ST. CROIX — Convicted contractor and government witness David Whitaker is asking a federal judge to sentence him to probation with home detention, or alternatively a short custodial term, arguing that his extensive cooperation in multiple corruption trials, ongoing medical treatment, and ability to pay restitution justify a non-incarceration sentence.
In a sentencing memorandum filed today in the District Court, Whitaker’s attorney, David Cattie, contends that a sentence involving strict home confinement in Georgia would be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” under federal sentencing law. Whitaker is scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney.
The defense says Whitaker testified for the government in two public corruption trials, including one case involving former Police Commissioner Ray Martinez and former Management and Budget Director Jenifer O’Neal, both convicted in December 2025. The other case involved former Sports, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Calvert White and contractor Benjamin Hendricks, both convicted on July 25, 2025.
The filing argues that Whitaker’s cooperation was “critical” to securing convictions in those cases and notes that he at times acted under FBI direction during portions of the broader investigation. It also asserts that he faces heightened safety risks in custody due to his public role as a cooperating witness.
Whitaker is also asking the court to consider what his attorney described as serious and active medical conditions, including an ongoing multi-specialty diagnostic workup. The defense argues that incarceration could disrupt treatment and that he previously experienced medication-related complications in custody.
Separately, Kearney has granted Whitaker’s unopposed motion to file his sentencing memorandum and supporting exhibits under seal, with a redacted version to be made public. The court found the filings contain sensitive medical information and investigative details that justify limiting public access despite the general presumption of transparency at sentencing.
Whitaker, founder of Mon Ethos Pro Support, pleaded guilty in September 2024 to two counts of wire fraud and one count of bribery concerning federal programs. He admitted involvement in a scheme tied to inflated billing in a Virgin Islands Police Department investigation and a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan application.
Under a proposed cooperation reduction, Whitaker’s advisory guideline range is one-and-a-half years to two years. He is asking the court to vary below that range to probation with up to four years of home detention, or alternatively a sentence of one year and one day in custody followed by supervised release.
Prosecutors, however, are recommending a 22-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release.
In a sentencing memorandum, the U.S. Attorney’s Office described Whitaker’s conduct as part of a “greed-driven” pattern of fraud and public corruption. Prosecutors say Whitaker committed “three distinct fraud offenses” while operating Mon Ethos and argue he chose to “commit fraud repeatedly” rather than pursue legitimate business growth.
The government says the case involves a bribery scheme with Martinez, who accepted approximately $100,000 in benefits, including travel, restaurant expenses, tuition payments, and other items, in exchange for facilitating payments and government contracts for Whitaker’s companies.
Prosecutors also allege the scheme involved efforts to conceal payments using falsified documentation, including a fabricated memorandum tied to a fake television show used to justify bribe transactions. The scheme later expanded to a sole-source contract valued at nearly $1.5 million, according to the government filing.
The government emphasized Whitaker’s prior criminal history, calling him a “repeat fraudster” with prior convictions including bank fraud in 1997, check forgery in 2000, and a 2008 fraud case involving losses exceeding $9 million. It argues that despite this history, Whitaker continued engaging in fraud and bribery.
Prosecutors further contend that public corruption offenses are difficult to detect and require strong deterrence, warning that leniency would undermine public confidence and risk making corruption appear to be a “cost of doing business.”
