Court filing
Omnibus Order granting 38 Motion in Limine as to Alexandra Acosta — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 58, S.D. Fla.)
Summary
An Omnibus Order by United States District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. in United States of America v. Alexandra Acosta, Criminal Case No. 23-60170-CR-Scola, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket 05/28/2024 as Document 58, ruling on the parties' motions in limine after a hearing that day. The court lets the government show that Acosta allegedly owed the IRS $18,491.55 two weeks before the PPP application, and admit Broward Sheriff's Office off-duty employment records, but excludes evidence of a dispute with a pool contractor. It denies the government's request to exclude evidence of repayment and grants Acosta's motions to admit statements by Vilsaint St. Louis about the application and evidence that she repaid the loan in full with penalties and interest. By agreement it excludes lender negligence, victim profit and nullification arguments.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Filed May 28, 2024 in USA v. Alexandra Acosta; one of 166 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-05-28 |
Cite this document
“Omnibus Order granting 38 Motion in Limine as to Alexandra Acosta — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 58, S.D. Fla.).”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS, Doc. 58, filed 2024-05-28. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-alexandra-acosta-flsd-654235/2024-05-28-gov-uscourts-flsd-654235-58-0-doc-58/
, SHA-256 4bb0b14994803cefd93f7aa9b57e42f60061e47ab443fed7e77c92ce1f2ff26f.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 3File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.58.0.pdf
- Size
- 124,538 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4bb0b14994803cefd93f7aa9b57e42f60061e47ab443fed7e77c92ce1f2ff26f
- Original
- PACER (login required)