 	surveillance
equipment in his house and in his father’s house. 	He said that he
could 	not 	tell 	if 	his 	dad 	was 	acting 	or 	being 	“real.” 	He 	said
that 	his 	father 	is 	“soulless.” 	He 	said, 	“This 	was 	so 	perfectly
executed.” 	Jeremy told Detective Ward, “I’m scared of what Chris’s
sentence will be. 	And . . . that, that I can’t just get over that.
And that’s, that’s what drove me to, to f***ing do this boneheaded-
ass 	move 	because 	I, 	oh, 	God, 	God 	dammit. 	. 	. 	. 	I’m 	too
psychologically fu***ed to do anything right at this point because
I 	probably 	should 	have 	shot 	myself 	because 	then 	it 	would 	make 	me
look more guilty so that it would get him out of prison.”
Jeremy said, “I went through all this shit to not achieve my
goal 	of 	getting 	him 	out 	of 	jail.” 	He 	said 	that 	he 	fears 	the
“entire 	human 	race.” 	Jeremy 	said, 	“This 	whole 	thing 	was 	just 	a
f***ing trick, wasn’t it. . . . 	A trick by his lawyer. . . . 	His
lawyer told me that there’s a very good possibility that he’ll get
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 12 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
13
out very quickly, almost immediately, if I did this.” 	Jeremy then
told 	Detective 	Ward, 	“I 	am 	having 	another 	epiphany. . . . 	He 	is
hostile counsel. 	I was tricked into giving his lawyer everything
his lawyer needs to frame me. . . . 	That means my dad, my dad was
in 	on 	it.” 	Jeremy 	explained 	that 	his 	father 	was 	angry 	with 	him
because 	Jeremy 	connected 	him 	with 	the 	“mastermind,” 	and 	Jeremy
suggested 	that 	his 	father 	was 	trying 	to 	manipulate 	him. 	He 	said
that 	he 	“can’t 	even 	form 	complete 	memories 	anymore,” 	and 	his
“recollection 	of 	events 	is 	becoming 	blurry.” 	He 	told 	Detective
Ward that he (Jeremy) needed to figure out who sent “Signal Zero,”
which 	ultimately 	caused 	his 	own 	family 	to 	attempt 	to 	kill 	him.
Jeremy 	told 	Detective 	Ward 	that 	he 	had 	not 	eaten 	for 	two 	days,
that he might be experiencing the onset of schizophrenia, and that
he 	could 	not 	tell 	what 	was 	real 	anymore. 	Shortly 	thereafter,
Jeremy 	exited 	the 	room, 	leaving 	the 	firearm 	behind. 	Jeremy 	was
then transported to a psychiatric facility.
Evidentiary Hearing Testimony
Jeremy Harp Testimony
Jeremy 	testified 	that 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	hearing, 	he 	was
thinking 	clearly 	and 	taking 	medications 	to 	address 	his
schizoaffective 	disorder 	and 	other 	issues. 	He 	testified 	that 	he
was not, however, thinking clearly when he gave his “confession.”
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 13 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
14
Jeremy 	testified 	that 	he 	only 	remembers 	“bits 	and 	pieces” 	of 	the
“confession” at Edwards’s office. 	At the time, he was still using
drugs, had not slept in two days, and was “tweaking.”
Jeremy 	testified 	that 	he 	was 	not 	aware 	that 	Christopher 	was
facing 	federal 	criminal 	charges 	until 	after 	the 	trial. 	He
testified 	that 	between 	2018 	and 	2020, 	he 	lived 	in 	Toledo, 	Ohio,
and 	was 	homeless 	for 	a 	“while.” 	He 	lived 	in 	Morgantown 	briefly
during that time. 	When he lived in Morgantown, he would set up a
tent 	by 	the 	old 	Mountaineer 	Mall. 	Occasionally, 	he 	would 	go 	to
Christopher’s 	residence 	and 	would 	visit 	or 	housesit, 	but 	it 	was
infrequent. 	He testified that he did not know where Christopher’s
laptop was in the house. 	He testified that he used Christopher’s
laptop 	once 	to 	apply 	for 	a 	job, 	that 	Christopher 	watched 	him 	do
it, 	and 	that 	the 	laptop 	was 	already 	logged 	in. 	Jeremy 	also
testified that he previously sold a laptop to his father, and when
he noticed it had malware on it, he (Jeremy) destroyed the laptop
by 	throwing 	it 	in 	the 	river. 	Jeremy 	testified 	that 	he 	saw
Christopher 	at 	his 	mother’s 	funeral 	in 	January 	2024, 	and
Christopher told him that the FBI was investigating him, but Jeremy
did not know that there had been a raid or any criminal charges.
