A longtime Maryland sheriff accused of working with a gun range owner to funnel machine guns to rent at the range announced this week he was rescinding a self-imposed leave of absence.
“As it stands, I am still the elected sheriff of Frederick County,” Chuck Jenkins said in a statement, “and I am the only law enforcement officer directly accountable to the voting public.”
The Republican’s official return to full-time status drew criticism, including from Frederick County Executive Jessica Fitzwater, who noted that four months ago Jenkins issued a news release saying he would remain on leave for the duration of the federal criminal case against him.
“I am disappointed that he has now gone back on his word,” Fitzwater (D) said in a statement.
Others in the jurisdiction about 50 miles north of Washington lauded Jenkins’s move, a reflection of strongly held positions that have fortified around the controversial lawman first elected in 2006.
Advertisement
“I am more than happy to welcome our great sheriff back to his post,” said Frederick County Council member Mason Carter (R). “I look forward to working with him to ensure the safety of all our residents.”
Jenkins announced his return days before a judge ruled the sheriff would be granted a separate trial from the gun range owner in the federal case as new court filings offered more details into the prosecution and the defenses.
In his 17 years in office, Jenkins has become a central figure in Frederick, known for his flat-top haircut and presence at funerals, carnivals, block parties and resident meetings. He staked out an aggressive stance on detaining undocumented immigrants who are charged with crimes, which made him a national voice on that debate while sharpening opinions of him at home.
Then came April 5, and the news that federal authorities had charged Jenkins and Robert Krop in an alleged conspiracy. They alleged that Jenkins signed five phony letters addressed to Krop that ostensibly sought a demonstration of weapons at Krop’s range — the Machine Gun Nest — for specific machine guns that might be purchased by his agency. The models included a belt-fed model authorities said was designed for combat and Jenkins himself admitted was not suitable for law enforcement, according to court filings by prosecutors.
As part of the scheme, prosecutors allege, Krop then provided the letters to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to acquire weapons “that he would otherwise have been prohibited from obtaining.” Krop never demonstrated the guns to Jenkins, according to prosecutors, and instead made money renting them out to customers for use at his range.
Both Jenkins and Krop have pleaded not guilty. Their attorneys have launched aggressive defenses asserting the case is overcooked and improper, and asked that their cases be tried separately.
Advertisement
Their recent court filings, along with responses by prosecutors, have filled out new details of a case that, should it be tried, will offer a window into regulations for machine gun purchases and scrutiny of a sheriff whose reelection victories have narrowed in a county growing more blue.
Jenkins first learned of the probe, his attorneys wrote, on May 25, 2022, “when several ATF agents showed up at [Jenkins’s] office, and demanded to see the sheriff. They spoke with the sheriff for approximately one hour and left. Unbeknownst to Jenkins, the interview was recorded.”
The sheriff’s statements to agents, his attorneys say, underscore how he was trying to help them, just as he had been trying to help a small business.
“Any honest assessment of this interview will reflect that Sheriff Jenkins had absolutely nothing to hide and was genuinely surprised by the suggestion that he had done something improper, much less illegal,” his attorneys wrote. “Sheriff Jenkins has never denied signing the law letters, but maintains, and will maintain through trial that he never knowingly and willfully entered into any conspiracy; that there was no conspiracy; that he never intended to impede any government functions; and that he never intended to deceive or cheat anyone.”
Jenkins’s attorneys also asserted that key statutes in the case are too vague and don’t have specific deadlines for when demonstrations must take place, and they stressed that Jenkins never saw or possessed the guns.
Advertisement
Trying the men together, wrote attorneys Andrew White and Paul Kemp, would allow prosecutors to “put all seven of these unnecessarily frightening and improperly prejudicial machine guns on a table in front of the jury ... and any such demonstration of the actual machine guns during [Jenkins’s] trial would cause unfair prejudice to Sheriff Jenkins.”
Krop’s attorney, Dan Cox, alleged that the government targeted Jenkins over his political views and that trying the two men together would unfairly tie Krop to a person against whom the government appears “to have the most significant bias and political vindictiveness,” Cox wrote.
