Judge Wolfe denies DA-office disqualification in Gregory Hansard case, finds John Stephens screened; trial set for May 29

Judge David D. Wolfe denied a defense motion to disqualify the 20 Third Judicial District Attorney's Office from prosecuting the case against defendant Gregory Hansard, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the office had effectively screened former public defender John Stephens from participating in the prosecution. The court ruled that Stephens personally is disqualified from involvement but that the remainder of the district attorney's office may continue to prosecute. The case remains set for trial on May 29.

The motion was prompted by Hansard's claim that Stephens, who represented him while employed at the public defender's office, later joined the district attorney's office and posed a risk that confidential defense information could be disclosed. Hansard testified that Stephens represented him beginning in late 2023, that they met in the office about seven to eight times and discussed allegations, potential witnesses, pleas and strategy, and that he would not feel he could receive a fair trial if Stephens continued to play a prosecutorial role in his case; when asked whether he believed he could have a fair trial in that circumstance he answered, "No, sir."

John Stephens (who spells his last name in the record as "Stephens") testified that upon hiring he provided District Attorney General Ray Crouch with a list of his prior public-defender cases, including Hansard's, and that Crouch instructed the office to screen him out. Stephens said files were moved so he could not access them and that at least one email (and possibly more) was circulated to staff reiterating not to discuss those matters with him. Brooke Allen, the lead prosecutor on Hansard's file, testified she retained the case since its inception in general sessions court and had not discussed the matter with Stephens since he joined the office; she confirmed at least one December 2024 email and a January 2025 reminder about screening procedures were circulated and that the office has not discussed the case with Stephens.

The state argued the office has implemented a "Chinese wall" and other procedures to prevent disclosure of former-client confidences and that the proof showed no information had been shared with Stephens. The court said it had reviewed the written pleadings, testimony, and applicable law, and concluded the state met the standard established in State v. Clayburg by showing clear and convincing evidence that Stephens had been screened from the prosecution. The judge ordered that if any inadvertent disclosure occurs, the state must notify the defendant immediately to allow renewal of the motion.

On the record, the court disqualified Stephens from participating in the case but declined to disqualify the entire district attorney's office. The transcript records that the trial date remains May 29. The hearing record includes testimony and cross-examination from both sides and the judge's explanation of the legal standard used to resolve the motion.

The transcript includes administrative details about office locations and file custody: Stephens said he is assigned to the Cheatham County (Ashland City) office; Allen said she keeps the file in the Charlotte office and that, going forward, the file will remain there and can be viewed in her office if co-counsel needs access. The transcript does not reflect any plea or trial rulings beyond the disqualification decision and the setting of the trial date.