USA v. Robinson, et al.,

3:24-cr-00078Tned12 janv. 2026

Texte intégral

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 3:24-CR-78-KAC-DCP
)
MARK O’NEIL ROBINSON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned on the Motion to Review Attorney Appointment [Doc.
88], filed by Christopher Rodgers (“Attorney Rodgers”) on December 15, 2025. The parties
appeared before the Court for a hearing on January 9, 2026. 	Assistant United States Attorney
Kevin Quencer (“AUSA Quencer”) appeared on behalf of the Government. 	Attorney Rodgers
appeared on behalf of Defendant, who was also present. 	CJA Panel Attorney Laura Davis
(“Attorney Davis”) was also present at the Court’s request.
In the motion, Attorney Rodgers states that “there appears to be real difficulty in
communication . . . [and] a complete breakdown of trust” [Doc. 88 p. 1]. Attorney Rodgers
represents that it has become “clear that there may be a significant difference in opinion regarding
[Defendant’s] case and the possibilities,” and that he received communication from Defendant
“expressing displeasure in the representation and a desire for new counsel” [Id.]. 	Attorney
Rodgers asks for new counsel to be appointed to represent him.
At the hearing, Attorney Rodgers stated there was nothing more that could be shared
outside a sealed hearing concerning the basis for the motion. 	AUSA Quencer stated that the
Government did not oppose the motion.
Case 3:24-cr-00078-KAC-DCP Document 93 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>
2
The Court then conducted a sealed, ex parte portion of the hearing to learn more about the
nature and extent of the problems with the attorney-client relationship. Without going into the
confidential nature of that discussion, the Court notes that both Attorney Rodgers and Defendant
Robinson responded to the Court’s inquiries as reasonably necessary to satisfy the Court that there
are sufficient grounds to warrant substitution of counsel based on a strained attorney-client
relationship, suffering from a breakdown of communication and trust that has significantly
impaired Attorney Rodger’s ability to effectively represent Defendant Robinson and to render
effective assistance of counsel. 	Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause exists to grant
Attorney Rodger’s request to withdraw and to substitute counsel. See United States v. Sullivan,
431 F.3d 976, 979–80 (6th Cir. 2005) (requiring a defendant to show good cause for substitution
of counsel (citations omitted)).
Based upon good cause shown, the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and Motion for New
Appointed Counsel as Requested by Defendant [Doc. 88] is GRANTED. 	Attorney Rodgers is
relieved as counsel of record for Defendant Robinson and is DIRECTED to provide new counsel
with discovery and the information from Defendant’s file. 	The Court recognizes the need for
Defendant to be represented continuously by counsel. Attorney Davis was present at the hearing
and agreed to accept representation of Defendant.1 The Court SUBSTITUTES and APPOINTS
Attorney Davis under the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, as counsel of record
for Defendant.
1 Attorney Davis advised of an existing conflict with the February 3, 2026 trial date in this matter,
and represented that she would be filing a motion to continue. AUSA Quencer stated that the
Government had no opposition to the requested continuance.
Case 3:24-cr-00078-KAC-DCP Document 93 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>
3
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) The Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and Motion for New
Appointed Counsel as Requested by Defendant [Doc. 88] is
GRANTED;
(2) Attorney Rodgers is RELIEVED of further representation of
Defendant and DIRECTED to provide new counsel with the
discovery and information from Defendant’s file; and
(3) Attorney Davis is SUBSTITUTED and APPOINTED as
Defendant’s counsel of record under the CJA.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
____________________________
Debra C. Poplin
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cr-00078-KAC-DCP Document 93 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.