Court filing
Response in Opposition by Alexandra Acosta — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 50, 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. 50 · 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 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE [DN-39]
COMES NOW, the Defendant, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA (“Acosta”), by and
through the undersigned attorney, and respectfully responds in opposition to the
government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence [DN-39]. In support thereof,
Acosta states as follows:
1.
Acosta confirms that she agrees to exclude the following evidence
(items 2, 3, and 4 of the government’s motion):
• Evidence and arguments concerning any alleged
negligence by the victim lender, their loan processors,
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 1 of 5
or the United States Small Business Administration
(“SBA”);
• Evidence and arguments concerning any profit by the
above-referenced victims;
• Evidence and arguments relating to jury nullification,
including evidence and argument about the nature of
the prosecution, use of federal resources, and the
United States’s charging decisions.
2.
However, as is argued in Acosta’s Motion in Limine to Admit Specific
Evidence, she wishes to admit limited evidence (one or two questions and the
admission of one or two documents) that will inform the jury that she repaid the loan
in full, plus penalties and interest to the SBA. Acosta does not wish to introduce this
evidence as a defense to fraud or to argue for a jury nullification. On the contrary,
she wishes to admit this evidence to avoid a question about her credibility. This
portion of her defense is very brief and limited, albeit essential.
3.
Acosta claims that her tax preparer, VILSAINT ST. LOUIS, advised
her that she qualified for a PPP loan because she had a 1099 due to the fact that she
worked part-time as a real estate agent in 2019. When she asked St. Louis how she
could qualify for a “Paycheck Protection” loan because she did not have any
employees or pay any payroll, St. Louis advised her that the loan proceeds could be
used for other purposes. Because he already had all of her financial information, St.
Louis offered to handle the entire process for her. It is undisputed that St. Louis
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 2 of 5
prepared, signed, and submitted the loan application on his own. A memorandum
detailing St. Louis’ proffer to the government drafted by the lead case agent states
that “St. Louis signed the PPP loan application for Acosta because St. Louis made
up the Form 1099-Miscellaneous for Acosta; she did not have any knowledge of it.”
4.
While Acosta does not deny that the loan was applied for on her behalf
or that she received $20,180 in proceeds that she spent on personal items, Acosta
strongly denies having any knowledge of or participation in the fraud or
misrepresentations made in her loan application which was handled exclusively by
St. Louis. While she knew St. Louis was going to apply for the loan on her behalf,
she had no idea he was going to misrepresent her income or other information to get
it. She did not learn of his fraud and misrepresentations until she was arrested in the
instant case.
5.
When this defense is presented to the jury, they will naturally wonder
if she kept the money or returned it now that she knows and agrees that she received
the money due to the fraud and misrepresentations made by St. Louis. The jury will
innately wonder if she is telling them one thing while doing another. A reasonable
jury would expect an honest person to return the money under these circumstances
and would further expect to be informed of such. The absence of a clarification will
be filled with a negative assumption that impugns her credibility and the
believability of her main defense. Thus, evidence limited to one or two questions
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 3 of 5
and one or two documents should be admitted so that Acosta may avoid a question
of her credibility and to avoid conferring the unfair advantage a lingering doubt will
give to the government.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant and the undersigned attorney respectfully ask
the Court to deny the government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude [DN-39] to the
extent that it asks to exclude evidence of loan repayment. In the alternative, should
the Court be inclined to exclude the evidence, the Court is asked to permit Acosta to
admit a limited version of repayment evidence just so she can make the point that
she is acting consistently and there is no question about her credibility in this regard.
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.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 4 of 5
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 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2024 Page 5 of 5File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.50.0.pdf
- Size
- 199,987 bytes
- SHA-256
- e84f22d513f89da81b43119ce3d7054ac0b527aedad1154352f0ccfdbd85248f
- Original
- PACER (login required)