04/29/2024 10:26     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/29/2024 10:14     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/29/2024 10:08     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/29/2024 10:03     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/27/2024 00:56     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/27/2024 00:15     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/26/2024 22:32     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/26/2024 15:52     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/26/2024 15:02     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/26/2024 12:45     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/25/2024 17:18     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/25/2024 17:15     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

04/25/2024 17:06     Subject: Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for

the District of Columbia, hereby supplements its opposition to the defendant’s Motion for

Release from pre-trial detention. As outlined below, the government has recently discovered that

the defendant is engaged in ongoing misconduct at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) to

avoid having her phone calls monitored. Namely, the defendant has 1) used the PIN numbers of

other inmates to place calls in an attempt to evade monitoring by law enforcement; 2)

represented to DOC that her father and her brother are her attorneys-of-record in order to include

them on DOC’s attorney-client ‘do not record/monitor’ list. These instances of deceptive conduct

involving her phone usage further show that the danger posed by the defendant cannot be

mitigated by a third-party custodian – particularly a family member.

A. The Defendant’s Use of PIN Numbers Belonging to Other CTF Residents

On June 29, 2023, during a phone call with her mother, the defendant stated the

following:

DEFENDANT: Here’s what I am going to do, because I am super sick of every time I
give you guys sensitive information, it seems to blow up in my face. I don’t know why it
took me so long to figure this out, but I’m going to start calling you from other people’s
phones. Why? Because nobody monitors their phones from the prosecution, like they
monitor my phone. Haha! So, if you get calls from corrections agencies from people
you’ve never heard the name, please accept them. I mean, we’re not gonna call collect,
I’m going to use my money. Doesn’t that make sense? Why haven’t I been doing that the
past few months? I don’t know. Probably because I’m not used to being in jail. That
might be.


During a call with her father on July 1, 2023, the defendant and her father had the

following exchange:

DEFENDANT: The plan is, because I’m sick of….well, there’s some things, there’s
plenty of stuff that the prosecution hasn’t overheard, but if you get calls from, I don’t how
it comes through, if it comes through saying people at the jail are calling you or
whatever, from random people, that’s still me. We’re gonna start – I don’t know why it
took me so long to figure this out – I’m gonna start using other people’s phones to call
you, they’ll use my phone to call their people, you know what I mean, so that we can talk.
DEFENDANT’S FATHER: Oh yeah. Just to confuse the listeners?
DEFENDANT: Yeah. Brilliant, isn’t it.
DEFENDANT’S FATHER: Brilliant.
DEFENDANT: I don’t know why the hell I didn’t think of this earlier.

During a call with both of her parents on July 1, 2023, the following exchange occurred:

DEFENDANT: I’ll be sure to give you everything…from somebody else’s phone
[Laughs].
DEFENDANT’S FATHER: Alright [Laughs].
DEFENDANT: You should hear the stuff that’s rolling around, now that everybody’s…I
was like ladies, how does this work? And I got them to test it out with their families. Now
people are like, oh my god. Now it’s like [unintelligible]. People are on the phone to
family and friends like, ‘they’re coming after you, change your cell phone number, head
out of state for awhile.’ I’m like, oh shit.
DEFENDANT’S FATHER: [Laughs]
DEFENDANT: Yeah exactly. ‘Oh, that Hispanic woman’s talking to the cops.’ I’m like,
oh my god. This is not what I intended at all. Yeah, totally. ‘So and so is snitching, get
 ‘em…’ I just can’t even.
DEFENDANT’S MOTHER: Please write this stuff down. I’m not kidding. I have talked
to someone and they are very interested in putting together a book.

The defendant makes additional, similar references throughout her recorded calls, both

prospectively stating that she will “call you on someone else’s line” and discussing having made

calls using other resident’s PIN numbers, stating, for example, “that worked pretty well; I didn’t

know if I called from someone else’s phone line it says it’s a call from Eleanor.” The

government has confirmed that the PIN of a DOC resident named “Shanica Griffin” was used to

call the defendant’s father on July 18, 2023; the government is still waiting on both the

underlying call recording and information regarding PIN numbers used to place calls to the

defendant’s other family members.

