Image Credit: Speaker Cameron Sexton / Facebook
The Tennessee Conservative [By Adelia Kirchner] –
A recent filing in the ongoing Casada-Cothren court case insinuates that Tennessee Speaker of the House Cameron Sexton might have been wearing a wire of some sort or using his phone to record other lawmakers for federal investigators.
Back in 2022, when a slew of about 20 federal charges were brought against former Speaker of the House Glen Casada and his former aide Cade Cothren, it was reported that Sexton had been cooperating with federal investigators since winning election to Speaker of the House following Casada’s resignation.
On February 25th of this year, Casada and Cothren’s legal teams filed a joint memorandum “in support of motion to compel disclosure of identities of government’s confidential sources” which maintains that disclosure “should be compelled even if the government does not intend to call the [confidential sources] at trial.”
As the defense notes in this filing, “This is an extraordinarily complex case, involving dozens of elected officials and employees, some of whose statements, beliefs, and opinions lie at the epicenter of the charges against Defendants.”
There have been more than three confidential human sources (CHSes) used by federal investigators to garner information in this case, which according to the defense “spawned and heavily aided” the federal government’s investigation.
“The charged conspiracy is predicated on emails provided by CHS2 and a recording taken by CHS3 and other unnamed and unnumbered CHSes,” the defense writes.
The defense argues that “The likelihood that the CHSes are on the defense’s witness list(s) is high, and Defendants must know who these individuals are so they can determine what, if any, exculpatory, impeachable, inconsistent, or other statements apply to each witness before they testify.”
Specific bits of information are attributed to individuals referred to as CHS1, CHS2, and CHS3. However, there is also information attributed to “other CHSes” the total number of which is unknown.
CHS1: is identified in multiple search warrants as an individual who is “employed by the Legislature” and who “has firsthand knowledge of the approval process” for the Postage and Printing Account funds relevant to the Casada-Cothren case.
This CHS was present at a Tennessee House Republican Caucus Campaign Committee meeting and was the source of various internal communications between the Speaker’s Office and the Office of Legislative Administration.
- “The underlying investigation began when CHS1 informed the FBI of an alleged ‘scheme’ involving Ms. Smith and Phoenix Solutions in or around May 2020.”
- “The government’s allegation that the office of the Speaker for the Tennessee House of Representatives ‘had the authority to approve or deny a vendor to provide services or any mailing funded by [a Member’s Postage and Printing account] is apparently based on a single source: CHS1.”
- “CHS1’s personal opinion that neither Phoenix Solutions nor Mr. Cothren would have been ‘approved’ as a vendor if Mr. Cothren’s ownership of Phoenix Solutions had been disclosed to the Speaker’s office is another fact that originated from CHS1 alone.”
- “CHS1’s personal ‘knowledge’ of facts underpinning the alleged conspiracy also formed the basis for multiple search warrants and numerous factual allegations in the Indictment.”
- “CHS1 disclosed alleged co-conspirator Robin Smith’s statements about Phoenix Solutions at a meeting with the Tennessee House Republican Caucus Campaign Committee to the government.”
Supposedly, CHS1 was also copied on a series of emails they provided to the government between former Rep. Robin Smith, Matthew Phoenix [allegedly Cade Cothren], and Candice McKay.
However, one inconsistency in the government’s document production that the defense points out, is that the only other person copied on those emails was Connie Ridley.
The defense notes that other search warrants reference conversations between Connie Ridley and CHS1.
Ultimately, the defense claims in this filing that CHS1 is most likely Speaker Sexton or someone working in the Speaker’s office due to the private nature of the Republican Caucus meetings recorded by CHS1 and some of the inconsistency in attribution of information.
“It is highly unlikely that Ms. Ridley, a former employee of the Office of Legislative Administration, would be wearing a wire and recording conversations at a Tennessee House Republican Caucus Campaign Committee, as CHS1 also allegedly did,” reads the filing. “The more plausible explanation is that CHS1 is the Speaker of the House, Cameron Sexton, or someone working in the Speaker’s office.”
In April of 2023, a private Republican Caucus meeting was recorded and leaked during the Tennessee Three expulsion proceedings. This was allegedly deemed unacceptable in the eyes of Republican Leadership.
CHS2: like CHS1, allegedly has firsthand knowledge of Smith’s comments about Phoenix Solutions during the House Republican Caucus meeting mentioned above.
- “Multiple search warrant affidavits claim CHS2 ‘questioned Smith about Phoenix Solutions, its ownership, and prior work history’ during the caucus meeting and exchanged text messages with Ms. Smith.”
- “CHS2 is the only person, other than Ms. Smith, with knowledge of these communications.”
CHS3: is allegedly a member of the House Republican Caucus.
- “In the Indictment, the government references ‘a member of the Political Party 1 Tennessee House Caucus’ and attributes information to that member that is very similar to the information attributed to ‘CHS3’ in the government’s document production.”
- “CHS3 surreptitiously recorded a call with Ms. Smith, during which s/he inquired about utilizing Postage and Printing account funds for constituent mailers.”
- “The call appeared to stem from Ms. Smith’s remarks about Phoenix Solutions during the aforementioned caucus meeting.”
- “CHS3 is the only person, other than [Ms. Smith], with knowledge of these communications.”
Additionally, the recent filing notes that there are 5 audio recordings and 4 audio/visual recordings “produced with no context or other information that would allow Defendants to ascertain the identities of the participants.”
The audio/visual recordings referenced were taken during a private Tennessee House Republican Caucus Annual Retreat.
A few of the audio recordings in question contain phone numbers within their file names, one of which has been traced back to Rep. Ron Gant of Piperton, Tennessee, who used to be a member of House Leadership.
Rep. Gant confirmed it was in fact his phone number, but told reporters this week that he doesn’t know why his number would appear in the court filing.
The filing references Giglio v. United States (1972) and Brady v. Maryland (1963) saying, “The government’s obligation to disclose of exculpatory and impeachment evidence is meaningless unless the defendant can determine the source of that evidence.”
“The significance of the informants’ testimony and the relevance their identities have in establishing Defendants’ defenses (including their potential biases), outweighs the ‘limited privilege’ the government has to withhold their identities,” the filing continues, referencing United States v. Henderson (1950) and consequently Roviaro v. United States (1957).
According to United States v. Henderson, when “disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way.”
The government previously denied Casada and Cothren legal teams’ February 4th and February 10th, 2025, requests for disclosure regarding the identities of CHSes involved saying that such information was “privileged” and that the government was “not obligated to identify the informants or disclose which statements were attributable to which source because it did not ‘intend’ to call any [of] the CHSes to testify at trial.”
The defense maintains that the government’s privilege “to withhold from disclosure the identify of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law” is not an absolute one.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s convictions in Roviaro v. United States finding that the “trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the government to withhold the identity of its undercover employee in the face of repeated demands by the accused for his disclosure.”
About the Author: Adelia Kirchner is a Tennessee resident and reporter for the Tennessee Conservative. Currently the host of Subtle Rampage Podcast, she has also worked for the South Dakota State Legislature and interned for Senator Bill Hagerty’s Office in Nashville, Tennessee. Adelia is The Tennessee Conservative’s on-site reporter for the Tennessee General Assembly. You can reach Adelia at adelia@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