Jeremy 	testified 	that 	Amy 	Harp 	had, 	more 	than 	once, 	offered
him 	money 	to 	confess 	to 	the 	child 	pornography 	offenses 	charged
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 14 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
15
against Christopher. 	The highest amount that Amy offered him was
$10,000.00. 	He also testified that she offered him a plane ticket,
firearms, 	and 	ammunition. 	Jeremy 	testified 	that 	at 	the 	time 	of
the 	“confession,” 	he 	believed 	that 	his 	brother 	was 	innocent 	and
had 	been 	framed. 	Jeremy 	testified 	that 	he 	(Jeremy) 	never
downloaded 	child 	pornography 	onto 	Christopher’s 	laptop 	and 	never
downloaded child pornography onto Christopher’s thumb drives when
Christopher 	was 	in 	college. 	He 	also 	testified 	that 	his 	family
always knew how to reach him and that he had a phone. 	He testified
that 	he 	told 	Christopher, 	Amy, 	and 	the 	investigator 	that 	he 	did
not 	commit 	the 	child 	pornography 	crimes 	at 	issue. 	Jeremy 	feels
that he has been betrayed by his family.
Detective Ward
Detective 	Ward 	handles, 	among 	other 	things, 	crisis
negotiations 	for 	the 	Monongalia 	County 	Sheriff’s 	Department. 	He
was 	called 	to 	handle 	the 	report 	of 	an 	individual 	barricaded 	at
Edwards’s office on December 16, 2024. 	After Jeremy gave Edwards
his 	statement, 	Jeremy 	brandished 	a 	firearm, 	sat 	down 	in 	the
conference room, and refused to leave.
Detective Ward testified that during the “stand-off,” Jeremy
asked 	him 	to 	check 	records 	for 	him 	in 	Kentucky. 	Detective 	Ward
did 	not 	remember 	exact 	details, 	but 	he 	believed 	Jeremy’s 	request
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 15 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
16
related 	to 	a 	child 	committing 	suicide 	in 	Kentucky. 	Jeremy 	also
talked about his mother being murdered. 	Detective Ward testified
that Jeremy appeared to be experiencing a mental health crisis on
the day of the “confession.” 	Jeremy told law enforcement that he
never 	downloaded 	child 	pornography 	and 	was 	being 	framed 	to 	take
responsibility for his brother’s crimes. 	Detective Ward spent six
hours 	with 	Jeremy 	before 	Jeremy 	put 	down 	the 	firearm 	and 	walked
out of the conference room.
Jonathan Suite
Jonathan 	Suite 	(“Suite”) 	is 	a 	third-year 	law 	student 	at 	the
West Virginia University College of Law. 	He has known Jeremy since
2009, when they were both in high school. 	He and Jeremy were good
friends 	in 	high 	school 	and 	college 	and 	have 	remained 	in 	contact
off 	and 	on 	since 	then. 	Suite 	testified 	that 	he 	was 	in 	contact
with 	Jeremy 	in 	the 	summer 	of 	2024. 	At 	the 	time, 	Jeremy 	was
interested 	in 	using 	Suite 	as 	an 	alibi. 	After 	Suite 	and 	Jeremy
spoke on the phone, Jeremy came to Morgantown and stayed at Suite’s
house 	for 	two 	or 	three 	days. 	Jeremy 	told 	Suite 	that 	he 	was
considering 	making 	a 	false 	admission. 	Jeremy 	told 	Suite 	that 	he
was not convinced of his brother’s guilt, and he (Jeremy) had less
to 	lose 	than 	Christopher 	did. 	Jeremy 	was 	also 	offered 	money 	and
firearms 	to 	confess. 	Suite 	overheard 	a 	conversation 	on 	speaker
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 16 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
17
phone in July 2024 in which Jeremy was offered $10,000.00 and guns.
Jeremy 	told 	Suite 	that 	the 	caller 	was 	Amy 	Harp 	and 	repeatedly
referred to her as “Amy” during the call. 	Amy told Jeremy that he
would not be charged if he confessed. 	She told Jeremy that if he
confessed, 	the 	prosecutors 	would 	be 	“embarrassed” 	and 	would 	not
choose 	to 	pursue 	charges 	against 	him. 	Suite 	also 	overheard 	a
conversation 	between 	Jeremy 	and 	Christopher 	on 	speaker 	phone.
