Court filing
Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 49, S.D. Fla.)
Filed May 22, 2024 in USA v. Alexandra Acosta; one of 136 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-05-22 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS · Doc. 49 · 2024-05-22 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
CASE NO. 23-cr-60170-RNS
)
)
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
COMES NOW, the Defendant, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA (“Acosta”), by and
through the undersigned attorney, and respectfully motions this Court to exclude
certain evidence, as explained below. In support thereof, Acosta states as follows:
1.
Prior to filing the instant motion, the undersigned communicated with
AUSA Trevor Jones (“AUSA Jones”), the prosecutor assigned to the instant case,
and the parties were able to resolve some, but not all of the issues.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 1 of 7
2.
The instant motion asks the Court to exclude evidence of the following:
i.
Evidence that Accosta and her wife are law
enforcement officers and their employment as a
Deputy Sheriff at the BROWARD SHERIFFS
OFFICE (“BSO”) and a Sergeant at the MIRAMAR
POLICE
DEPARTMENT
(“Miramar
PD”),
respectively.
ii.
Evidence of Acosta’s IRS audit or tax liabilities, her
lawsuit against the company that built her pool, and
BSO’s off-duty work policy.
iii.
Acosta’s utterance allegedly heard by SGT. ERIC
GIRADO (“Sgt. Girado”) that either “this is f***ed up”
or “I f***ed up.”
iv.
Any overly prejudicial statements regarding COVID-
19 or the purpose of PPP loans, including any mention
that the program ran out of funds.
BASIS FOR EXCLUSION
3.
Acosta incorporates by reference, the portions of her Response in
Opposition [DN-40] to the government’s Motion in Limine to Admit Inextricably
Intertwined Evidence, etc. [DN-38] that relate to the above referenced evidence.
4.
Acosta objects to the admission of any of the above evidence because
it is irrelevant, it comprises inadmissible character/prior acts evidence, is more
prejudicial than it is probative, will cause her to suffer unfair prejudice, and because
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 2 of 7
it will confuse the issues and mislead the jury in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402,
403, and 404.
I.
Evidence that Accosta and her wife are law enforcement officers and
their employment as a Deputy Sheriff at the BROWARD SHERIFFS
OFFICE (“BSO”) and a Sergeant at the MIRAMAR POLICE
DEPARTMENT (“Miramar PD”), respectively.
5.
Evidence of Acosta’s status as a Deputy Sheriff at BSO, her wife’s
status as a Sergeant at Miramar PD, and their status as law enforcement officers has
absolutely nothing to do with this case. Acosta is not charged with any act of public
corruption nor are there any allegations or facts that establish a nexus between her
or her wife’s employment, role, or job title and the crimes that are being prosecuted
in this case. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing about their status or titles that
the government requires to tell the story of its case to the jury. In fact, every time the
words “Deputy Sheriff”, “law enforcement officer”, or “Broward Sheriffs Office”
appear in this case, they could just as well be substituted with the words “barista,”
“Starbucks,” or “coffee shop” and it would make no difference.
6.
If the government was barred from mentioning Acosta and her wife’s
status, etc., it could still tell the same exact story and argue the same exact case
without incurring any prejudice or handicap. Instead of mentioning BSO by name or
Acosta by job description/title, they can generically refer to BSO as Acosta’s
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 3 of 7
“employer” and her status as a Deputy Sheriff/law enforcement officer as her “job”,
“work”, or “employment”. Informing the jury of her law enforcement status will only
inflame them against her.
II.
Evidence of Acosta’s IRS audit or tax liabilities, her lawsuit against
the company that built her pool, and BSO’s off-duty work policy.
7.
Acosta relies on the arguments and objections made in her Response in
Opposition [DN-40] to the government’s Motion in Limine Admit Inextricably
Intertwined Evidence, etc. [DN-38] and incorporates them herein by reference.
8.
In essence, as was argued in DN-40, this evidence in inadmissible
because it is irrelevant, is more prejudicial than probative, is unfairly prejudicial, and
will only serve to confuse the jury and inflame them against her. This evidence is
collateral and represents a small portion of the government’s overall case and
concerns matters that the government has no duty to prove or address.
III.
Acosta’s utterance allegedly heard by SGT. ERIC GIRADO (“Sgt.
Girado”) that either “this is f***ed up” or “I f***ed up.”
9.
After conferring with the government, the parties are in agreement that
the above statements shall not be admitted. Because Sgt. Girado is unsure about what
he heard, this evidence is speculatory and therefore irrelevant.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 4 of 7
IV.
Any overly prejudicial statements regarding COVID-19 or the purpose
of PPP loans, including any mention that the program ran out of
funds.
10.
While discussing the context of Covid-19 as it relates to PPP loans is
entirely admissible, Acosta merely seeks exclusion of any evidence that harps on the
tragedy of Covid-19 or over-emphasizes its impact on individuals or households,
including any mention that the program ran out of funds as doing so would be more
prejudicial than probative and would unfairly prejudice Acosta, confusing the jury
away from the issues.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
11.
A trial court has great discretion when making evidentiary rulings.
United States v. McLean, 138 F.3d 1398, 1403 (11th Cir. 1998) (“When an appellant
challenges an evidentiary ruling on appeal, we ‘will not disturb the [district] court's
judgment absent a clear abuse of discretion.’”), United States v. Green, No. 22-
10785, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8602, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023)
12.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant only if
“(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without
the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Evidence
that falls short of this threshold is irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible. Fed. R.
Evid. 402.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 5 of 7
13.
However, even if evidence is relevant, there are conditions where it may
nonetheless be inadmissible. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403, “The court may exclude
relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Additionally, “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to
prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character
or trait.” and “Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove
a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted
in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1), (b)(1)
14.
To determine if the probative value of evidence outweighs the risk of
undue prejudice, the Court should consider: (1) the government's incremental need
for the evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the similarity of the
extrinsic act and the charged offense; and (3) the closeness in time between the
extrinsic act and the charged offense. United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1268
(11th Cir. 2008), United States v. Green, No. 22-10785, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8602,
at *3 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023)
WHEREFORE, the Defendant and the undersigned attorney respectfully
motion the Court to exclude the above named evidence from admission at trial.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 6 of 7
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Brian Silber
______________________________
Brian Silber, Esq.
Counsel for Alexandra Acosta
Florida Bar #: 0640646
916 South Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
954-462-3636 (ofc)
silberlaw@gmail.com
briansilberlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was served on the
following parties via CM/ECF on May 22, 2024.
SERVICE LIST
AUSA Trevor Jones
U.S. Attorney’s Office SDFL
500 E. Broward Blvd, 7th Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
786-564-9109
trevor.jones@usdoj.gov
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 7 of 7File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.49.0.pdf
- Size
- 194,556 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4675ac883d546bd6bf5facdf89bdb6fe819d0f46c42688f937e3e114820efbdd
- Original
- PACER (login required)