USA v. Evans, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No. 3:24-CR-19-KAC-JEM
)
HENRI L. EWING, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) for disposition or recommendation as appropriate. This case is before the Court on the
Defendant Henri L. Ewing’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial Date and Other Deadlines
[Doc. 523], filed on October 21, 2025.
Defendant requests the Court to continue the trial date, set for November 25, 2025 and all
associated pretrial deadlines, as well as the suppression hearing, set for November 6, 2025 [Id.].
In support of the motion, Defendant states that new information came to light that materially
impacts the posture of this case, specifically, a potential issue regarding the credibility of
Government’s witness Officer Jared Hall under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
[Id. ¶ 2]. Defendant contends that Officer Hall’s testimony at the suppression hearing and his
credibility are central to the supplemental motion [Doc. 382] for his motion to suppress [Doc. 256]
and influenced the other motions and responses [Id. ¶ 3]. Defendant’s counsel is currently in the
process of obtaining and reviewing the complete Roane County divorce file about Officer Hall and
other records [Id. ¶ 4]. Defendant asserts that proceeding to trial without a complete review of
these documents would be imprudent and could result in future complications that could be
avoided [Id.]. Further, Defendant argues that this new evidence impacts previously-filed motions,
Case 3:24-cr-00019-KAC-JEM Document 535 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
including a supplemental motion and an objection to report and recommendations [id. ¶ 5 (citing
Docs. 382, 425)], which he contends relies heavily on arguments concerning Officer Hall’s
credibility [id.]. Defendant submits that depending on the full scope of the information contained
in the divorce file, Defendant’s counsel may need to re-evaluate, amend, or resubmit these motions
[Id.].
Defendant states that the development of this new credibility evidence also directly impacts
the suppression hearing, as well as any objections and briefs that may be filed [Id. ¶ 6]. On October
2, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Reopen the Suppression Hearing [Id. (citing Doc. 508)]. On
October 17, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion (Id. ¶ 7 (citing Doc. 522)]. Defendant
asserts that a continuance of the trial is imperative to allow the parties sufficient time to prepare
for and conduct the reopened suppression hearing, arguing that the outcome could substantially
alter the posture of this case [Id.]. Additionally, Defendant contends these developments could
also directly impact ongoing plea negotiations, and that a continuance would give the parties the
necessary time to fully assess the impact of the new evidence on the case’s strength and reach a
resolution without the need for trial [Id. ¶ 8].
Defendant further submits that if the suppression motion is denied, his counsel will require
adequate time after the suppression hearing to prepare and file additional objections, potentially
motions, and to modify existing motions that are directly impacted by the suppression issues
[Id. ¶ 9]. He further asserts that a favorable ruling on the suppression motion could effectively
eliminate a portion of the Government’s case and significantly alter the trajectory of trial
preparation and strategy for both parties [Id.]. Defendant argues that to proceed would deny his
counsel and potentially the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence [Id.].
Case 3:24-cr-00019-KAC-JEM Document 535 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
Finally, Defendant asserts that the Giglio issue has created novel questions of fact or law,
and that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial
itself within the time limits established by this section, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii) [Id. ¶ 13].
He states that the Giglio issue was not anticipated by any of the parties, but as a result, it has
created timing issues that impact his constitutional rights, and that it would suggest that the
continuance of the trial and other associated deadlines is warranted to preserve those rights
[Id. ¶ 14].
Defendant’s motion reflects that counsel for the Government does not oppose the requested
continuance, and that a continuance will allow time to review the newly-discovered materials,
conduct the reopened suppression hearing, modify other motions as needed, avoid potential
pitfalls, and explore the possibility of a resolution [Id. ¶ 11]. Defendant waives any speedy trial
issues related to the continuance [Id. ¶ 12].
Codefendant Amber Jackson filed a notice of no position on the motion to continue and
said that she has signed a plea agreement with the Government, and at the time of her filing, noted
that she was scheduled to appear before the Court on October 31, 2025, for her Change of Plea
Hearing [Doc. 525 p. 1].
Codefendant Bobby Robinette gave a notice of no objection and waived his speedy trial
rights [Doc. 526 p. 1].
Codefendant Todd M. Evans took no position on the relief sought in Defendant Ewing’s
motion to continue and waived his speedy trial rights for the purposes of the Court’s ruling on the
motion [Doc. 527 p. 1].
Case 3:24-cr-00019-KAC-JEM Document 535 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
Codefendant Robert Fugate submitted a notice of no position and noted that, at the time of
his filing, his Change of Plea Hearing was scheduled before the Court on October 31, 2025
[Doc. 528 p. 1].
Codefendant Nicholas Eskridge filed a notice of no objection and stated that he understood
the period of time between the filing of the motion for continuance is fully excludable for speedy
trial purposes [Doc. 529 p. 1].
Codefendant Joshua Vanriette filed a notice of no objection and stated that he understood
his speedy trial rights, and he agreed that the period of time between the filing of the motion for
continuance and any new trial date is fully excludable under the Speedy Trial Act [Doc. 530 p. 1].
Finally, Codefendant Charlotte Brown gave notice of no objection and stated that she was
aware of her speedy trial rights and knowingly waives them for the purposes of the pending motion
[Doc. 532 p. 1].
Based upon the information in Defendant’s motion and because the Government and
codefendants do not oppose the continuance, the Court finds the ends of justice served by granting
a continuance outweigh the interests of Defendant and the public in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161(h)(7)(A). In making this determination, the Court has considered the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B). Specifically, the Court concludes that failing to grant a continuance
would both result in a miscarriage of justice and deny counsel for Defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See id.
§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv). Defendant Ewing’s counsel needs more time to communicate with
Defendant, receive and review evidence, discuss factual and legal issues, confer with the
Government regarding a potential resolution, prepare for the upcoming suppression hearing and
Case 3:24-cr-00019-KAC-JEM Document 535 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

5
submit post-hearing briefs, and otherwise prepare for trial. The Court finds that all of this cannot
occur before the November 18, 2025 trial date.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant Henri L. Ewing’s Unopposed Motion to
Continue Trial Date and Other Deadlines [Doc. 523]. The trial of this case is reset to April 21,
2026. A new, comprehensive trial schedule is included below. Because the Court finds that the
ends of justice are served by granting a continuance outweigh the interests of Defendant and the
public in a speedy trial, all time between the filing of the motion on October 21, 2025, and the new
trial date is fully excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D),
(h)(1)(H), & (h)(7)(A)–(B).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) Defendant Henri L. Ewing’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial
Date and Other Deadlines [Doc. 523] is GRANTED;
(2) the Suppression Hearing is reset to December 15, 2025, at
1:00 p.m.;
(3) the trial of this matter is reset to commence on April 21, 2026,
at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Katherine A. Crytzer,
United States District Judge;
(4) all time between the filing of the motion on October 21, 2025, and
the new trial date of April 21, 2026, is fully excludable time under
the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons set forth herein;
(5) the deadline for filing a plea agreement in the record and providing
reciprocal discovery is March 20, 2026;
(6) the deadline for filing motions in limine is April 6, 2026, and
responses to motions in limine are due on or before April 14, 2026;
(7) the parties are to appear before the undersigned for a final pretrial
conference on April 7, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., and
Case 3:24-cr-00019-KAC-JEM Document 535 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

6
(8) requests for special jury instructions with appropriate citations to
authority pursuant to Local Rule 7.4 shall be filed on or before
April 10, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
_____________________________
Jill E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cr-00019-KAC-JEM Document 535 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>