Defendant's Motion in Limine to Admit Hearsay and Other Evidence — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 52, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS · Doc. 52 · 2024-05-23 · 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 ADMIT HEARSAY AND OTHER EVIDENCE  
 
COMES NOW, the Defendant, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA (“Acosta”), by and 
through the undersigned attorney, and respectfully motions this Court to permit the 
admission of 1) hearsay statements made to Acosta by her tax preparer, and 2) 
evidence that she repaid her PPP loan in full with penalties and interest. 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 unable to resolve this issue and remain in disagreement. 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2024   Page 1 of 8

2. 
Acosta seeks admission of the following items: 
i. 
Hearsay statements made by VILSAINT ST. LOUIS 
(“St. Louis”) to Acosta regarding PPP loans and her 
PPP loan that she wishes to admit not for the truth of 
the matter asserted, but to establish her state of mind 
regarding willfulness, intent, and good faith. 
 
ii. 
Evidence that Acosta repaid her PPP loan in full with 
penalties and interest. 
 
RELEVANT FACTS 
 
3. 
In essence, the government accuses Acosta of PPP loan fraud in the 
amount of $20,180. Acosta does not deny that a PPP loan application was submitted 
to the SBA on her behalf nor does she deny that the application contained fraudulent 
and materially misleading information. She does not deny that the loan was approved 
and that $20,180 was disbursed to her. She also does not deny spending the $20,180 
on non-business related purchases. She does not deny that a PPP loan forgiveness 
application was submitted to the SBA on her behalf that contained fraudulent and 
materially misleading statements or that the forgiveness application was later 
approved. Acosta does not dispute that $20,180 plus interest and penalties are due 
to the SBA as a result of what happened in this case. In fact, Acosta has already 
contacted the SBA and has repaid the loan in full plus penalties and interest.  
4. 
However, Acosta strongly denies any knowledge of the fraudulent 
portions of these applications and denies any participation in the preparation or 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2024   Page 2 of 8

submission her loan application or the forgiveness application. Acosta was unaware 
of the fraud being committed on her behalf. 
5. 
St. Louis is the owner of Victory Taxes, Inc. and prepared Acosta’s 
taxes every tax year between 2014 and 2022. In February 2021, Acosta met with St. 
Louis at his office to discuss her taxes. During that conversation, St. Louis offered a 
PPP loan to Acosta. He told her if she has a Form 1099, she could get a PPP loan for 
approximately $20,000. St. Louis told Acosta the PPP loan goes by income and that 
$20,000 was the most she could get. He also told Acosta the PPP loan was 
forgivable. St. Louis explained that the government was giving PPP loans to help 
the economy recover from Covid-19. St. Louis offered to handle the entire process, 
just as he always had with Acosta’s taxes. Since he already had all of her financial 
information, St. Louis offered to fill out and submit all the necessary paperwork to 
obtain the loan. 
6. 
When Acosta asked St. Louis how it was possible for her to qualify for 
the “Paycheck Protection” loan, because she does not have employees and does not 
pay any payroll, St. Louis advised Acosta that a borrower may use the funds for 
other purposes. St. Louis advised Acosta that the loans were intended to help the 
economy recover from Covid-19.  
7. 
St. Louis also advised Acosta that he would prepare and submit her 
forgiveness application, which he later did. At the time he prepared and submitted 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2024   Page 3 of 8

