Motion for Leave to File Document (RENEWED) by Casey David Crowther — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 104, M.D. Fla. No. 2:20-mj-01094, docketed in No. 2:20-cr-00114)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 2:20-cr-00114 · Doc. 104 · 2021-03-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
Criminal No. 2:20-cr-114-FTM-66MRM 
 
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER  
 
 
 
Defendant. 
_____________________________/ 
 
DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 
UNDER SEAL TO AVOID SEVERE PREJUDICE TO 
DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 
 
 
Defendant, Casey D. Crowther (“Crowther”), through undersigned counsel, 
and pursuant to M.D. Local Rule 3.01 and this Court’s Order dated March 17, 2021 
[D.E. 103], hereby files his Renewed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal to Avoid 
Severe Prejudice to Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial.   
A. 
Crowther’s Right to a Fair Trial Will Be Severely Compromised in the 
Absence of Leave to File Under Seal 
 
 
Crowther stands to suffer severe prejudice – i.e., irreparable damage to his right 
to a fair trial – if this Court does not permit Crowther to file under seal his motion 
requesting a bench trial or, alternatively, to seal certain proceedings or bifurcate 
Counts I – IV (Paycheck Protection Program “PPP” fraud allegations) from Counts V 
– VII (mortgage fraud allegations) for the upcoming trial.  Specifically, if Crowther’s 
forthcoming motion is available to the public on the Court’s docket, it is without a 
doubt that multiple media outlets will immediately broadcast the sensitive information 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 104     Filed 03/17/21     Page 1 of 7 PageID 571

2 
 
set forth in the motion.  As a direct consequence, the jury pool will be contaminated, 
thereby severely jeopardizing Crowther’s right to a fair trial. 
 
The specific content that Crowther seeks to file under seal cannot be discussed 
here because doing so will have the same effect of filing Crowther’s forthcoming 
motion in the public domain, which is highly likely to cause the severe damage to 
Crowther’s constitutional rights discussed above.  That being said, the undersigned 
hereby assures the Court that the specific material sought to be filed under seal need 
remain under seal only for the shortest duration of time possible; i.e., only until this 
Court has ruled on Crowther’s forthcoming motion.  Consequently, the concerns 
expressed in the Court’s Order [D.E. 103] regarding the presumption of openness 
precluding sealing of criminal proceedings set forth in United States v. Cooper, 679 F. 
Appx. 738, 742 (11th Cir. 2017) are demonstrably minimized under these 
circumstances. 
B. 
The Media Have a History of Reporting False, Inaccurate, and Misleading 
Information Regarding Crowther 
 
Because this case has been so highly publicized in television, digital, and print 
media, it is inevitable that multiple media outlets will immediately report sensitive 
information that Crowther hereby requests to file under seal for only the briefest period 
necessary for this Court to rule on the motion.  When Crowther was arrested, almost 
every Southwest Florida news media outlet was dispatched to Crowther’s residence in 
St. James City to cover the story.  Surveillance drones were flown over Crowther’s 
residence on the day of his arrest.  News reports of the arrest were broadcast on live 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 104     Filed 03/17/21     Page 2 of 7 PageID 572

3 
 
television on every local news channel.  A search of online and print news media 
articles demonstrates that the case was highly publicized when Crowther was arrested, 
and significant coverage of the case has continued through the present.  Composite 
Ex. “A”.  
 
The news reports (both live and written press) continued incessantly for every 
status hearing and subsequent indictment.  Composite Ex. “B”. Most notably, there 
were significant inaccuracies reported in the news media that made their way to the 
jury pool.  As recently as February 12, 2021, NBC2 News and ABC News Fort Myers 
inaccurately reported that “Casey Crowther faces 7 additional charges in his PPP fraud 
case.”  Composite Ex. “C”.  The online article falsely reported that “[n]ow, Crowther 
faces a total of 15 charges.”  Id.  This information was demonstrably false, as Crowther 
has never been charged with more than (7) criminal offenses.  See Doc. 62.  The article 
also erroneously intertwined the PPP allegations with the mortgage fraud allegations. 
Because of the “importance” of this breaking news, it was pushed out to mobile devices 
of NBC2 and ABC followers throughout Southwest Florida.  It was then posted on 
NBC2 and ABC’s websites.   The undersigned was forced to contact the news outlets 
to point out the inaccuracies and demand the story be retracted.  See Ex. “D”.   
 
Separately, Crowther has been the subject of endless, scathing public attacks 
from his own family members and business rivals who operate one of the largest 
roofing businesses in Southwest Florida and are in direct competition with Crowther.  
Crowther Roofing has been in business for the past thirty (30) years and is a household 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 104     Filed 03/17/21     Page 3 of 7 PageID 573

4 
 
name in most homes within Southwest Florida.  The owner of Crowther Roofing is 
Lee Crowther, Casey Crowther’s grandfather.  Crowther originally worked for his 
grandfather but left Crowther Roofing to build his own roofing company, Target 
Roofing.  As Target grew, the Company became a direct competitor to Crowther 
Roofing.  Once Target won projects that used to be Crowther Roofing contracts, the 
familial relationship completely deteriorated.  Since Crowther’s arrest, Crowther 
Roofing has conducted a targeted negative media campaign against Crowther which 
has poisoned the jury pool and has negatively impacted Target’s business.    
The official statement on the Crowther Roofing website states: “We here at 
Crowther Roofing & Sheet Metal were shocked and disappointed to read of the 
Federal allegations against Casey Crowther.  Casey Crowther is the grandchild of our 
founder, Lee J. Crowther, but is not employed by, nor connected in any way with, 
Crowther Roofing & Sheet Metal.”  See Ex. “E”. The day after his arrest, Crowther 
Roofing began a television campaign against Crowther. Crowther has been the subject 
of incessant personal attacks via TV advertisements for the past six (6) months.  In 
these advertisements, Crowther Roofing has insinuated Crowther’s guilt and 
condemned him for his actions by stating that while competitors took government 
money, Crowther Roofing business did not apply for or receive PPP loan funds from 
the government1 and “there is only one Crowther Roofing”.  These personal attacks 
 
