Unopposed Motion for an In-Person Status Conference — United States v. Edwards (M.D. Fla., Document 300)

Summary

Unopposed motion by defendant Joshua Edwards in United States v. Joshua Edwards (Middle District of Florida), asking the Court to schedule an in-person status conference for September 10, 2025 before Judge Wendy W. Berger with the defendant present. Counsel states that Mr. Edwards's competency status was unresolved from his arrest on December 14, 2022 through March 31, 2025, when the Court adjudicated the defendant competent to stand trial. It describes refused meetings at the Orange County Jail and the courthouse, a hearing on August 25, 2025, at which the Court denied a further competency evaluation, and the July 17, 2025 appointment of Corey Cohen as co-counsel. The government does not oppose the motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Unopposed Motion for an In-Person Status Conference — United States v. Edwards (M.D. Fla., Document 300).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-joshua-edwards-dkt-300-m-d-fla-a9ee3c6512/, SHA-256 e6788da21714cf38a031a2d8cd2e540380dd6dc51aba3765bfd5766c1efd8083.

Full text

Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 300 Filed 08/25/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1751

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 6:22-cr-201-WWB-LHP
)
JOSHUA EDWARDS, )
)
Defendant. )
)

DEFENDANT JOSHUA EDWARDS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN
IN-PERSON STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE ASSIGNED
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE WITH THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE REQUIRED

The Defendant, Joshua Edwards (“Mr. Edwards”), by and through the

undersigned counsel, hereby requests that this Honorable Court schedule a status

conference for September 10, 2025 before the assigned U.S. District Judge, the

Honorable Wendy W. Berger (“Judge Berger”), with the defendant’s presence

required for said hearing. In further support of this motion, the undersigned states

as follows:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On December 7, 2022, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging

Mr. Edwards with various fraud offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1349, 18 U.S.C. § 1014, and 18 U.S.C. § 1546. See Doc. 1.
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 300 Filed 08/25/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID 1752

Mr. Edwards’s mental competency status was unresolved from the date of

his arrest on December 14, 2022, through March 31, 2025, when the Court entered

an order adjudicating the defendant competent to stand trial. Docs. 9, 14, 19, 124-

125, 209, 215, 242, 251. During this timeframe, Mr. Edwards underwent several

competency evaluations. Docs. 69, 71, 72, 96, 97, 121.

Since the undersigned’s appointment on February 21, 2024, the undersigned

has had significant and consistent difficulties substantively communicating with

Mr. Edwards. On numerous occasions, Mr. Edwards has refused to meet with the

undersigned when the undersigned has gone to the Orange County Jail to see the

defendant. On other occasions where Mr. Edwards has met with the undersigned,

he has, for the most part, been unable or unwilling to communicate in any manner

that would properly assist in his own defense.

As noted, the Court has already conducted multiple proceedings on the

issue of Mr. Edwards’s mental competency and has found the defendant

competent to proceed to trial. Docs. 242, 251. A status conference is currently

scheduled for September 9, 2025 at 9:30 a.m., with a trial set to commence in the

October 2025 trial term. Doc. 275.

Since the Court’s finding that Mr. Edwards was competent to stand trial, the

undersigned has continued to experience challenges in terms of meeting and/or

communicating with the defendant. At a hearing on April 8, 2025, Mr. Edwards’s

2
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 300 Filed 08/25/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID 1753

communication with the undersigned briefly improved when he saw his sister in

the audience. However, after this hearing, he regressed significantly in his

behavior. Specifically, on May 13, 2025, the undersigned attempted an attorney-

client video visit but Mr. Edwards did not appear on screen at the scheduled date

and time. Later, on May 16, 2025, the undersigned attempted to see Mr. Edwards

in-person at the Orange County Jail, however, jail staff informed the undersigned

that Mr. Edwards was refusing to meet.

On May 27, 2025, at the undersigned’s request, the U.S. Marshals brought

Mr. Edwards to the courthouse for an attorney-client meeting. When Mr. Edwards

was brought into the room with the undersigned, he put his head down for the

entire meeting and refused to speak to the undersigned. The undersigned waited

for approximately 20 minutes before leaving Mr. Edwards, who did not say a word

to the undersigned.

