Omnibus Order granting 38 Motion in Limine as to Alexandra Acosta — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 58, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS · Doc. 58 · 2024-05-28 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

United States District Court 
for the 
Southern District of Florida 
 
United States of America,  
Plaintiff 
 
v. 
 
Alexandra Acosta, 
Defendant.  
                               
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
Criminal Case No. 23-60170-CR-Scola 
Omnibus Order 
This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s motions in 
limine (ECF Nos. 38, 39) and the Defendant’s motions in limine. (ECF Nos. 49, 
52.) On May 28, 2024, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions before 
trial. Defendant Alexandra Acosta was present. The Court has considered the 
motions and the arguments presented by counsel. For the reasons stated on 
the record and further described below, the Court rules as follows: 
1. The Court grants in part the Government’s motion to admit inextricably 
intertwined evidence. (ECF No. 38.) Specifically, 
a. The Court grants the Government’s motion to introduce Internal 
Revenue Service (“IRS”) evidence to show Acosta allegedly owed the 
IRS $18,491.55 two weeks before the PPP loan application was 
submitted. (Id.) However, the IRS evidence may not become a 
feature of the trial.  
b. The Court grants the Government’s motion to admit evidence 
related to the Broward Sheriff’s Office polices about off-duty and 
extra duty employment, including “completed off-duty employment 
forms by Acosta in 2016, 2017, and 2018, and the absence of 
completed forms for 2019, 2020, and 2021.” (Id.) Such evidence is 
relevant to Acosta’s knowledge and state of mind.  
c. The Court denies the Government’s motion to introduce evidence 
related to Acosta’s dispute with a pool contractor. (Id.)  
2. The Court grants in part the Government’s motion in limine to exclude 
the following evidence at trial. (ECF No. 39.) Specifically, 
a. The Court denies the Government’s motion to exclude evidence 
and arguments of any attempt or successful repayment of the 
fraudulent funds to the SBA. 
b. The Court grants by agreement the Government’s motion to 
exclude evidence and arguments concerning any alleged negligence 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 58   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024   Page 1 of 3

by the victim lender, their loan processors, or the United States 
Small Business Administration (“SBA”).  
c. The Court grants by agreement the Government’s motion to 
exclude evidence and arguments concerning any profit by the 
above-referenced victims. 
d. The Court grants by agreement the Government’s motion to 
exclude 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. 
3. The Court grants in part the Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the 
following evidence. (ECF No. 49.) Specifically, 
a. The Court denies the Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence that 
Acosta and her wife are law enforcement officers with the Broward 
Sheriff’s Office (“BSO”) and Miramar Police Department, 
respectively.  
b. The Court denies the Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of 
Acosta’s IRS audit or tax liabilities and BSO’s off-duty work policy; 
the Court grants the Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of her 
dispute with the company that built her pool.  
c. The Court grants by agreement the Defendant’s motion to exclude 
evidence Acosta allegedly uttered—or that Sgt. Eric Giraldo 
allegedly overheard Acosta say—“this is f***ed up” or “I f***ed up.” 
d. The Court grants in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude 
evidence “[a]ny overly prejudicial statements regarding COVID-19 
or the purpose of PPP loans, including any mention that the 
program ran out of funds.” Specifically, the Court grants the 
Defendant’s motion to exclude any mention that the PPP program 
ran out of money. 
4. The Court grants the Defendant’s motion in limine to admit hearsay and 
other evidence. (ECF No. 52.) Specifically, 
a. The Court grants the Defendant’s motion to admit hearsay 
statements allegedly made by Vilsaint St. Louis to Acosta about 
PPP loans and the PPP loan application at issue. Acosta seeks to 
admit such statements to establish her “state of mind regarding 
willfulness, intent, and good faith.” (Id.) 
b. The Court grants the Defendant’s motion to admit evidence that 
Acosta repaid her PPP loan in full with penalties and interest.  
 
 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 58   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024   Page 2 of 3

Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 2024. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Robert N. Scola, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States District Judge 
 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 58   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2024   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.58.0.pdf

Size

124,538 bytes

SHA-256

4bb0b14994803cefd93f7aa9b57e42f60061e47ab443fed7e77c92ce1f2ff26f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.58.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)