Response in Opposition by USA as to Alexandra Acosta — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 56, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS · Doc. 56 · 2024-05-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 23-60170-CR-SCOLA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and 
VILSAINT ST LOUIS, 
 
 
 
       Defendants. 
                                               / 
 
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S  
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE 
 
 
This Court should deny in part and grant in part the Defendant Alexandra 
Acosta’s motion seeking to exclude evidence, ECF No. 49, as follows: 
 
Defendant Acosta’s Post-Arrest Statements 
First, the Court can deny the motion as moot as to Acosta’s utterances at 
her arrest. The United States stipulates that it will not introduce in its case in 
chief evidence about the Defendant’s utterances at the time of her arrest as 
agreed to by the parties. But the United States does not agree that such evidence 
is inadmissible.  
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) Evidence  
Second, the Court should grant in part and deny in part the Defendant’s 
motion as it pertains to evidence about the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). 
The United States will not elicit or argue unfairly prejudicial evidence about the 
COVID-19 pandemic or argue that the Defendant is responsible for causing the 
PPP funds to run out for other small businesses that deserved the money. 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2024   Page 1 of 5

2 
 
However, the United States intends on presenting testimony from the SBA to 
provide a complete picture for the jury about the status of the pandemic and the 
SBA’s reaction to the crisis, including (i) the purpose of the Paycheck Protection 
Program; (ii) the need for a “second round” in early 2021 because the “first round” 
funds ran out; and (iii) that there was not a third round once funds ran out. The 
program’s purpose, creation, and implementation is probative of what 
information was available to the public—including small business owners, law 
enforcement officers, and the Defendant—and thus relates to the elements of 
knowledge an intent.   
Law Enforcement Employment 
Third, the Court should deny the motion as to the Defendant’s and her 
wife’s employment as law enforcement officers. The Defendant does not cite case 
law supporting her argument that her position as a law enforcement officer 
should be excluded from this trial as inflammatory or unfairly prejudicial.  And 
Rule 403 analysis dictates the admission of the evidence.  
As for the Defendant, the information is probative of her knowledge and 
intent—i.e., it establishes her state of mind at the time of the alleged crimes and 
throughout the conspiracy and provides context to her decisions. Inflame the 
jury? No. Support a jury finding that she intended to deceive and did not rely on 
her co-conspirator in good faith? Absolutely. The evidence is highly probative of 
the elements and only prejudicial in as much as any evidence of guilt is 
prejudicial to a defendant. Her position with BSO is simply who she is and who 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2024   Page 2 of 5

3 
 
she was. Excising this fact would convert the United States’s case against the 
person Alexandra Acosta into a prosecution against “Human X” sitting in a 
vacuum. Circumstances matter. And parsing out the Defendant’s employment 
from the presentation of the case, including the BSO off-duty work policies, 
income, and full-time employment hours, would be incredibly confusing to a 
jury.  
Moreover, the Defendant’s wife’s status as a law enforcement is relevant 
because the evidence at trial will show that the Defendant deliberately hid the 
PPP and tax case from her wife, which the jury can infer is based on the wife’s 
position as a law enforcement officer and is probative of the Defendant’s 
knowledge and intent. 
IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool Evidence1 
Last, the Court should deny the Defendant’s motion as to the IRS, the BSO 
Policy, and the Pool Evidence for the reasons set forth in the United States’ 
motion to admit evidence filed on May 11, 2024, ECF No. 38.  
Notably, as to the Pool Evidence, the United States has also obtained 
relevant email correspondence between the pool-construction lender, Lyon 
Construction (not the party to civil dispute), and Acosta during the conspiracy 
(March 16, 2021) that includes the existence and terms of the $65,000 loan for 
the pool and attaches the $70,000 pool construction contract between Acosta 
 
1 The United States incorporates by reference the defined terms set forth in its 
Motion in Limine to Admit Inextricably Intertwined Evidence, ECF No. 38. 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2024   Page 3 of 5

4 
 
and Artistic Pools, without reference to any civil dispute. Thus, even if this Court 
were to conclude that evidence of the dispute as to the outstanding balance of 
the contract was unfairly prejudicial, the Court should still admit evidence of the 
existence of the loan and the total contract amount. 
And, as to the IRS Evidence and the Defendant’s argument that she did 
not spend the money to pay off the tax debt, the evidence will show that following 
the Defendants’ joint call with the IRS on February 1, 2021, the same day they 
began the application for the PPP loan, the IRS kept the case open and Defendant 
Acosta continued to try to lower her liability even up until March 29, 2021, when 
she sent a letter to the IRS pushing the blame on Defendant St Louis. This led 
to a corrected report, signed by Defendant Acosta on April 13, 2021, that 
removed the penalties and finalized the amount owed to $14,038.69. Of course, 
Acosta had spent most of the PPP funds at this time as represented in her recent 
filings and she ultimately got on a monthly installment plan with the IRS.  
 
 
 
 
[this space intentionally left blank] 
 
 
 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2024   Page 4 of 5

5 
 
Conclusion 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the United States of America respectfully 
submits that this Court should grant in part and deny in part the Defendant’s 
motion as set forth herein.  
Respectfully submitted, 
 
    
MARKENZY LAPOINTE 
  
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
BY:      Trevor C. Jones 
TREVOR C. JONES 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Fla. Bar No. 0092793 
500 E. Broward Blvd., 7th Floor 
 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 
Tel: (786) 564-9109 
Trevor.Jones@usdoj.gov  
 
 
 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2024   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.56.0.pdf

Size

101,414 bytes

SHA-256

394d563182e4e3625abf972bd7402a933937f8bee5b62aae5e1cde96852fe1b5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.56.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)