B. The Defendant’s Representation to DOC that Her Father and Brother Are Her
Attorneys-of-Record

Andrew Mazzuchelli, the acting General Counsel for DOC, confirmed to undersigned

counsel that only attorneys of record for a resident’s underlying criminal case or a pending civil

lawsuit are eligible to be placed on a resident’s attorney-client ‘do not record/monitor’ call list.

Although both the defendant’s father and her brother are attorneys, neither of them represents the

defendant in the pending criminal matter, her custody case, or any pending civil lawsuit known

to undersigned counsel. Nonetheless, in September 2023, the defendant appears to have listed

both of them as her attorneys of record to DOC, so that her calls to them would be covered under

attorney-client privilege and thus unmonitored.

On August 23, 2023, the defendant had the following exchange with her brother:

DEFENDANT: What is your bar number?
DEFENDANT’S BROTHER: Why?
DEFENDANT: Because I can put you down as my attorney and then I can talk to you
 without people listening. I can do the same thing for dad, I just haven’t done it yet. I
forgot to.
[…]
DEFENDANT’S BROTHER: [Gives his bar number]
DEFENDANT: Do you know what dad’s is?
DEFENDANT’S BROTHER: No.
DEFENDANT: I’m going to list you as one of my attorneys and then I can…I don’t
know how it works exactly but…allegedly the calls to you won’t be monitored, but what
do I know.

On September 13, 2023, the defendant had the following exchange with her father:


DEFENDANT: I need your bar number so that you can be added to a confidential
attorney list so that I can call you confidentially.
DEFENDANT’S FATHER: Oh interesting. Yeah. [Gives bar number]
DEFENDANT: Alright. When somebody calls you, don’t say ‘I’m her dad.’ Ok? They’ll
just call you to get permission because you’re an attorney that helps me.
DEFENDANT’S FATHER: Ok.

The government has confirmed that beginning on September 26, 2023, and continuing to

the present, the defendant placed dozens of calls to her father’s number that were free,

unrecorded attorney-client calls – despite the fact that he is not her attorney of record and does

not represent her. The government is still waiting on information from DOC relating to any

attorney-client calls made to the defendant’s brother. The government has also requested the

DOC paperwork filled out by the defendant listing her attorneys of record, as well as any

representations made to DOC by the defendant’s father and brother regarding their status as her

attorneys.

C. The Defendant’s Misconduct Shows that She Will Not Abide By Conditions of

Release

The defendant is currently seeking pretrial release into the custody of her aunt, claiming

that her aunt can ensure that the defendant does not access any electronic devices. The defendant

further argues that there is no evidence that she would violate any conditions set by the Court

should she be released. However, the defendant’s own actions while at CTF undercut this claim.

As discussed in the government’s detention memorandum and recent opposition, the defendant

simply needs access to a phone to reoffend. The misconduct that she has engaged in at CTF

involving phone usage shows her willingness to use deceit and manipulation to evade restrictions

placed on her phone access. Moreover, the defendant is willing to involve her family in her

misconduct and, in turn, her family has willingly joined in her behavior without hesitation or

concern for the rules that the defendant is supposed to abide by.1 In short, the defendant has

already demonstrated to the Court that she considers herself above the rules and that, should she

be released, she will continue to ignore any strictures placed on her behavior. Given the serious

danger that the defendant’s access to a phone poses to children, a third-party custodian –

particularly a family member with no monitoring experience – is not sufficient to protect the

community.

CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons set forth above, as well as those set forth in the government’s initial

detention memorandum and its opposition to the defendant’s motion for release, a consideration

of the evidence in this case and the applicable statutory factors compels the conclusion that the

defendant has not rebutted the statutory presumption in favor of detention and should be detained

1
Notably, the defendant’s father was her proposed third-party custodian at the initial detention
hearing, at which time he represented to the Magistrate Judge that he would both monitor the
defendant and report any violation to the Court.