Christopher 	told 	Jeremy 	about 	what 	jail 	was 	like, 	and 	Jeremy 	was
deeply affected by it. 	Suite’s impression of the conversation was
that Christopher was trying to pull on Jeremy’s heartstrings.
When Jeremy stayed with Suite in the summer of 2024, Jeremy’s
mental state varied. 	Oftentimes he was lucid and intelligent, and
at 	other 	times, 	he 	was 	unwell. 	Jeremy, 	however, 	maintained 	to
Suite 	that 	he 	had 	not 	downloaded 	child 	pornography. 	Jeremy 	had
told 	Suite 	that 	he 	would 	make 	a 	false 	confession 	to 	help 	his
brother. 	Suite disagreed with that approach and told Jeremy that
he could be charged. 	Jeremy made it sound to Suite as if his only
option was to confess falsely and then end his own life because he
did 	not 	want 	to 	go 	to 	prison. 	Suite 	called 	in 	a 	tip 	to 	the
Morgantown 	Police 	Department 	to 	make 	a 	record 	in 	case 	Jeremy
ultimately did make a false confession. 	At some point Suite became
aware 	that 	Jeremy 	had 	barricaded 	himself 	at 	Edwards’s 	conference
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 17 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
18
room, and Suite called the police again.
On 	cross 	examination, 	Suite 	testified 	that 	Jeremy 	had 	never
lied to him. 	He admitted that Jeremy’s talk can “err on the side
of 	conspiratorial” 	and 	that 	Jeremy 	did 	believe 	himself 	to 	be 	the
victim of a conspiracy. 	Suite testified that prior to the summer
of 	2024, 	Jeremy’s 	mental 	health 	was 	much 	better. 	In 	2024 	Jeremy
began 	wearing 	a 	full 	length 	camouflage 	outfit 	because 	he 	was
homeless and saw it as a way to protect himself.
Agent Thigpen
Agent 	Thigpen 	is 	the 	lead 	case 	agent 	on 	Christopher’s 	case.
At 	some 	point 	Agent 	Thigpen 	became 	aware 	that 	Jeremy 	had 	gone 	to
Edwards’s office to “confess” and was barricaded in the conference
room. 	He kept in contact with the detectives on the scene. 	Later,
Agent 	Thigpen 	set 	up 	an 	interview 	with 	Jeremy 	and 	his 	attorney.
During the interview, Jeremy indicated that he had been stabilized.
The first thing Jeremy did during the interview was unequivocally
deny 	that 	he 	committed 	the 	crimes 	to 	which 	he 	had 	“confessed.”
Jeremy 	indicated 	to 	Agent 	Thigpen 	that 	Amy 	and 	Christopher 	had
asked 	him 	to 	confess 	falsely 	and 	that 	Amy 	had 	offered 	him
$10,000.00 	and 	a 	plane 	ticket 	to 	do 	so. 	Agent 	Thigpen 	then
testified 	about 	the 	contents 	of 	specific 	jail 	calls, 	which 	are
discussed 	above 	and 	also 	part 	of 	the 	record. 	Agent 	Thigpen
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 18 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
19
testified 	that 	the 	content 	of 	the 	jail 	calls 	is 	consistent 	with
what Jeremy told him during the interview. 	He testified that when
the evidence in the case was collected from Christopher’s home and
submitted 	to 	the 	CART 	unit, 	there 	was 	nothing 	in 	it 	that 	linked
Jeremy to the child pornography.
III. DISCUSSION
Christopher has renewed his motion for a new trial under Rule
33 on the basis of newly discovered evidence. 	The supposed newly
discovered 	evidence 	is 	Jeremy’s 	sworn 	“confession,” 	described
above. 	Rule 	33(a) 	of 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Criminal 	Procedure
permits the Court to vacate a criminal conviction and “grant a new
trial if the interest of justice so requires.” 	However, “a trial
court 	should 	exercise 	its 	discretion 	to 	award 	a 	new 	trial
sparingly, 	and 	a 	jury 	verdict 	is 	not 	to 	be 	overturned 	except 	in
the 	rare 	circumstance 	when 	the 	evidence 	weighs 	heavily 	against
it.” 	United 	States 	v. 	Smith, 	451 	F.3d 	209, 	217 	(4th 	Cir. 	2006)
(citation and quotation marks omitted).