her forgiveness application, St. Louis made other statements to Acosta conveying 
that he was preparing and submitting the applications. He also let her know once 
they were submitted and approved. 
8. 
Acosta denies any knowledge of the fraud or false statements made by 
St. Louis in her loan applications. She also denies preparing or submitting any 
application or paperwork. Acosta had no idea that St. Louis was going to lie in her 
applications to make sure she qualified for the loan. Acosta acted in good faith based 
on the statements made to her by St. Louis.  
Admission of St. Louis Hearsay Statements  
to Establish Acosta’s State of Mind and Good Faith 
9. 
Acosta wishes to admit St. Louis’ hearsay statements as described 
above, not for the truth of the matter asserted but to establish her state of mind to 
prove she acted in good faith, was without knowledge, and had no intent to defraud, 
just as a defendant may do when claiming good faith reliance on advice of counsel. 
Because Acosta will be asking the Court to read the good faith jury instructions to 
the jury, she needs to admit St. Louis’ hearsay statements to establish the basis of 
her good faith conduct. The government disagrees and objects to the admission of 
St. Louis’ hearsay statements.  
Evidence that Acosta Repaid the Loan 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2024   Page 4 of 8

10. 
Acosta 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. While Acosta does 
not deny that St. Louis committed a fraud on her behalf, Acosta strongly denies any 
knowledge of or participation in the fraud and states that she acted in good faith 
based on the hearsay statements St. Louis made to her, such as when he advised her 
that she qualified for the loan and should therefore apply for it.  
11. 
When this defense is presented to the jury, they will naturally wonder 
if she kept the money or returned it after learning of St. Louis’ fraud. The jury will 
naturally wonder if she is telling them one thing while doing another or is her 
behavior consistent? A reasonable jury will expect a person in Acosta’s position to 
return the money and would further expect to hear that information during trial. 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 and one or two documents should be admitted so that Acosta may 
avoid a question of her credibility and to avoid conferring an unfair advantage on 
the government.  
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2024   Page 5 of 8

 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
12. 
In United States v. Eisenstein, 731 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1984), the court 
ruled that hearsay statements made by a co-defendant were “highly relevant” (id. at 
1543) and admissible to establish an element of the defendant’s good faith defense: 
The lawyer's testimony was not offered as proof of the 
matter asserted -- i.e., that Ghitis and Eisenstein operated 
a currency exchange -- but as evidence that Ghitis fully 
disclosed the nature of his business to his attorney. The 
testimony was admissible to show the attorney's 
knowledge and to show Ghitis' compliance with the "full 
disclosure" requirement of his advice of counsel defense. 
Id. at 1545 
 
13. 
In rendering its decision, the court rejected the government’s argument 
that exclusion of the co-defendant’s hearsay statement was harmless error. Id. at 
1546 In fact, it was extremely prejudicial as it undermined the defendant’s only 
defense.  
14. 
Just as the defendants in Eisenstein needed to admit hearsay statements 
to establish an element of their good faith defense, so too Acosta needs to admit the 
hearsay statements of St. Louis to establish her own good faith defense, such as his 
statement to her that she qualified for the loan because she had a 1099 in 2019. This 
statement, for instance, is admissible to establish Acosta’s good faith and state of 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2024   Page 6 of 8

mind, as opposed to establishing that she actually qualified for the loan. St. Louis’ 
hearsay statements are integral and highly relevant to Acosta’s good faith defense.   
15. 
If Acosta is prevented from admitting St. Louis’ hearsay statements 
about the PPP loan, she will be unable to establish her good faith defense because 
St. Louis’ statements are inextricably intertwined with the story of what happened. 
It will be impossible for Acosta to explain to the jury how and why her conduct was 
in good faith without first informing them of what St. Louis told her during her 
conversations with him about the PPP loan. 
16. 
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) 
17. 
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. Both St. Louis statements and Acosta’s repayment are relevant to aiding 
the jury in deciding the facts and rendering a verdict.  
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2024   Page 7 of 8

WHEREFORE, the Defendant and the undersigned attorney respectfully 
motion this Court to allow Acosta to admit hearsay statements made by St. Louis 
about PPP loans and her PPP loan application as well as limited evidence that 
establishes she repaid the loan with penalties and interest as described above. 
 
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 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2024   Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.52.0.pdf

Size

188,547 bytes

SHA-256

e9eeb7d1d2d4ad8b22d6e75aec9cf4c4ca117c6e404e1f0a4678c5cb30148353

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.52.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)