-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JONATHON WILLIAM-DURAND 

NEUHARD, 

Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 2:15-cr-20425 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

DAVID R. GRAND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL [43] 

On June 26, 2015, Defendant Jonathon William-Durand Neuhard was 

charged with production and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252A(a)(5)(B). Dkt. No. 1. The Court denied Defendant’s 

Motion to Suppress Evidence, Dkt. No. 28, on February 25, 2016. See Dkt. No. 42. 

Presently before the Court is Defense Counsel’s Motion To Withdraw And For 

Appointment Of New Counsel [43], filed on March 1, 2016. The Government has 

not filed a response in opposition to the motion. 

Frank D. Eaman and Suzan Gabbara serve as defense counsel for Defendant 

and provide several grounds for their withdrawal. First, Eaman and Gabbara note 

that they were retained by Defendant’s parents, although Defendant himself was 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 48 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 188
-2- 

indigent and would have qualified for appointed counsel. Dkt. No. 43, p. 1 (Pg. ID 

No. 176). As such, Defendant’s parents are under no legal obligation to pay 

Defendant’s attorney fees and are currently experiencing financial hardship in 

paying for defense counsel’s work. Id. at 1–2. The amount of attorney fees 

outstanding for work already performed totals more than $5,000. Id. at 2. 

Defendant and his parents have consented to defense counsel’s withdrawal, due to 

their inability to pay attorney fees. Id. 

Second, Eaman is retiring from trial practice and Gabbara is not experienced 

at federal trials. Id. They argue that due to Eaman’s retirement and Gabbara’s 

inexperience, they would not be able to provide Defendant with effective 

assistance of counsel, as required under the Sixth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution. Id. at 2–3. 

And third, Eaman and Gabbara note that they previously advised Defendant 

that they would be withdrawing after the Court rendered a decision on the Motion 

to Suppress Evidence, if that motion was denied. Id. at 3–4. They state that 

Defendant does not object to their withdrawal and to appointment of counsel for 

his defense, and that Defendant will continue to cooperate completely with any 

counsel appointed to him. Id. 

Upon review of the briefing, the Court concludes that oral argument will not 

aid in the resolution of the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court will resolve 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 48 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 189
-3- 

defense counsel’s present motion on the briefs. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). The 

Court, being fully advised of the reasons for the present motion, HEREBY 

GRANTS defense counsel’s request [43]. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant make a specific application 

for the appointment of counsel. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Defender is appointed to 

represent Defendant in this case, pending Defendant’s qualification for the 

appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 22, 2016 

 s/Gershwin A Drain 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 48 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 190