Casada & Cothren Demand Informant Identities in Federal Corruption Case: Is the Government Hiding Key Witnesses?

*Updated with more information 2/26/2025 5:28 am

The Background: What’s This Case About?

 Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and his former Chief of Staff Cade Cothren are facing federal charges related to fraud and corruption involving a shadowy political consulting firm, Phoenix Solutions. Prosecutors allege that Cothren secretly ran Phoenix Solutions while Casada and former Representative Robin Smith helped steer government contracts worth taxpayer money toward the company—all while concealing Cothren’s involvement to avoid scrutiny.

 This case is built largely on evidence gathered by government informants, known as Confidential Human Sources (CHSes), who secretly recorded conversations and turned over insider information. But now, Casada and Cothren’s defense attorneys are fighting to uncover the identities of these informants, arguing that the government is unfairly keeping them secret.

The Defense’s Motion: What Are They Demanding?

In a joint legal filing, the defense is asking the court to force federal prosecutors to reveal the identities of at least three confidential informants (CHS1, CHS2, and CHS3) who played a central role in the government’s investigation. They argue that:

• The informants recorded conversations, turned over private communications, and provided inside knowledge of Tennessee House Republican Caucus meetings.
• These sources provided key testimony that led to the charges, yet the government refuses to reveal who they are because it does not plan to call them as witnesses at trial.
• Some of the informants’ statements appear to be misleading or even false, which the defense argues should give them the right to challenge these claims.
• The identities of these informants are likely already on the defense witness list because subpoenas have been issued to multiple lawmakers and state employees.

The core argument from the defense is simple: If these informants played such a critical role in building the case, their identities should not be kept secret from the very people they helped indict.

The Legal Battle: Can the Government Keep Informants Secret?

The government has a general privilege to protect the identities of confidential informants, arguing that secrecy encourages people to come forward and provide information about crimes without fear of retaliation. However, this privilege is not absolute.

In past legal rulings, such as Brady v. Maryland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972), courts have ruled that prosecutors must turn over evidence that could help the defense, including information that undermines the credibility of witnesses.

The defense is also citing Roviaro v. United States (1957), a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot always shield informants’ identities, especially when their statements are central to the prosecution’s case. Courts must balance the need for secrecy against a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

In this case, Casada and Cothren’s attorneys argue that the government is using secrecy as a loophole to protect unreliable or biased informants from cross-examination.

 Who Are the Informants & Why Does It Matter?

Based on the defense’s filings, the three known informants played major roles in the investigation:

1.     CHS1 – The first informant to contact the FBI, claiming to have firsthand knowledge of how government contracts were approved. They allegedly told investigators that Phoenix Solutions would not have been approved if Cothren’s involvement was known—a claim that the defense strongly disputes.

2.     CHS2 – Attended Tennessee House Republican Caucus meetings where Phoenix Solutions was discussed. The government relies on their testimony about key conversations that support the fraud charges.

3.     CHS3 – Secretly recorded a phone call with Robin Smith, where they allegedly discussed how state funds were being used for political mailers.

 The defense believes these informants may have political or personal motives for cooperating with the government, which would be critical information for jurors in determining their credibility.

 Additionally, there may be more unnamed informants whose secret recordings and statements form the backbone of the government’s case. The defense argues that they must know who these people are to effectively challenge the evidence against them.

 The Stakes: Why This Matters for the Trial

If the court grants the defense’s request, it could force the government to reveal the identities of key informants, allowing Casada and Cothren’s legal team to:
✔️ Question their credibility and possible biases.
✔️ Expose misleading or false statements that may have shaped the charges.
✔️ Build a stronger defense by knowing exactly who provided the evidence used against them.

If the court denies the request, the defense will have to go to trial without knowing who secretly recorded them or provided the inside information that led to their indictment.

What Happens Next?

The judge will now decide whether the government must disclose the informants’ identities. If the motion is approved, it could significantly weaken the government’s case by opening up informants to cross-examination and scrutiny. If the motion is denied, Casada and Cothren will likely argue that their right to a fair trial is being compromised.

This case is shaping up to be a major test of how far the government can go in keeping its informants secret—especially when those informants played a direct role in bringing charges. The final ruling will set the stage for what could be one of Tennessee’s biggest political corruption trials in recent history.

If you support what I do, please consider donating a gift in order to sustain free, independent, and TRULY CONSERVATIVE media that is focused on Middle Tennessee and BEYOND!