Prosecutors argued in court filings that the men should be tried together because they “worked together to produce the false law letters that were submitted to the ATF in order to illegally obtain otherwise prohibited” machine guns.
Advertisement
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ruled for separate trials.
Cox also cast the matter as an attack on gun rights.
“Should the Biden Administration’s vindictive prosecution of Mr. Krop and/or Sheriff Jenkins result in shuttering the primary firearms business in Frederick, Md., or the Sheriff’s resignation or removal from office, it well knows that a chill over the exercise of Second Amendment rights will be felt,” Cox wrote.
Prosecutors have fired back in filings of their own.
“These laws unambiguously prohibit people from making false statements to the federal government that they are genuine expected governmental customers who are genuinely interested in demonstrations,” Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christine Goo and P. Michael Cunningham wrote. “They give ordinary people fair notice … and are not unconstitutionally vague.”
Advertisement
The prosecutors rejected Jenkins’s claim of no firm deadlines for machine gun demonstrations: “No reasonable person could construe these laws as allowing a police department to wait years — or nearly a decade — before setting up a demonstration, then deny wanting to have a demonstration when asked about it,” they wrote.
The prosecutors also criticized Krop’s attorney for “inaccurate factual assertions,” “erroneous legal arguments,” and “political statements [that] have nothing to do with either the law or the facts in this case.”
In a July 24 court filing, Jenkins indicated that he had continued playing an active role in running his office. Jenkins did so in a request that he be allowed to carry a weapon, which would have been an exception to standard conditions often placed on defendants in such cases.
Advertisement
“Sheriff Jenkins continues to work daily, fulfilling his constitutional duty as the elected sheriff of Frederick County,” his attorneys wrote. “He does this without his [service] pistol, at great personal risk to himself. Over the course of his tenure as sheriff, Sheriff Jenkins has been the target of several threats of serious injury and death.”
Gallagher denied the motion.
Jenkins had announced his leave of absence on April 12, seven days after the indictment.
“Out of respect for the men and women of this agency and not to interfere with the effective operations, I am going to take a leave of absence, effective end of business, Friday, April 14, through the end of this judicial process,” he had stated.
On April 13, he conveyed the leave in letter to Fitzwater, the county executive. “For an undetermined period of time, I will be exercising a leave of absence,” Jenkins wrote, identifying a top commander who “will assume the command of day-to-day operations of the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office and will perform the duties of the sheriff.”
Advertisement
This week, in explaining his decision to rescind his leave, Jenkins issued a statement highlighting the “undetermined” period of time he had communicated to Fitzwater.
“I feel that now is an appropriate time for me to come back,” he wrote, adding that “in fact I have already been serving in a number of capacities attending executive level meetings and public events, and routinely conducting business from within the office.”
“Over the period of the recent months,” he added, “the message from the majority of my constituents is they want me back in the office full time.”
Two Frederick County Council members agreed — Carter and Steve McKay.
“I think this is a dubious charge and, therefore, I support the sheriff’s decision to resume his full duties,” said McKay (R).
Three council members declined to comment or couldn’t be reached. The two others strongly questioned the move.
Advertisement
M.C. Keegan-Ayer said that in originally taking his leave, the sheriff “seemed he was acknowledging his full understanding of the serious nature of the charges against him.” She said that if something had changed, Jenkins should share that information.
“Otherwise,” said Keegan-Ayer (D), “the ending of his leave of absence before the case has been decided, or even gone to trial, is inconsistent with the standards to which he holds those who work for him and in my opinion is premature.”
Kavonté Duckett (D), the council vice president, said he too was heartened by Jenkins’s initial decision. But the sheriff remained active in his duties, Duckett said, and his official return has made it that much worse. “There is so much chatter around him now that it makes things difficult,” Duckett said.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLGkecydZK%2BZX2d9c3%2BOaXBoaGFks7Oxw56popubYrCwwc2tsGarmJq%2FqrLFZpqhrZOgequxzaSgp6tdp7K1wdGnqmg%3D