On June 13, 2025, the undersigned met with Mr. Edwards again at the

courthouse. Dr. Kim Spence (“Dr. Spence”) accompanied the undersigned to this

meeting, with the Court’s approval. See Docs. 278, 279. Once again, when Mr.

Edwards was brought into the room with the undersigned and Dr. Spence, he

placed his head down and refused to speak to either the undersigned or Dr.

Spence. After approximately 30 minutes, the undersigned and Dr. Spence left Mr.

Edwards.

3
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 300 Filed 08/25/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID 1754

More recently, on July 17, 2025, the Court appointed Corey Cohen, Esq.

(“Mr. Cohen”) as co-counsel in this case, pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18

U.S.C. § 3006A. Doc. 286. In doing so, the Court found that “given the issues

involved and the procedural posture of this case, that this is an extremely difficult

case, and that the interests of justice require the appointment of co-counsel to assist

Defendant throughout the remainder of this litigation.” Id. Unfortunately, since

Mr. Cohen’s appointment, Mr. Edwards has continued to present difficulties with

regard to his ability to communicate with counsel. On July 24, 2025, the

undersigned and Mr. Cohen met with Mr. Edwards who “was unable to speak

about his case or anything relevant to the proceedings.” Doc. 288. Thereafter, Mr.

Cohen filed a motion seeking the appointment of a psychiatrist or psychologist to

determine Mr. Edwards’s present competency status. Id. The government filed a

response in opposition to this motion. Doc. 291.

On August 25, 2025, the Court held a hearing and denied Mr. Edwards’s

most recent motion seeking another competency evaluation. Docs. 296, 298. At

this same hearing, Mr. Edwards had multiple outbursts, where he spoke aloud

and on the record in an indecipherable manner.

As noted above, this case is currently in a trial posture. At the same time,

Mr. Edwards continues to be unable or unwilling to communicate with his

attorneys. Further, Mr. Edwards has recently exhibited erratic behavior in Court.

4
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 300 Filed 08/25/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID 1755

Based on the status of the case and Mr. Edwards’s inability or unwillingness to

communicate with counsel, the undersigned would like to have a status

conference before Judge Berger so that she can address the undersigned’s concerns

regarding Mr. Edwards’s current condition, as well as schedule an appropriate

trial date in this matter. Given the challenges that Mr. Edwards has presented, the

undersigned and Mr. Cohen further believe that the defendant’s presence should

be required at the status conference.

The undersigned has conferred with the government and the government

does not oppose this motion. Moreover, the Court’s staff has advised the

undersigned that September 10, 2025 is an available date for holding the requested

status conference.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Pursuant to Rule 17.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court

“[o]n its own, or on a party’s motion, . . . may hold one or more pretrial conferences

to promote a fair and expeditious trial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.1. “This rule is

essentially a codification of the court's inherent power to manage the litigation

before it.” United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120, 1123 (11th Cir. 1983). At such

hearings, “[t]he government may not use any statement made during the

conference by the defendant or the defendant’s attorney unless it is in writing and

is signed by the defendant and the defendant’s attorney.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.1.

5
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 300 Filed 08/25/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID 1756

Here, a status conference is requested “to promote a fair and expeditious

trial.” The undersigned and Mr. Cohen are concerned about Mr. Edwards’s recent

in-Court behavior and his current inability/unwillingness to communicate with

counsel. The undersigned and Mr. Cohen would like to address these concerns

with Judge Berger before a trial date is selected.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Joshua Edwards, respectfully requests that

the Court schedule a status conference for September 10, 2025 before U.S. District

Judge Wendy W. Berger, with the defendant’s presence required.

Respectfully submitted on this 25th day of August, 2025.

/s/ Andrew C. Searle
ANDREW C. SEARLE, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 0116461
SEARLE LAW P.A.
200 East Robinson Street, Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-952-0642
Email: andrew@searle-law.com
Attorney for Defendant Joshua Edwards

6
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 300 Filed 08/25/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID 1757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY on August 25, 2025, I filed a copy of the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system. I further certify that all parties to

this case are equipped to receive service of documents via that system.

File and source

File: 300.pdf
Size: 100,580 bytes
SHA-256: e6788da21714cf38a031a2d8cd2e540380dd6dc51aba3765bfd5766c1efd8083
Our copy: 300.pdf
Original: No public link identified.