1 This statement is also an inaccurate statement; PPP loans are funded by the Lender 
and are not Government funds. 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 104     Filed 03/17/21     Page 4 of 7 PageID 574

5 
 
against Crowther have been broadcasted on television in Southwest Florida multiple 
times daily. 
Against the backdrop of this magnitude of biased, inaccurate, and misleading 
information being broadcasted to the jury pool (and the inevitable posting and sharing 
of this information on social media), any further media reporting of sensitive 
information may irreparably compromise Crowther’s constitutional right to a fair trial.  
Against the severe likelihood of irreparable harm to Crowther’s constitutional rights, 
it is clear that a temporary seal of information set forth in Crowther’s forthcoming 
motion for only the shortest duration necessary for the Court to rule on the motion is 
entirely appropriate.   
C. 
The Singer Analysis Does Not Require the Government’s Consent to a Bench 
Trial 
 
Finally, it is necessary to briefly address the position set forth in this Court’s 
Order [D.E. 103] that “[a] request for a bench trial requires a written waiver of a jury 
trial by defendant and the consent of the government.”  Order at p. 2.   
While it is acknowledged that a written jury trial waiver is necessary, the 
Government’s consent is not required in order to request a non-jury trial under the 
factors discussed in United States v. Singer, 380 U.S. 24 (1965).  In Singer, the Supreme 
Court specifically confronted the issue of whether the effectiveness of a jury trial 
waiver may be conditioned on the Government’s consent and the consent of the trial 
judge.  The Court recognized “there might be some circumstances where a defendant’s 
reasons for wanting to be tried by a judge alone are so compelling that the 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 104     Filed 03/17/21     Page 5 of 7 PageID 575

6 
 
Government’s insistence on trial by jury would result in the denial to a defendant of 
an impartial trial.”  Id. at 37.  These situations include where passion, prejudice, public 
feeling, or some other factor may render impossible or unlikely an impartial trial by 
jury.  Id. at 37-38; see also United States v. Caramadre, No. 11-186 S, 2012 U.S. Dist. 
LEXIS 144280 at *3-4 (D. R.I. Oct. 5, 2012) (stating that “the government’s ability to 
withhold consent is not absolute”); United States v. Schipani, 44 F.R.D. 461, 463 (E.D. 
N.Y. 1968) (recognizing that “[a]s the Supreme Court indicated in the Singer case, 
however, there may be ‘some circumstances’ in which the government’s insistence on 
a jury trial would be unreasonable”).   
The sealed motion will set forth the factual basis for Crowther’s requests and 
will unequivocally demonstrate the passion, prejudice, and public feeling that satisfies 
the elements in Singer and justifies Crowther’s request for a bench trial.  The sealed 
motion will illustrate why a bench trial is still warranted, in the absence of the 
Government’s consent, in order to protect Crowther’s constitutional rights. As such, 
the relief that will be requested in Crowther’s forthcoming motion is entirely legally 
viable; however, as noted above this legal argument cannot be advanced without 
disclosing highly sensitive information that should be discussed in private and kept 
under seal for the short duration requested herein to protect Crowther’s right to a fair 
trial.  In the event this motion is denied, Crowther will be forced to file the 
aforementioned motion in the public domain which will cause significant prejudice to 
Crowther’s ability to a fair trial and will add substantial time to voir dire in order to 
empanel an impartial jury, if possible. If the Court reads the motion and does not 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 104     Filed 03/17/21     Page 6 of 7 PageID 576

7 
 
believe the motion warrants being filed under seal, the Court can unseal the motion 
with no prejudicial harm to the public.   
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Casey David Crowther respectfully requests that 
this Court (a) grant this Motion in all respects; (b) permit Crowther leave to file the 
sealed motion discussed herein; and (c) enter such other and further relief this Court 
deems just and proper.   
Respectfully Submitted,  
/s/ Nicole H. Waid____ 
Nicole H. Waid, Esq.  
Florida Bar No. 0121720 
nicole.waid@fisherbroyles.com 
 
 
 
/s/ Brian E. Dickerson 
Brian E. Dickerson, Esq. 
Fla. Bar No. 106615 
brian.dickerson@fisherbroyles.com 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FISHERBROYLES, LLP  
                                
 
 
 
2390 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 100  
                                
 
 
 
Naples, Florida 34103  
                                
 
 
 
Phone: (202) 906-9572  
                                
 
 
 
Fax: (239) 236-1360  
                               
 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I, Nicole H. Waid, attorney for Casey David Crowther, do hereby certify that I 
have, this day, filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court via the CM/ECF system, 
which has caused a true and correct copy to be served on all counsel of record.  
/s/ Nicole H. Waid____ 
Nicole H. Waid, Esq.  
 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 104     Filed 03/17/21     Page 7 of 7 PageID 577

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.104.0.pdf

Size

167,452 bytes

SHA-256

76b538963db743bfe3282d10811c74a2b24dbdad037dadb2b3c2a33e5dfb5636

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.104.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)