In order to succeed on a motion for a new trial based on newly
discovered 	evidence, 	Christopher 	must 	establish 	each 	of 	the
following:
(a) 	The 	evidence 	must 	be, 	in 	fact, 	newly
discovered, 	i.e., 	discovered 	since 	the
trial;
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 19 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
20
(b) 	facts 	must 	be 	alleged 	from 	which 	the
court may infer diligence on the part of
the movant;
(c) 	the 	evidence 	relied 	upon 	must 	not 	be
merely cumulative or impeaching;
(d) 	it 	must 	be 	material 	to 	the 	issues
involved; and
(e) 	it 	must 	be 	such, 	and 	of 	such 	nature, 	as
that, 	on 	a 	new 	trial, 	the 	newly
discovered 	evidence 	would 	probably
produce an acquittal.
United 	States 	v. 	Fulcher, 	250 	F.3d 	244, 	249 	(4th 	Cir. 	2001)
(citation 	omitted). 	The 	United 	States 	Court 	of 	Appeals 	for 	the
Fourth 	Circuit 	has 	“never 	allowed 	a 	new 	trial 	unless 	all 	five
elements 	were 	established.” 	Id. 	Here, 	all 	five 	factors 	are 	not
established, and a new trial is not warranted.
A. 	Newly-discovered
“If 	the 	defendant 	knew 	about 	the 	evidence 	prior 	to 	the
conclusion 	of 	his 	trial, 	by 	definition, 	the 	evidence 	cannot 	be
newly discovered after such trial.” 	United States v. Griffin, 489
F. App’x 679, 681 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citation omitted).
For 	example, 	when 	a 	defendant 	is 	aware 	of 	the 	substance 	of 	a
possibly 	exculpatory 	testimony 	a 	witness 	could 	provide, 	but 	the
witness refuses to testify at trial and later states that he would
be 	willing 	to 	testify, 	that 	is 	“newly 	available” 	evidence, 	not
“newly discovered” evidence. 	See id.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 20 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
21
In 	Christopher’s 	renewed 	motion, 	he 	argues 	that 	Jeremy’s
“confession” 	“could 	not 	have 	been 	discovered 	earlier 	through 	the
exercise 	of 	due 	diligence” 	because 	“Jeremy’s 	homelessness 	during
the 	prosecution 	made 	him 	difficult 	to 	locate, 	further 	preventing
the defense from securing his testimony during trial.” 	A look at
the entire record discredits this argument.
At 	trial, 	it 	was 	established 	that 	the 	defense 	had 	knowledge
of 	where 	Jeremy 	sometimes 	stayed 	and 	locations 	where 	he 	could 	be
found. 	If the defense wished to subpoena Jeremy, they could have
utilized the United States Marshals Service to serve the subpoena
on him. 	It was also established during the trial and in Jeremy’s
hearing 	testimony 	that 	Jeremy 	and 	Christopher 	saw 	one 	another 	at
their mother’s funeral in January 2024. 	Christopher was speaking
to 	Jeremy 	on 	the 	phone 	in 	May 	2024 	(within 	one 	month 	of 	his
convictions) and yet hired an “investigator” in June 2024 to locate
Jeremy. 	It 	appears 	that 	the 	investigator 	found 	him 	with 	ease.
Jeremy 	also 	testified 	during 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing 	that 	his
family 	could 	always 	reach 	him 	and 	that 	he 	had 	a 	phone. 	It 	does
not 	appear 	that 	hiring 	an 	investigator 	was 	necessary 	in 	order 	to
locate 	Jeremy, 	but 	even 	if 	it 	were, 	Christopher 	could 	have 	hired
an investigator prior to trial. 	The record does not indicate that
Christopher 	ever 	attempted 	to 	locate 	Jeremy 	prior 	to 	trial. 	For
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 21 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
22
all of these reasons, the Court finds that Jeremy could have been
located prior to trial. 	The “confession” is newly available, not
newly discovered.
B. 	Diligence
The law requires Christopher to allege facts “from which the
court may infer diligence” on his part. 	Defendant argues that the
evidence 	“could 	not 	have 	been 	discovered 	earlier 	through 	the
exercise 	of 	due 	diligence” 	because 	“Jeremy’s 	homelessness 	during
the 	prosecution 	made 	him 	difficult 	to 	locate, 	further 	preventing
the 	defense 	from 	securing 	his 	testimony 	during 	trial.” 	The
Government 	argues 	that 	the 	defense 	“knew 	about 	Jeremy 	Harp 	prior
to trial” but made the tactical choice not to call him as a witness.
