Teixeira seeks private attorney on taxpayers’ dime
The public defenders representing accused military secrets leaker Jack Teixeira have filed a motion for their client to be appointed additional representation at taxpayer expense.
Brendan Kelley and Allen Franco, both of the federal public defender office in Boston, wrote in a Friday filing that their client Jack Teixeira “is currently charged by complaint with offenses under the Espionage Act, the complexity of which this Court is aware.”
They added that during his initial appearance in federal court in Boston, “the Court reviewed Mr. Teixeira’s financial affidavit and determined he qualified for court-appointed representation.”
Teixeira, either 21 or 22, of North Dighton, is a Massachusetts Air National Guard serviceman charged with leaking highly sensitive military secrets to an online forum dedicated largely to the gaming community. He was arrested on April 13.
He was charged on April 14 with unauthorized retention and transmission of national defense information and unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material. He had remained informally jailed since that date until U.S. Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy on May 19 formally ordered him detained through trial.
While Kelley has appeared as the lead defense attorney through all appearances, Teixeira’s original lead counsel as written on the criminal complaint cover sheet — called a JS45 form in Massachusetts federal courts — was “Josh Hayne,” a probable typo actually standing in for Joshua Hanye, the temporary co-first assistant federal public defender in the Boston office.
Last week, he officially left the case with a terse motion that was granted by Judge Hennessey the next day.
“Now comes Assistant Federal Public Defender Joshua R. Hanye and hereby moves to withdraw as counsel in this matter,” Hanye wrote on May 25, with no further explanation.
Now Kelley and Franco — who is listed as a “Research & Writing Attorney” for the office — are appealing due to the complexity of the case for a Criminal Justice Act panel attorney, which is a private attorney who is available to take on federal defense cases on the court’s dime.
“In order to ‘provide high-quality representation consistent with the best practices of the legal profession and commensurate with those services rendered when counsel is privately retained,’” the pair wrote in their motion, “additional appointment of CJA counsel is necessary here because of the complexity and nature of this prosecution and the nature of the evidence and procedures involved.”
They added that they will recommend a CJA attorney who has the proper top secret security clearance necessary to handle a case where such documents are at the heart of the matter.
They filed a separate motion asking that any supporting affidavit be submitted to the court under seal as “the document contains information that touches upon matters of representation of a defendant which should not be part of the public record.”
Judge Hennessy approved the motion later in the day.