Former Pilot Travel Centers president Mark Hazelwood has moved to fire his former high-profile Houston lawyer and replace him with a legal team from New York City. Hazelwood, who was found guilty by a Chattanooga jury of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and witness tampering, asked permission to fly to New York to meet with the new lawyers.
Federal Judge Curtis Collier promptly denied the travel request after the government was opposed. He said the attorneys could visit Hazelwood at his home confinement in Knoxville, or they could confer by phone or video conferencing.
Also, Federal Judge Bruce Guyton of Knoxville said the lawyer switch was not done properly. He said attorney Rusty Hardin, who is a Baylor School graduate, neglected to file a motion to withdraw.
Attorney Bradley Henry, who resides both in Knoxville and New York City, said attorney Hardin failed to file a motion for a new trial in the case that involved a scam against trucking companies. He said the court should allow the filing by the new attorneys though the deadline has passed.
Hazelwood is set to be sentenced by Judge Collier on Aug. 22, and he is facing a possible lengthy sentence.
Hazelwood has sought permission to travel to meet with his attorneys in New York on Wednesday and Thursday.
The motion says:
In support states: 1. Mr. Hazelwood is presently on home incarceration in Knoxville, TN, under the custody of his wife pending sentencing in his case. Pursuant to this Court’s Order Setting Conditions of Release, Mr. Hazelwood’s travel is limited to medical necessities, court appearances, or other activities specifically approved by the Court1 . (Doc. 491).
2. On May 18, 2018, Mr. Hazelwood retained new counsel: i. Bradley Henry, Esq. Breeding & Henry LLC 900 S. Gay Street, Suite 1950 Knoxville, TN 37902; ii. Jim Walden, Esq. Walden Macht & Haran LLP One Battery Park Plaza 34th Floor New York, NY 10004 iii. Shon Hopwood, Esq. 600 New Jersey Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 1 The Court had no objections to Mr. Hazelwood’s request for permission to attend an ophthalmologist appointment and a funeral of a close friend and directed him to get permission from his supervising probation officer, as stated in footnote 1 of Doc. 497.Bradley L. Henry of Breeding & Henry LLC has entered substitution of counsel in this case. Breeding & Henry LLC is a Knoxville based firm. Mr. Henry practices in both Knoxville and New York, but his primary residence is in New York, and he actively practices in that jurisdiction. In fact, Mr. Henry spends the majority of his time in New York. Mr. Henry is a long-time member of the Eastern District of Tennessee Bar. Mr. Walden of Walden Macht Haran LLP, is a New York based firm, and maintains no other office other than New York. Mr. Hopwood is primarily a Professor of Law at a prestigious Washington D.C.-based law school, and he maintains no office in Tennessee. The legal team includes partner level and associate level attorneys and legal experts. The majority of those individuals live in or close to the New York City area.
4. The continuation of document review for Mr. Hazelwood’s defense will be staged, in part, from the New York Office of Walden Macht & Haran. Specifically, Mr. Henry and Mr. Walden will maintain all hard-copy case files in that Office, and the voluminous records of the trial proceedings are being transferred to that Office by prior counsel. Access and review of those records between Mr. Hazelwood and his legal team will take place during the proposed meetings.
5. Mr. Hazelwood seeks permission for limited travel to New York to meet with his new counsel on Wednesday, May 30, 2018, and Thursday, May 31, 2018, to discuss the case with his attorneys, assist his attorneys in reviewing evidence and to hold meetings critical to his defense.
6. Mr. Hazelwood’s wife serves as third-party custodian for Mr. Hazelwood. Her obligations include ensuring her husband abides by the terms of his bail conditions. Failure to knowingly report a violation of the terms of release places Mrs. Hazelwood in jeopardy of certain penalties, including possible incarceration. Mrs. Hazelwood has served in this capacity without incident.
7. During Mr. Hazelwood’s travel to New York, Mrs. Hazelwood would travel with him to and from New York on the same commercial domestic flights. She will also maintain 24- hour custody and supervision of him, and will be present within Walden Macht & Haran’s office while Mr. Hazelwood meets with his new legal team.