Again, the Court finds Defendant’s arguments unconvincing.
As 	discussed, 	the 	Harp 	family 	took 	it 	upon 	itself 	to 	hire 	a
private 	investigator 	to 	locate 	Jeremy 	in 	June 	2024, 	after
Christopher 	was 	convicted. 	Christopher 	could 	have 	hired 	an
investigator before trial, and he has presented no evidence as to
why he did not. 	Further, Christopher has presented no evidence of
attempts to contact Jeremy before trial. 	The jail calls to Jeremy
in May 2024 (less than one month after the convictions and before
hiring a private investigator) also undermine the idea that Jeremy
was difficult to locate. 	Jeremy testified that his family always
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 22 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
23
knew 	how 	to 	reach 	him. 	Christopher 	saw 	Jeremy 	in 	January 	2024,
which 	was 	post-indictment 	and 	pre-trial. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court
finds that Christopher has not alleged facts from which the Court
may 	infer 	diligence 	on 	his 	part, 	and 	the 	diligence 	prong 	is 	not
satisfied.
C. 	Cumulative or Impeaching
To 	grant 	a 	new 	trial, 	the 	law 	requires 	that 	the 	newly-
discovered 	evidence 	not 	be 	merely 	cumulative 	or 	impeaching.
Christopher 	argues 	that 	the 	evidence 	is 	not 	merely 	cumulative 	or
impeaching 	because 	it 	“directly 	exonerates 	Christopher 	and
identifies 	the 	true 	perpetrator.” 	The 	Government 	argues 	that 	it
is cumulative, given the amount of evidence and argument regarding
Jeremy that was produced at trial. 	While the jury heard much about
Jeremy at trial, it did not hear a “confession.” 	Accordingly, the
Court 	agrees 	with 	Christopher 	that 	the 	evidence 	would 	not 	be
cumulative, and the third prong is satisfied.
D. 	Materiality
To 	grant 	a 	new 	trial, 	the 	law 	require 	that 	the 	newly-
discovered 	evidence 	be 	material 	to 	the 	issues 	involved.
Christopher argues that it is material because it directly impacts
the core issue in this case: whether Christopher knowingly received
and 	possessed 	child 	pornography. 	The 	Government 	agrees 	that 	the
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 23 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
24
“confession” is material. 	The Court agrees as well and finds that
the materiality prong is satisfied.
E. 	Likelihood of Producing an Acquittal
The 	law 	requires 	that 	the 	evidence 	is 	“such, 	and 	of 	such
nature, 	as 	that, 	on 	a 	new 	trial, 	the 	newly 	discovered 	evidence
would 	probably 	produce 	an 	acquittal.” 	“[T]he 	district 	court 	is
required 	to 	make 	a 	credibility 	determination 	as 	part 	of 	its
probability-of-acquittal determination.” 	United States v. Wilson,
624 	F.3d 	640, 	663 	(4th 	Cir. 	2010). 	“Of 	course, 	if 	the 	district
court 	does 	not 	find 	a 	witness 	credible, 	it 	follows 	that 	the
district court would not find the witness sufficiently persuasive
to 	enable 	the 	district 	court 	to 	conclude 	that 	the 	witness’s
testimony 	would 	probably 	produce 	an 	acquittal 	at 	a 	new 	trial.”
United 	States 	v. 	Lighty, 	616 	F.3d 	321, 	374 	(4th 	Cir. 	2010)
(citation omitted). 	“To make a determination under this standard,
the district court cannot view the proffered testimony in a vacuum;
it 	must 	weigh 	the 	testimony 	against 	all 	of 	the 	other 	evidence 	in
the record, including the evidence already weighed and considered
by 	the 	jury 	in 	the 	defendant’s 	first 	trial.” 	Id. 	(citation
omitted).
Here, 	first, 	at 	a 	new 	trial, 	the 	recorded 	“confession” 	is
hearsay because “the declarant [did] not make [it] while testifying
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 24 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
25
at 	the 	current 	trial,” 	and 	Christopher 	would 	be 	“offer[ing] 	[it]
in 	evidence 	to 	prove 	the 	truth 	of 	the 	matter 	asserted 	in 	the
statement” (that Jeremy committed the child pornography offenses).
