Case 1:24-cr-00007-HYJ ECF No. 33, PageID.

172 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cr-7

v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou

Chief United States District Judge
RICHARD ANTHONY REYNA DENSMORE,

Defendant.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

James Stevenson Fisher, of the Office of the Federal Public Defender, moves this

Honorable Court to enter an order allowing him to withdraw as counsel for the defendant

Richard Anthony Reyna Densmore. In support of this motion, counsel offers the following

brief, which demonstrates there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship

that would render further representation unreasonably difficult. Counsel consulted with

the AUSA in this matter, Adam Townshend, who indicated the government does not

oppose counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Procedural Background

The government charged Mr. Densmore with one count of sexual exploitation of a

child; one count of conspiracy to sexually exploit a child; one count of coercion and

enticement; and two counts of possession of child pornography by way of Indictment on

January 23, 2024. Mr. Densmore appeared in this matter on January 31, 2024, for his initial
 Case 1:24-cr-00007-HYJ ECF No. 33, PageID.173 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 5

appearance with another attorney from undersigned counsel’s office present. The Court

remanded Mr. Densmore to the custody of the United States Marshal Service. On February

5, 2024, Mr. Densmore returned to court with undersigned counsel for his arraignment,

initial pretrial conference, and detention hearings. Mr. Densmore was released on bond

temporarily, although at a hearing three days later, the Court granted the Government’s

Emergency Motion for Revocation of Order of Release. Mr. Densmore was detained.

Facts Giving Rise To This Motion

In mid-March of 2024, defense counsel requested that the government provide the

entirety of the electronic materials obtained pursuant to government search warrants issued

in the investigation of this case. At the time the defense requested these additional

materials, they were not in the government’s direct possession. The government noted that

they were not in the government’s direct possession at or after the charging decision, but

that the case agent would be contacted and materials provided if possible. Around March

22, 2024, undersigned counsel obtained the records, which include several hundred

thousand (at least) pages worth of chat and text exchanges, most of which do not involve

any known user names attributed to Mr. Densmore. Defense counsel has endeavored to

review as much of the materials as possible, but has not found any relevant materials

bearing on the issue of guilt or raising any cognizable defense in this new material.

Counsel spoke with Mr. Densmore on April 3, 2024, following the government’s

presentation of evidence in this case to counsel and Mr. Densmore. During their

conversation, Mr. Densmore requested that defense counsel provide him with the materials

obtained from the government following the defense request referenced above. Defense

2
 Case 1:24-cr-00007-HYJ ECF No. 33, PageID.174 Filed 04/03/24 Page 3 of 5

counsel endeavored to explain to Mr. Densmore that none of the subsequently obtained

messages appeared either inculpatory or exculpatory in nature, that they were voluminous

in nature, that defense would have considerable difficulty providing the materials in print

form to Mr. Densmore, and that he would have difficulty reviewing them. Undersigned

counsel tried to explain that he did not believe these materials would be helpful in any way

to Mr. Densmore, based upon counsel’s review of the materials.

Defense counsel did not refuse to provide the materials to Mr. Densmore, but

endeavored to explain to him the apparent lack of relevance to his charges, the pending

plea offer from the government, or any cognizable defense. Nonetheless, Mr. Densmore

asserted that counsel was refusing to provide the discovery to him, expressed his

displeasure with counsel’s work on his behalf thus far, stated he was unhappy with

undersigned counsel’s representation, and asked for a new attorney on his case.

Following the meeting, defense counsel consulted with staff in the Federal Public

Defender’s Office about providing the requested materials to Mr. Densmore in an

electronic format to avoid the practically impossible task of providing the materials to Mr.

Densmore in print form. As of the filing of this motion, counsel is endeavoring to comply

with Mr. Densmore’s express request, but a solution compatible with jail policies has not

yet been found. Nonetheless, based upon this and other issues giving rise to this motion,

undersigned counsel moves to withdraw from this case and for the Court to appoint

alternative counsel.

3
 Case 1:24-cr-00007-HYJ ECF No. 33, PageID.175 Filed 04/03/24 Page 4 of 5

Legal Discussion

The attorney-client relationship has broken down irreparably. Mr. Densmore feels

that counsel does not have his best interests in mind and that an irreconcilable conflict

exists between counsel and Mr. Densmore. Defense counsel agrees that Mr. Densmore

would be better suited with alternative counsel at this time. Under these circumstances, it

seems like the interests of justice would best be served by appointment of replacement

counsel with whom Mr. Densmore may be able to develop a more productive attorney-

client relationship. The Federal Public Defender’s Office respectfully requests permission

to withdraw from this case.

The rules governing attorney conduct allow for such withdrawal. Under Michigan

Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, counsel may withdraw from representation when a

client insists upon pursuing an imprudent objective, renders representation unreasonably

difficult, or other good cause to withdraw exists. MRPC 1.16(b)(3), (5), & (6). These

criteria are clearly satisfied on these facts. Local General Rule 2.5, withdrawal of

appearance may be accomplished only by leave of Court. Nor does the government object

to this motion. Given the situation, good cause to grant withdrawal appears to exist here,

and appointment of alternative counsel will not unduly prejudice the administration of

justice or otherwise impede prompt resolution of this case.

Respectfully submitted,

SHARON A. TUREK
Federal Public Defender

Dated: April 3, 2024 /s/ James Stevenson Fisher

JAMES STEVENSON FISHER
4
Case 1:24-cr-00007-HYJ ECF No. 33, PageID.176 Filed 04/03/24 Page 5 of 5

Assistant Federal Public Defender

50 Louis, NW, Suite 300
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
(616) 742-7420