Court filing

IN CHAMBERS MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 384 MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED… — Arman Hayrapetyan (Dkt. 517)

No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 517 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 517 Filed 06/13/21 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#:6195
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRIMINAL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:20-cr-579-SVW Date: June 13, 2021

Present: The Honorable: Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Judge

Interpreter NA

Paul M. Cruz N/A N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Assistant U.S. Attorney

U.S.A. v. Defendant(s) Present Cust Bond Attorneys for Defendants: Present App Ret
Richard Ayvazyan X N/A
Marietta Terabelian X N/A
Artur Ayvazyan X N/A
Tamara Dadyan X N/A
Arman Hayrapetyan X N/A
Vahe Dadyan X N/A

Proceedings: IN CHAMERS ORDER GRANTING [384] MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT
INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED EVIDENCE, AND GRANTING IN PART [468] MOTION
IN LIMINE TO ADMIT SELF-AUTHENTICATING BUSINESS RECORDS.

Before the Court are two motions in limine. See Dkts. 384, 468. The Court rules as follows.

First, the motion to admit evidence inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses is GRANTED.
The Court closely reviewed the proffered evidence, which was manually filed under seal. See Dkt. 507. In
light of that review, the Court concludes that the Government has established a “sufficient contextual or
substantive connection between the proffered evidence and the alleged crime.” United States v.
Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 1995). The evidence provides “a coherent and comprehensible
story regarding the commission of the crime”—i.e., it is highly probative of the methods and instruments
Defendants used to execute the conspiracy alleged in the indictment. United States v. Loftis, 843 F.3d 1173,
1178 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d at 1012–13). Accordingly, the evidence is
admissible.

Second, the Government’s motion in limine to admit self-authenticating business records is GRANTED
IN PART. The Court finds that all 1 of the proffered records satisfy Federal Rules of Evidence 902(11) and
803(6).

1
This includes the records from Picadilly Jewelers. The Court finds that the custodian’s experience (i.e., 42 years owning and
working at his business) is a sufficient basis for the Court to accept his certification that the records satisfy the requirements of FRE
803(6). Defendants’ remaining objection—i.e., the inclusion of the Turkish-language document—is cured by the Government’s
removal of that document from the exhibit. See Reply at 7 n.3.

CR-11 (04/15) Criminal Minutes – General Page 1 of 3
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 517 Filed 06/13/21 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#:6196
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRIMINAL MINUTES – GENERAL

Defendants object to some of the records as containing double hearsay. See Opp. at 5–6. The Court will
reserve ruling on double hearsay objections until trial. However, the Court notes that the Government has laid a
sufficient foundation for the Court to find, see FRE 104, that many of the challenged statements (including but
not limited to those purportedly made by Iuliia Zhadko, Viktoria Kauichko, Nazar Terabelian, Anton
Kudiumov, and Mark Zindroski) satisfy FRE 801(d)(2)(A), (E) because the statements were not made by those
individuals but were instead made by the Defendants or one of their co-conspirators during and in furtherance
of the conspiracy.

Defendants also object to the proffered business records on relevancy grounds. With one exception, see
infra at 3 (discussion of duplicate exhibits), these objections are either unavailing or are cured by the
Government’s proffered corrections.

For example, Defendants object to many of the records on the basis that the person or entity referenced
in the records is not referenced in the first superseding indictment. However, “[t]he rule is well established that
the government in a conspiracy case may submit proof on the full scope of the conspiracy; it is not limited in its
proof to the overt acts alleged in the indictment.” United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, here, the Government is permitted to present evidence of uncharged fraudulent PPP or EIDL loans
as proof of the full scope of the conspiracy. See id.; see also Loftis, 843 F.3d at 1176–77.

Some of Defendants’ other objections are cured by the Government’s proffered corrections to the
exhibits. For example, the Government has stated that it will make the following modifications to exhibits:

• GEX 38: Removing records related to L. Gorodnia.

• GEX 41: Separating records for Zhadko and N. Terabelian accounts into GEX 41.a and GEX 41.b.

• GEX 49: Removing DMV records.

• GEX 89: Removing statements for time period after Defendant Terabelian’s arrest, and redacting
check written to “Steptoe & Johnson.”

• GEX 92: Removing statements pre-dating March 2020.

• GEX 108: Removing records related to bank accounts other than ABC Realty.

• GEX 110: Removing statements pre-dating March 2020.

CR-11 (04/15) Criminal Minutes – General Page 2 of 3
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 517 Filed 06/13/21 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#:6197
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRIMINAL MINUTES – GENERAL

These modifications are sufficient to overcome Defendants’ relevancy objections. Accordingly, the
Government is ORDERED to make the above described modifications.

However, the Court agrees with Defendants regarding the duplicate exhibits. The Court is concerned
that jurors may be confused by seeing the same loan application in multiple exhibits. Although a proper
instruction could minimize that confusion, the most effective way to prevent confusion entirely is to require
each loan application to appear as a single exhibit. Accordingly, the Government is ORDERED to remove any
duplicate loan applications from the exhibits. To the extent such duplicates appear in the summary charts, the
source or reference in the summary charts should be replaced with the single exhibit number that the
Government chooses to use for a given loan application.

For example, GEX 2.b is the Webbank PPP loan application for Hart Construction. However, that loan
application appears again as GEX 5.b. Accordingly, (1) GEX 5.b should be eliminated, (2) any reference or
citation to GEX 5.b in the summary charts should be replaced with GEX 2.b, and (3) the Webbank PPP loan
application for Hart Construction should only appear once in the exhibits (as GEX 2.b). The Government
should eliminate all duplicate loan applications from the exhibits in a similar manner.

***
In light of the foregoing, the Government’s motions to admit inextricably intertwined evidence is
GRANTED, and the Government’s motion to admit self-authenticating business records under FRE 902(11) is
GRANTED IN PART. The records satisfy FRE 902(11) and 803(6) and, subject to the above discussion,
Defendants’ hearsay and relevancy objections are overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Deputy Clerk PMC

CR-11 (04/15) Criminal Minutes – General Page 3 of 3

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.517.0.pdf
Size: 40,145 bytes
SHA-256: 499a0280be0d1ad8dd828a7521dfaace35451bb8b6cc98aef4da9586942fe866
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.517.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)