See 	Fed. 	R. 	Evid. 	801(c). 	Accordingly, 	for 	Christopher 	to
introduce 	Jeremy’s 	“confession,” 	Jeremy 	would 	need 	to 	take 	the
stand at trial and “confess” again. 	This is unlikely, given that
Jeremy recanted his “confession” the same day that he gave it, and
since 	then, 	he 	has 	unequivocally 	denied 	committing 	any 	child
pornography 	offenses 	multiple 	times. 	Even 	if 	Jeremy 	did 	confess
on 	the 	stand 	at 	trial, 	or 	even 	if 	the 	recorded 	“confession” 	were
admitted, the confession is impeachable with the many instances in
which 	he 	denied 	responsibility 	for 	the 	offenses. 	Any 	confession
played or produced at trial would not be credible for many reasons:
(1) 	The 	content 	of 	the 	jail 	calls, 	in 	which
Christopher pushes Jeremy to confess, and
Jeremy 	states 	multiple 	times 	that 	any
confession would be “false”;
(2) 	Jeremy’s 	and 	Suite’s 	testimony 	that 	Amy
Harp 	offered 	Jeremy 	a 	plane 	ticket,
firearms, and $10,000.00 to confess;
(3) 	Jeremy’s refusal to confess on August 6,
2024;
(4) 	Jeremy’s refusal to confess on October 4,
2024;
(5) 	Jeremy’s 	obvious 	psychological 	distress
and memory issues during the “confession”
on December 16, 2024;
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 25 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
26
(6) 	Jeremy’s statements to law enforcement on
December 	16, 	2024 	(including 	“I 	did 	not
do what I just said I did.”);
(7) 	Jeremy’s interview with Agent Thigpen, in
which 	Jeremy 	denied 	committing 	child
pornography offenses;
(8) 	Jeremy’s 	testimony 	that 	he 	was 	on 	drugs
and 	“tweaking” 	at 	the 	time 	of 	his
“confession” but clear-headed during the
evidentiary hearing;
(9) 	Jeremy’s 	clear-headed 	testimony 	during
the 	evidentiary 	hearing 	that 	he 	never
committed 	child 	pornography 	offenses;
and
(10) The 	evidence 	at 	trial, 	which 	did 	not
prove that Jeremy was at the Harps’ home
on 	the 	dates 	charged 	in 	the 	indictment,
which 	did 	not 	prove 	that 	anyone 	saw
Jeremy viewing child pornography or even
using the laptop after the date he set it
up, 	which 	included 	Rule 	404(b) 	evidence
tying 	Christopher 	to 	child 	pornography
for 	over 	10 	years, 	and 	which 	included
other 	circumstantial 	evidence 	against
Christopher (e.g., he kept an old laptop
in 	his 	office, 	plugged 	in 	and 	ready 	to
use, despite having newer devices in his
home; 	the 	laptop 	was 	kept 	through 	at
least 	two 	moves; 	Christopher 	repeatedly
looked 	up 	to 	the 	loft 	while 	law
enforcement executed search warrant).
During 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing, 	the 	Court 	asked 	defense
counsel how this factor, the likelihood of acquittal, is satisfied.
Counsel responded that the “confession” in December 2024 was given
under oath, and the other denials were not. 	Jeremy’s testimony at
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 26 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>

USA V. HARP 	1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR GRANT A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 97]
27
the evidentiary hearing was also, of course, provided under oath.
Counsel 	also 	asked 	the 	Court 	to 	consider 	the 	laptop 	that 	Jeremy
threw 	into 	the 	river 	in 	Kentucky 	because 	it 	had 	malware 	on 	it.
The laptop in Kentucky, however, bears no connection to the child
pornography offenses charged here. 	It is insufficient to overcome
the 	many 	reasons 	why 	Jermey 	Harp’s 	“confession” 	in 	December 	2024
is unconvincing.
For 	all 	of 	these 	reasons, 	Jeremy’s 	“confession” 	on 	December
16, 2024, as well as any “confession” that could be (but would be
unlikely 	to 	be) 	procured 	on 	the 	stand, 	is 	highly 	unpersuasive.
Such a “confession” would not “probably” produce an acquittal. 	To
the contrary, the Court finds that any “confession” admitted into
evidence would not change the jury’s verdict in this case.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	discussed 	above, 	Defendant’s 	renewed 	motion
is DENIED [ECF No. 97].
It is so ORDERED.
The 	Clerk 	is 	directed 	to 	transmit 	copies 	of 	this 	Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
DATED: February 25, 2026
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 154 Filed 02/25/26 Page 27 of 27 PageID
#: <pageID>