8. Shelley Breeding of Breeding & Henry LLC attorney will accompany both Mr. and Mrs. Hazelwood on this limited travel to New York on the same flights, and an attorney from Breeding & Henry LLC will stay at the same hotel as Mr. Hazelwood during the duration of his stay.
9. Additionally, Mr. Hazelwood will personally check in with the Southern District of New York upon his arrival to New York and call to check in each day he remains in New York. Immediately upon his return to Knoxville, Mr. Hazelwood will check in with his supervising probation officer.
10. If permitted to travel, Mr. and Mrs. Hazelwood would take direct domestic flights by a commercial carrier from Knoxville’s McGhee Tyson Airport to one of three New York airports. Mr. Hazelwood will provide his Pretrial officer with a detailed itinerary of his flight schedules.
11. Below are the domestic flights options traveling directly into New York: a. Departure Flight: Delta flight DL3348, departing McGhee Tyson Airport at 8:20 a.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2018 and arriving at New York’s LaGuardia Airport at 10:30 a.m.; and Return Flight: Delta flight DL 3960 departing LaGuardia Airport at 8:40 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2018 and arriving at 10:59 p.m. at McGhee Tyson Airport; b. Departure Flight: United Airlines flight United 4997, departing McGhee Tyson Airport at 7:55 a.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2018 and arriving at Newark Airport at 10:00 a.m.; and Return Flight: United Airlines flight United 2406 departing Newark Airport at 8:20 a.m. on Friday, June 1, 2018 and arriving at 10:32 a.m. at McGhee Tyson Airport.
12. Mr. Hazelwood will provide his Pretrial officer the name and contact information for his accommodations during the trip.During the pretrial phase of this matter, this Court permitted Mr. Hazelwood be released subject to conditions. To date, Mr. Hazelwood has been fully compliant with all pretrial release conditions and has appeared in Court when required without fail. Specifically, during the post-trial bail hearing the Magistrate Judge noted that Mr. Hazelwood: (i) was allowed to travel extensively for business during his pretrial release and he had always returned as promised and (ii) had no prior criminal history. (Doc. 497). Mr. Hazelwood’s flawless adherence to his conditions of release prior to trial and post-trial has demonstrated that he is not a flight risk and poses no danger to any other person or the community. In fact, the government presented no evidence that Mr. Hazelwood has plans for or has made preparations to flee. (Doc. 497).
13. Mr. Hazelwood’s new defense team includes members of two firms, the managing partners of which practice is, maintain offices in and reside in New York. Voluminous documents relating to the case are maintained in New York, and significant defense team resources are located in their respective offices in New York. These vital documents and materials will be unavailable for collaborative review by Mr. Hazelwood and his team if he is not permitted to travel.
14. Precluding Mr. Hazelwood from meeting with his counsel to review documents, discuss case strategy and make critical defense decisions with all counsel present and all resources available will result in a violation of his right to Due Process and Right to Counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
15. Although pre-trial detainees’ constitutional right to counsel has been the central focus of litigation in this area2 , courts in various circuits following the United States Supreme Court’s guidance have consistently recognized the importance of the right to counsel for post-conviction detainees. See Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 134-137 (1967) (court stressed the importance of protecting right to counsel from pre-trial stages through sentencing); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), rev’d in part (access is essential to lawyers and legal assistants representing prisoner clients); Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281 (6th Cir. 1997) (regulations and practices that unjustifiably obstruct the availability of professional representation or other aspects of the right of access to the courts are invalid). Despite having been released on bond, the home detention imposed on Mr. Hazelwood places him in a similarly disadvantageous position where his ability to access his lawyers and prepare for his sentencing is seriously curtailed. This request is reasonable and necessary for preparing Mr. Hazelwood for sentencing, and is equally important for counsel to get up to speed on this case as quickly and efficiently as possible.
16. Prior to the filing of this Motion, counsel contacted Assistant U.S. Attorney Trey Hamilton who stated that he object to Mr. Hazelwood being request based on the government’s position stated at the post-conviction detention hearing in this matterCounsel also attempted to contact Ms. Smith, Pretrial Services Officer for Mr. Hazelwood without success.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hazelwood requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order granting him permission for limited travel to New York on Wednesday, May 30, 2018 and Thursday, May 31, 2018 to consult with his new counsel.